Ship of Fools: The Blessed Sacrament

Thread: The Blessed Sacrament Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008395

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Can anyone, Catholic or otherwise, help me with this question (I've tried Googling for an answer,particularly on Catholic websites, but can't seem to get a straight result): why is it that, when a consecrated communion wafer, duly transubstantiated into the Body of Christ during the Mass, is handed to a communicant, both the priest/ Eucharistic minister and the communicant can handle the Host, but when it is then reserved as the Blessed Sacrament, only a priest can handle it, and only then with his hands wrapped up to avoid direct touching?

Surely both in Catholic Eucharistic theology are the Body of Christ and are thus sacred, so why is one scenario can it be touched with human hands and the other not? In what way is the latter 'different' from the former - what's changed in its nature?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Once the communion bread has been consecrated it is often called the Blessed Sacrament.
Yes it is customary now for the communicant to take the Host (another word often used)or Blessed Sacrament into his or her hands to consume it.

The occasion which Matt Black refers to is when the Host/Blessed Sacrament is put into a monstrance and used to bless the faithful.

The rite of Benediction calls for a humeral veil to be used at the time of the blessing, but there are other times during the rite when the priest does not use the humeral veil. The humeral veil goes round the shoulders (meaning of 'humeral) and covers the holding part of the monstrance. I suppose it was originally to protect it from grubby hands, but it also enhances the ceremonial aspect.

The humeral veil is also used on Maundy Thursday at the time that the priest is transferring the Blessed Sacrament to the Altar of Repose. In this case it covers the ciborium containing the Hosts.
Again it adds dignity to the ceremonial.

The blessing with the Sacred Host called Benediction is not carried out nearly as often as before Vatican 2 and I suppose that the ceremonial has never really been simplified. That could be another reason.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Forthview will know better than I, but I believe that before reforms some 40 years ago, the host was placed directly in the communicant's mouth and she (or he) did not take it in their hand.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Indeed you are correct, venbede, but 40 years ago was 40 years ago and much has changed in the interim.
40 years ago or more there would have been no non-ordained Eucharistic ministers.
40 years ago or more a lay person would not have touched the chalice and most certainly not the monstrance , never mind the Blessed Sacrament itself.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Some of us recalcitrant trads think that the changed customs around the Blessed Sacrament following VCII have not really been a great catechetical success when it comes to fostering a belief in the real and substabtial Presence of the Lord therein. To put it mildly. Conduct your own survey, by all means.

The reason why only priests traditionally handled the Sacred Species Itself (I'm making no apologies for the capitals, btw) was because they had their hands specially consecrated with oil at their ordination for that very purpose. The reason why at High Mass the subdeacon (not in major orders) held the paten and chalice only through the humeral veil (perhaps the most common use of the humeral veil before "the Council") was because even they were not allowed to touch the sacred vessels which came into direct contact with the Blessed Sacrament. This ancient part of the ceremonial of course still continues throughout the world in celebrations with the pre-Council books.

One of the lessons-by-example Pope Benedict XVI tried to give was in returning to the custom of the faithful receiving the Sacrament kneeling and on the tongue whenever he was administering It personally.

In the words of Cardinal Arinze, in a truly barnstorming moment recorded here: "If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that is His Body and Blood, why do we not kneel? Why do we not crawl?"

Anyway, returning you to your regular programme...

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

In-the-hand is still in the, erm, hands of episcopal conferences, as I discovered to my embarrassment in Poland, where it turns out it is Not Done

The humeral veil is meant to visually underscore that it is not the priest pronouncing a blessing, but Christ himself blessing the people with his presence: the priest is merely providing the arms. Actually, in the Roman Rite, a deacon can also officiate at Benediction (Anglicans of course have no rules about such things, but the sort who do it would presumably look to Rome - or perhaps Antioch? - for guidance).

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Chesterbelloc, I've wondered about another thing in connection with handling the sacred vessels: traditionally do clerics in major orders have charge of cleaning them and putting them away? In Pisky churches there is usually an altar guild doing these things, but obviously we are a different bunch. Thanks.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I have been told that in orthodox churches nobody is allowed behind the altar area except the priests. Which makes me wonder about plumbing, vacuuming, and what happens when the ceiling needs painting.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Although in the olden days only clerics touched the chalice and other objects which came in contact with the Blessed Sacrament, there was, but of course, special permission, for experts to maintain the objects and even for cleaners to give them a thorough cleaning.

I'd forgotten about the use of the Humeral Veil at High Mass but I would say that few Catholic parishes would regularly celebrate High Mass, whereas Benediction would be given regularly , at least twice a week,if not indeed daily.

Until the late 1950s there were no evening Masses and Benediction would sometimes be given at the end of the last Mass in the morning.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I should have added that in the olden days it was customary for the priest to arrive at the altar carrying the chalice and paten covered with another smaller veil of the liturgical colour of the day.Similarly he would leave the altar with it.

Otherwise the priest would have brought the chalice etc and placed it on the altar before the beginning of Mass.

At a service concluding with Benediction the priest would have earlier placed the monstrance,itself covered with a veil, on the altar before the service.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have been told that in orthodox churches nobody is allowed behind the altar area except the priests. Which makes me wonder about plumbing, vacuuming, and what happens when the ceiling needs painting.

It may be that what is a general rule was presented to you as an absolute, which is often how many Orthodox perceive these things.

In my experience, the clergy will usually clean within the altar - deacons and subdeacons in particular. It is usually subdeacons who clean the vessels, refill the lamps, change the cloths on the Holy Table, and so forth. Subdeacons may touch the Holy Table and vessels if their duties require it.

If electrical or plumbing work needs to be done, then the necessary people are brought in for the purpose, although in most purpose-built churches, there will be no plumbing within the altar itself (there is no need for it). The sinks and such like will usually be in a small functional room off to one side of the altar. I have known churches where the Holy Table has been removed when the time has come to have the wall icons in the altar painted.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Brenda Clough: I have been told that in orthodox churches nobody is allowed behind the altar area except the priests. Which makes me wonder about plumbing, vacuuming, and what happens when the ceiling needs painting.

I guess these priests need to be versatile.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Although I (well sort of) admire the respect for the Lord that this represents, there's a much more fundamental problem with the level of sacerdotalism Chesterbelloc lauds. If the Sacred Species can only be touched by a priest whose hands have been specially anointed with sacred oil at his ordination, how can they then go into our mouths and down into our stomachs, where even if we've fasted correctly, they will then get mixed up with other food.

It strikes me as wishing something very fundamental about the incarnation would politely go away.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I was thinking something similar, Enoch, to do with the Lord incarnate pulling kids onto his knee, and telling us we need to be like them. I've seen humility that looks like pride in the presence of the Host. Then again, for me there's a both-and about this too - a sense of reverence / awe doesn't happen all by itself, and without it the part of the gift which is the sense of privilege and gratitude we have at being welcomed at the Lord's table is somehow lost.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

The statement that only priests are allowed to enter the altar areas in Orthodox churches is not correct.
It is forbidden for lay people to enter through
the Royal Doors,the only exception was for the former Czar of Russia.
I have visited many Orthodox churches, was allowed to see the altar areas however I had to use one of the side doors.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The statement that only priests are allowed to enter the altar areas in Orthodox churches is not correct.
It is forbidden for lay people to enter through
the Royal Doors,the only exception was for the former Czar of Russia.
I have visited many Orthodox churches, was allowed to see the altar areas however I had to use one of the side doors.

Presumably as the asserted heir to the Roman Emperor. I wonder if Putin's about to claim that he now stands as heir to the Czar?

More seriously, the problem I have with the humeral is that it's an instance of tortoises all the way down, to pick up Hofstadter - and also Enoch's remarks. That does not detract from my unworthiness to receive the Host, nor the reverence and devotion due to it. But even then, no reverence given can hope to meet what is really due.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Some of us recalcitrant trads think that the changed customs around the Blessed Sacrament following VCII have not really been a great catechetical success when it comes to fostering a belief in the real and substabtial Presence of the Lord therein. To put it mildly. Conduct your own survey, by all means.

The reason why only priests traditionally handled the Sacred Species Itself (I'm making no apologies for the capitals, btw) was because they had their hands specially consecrated with oil at their ordination for that very purpose. The reason why at High Mass the subdeacon (not in major orders) held the paten and chalice only through the humeral veil (perhaps the most common use of the humeral veil before "the Council") was because even they were not allowed to touch the sacred vessels which came into direct contact with the Blessed Sacrament. This ancient part of the ceremonial of course still continues throughout the world in celebrations with the pre-Council books.

One of the lessons-by-example Pope Benedict XVI tried to give was in returning to the custom of the faithful receiving the Sacrament kneeling and on the tongue whenever he was administering It personally.

In the words of Cardinal Arinze, in a truly barnstorming moment recorded here: "If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that is His Body and Blood, why do we not kneel? Why do we not crawl?"

Anyway, returning you to your regular programme...

I would add that celebrations according to the old rite continue to increase each year, particularly as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter continues to ordain a goodly number of priests. Twelve deacons were ordained in North America this year, and eleven in Europe, so next year's priestly class will be nearly two dozen--not bad for a small order whose average age of priests is 37. [Biased]

These rites are assuredly not relegated to history.

I would offer one correction, though. The subdeacon at Solemn Mass does touch the vessels. He is the one who purifies them after communion, while the priest recites the communion antiphon. In fact, a subdeacon is handed a chalice in paten at his ordination, and it is his responsibility to care for all sacred vessels. The humeral veil signifies that the object one is holding does not belong to the holder.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't really understand the rationale here, maybe someone could explain it to me.

So the host is special and is handled specially in special ways. And the vessel it is held in is special and is also to be handled in special ways.

How is it determined how far this should go - why not, for example, have a "holy of holies" where only the priest prepare everything? Why doesn't the holiness which-cannot-be-touched by non-priests extend beyond the vessel in which the host is held?

Second, I was wondering if you can help me understand the nature of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as per RCC and/or Orthodox understanding. Am I wrong to think that we're all agreeing that Pentecost led to the indwelling of the HS within the believer?

If that's the case, is it wrong to say that the believer has God-the-Trinity living inside them?

And if that's the case, why is there a problem with a non-priest handling the elements? Or is the idea that the inside of the celebrant is made holy by the indwelling of the HS, but the outside, including the hands, could somehow contaminate it?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The statement that only priests are allowed to enter the altar areas in Orthodox churches is not correct.
It is forbidden for lay people to enter through
the Royal Doors,the only exception was for the former Czar of Russia.
I have visited many Orthodox churches, was allowed to see the altar areas however I had to use one of the side doors.

For those interested in this tangential topic, the President of Cyprus entered the royal doors at the wedding of the sister of a medical friend in Nicosia but that is the only Orthodox republic figure of which I am aware who has taken advantage of this privilege. King Michael of Romania, the last remaining anointed Orthodox monarch, has done so, but so has Prince Alexander of Serbia.

Like Utrecht, I have entered the side entrance into the altar areas in a few Orthodox churches, most namedroppingly at the old patriarchal sobor on Spartakovskaya in Moscow in the 1970s, but always accompanied by a helpful (and perhaps watchful) young cleric.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

At our not especially-high church, the clergy are assisted by lay eucharistic ministers, who are just regular people deputed to assist at dispensing the elements. These are also the people who take over the visitation ministry -- taking the consecrated bread and wine in little kits to give Communion to shut-ins. Although these people are vetted and trained, they're not ordained.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Basically it is because there is an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Blessed Sacrament.

In different ways, in different culture, in different ages people have shown and still show respect in different ways.

Today in the UK the monarch opened Parliament. The official who hands the Queen her speech has to walk backwards away from the throne, in order not to show disrespect by turning his back on the Queen.

Years ago when the Blessed Sacrament was exposed on the altar, particularly at a devotion called Quarant'ore,it was considered very bad form to turn one's back on the Blessed Sacrament and that one should walk backwards out of the church.

I don't think people would do that today. Within the mainstream of the Catholic Church, things are much simpler. Of course some people say that there is a lack of respect. I might even say that myself sometimes.

We are indeed, as the previous poster suggests, all 'Temples of the Holy Spirit'.

We have had a number of explanations of the use of the Humeral Veil. Ceremoniar's made me smile.. It reminded me of the little humeral veil,called a vimpa which is worn by episcopal attendants to carry the episcopal insignia of mitre and crozier.I imagine then saying 'this is not my mitre,this is not my crozier. (or miter and crosier).

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

I'd forgotten about the use of the Humeral Veil at High Mass but I would say that few Catholic parishes would regularly celebrate High Mass, whereas Benediction would be given regularly , at least twice a week,if not indeed daily.

We (Anglican) had some talk a while back about dispensing with the humeral veil at the weekly and feast-day high masses, but thankfully it didn't go anywhere.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Ceremoniar:

quote:
I would offer one correction, though. The subdeacon at Solemn Mass does touch the vessels. He is the one who purifies them after communion, while the priest recites the communion antiphon. In fact, a subdeacon is handed a chalice in paten at his ordination, and it is his responsibility to care for all sacred vessels. The humeral veil signifies that the object one is holding does not belong to the holder.

Thanks. I think this answers my question nicely.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Basically it is because there is an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Blessed Sacrament.

...

Years ago when the Blessed Sacrament was exposed on the altar, particularly at a devotion called Quarant'ore,it was considered very bad form to turn one's back on the Blessed Sacrament and that one should walk backwards out of the church.

I've seen priests at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament use a sort of "crabwalk" to descend the altar steps after exposing the Sacrament, to avoid turning one's back to It. Sort of sideways down the steps, carefully.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The statement that only priests are allowed to enter the altar areas in Orthodox churches is not correct.
It is forbidden for lay people to enter through
the Royal Doors,the only exception was for the former Czar of Russia.
...

Although presumably this is not what is being referred to in the expression 'Я иду куда сам царь идет пешком' ('I am going where the Czar himself goes on foot')...

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I would add that celebrations according to the old rite continue to increase each year, particularly as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter continues to ordain a goodly number of priests. Twelve deacons were ordained in North America this year, and eleven in Europe, so next year's priestly class will be nearly two dozen--not bad for a small order whose average age of priests is 37. These rites are assuredly not relegated to history.

Indeed, Ceremoniar - let it be known abroad. I deeply familiar with and support the Fraternity's work, for which I am endlessly grateful. More power to their unencumbered elbows.

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I would offer one correction, though. The subdeacon at Solemn Mass does touch the vessels. He is the one who purifies them after communion, while the priest recites the communion antiphon. In fact, a subdeacon is handed a chalice in paten at his ordination, and it is his responsibility to care for all sacred vessels. The humeral veil signifies that the object one is holding does not belong to the holder.

I stand corrected, Ceremoniar. I really ought to know this!

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Am I wrong to think that we're all agreeing that Pentecost led to the indwelling of the HS within the believer?

No, that would not be wrong - we are all temples of the Holy Ghost.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If that's the case, is it wrong to say that the believer has God-the-Trinity living inside them?

Nope.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And if that's the case, why is there a problem with a non-priest handling the elements? Or is the idea that the inside of the celebrant is made holy by the indwelling of the HS, but the outside, including the hands, could somehow contaminate it?

There is a problem generally with the risk of profanation - and this is premissed on the belief that Christ is present, body, soul and divinity in a very specific (substantial) way in the actual, physical host. In the old rite (today as anciently) the priest used only to touch the Host with his two index fingers and thumbs, and after the consecration kept them joined together for the rest of the Mass (until the ablutions following Holy Communion) lest a particle should drop or be lost. Not because we can harm the Holy One, but because we know Him to be present and act accordingly - lest we harm ourselves or cause others to lose faith in His presence.

So it's not so much that our hands are not annointed for the purpose (though that's also true) but that it avoids the chance of particles being lost or dropped.

To answer another query, why does it matter when we take the Host into our mouths and into our digestive tracts anyway? It's not as if our insides are "more holy" than our outsides - that's not at all the case. When we say that we are temples of the Holy Ghost we don't mean the He lives inside our bellies or hearts or guts (as if He were a physical substance and our bodies the container) - but rather immaterially "in" us. The actual answer is that the primary "purpose" of the Blessed Sacrament is precisely to be consumed. Once consumed - received into the mouth, swallowed, passed into the digestive tract - there is no (or little) chance of It being list or dropped or discarded.

And, not wanting to be gross about it, we need not worry about the journey beyond the stage where the accidents of bread/wine are broken down by the body, for by then they are no longer distinctly recognisable as bread/wine and therefore the substance of the Sacrament no longer is present, the accidents being destroyed. Consummatum est, as it were.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I'm late to this party, but reading through, it doesn't seem like anyone's given the current norms for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. We do indeed still use humeral veils for benediction (not so rare as some have made out: daily at Notre Dame, weekly at my former parish) as well as during certain parts of the Triduum.

This may seem like a contrast with our practice during Mass and communion services. The sacred vessels will be touched by all manner of people, sacristans, servers, those bringing up the gifts, deacons, extraordinary ministers of holy communion, and those receiving from the cup. The sacred species itself is touched by anyone receiving communion. The 'first round' of purifying the vessels is carried out after communion by a priest, deacon, or instituted acolyte, but they will then be washed by sacristans. In the US, we used to have an indult from the Holy See for EMHCs to do that 'first round' of purifying, but that lapsed. The US bishops asked for it to be extended, but Rome said no.

This does indeed contrast with the practice at other rites, but it is not in conflict. I think it's actually a healthy reminder that our embodied practices of reverences are important, but they are means, not ends, and different circumstances can call for different ways of embodying that reverence. There's nothing 'magic' about a humeral veil, or a monstrance or a chalice. Our dealings with these things have the power to sanctify, though, and God can use our bodily practices to transform our hearts.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

My cradle Catholic 80yo grandma was surprised to hear that kneeling for communion is the norm in Anglican churches - why is this something Anglicans still do but Catholics don't? Maybe modern RC church architecture? Her 90yo sister will not touch the host and has the priest put it in her mouth.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Cradle Catholics would undoubtedly likewise be very surprised (? shocked?) to learn that the first time I attended an RC mass - Vatican II would have been still in progress - it appeared odd, undignified and irreverent, particularly in comparison with the way we did things, to see people go up and stick their tongues out so that the priest could put the wafer directly on it. I suspect that would be most CofE people's reaction. So I suppose it depends what you're used to.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
My cradle Catholic 80yo grandma was surprised to hear that kneeling for communion is the norm in Anglican churches - why is this something Anglicans still do but Catholics don't? Maybe modern RC church architecture? Her 90yo sister will not touch the host and has the priest put it in her mouth.

Some Catholics do still kneel, but you're right, most don't. What I appreciate about kneeling for the "Behold, the Lamb of God..." and then standing for communion itself is that it coheres quite nicely with a dynamic we see in the gospels: lots of people fall to the ground to worship Jesus; Jesus often tells people to rise. So, we kneel at the "Behold" and then rise to receive him. The (presiding) priest's movements have the same dynamic here: we genuflect immediately before the "Behold."

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
The sacred species itself is touched by anyone receiving communion.

Indeed, Father, but whilst this is the most common form of communication in the USA today, it is only possible by use of the indult granted to dispense from what remains the norm for the Church - Communion on the tongue.

And it must be admitted that the history of that indult in the USA is particularly ugly.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I am a bit surprised by the idea mentioned above that people could be less aware of the real presence because of handling the elements of communion themselves.

I am from a middle of the road Anglican background, not Anglo Catholic, but the way I feel when receiving communion is to remember the story of Thomas. Although my faith is sometimes weak, my hand is on the risen Christ.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I am a bit surprised by the idea mentioned above that people could be less aware of the real presence because of handling the elements of communion themselves.

The idea is that the more we treat the Sacrament just as we would ordinary bread the less it appears we are according It the recognition that It is more infinitely more than that.

One needn't be less aware of the presence just because one handles the Sacrament, of course, but making an effort to treat It with physical signs of care and reverence - including handling it in a way in which the particles would less likely be lost - is more likely to keep us aware of what It is.

Conversely, and other things being equal, it is much easier for a community of worshippers to slip into an unconscious neglect of full awareness of the awesome reality of the Sacrament the more workaday/casual their outward behaviour towards it becomes.

It seems to me that our behaviour and conduct surrounding the Sacrament ought loudly to proclaim our belief in the Lord's Presence therein. Alas, if someone completely unversed in Catholic doctrine were told she was about to witness people who believed that the bread in the Mass was actually tranformed into their God and then was shown the average Parish Mass in the UK/USA, I think that unfortunately they would find it difficult to believe from the worshippers' conduct around It that they did indeed belive that. They are more likely to echo Cardinal Arinze's "Why do they not kneel? Why do they not crawl?"

I think a lot of this common sense, really, but I know not all my fellow Catholics agree with me by any means.

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

I have long thought that there is no possible posture we could adopt nor ceremonial we might observe that would adequately express our reverence and worship of the physical presence of Jesus Christ revealed on the altar.

If western Eucharistic celebrations focus on the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, then it seems to me that our willingness to disclose Jesus under the accidents of bread and wine through processions and benediction and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament indicate the necessity to celebrate Our Lord's incarnation also as one of those mighty acts whereby God redeemed the world.

I'm not talking about Christmas here. I'm talking about 9 months earlier when a frightened girl said, "Be it done unto me according to thy word" and thereby established the gold standard for all of us on how to respond to God.

Our Lady's response to Gabriel's message has precedent. Certainly, when Eli taught Samuel how to respond to the word of God with, "Here I am," there is a subtext from both men when approaching the Most High God: "Here I am {oh, shit}. And certainly, prophecies directed toward the Blessed Virgin never encouraged her that she'd made the right decision.

There is a sense that, when all our ceremonial points to the reality of Emmanuel, God-With-Us, it also tends to obscure precisely that to which it is pointing. Obi-wan's waving his hands and saying, "These are not the droids you are looking for" can't hold a candle to the priest elevating the Body of Jesus and intoning, "Behold the Lamb of God!" while the assembly corporately wonders how much longer Mass is gonna drag on.

Now. To answer the OP's question, it is equally licit for the communicant to receive the Most Precious Body of Jesus in his/her hand and convey it immediately to the mouth for consumption or to let the Sacred Minister place it reverently on the communicant's tongue--also for consumption.

As with most liturgical acts, the operative word is Purpose. If you approach the altar with the intention of receiving the Most Precious Body of Jesus, it's pretty small beans whether you take the Host in the palm of your hand and immediately convey it to your mouth or whether you receive Him on your tongue.

It gets sort of sticky if you approach the rail with blasphemous purposes in mind. Any public church worth its salt will have sidesmen watching communicants receiving Holy Communion, and they will have been trained to note when people swallow.

But I digress.

Notwithstanding the truth that bread and wine are objectively changed into the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ during the Eucharist, it is also true that the Holy Food can be communicated to the faithful in a variety of pious means, including delivering the Host into the hands of the faithful. During his Passion, Jesus was "delivered into the hands of sinners." It is doubtful that, after his resurrection and ascension, he would develop scruples.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In the words of Cardinal Arinze, in a truly barnstorming moment recorded here: "If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that is His Body and Blood, why do we not kneel? Why do we not crawl?"

I like that.

Actually, I'm perfectly happy with standing or kneeling for consecration; it's sitting that gets my goat. Oh, and changing posture during the thanksgiving prayer.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Should we not also laugh with joy, dance with glee, run with urgency and leap to our feet to see? I'm part of a tradition that kneels in a quiet and reserved reverence, but I think I'd be a fool to suggest it is the only right thing to do.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Thanks for all the replies - cheers

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
Any public church worth its salt will have sidesmen watching communicants receiving Holy Communion, and they will have been trained to note when people swallow.

Wow. And if they don't...err...swallow?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I know of no such observers at my church. (Although who knows what the training of those lay eucharistic ministers entails? I like the idea of jiu jitsu.)

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Is there an opposite of the Heimlich Manouvre?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Gavage.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Wow. And if they don't...err...swallow?

Would it be inappropriate to point out that one can adhere something with the texture of a typical communion wafer to the roof of one's mouth, and swallow without actually swallowing the wafer?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
The sacred species itself is touched by anyone receiving communion.
Indeed, Father, but whilst this is the most common form of communication in the USA today, it is only possible by use of the indult granted to dispense from what remains the norm for the Church - Communion on the tongue.

Actually, when I said "touched" I was thinking "touched by the hand or by the tongue." I've got nothing against receiving on the tongue, but it does still involve the communicant touching the host.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

It would be hard to consume it without touching it.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I know of no such observers at my church. (Although who knows what the training of those lay eucharistic ministers entails? I like the idea of jiu jitsu.)

When trained up to deliver the chalice I was instructed that if I suspected someone hadn't consumed the host then I was to give the vicar the nod; on occasion he did plunge into the congregation and tell someone "eat That". There were innocent visitors and silly schoolgirls--do not start me on attempts to spit into the chalice. But one didn't check on swallowing, just whether the wafer had gone into the mouth.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

This thread is all about our feelings, spontaneous or induced, of awe and fear.

I fundamentally doubt the reality of holy fear. To me, it's always unholy fear dressed up in a chasuble, for the purposes of controlling the people.

More importantly, however, there is nothing of the limitless joy and intimacy into which God invites his people, all his people, through the sacraments. This physical encounter between God and creation seems to me to be much of the point of the sacraments. I absolutely see the point of reverence, but not to the point that it strips out all the joy and intimacy of contact.

Whatever coming to God as a little child may or may not mean, the joy of a child in renewing contact with a beloved elder seems to me to be something that might well characterise our contact with God. It is also interesting to consider what might be behind any absence of such joy.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
The sacred species itself is touched by anyone receiving communion.
Indeed, Father, but whilst this is the most common form of communication in the USA today, it is only possible by use of the indult granted to dispense from what remains the norm for the Church - Communion on the tongue.
Actually, when I said "touched" I was thinking "touched by the hand or by the tongue." I've got nothing against receiving on the tongue, but it does still involve the communicant touching the host.

Oh, indeed. But I did mistake your meaning upthread. I'd only add that touching the Sacrament with the tongue is, as Lyda notes, necessary for consuming It, for "taking and eating" as we are exhorted to do. It differs from touching with the hands in several ways, one of which is that this is not necessary for consumption; but another of which is that handling without the particles of the Host getting where they they're not meant to end up is not particularly easy. If we can easily avoid that loss, shouldn't we?

Those who hark back to the practise of communciating in the hand in the early Church usually omit to mention that it was very different from the current version of the practise (i.e. receiving the Host in one palm then picking it up and placing it in the mouth with the fingers of the other). For a start, there was customarily a pure linen cloth (forerunner of the houselling cloth, perhaps) placed over the hand before the Host was placed on it and the communicant then raised It directly to the tongue. This, it seems to me, makes all the difference in the world.

Finally, Thunderbunk's suggestion that reverence is the enemy of comfort and joy is a starkly counterfactual assertion. Just ask the many communicants who receive in the traditional way for just such traditional reasons.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Finally, Thunderbunk's suggestion that reverence is the enemy of comfort and joy is a starkly counterfactual assertion. Just ask the many communicants who receive in the traditional way for just such traditional reasons.

I would not say it is "starkly counterfactual" per se, but contextual perhaps, or cultural.

This is one of those cases, I think, where one size does not fit all. I do not doubt at all that you and many others find that comfort, joy and reverence co-exist peacefully in the approach to reception you describe and cherish. But that doesn't mean everyone will.

I find that comfort, joy and reverence co-exist peacefully in receiving the broken loaf of bread from someone who calls me by name and says "the Body of Christ, broken for you," or "the Body of Christ, the bread of heaven," then breaking of a piece and passing the loaf along to the next communicant in a similar manner. But I know that doesn't mean everyone will.

Sure, differing understandings of things like the Real Presence and the priesthood come into play. But so do different cultural expectations and understanding about things like how joy or reverence are expressed.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

It's a slight aside but there is a great story I recommend called Mr Pim and the holy crumb by TF Powys, concerning a small piece of the communion bread which does get separated and not eaten.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

As Nick Tamen mentions we have differing expectations and differing understandings of what the words 'Real Presence' and even the words 'Holy Communion' mean.

Whether we receive in the hand or on the tongue, whether the consecrated bread is in the form of a wafer or some other form is not too important.

As some posters mention there are differing ideas as to how to show reverence for the Sacred Species. Even with the Host being put directly onto the tongue there can be abuses and sacrilege
but it is important for Catholics anyway to accept that there need not be any sacrilege in receiving Communion in to the hand. Even Episcopal conferences which do not allow Communion in the hand have to accept that there need not be sacrilege.

Episcopal conferences can indeed ban Communion in the hand, but they cannot ban Communion on the tongue.

For me one of the important things is that Communion is offered to the member of the Church.
Bishops ordain priests to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice and to give Communion to the faithful, they ordain deacons also to distribute Communion AND it is with the permission and mandate from the bishop that Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist distribute Communion.

All this is done in the name of the Church community and certainly in the Roman Rite the communicant will say Amen on receiving the Host, thus signifying acceptance and agreement.

My own very personal rule is to receive Communion normally in the hand if standing and to receive on the tongue if kneeling.

So far no-one has mentioned Communion under both signs, bread and wine, normal, of course, for most non- Roman rite Christians, including Catholics but relatively new for Roman Catholics.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Adam.:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[qb] Those who hark back to the practise of communciating in the hand in the early Church usually omit to mention that it was very different from the current version of the practise .... For a start, there was customarily a pure linen cloth

I find this hard to believe.

How early is this 'early church'?

Citation please.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Those who hark back to the practise of communciating in the hand in the early Church usually omit to mention that it was very different from the current version of the practise .... For a start, there was customarily a pure linen cloth
I find this hard to believe.

And yet it appears to have been true, at least in the case of women communicants who brought this cloth (the dominica) with them for that very purpose.

At this time of night and after a 20 mile walk, all I have had the energy to find is this short article,* which attests to this practise in the women of the time (though it unfortunately does not cite its source: see p. 7). The article nonetheless makes clear that communion in the hand in the early Church was a country mile away from the current practisc, in both good and what we would now think of as some slightly questionable ways.

Just one quote from this paper from St Cyril which is usually used to justify the current practice:

quote:
Approaching therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding “Amen”. Then, carefully sanctifying the eyes by touching them with the holy Body, partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it. For if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones?

It was precisely the greater chance of profanation of the Sacrament through accidental loss or inculcating superstitious sentiments by touching the organs of sense with the Host and smearing them with the Precious Blood that led to the discouragement and elimination of that practice by the Middle Ages.

*If the letters "SSPX" in the url give anyone the heebie-jeebies, don't jump to conclusions - this is merely the best laid-out source of the paper I could find, and the author was but a critical friend rather than an adherent of the Society.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

The most important word I used in my last posting was intimacy. I bow to no-one in my love of the sacraments, but without intimacy they detract from the incarnation they are intending to highlight. It's the contrast between the liturgy of preparations and the intimacy of administration that for me completes the sacrament. None of the actions discussed remove the intimacy but nearly all the attitudes do by making people more scared of getting it wrong than they are joyful about approaching God. I can't help feeling that this is part of the intention when ritualism sets in. The church becomes self sufficient and God literally a token presence.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
So far no-one has mentioned Communion under both signs, bread and wine, normal, of course, for most non- Roman rite Christians, including Catholics but relatively new for Roman Catholics.

I was just thinking about that.

I find it very odd - and, almost, UNreverent - when I witness Communion being offered in only one kind. How did this become the norm for the RCC?

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Kindly refrain from calling Catholic communion "odd" and "unreverent."

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

She didn't; she said she finds it that way. The Church doesn't use quite that language, but I think gets at the same thing by calling communion in one kind less full.

To cite MR3:

quote:

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Kindly refrain from calling Catholic communion "odd" and "unreverent."

Dear Ceremoniar,

There is no need to engage in 'junior hosting'. If unacceptable comments or terms are used, then rest assured we will deal with them.

At this point, no such transgression has occurred. St Deird is entitled to express her opinions.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The article nonetheless makes clear that communion in the hand in the early Church was a country mile away from the current practisc, in both good and what we would now think of as some slightly questionable ways.

Thank you - most interesting.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
When trained up to deliver the chalice I was instructed that if I suspected someone hadn't consumed the host then I was to give the vicar the nod; on occasion he did plunge into the congregation and tell someone "eat That".

Oh lord. Any other long-term shipmates having a flashback to a notorious historical thread where an ex-shippie created a bit of a flap recounting his experiences of 'Eat it! Eat it now!'? [Eek!]

Ref, recieving the blest bread. I confess to feeling unsettled at the sight of Anglicans Who Should Know Better picking up the bread from their palms to pop into their mouths. It's probably because I was taught - and have usually taught others - to create a 'cross' or 'cradle' with their two hands and put the host direct to their lips. Allowing for those who are perhaps unable to do this, it just seems untidy which gives an impression of the receiver not being aware of what they're actually doing.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I'm going to pursue my theme a little further.

The real scandal of the eucharist occurs when the consecrated elements reach the tongue, however they get there. Then the body of Christ feeds human flesh, the blood of Christ is absorbed into it.

Intimacy indeed. Beyond the reach even of the GIRM and similar publications.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

While in the early church all those present would communicate, others not members of the community would remain outside. They would be present at the Liturgy of the Word, but not at the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Similarly those under ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) would not be allowed to participate until they had been reconciled with the Church.

(In a way it is the same nowadays in the Catholic church, except that those who are not members of the community and those who are conscious of serious sin, while allowed to be present at the Eucharist ,are not encouraged to receive.)

The faithful would receive both the consecrated bread and wine, though when taking Communion to the Sick it would be easier to take only the consecrated bread. Similarly with reservation it was easier only to reserve the consecrated bread.

With a growth of appreciation of the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine, came a growing sense of unworthiness to participate in Communion and the Church had to insist that Communion should be received at least once a year 'at Easter or thereabouts' or as Viaticum as one was dying.

We have heard much here about reverence for the Sacred Species and this led to the reception of Communion under the form of bread alone from about the 12th century, due to fear of spillage of the Precious Blood.

Most of the communities who broke away from the Catholic church insisted that Communion should be offered under both signs. The Catholic church said that as Christ was truly present 'Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity' in both signs,
reception under the form of bread alone was more than sufficient.

Just as the Catholics and Orthodox rarely received Communion it was the same for the non-Roman Christians.

We have to come to the 20th century, where in the wake of a real liturgical revival (including the Oxford Movement in the Anglican church) that the Catholic Church in the person of pope Pius X (1903 - 1914) actively encouraged regular reception of Communion. Fast forward to Vatican 2 (1962- 5) which made the rules surrounding the reception of Communion much simpler and more actively encouraged the reception of Communion by the faithful attending Mass. This was followed by the encouragement of reception of Communion under both signs.

Habits and customs being what they are, some older Catholics, as well as those who value pre Vatican 2 practices, will not receive from the Chalice.

Offering the Chalice to the faithful is very common in some countries, but virtually unknown in others and that is not necessarily in the more conservative Catholic countries.

Eastern rite Catholics have always received Communion under both signs, though as you probably know ,Communion is offered ,under the sign of bread already dipped in the Precious Blood and spooned by the priest in a deft movement directly into the mouth.

The revival of regular reception of Communion in the Catholic church has in a ripple effect, just like other effects of Vatican 2, extended to other Christian communities such as the Anglican church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The revival of regular reception of Communion in the Catholic church has in a ripple effect, just like other effects of Vatican 2, extended to other Christian communities such as the Anglican church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

Ditto for this side of the pond. It is particularly interesting how this ripple effect has helped move Presbyterian churches in the direction consistently advocated by Calvin, whose insistence on weekly (at least) communion was rebuffed by the Geneva Council—largely because requiring communion 4 times a year seemed like a big enough step from once a year. Calvin once wrote about the failure to move to weekly communion: "I have taken care to record publicly that our custom is defective, so that those who come after me may be able to correct it the more freely and easily." It's a bit ironic that the Catholics helped us rediscover and move closer to Calvin's ideal.

[ 22. May 2016, 21:20: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
... The revival of regular reception of Communion in the Catholic church has in a ripple effect, just like other effects of Vatican 2, extended to other Christian communities such as the Anglican church and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

I'm not convinced that is historically the correct direction of flow for the ripple.

In the mid C20, in most CofE churches, Communion was at 8am, and people were encouraged to attend and communicate at least monthly.

quote:
from the late John Betjeman
Old men who never cheated, never doubted,
Communicated monthly, sit and stare
At the new suburb stretched beyond the runway
Where a young man lands hatless from the air.

In the post war years, well before Vatican II, however, churches were introducing a mid-morning Family Communion service as the Principal Service at least once a month, at which most of those who were confirmed would expect to, and be expected to, communicate.

However, the people who really seemed to have first introduced the idea that the Principal Service should be Communion, at which all who were entitled to receive, would receive, were the Brethren, who were doing this from the mid nineteenth century. They would, though, have called it either 'the Lord's Supper' or the 'Breaking of Bread'.

Whether the RCC was influenced by either of these ripples, I cannot say, but I don't think it can claim that Vatican II was the source from which all others got the idea.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
. . . I don't think it can claim that Vatican II was the source from which all others got the idea.

Given Forthview's earlier reference to "liturgical revival" (in which he included the Oxford Movement—I might add Mercersburg Theology and the Church Service Society as well) and to Pope Pius X, I took him to be referring to the Liturgical Movement that, at least as I understand it, started in the Catholic Church, with parallel movements in the churches of the Reformation, and that could be said to have culminated in Vatican II. Seems fair enough to me.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Of course I accept that the ripple effect goes all ways in ecclesiastical life.

At the time of the Protestant Reformation the different Protestant groups made certain demands and the Catholic Church took stock of its own situation at the Council of Trent.

Service should be held in the language of the people, said the Protestants. 400 years later the Catholic Church accepted this.

Communion should be offered under signs of bread and wine . 400 years the Catholic church agreed with this.

Many Protestants were willing to accept baptism of infants but wished that baptisms should take place in the presence of the whole community. 400 years later, the Catholic Church now encourages this.

If you go into a Catholic church nowadays you will usually find the baptismal font at the entrance to the sanctuary, rather than at the door of the church as was earlier the case.

Anglican churches were and are not still subject to regulations coming from Rome.
You will still, I think, usually find baptismal fonts at the door.

The Council of Trent encouraged the removal of rood screens so that people could see the celebration of Mass clearly. The rood screen was lowered to a small separation wall, generally called after that the communion rail, marking the division between the nave and the choir. Vatican 2 has encouraged the removal of the communion rail also.
An Anglican church will often still have a pulpitum or rood screen, many of them being put in also in Victorian times.

Just like the 8 a.m. service in Anglican churches
Catholics over 100 years ago would generally communicate sacramentally at early Masses. In my childhood church there was Mass on Sundays at 6.00,7.30 and 9.15 and even at 7.30 a simple distribution of Communion from the Tabernacle.

While pope Pius X encouraged more frequent Communion, once a month was considered more than adequate. Of course Pius only set a papal seal on a movement which had been growing for almost 100 years previously.

I applaud the practice of the Brethren to introduce weekly communion or 'breaking of bread' to their services. It is ,however, highly unlikely that Pius X in Rome had ever heard of the Brethren , let alone be influenced by them.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I like your last para! Regarding the one before that, I read recently that early reformers thought they were pushing it to get the general congregation to take communion 4 times a year - up from annual observance in the mediaeval church. I can't find the quote, but Calvin may have written that he'd like it to take place a whole lot more often than that, and that it was up to his successors to push on, and not let traditions which had become fixed in his own time become a new fixed orthopraxy.

[Pushing on with my recent 'religion for dummies' reading my source is 'The reformation - a very short introduction', Marshall, OUP. This whole short book takes our current theme of parallel reformations not only across different protestant approaches but also between and within Catholicism].

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I like your last para! Regarding the one before that, I read recently that early reformers thought they were pushing it to get the general congregation to take communion 4 times a year - up from annual observance in the mediaeval church. I can't find the quote, but Calvin may have written that he'd like it to take place a whole lot more often than that, and that it was up to his successors to push on, and not let traditions which had become fixed in his own time become a new fixed orthopraxy.

The Calvin quote I encounter most often with regard to his desire that his successors push on toward weekly communion is in my previous post, four up from yours. [Biased]

There are various other places he speaks to weekly communion. In his Institutes (IV.xvii.44), he says: “No assembly of the Church should be held without the word being preached, prayers being offered, the Lord’s supper administered, and alms given.” In 1537, he wrote to the Great Council of Geneva:

quote:
It would be desirable that the Holy Supper of Jesus Christ be in use at least once every Sunday when the congregation is assembled, in view of the great comfort which the faithful receive from it as well as the fruit of all sorts which it produces . . . . In fact, our Lord did not institute it to be commemorated two or three times a year, but for a frequent exercise of our faith and love which the Christian congregation is to use whenever it is assembled.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The real scandal of the eucharist occurs when the consecrated elements reach the tongue, however they get there. Then the body of Christ feeds human flesh, the blood of Christ is absorbed into it.

No argument from me there.

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Intimacy indeed. Beyond the reach even of the GIRM and similar publications.

Beyond even the clutches of Opus Dei, the Inquisition and albino monk assasins too, I would venture to add.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Service should be held in the language of the people, said the Protestants. 400 years later the Catholic Church accepted this.

It didn't. It just happened that way in most places.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Communion should be offered under signs of bread and wine . 400 years the Catholic church agreed with this.

It didn't. An indult is still required.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The Council of Trent encouraged the removal of rood screens.

It didn't.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Vatican 2 has encouraged the removal of the communion rail also.

It didn't.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

This time it is Chesterbelloc who makes me dizzy.

Virtually all Catholic churches of the Roman rite nowadays will celebrate the liturgy in the language used by the people who are participating.
Of course there is a place for the Latin language and there is also a place for the celebration of the Roman Rite using the form of Mass established by the Council of Trent. Within the city of Edinburgh there are 25 Roman rite churches plus a number of convents. I only know of one church where the Latin Mass is celebrated regularly.

It is common in all these churches to offer Communion under the forms of bread and wine. No-one is obliged to receive Communion from the Chalice. A rough and ready estimate would be that about 70% do so. Probably the same percentage receive Communion in the hand.
I accept that there is an Indult but the Indult comes from the highest ecclesiastical authorities.
As I said earlier there are countries where Communion is not normally offered under both signs. Poland,as one would expect,
but it is very rare in France,Spain and Italy.

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully with the Council of Trent 'encouraging' the removal of rood screens. There may not have been anything written but there was a definite movement at that time to move away from the 'mystery' of the celebration of Mass. Encouraged by the newly formed Jesuit order
rood screens were removed all over Central Europe.
In the baroque mode,instead of looking up to Heaven via dreaming spires, Heaven came down to earth in the baroque churches where the celebration of High Mass was made more visible
by the removal of the screen. What was left to separate nave from choir was as far as lay people would go to receive Communion.

Again Vatican 2 may not have mandated removal of the communion rail, but it certainly 'encouraged' it in the way that I have just explained previously. Now personally I regret the removal of the communion rail, but it has happened in many,many churches.

As a faithful Catholic it would be good for us all to visit many Catholic churches and observe what the people of God are doing.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Virtually all Catholic churches of the Roman rite nowadays will celebrate the liturgy in the language used by the people who are participating.

Whether the Church has "accepted" that worship "should" be in the vernacular is not an issue that can be settled by numbers, really. Vatican II - an official voice of the Church - actually called for the retention of Latin in the Mass. The Church did not "decide" to adopt the vernacular as the normative language of worship; it just happened that way.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I accept that there is an Indult [for Communion from the chalice] but the Indult comes from the highest ecclesiastical authorities.

All indults do! But my point is that it is an indult - permission for an exception to the stipulated norm. The norm remains - for Latin-Rite churches - communication in one kind only.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully with the Council of Trent 'encouraging' the removal of rood screens.

Since Trent said precisely nothing about rood screens, it simply cannot be said to have encouraged their removal. About the most you could claim was that "the Spirit of Trent" was invoked by those who removed them.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Again Vatican 2 may not have mandated removal of the communion rail, but it certainly 'encouraged' it in the way that I have just explained previously.

No, I don't think that will do - that's too much of a stretch. Again, it said nothing whatsoever about communion/altar rails - a large body of the Fathers of that Council would have had quite a lot to say about that, as with Communion in the hand, if consulted. The most you could claim would be that those who took it upon themselves to interpret the "spirit" of the Council used this as an excuse for their removal. That is all.

Sorry to be picky, but so much terrible damage has been done to the Church by people who claim the that VCII "encourged" or "called for" this or that act of vandalism, to bully others into accepting their personal agendas, that I think it is vital to be precise about this.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
The Calvin quote I encounter most often with regard to his desire that his successors push on toward weekly communion is in my previous post, four up from yours.

I've been reading the book on the reformation I mentioned, which gave my shit memory every opportunity to be sure that quote was in the book (but I couldn't find it, of course..because it was in the f****** thread!)

I'm so sorry.

I once knew someone who told you your own stories back, as if they happened to him. He was either an arse or did too much pot for the good of his memory. Well, I lack the latter excuse...

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

I've been reading the book on the reformation I mentioned, which gave my shit memory every opportunity to be sure that quote was in the book (but I couldn't find it, of course..because it was in the f****** thread!)

I'm so sorry.

No problem at all, and no need to apologize. I read your post and thought "Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one who does that sometimes." All is well.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The Church is the mystical Body of Jesus Christ.
It is the People of God on their way towards eternity. The liturgy is the people's work.

I am glad to be part of the community of the People of God. That is where I see the Church.

Don't get me wrong. I love or certainly did love the Tridentine Latin Mass and I am glad to be able to participate in its celebration from time to time.

I also love to see a church which has maintained
the altar rails, the tabernacle in the centre and the traditional six candles. I'm happy to participate also in the (relatively) new way of celebrating the liturgy and am delighted to see more of the faithful able to take a more active part in what is a community celebration.

I accept that the Vatican Council has not been an unmitigated success. Fifty years after the Council we are now able to evaluate it better.
For those who were Catholics before the Council it has been like living through the Reformation period 400 years ago.

However not everything from the pre Conciliar time was wonderful either. Tradition and habits led to some things which seem strange nowadays.

For example, because Communion had to be received fasting from midnight, some people would go to church early, receive Communion from the tabernacle, go home and have breakfast and then come back for the celebration of Mass, a Mass at which they would not receive Communion.

The Second Vatican Council, while certainly not laying aside the idea of 'shewing forth the death of the Lord' wished to emphasise that the Mass is a family meal of the people of God and that as many of the people as possible should have an active role in the celebration.

The removal of the altar rails is something which has tried to lessen the distinction between a clerical caste and the rest of the People of God.
Were things to go back to what they were over 50 years ago I could easily accept it, as long as I were able to remain within the mainstream of the People of God in the Catholic church.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

On a different thread there has been some discussion about the difference between 'core' and 'culture'

Is the use of the Latin language in the Catholic church part of the 'core' of the Catholic faith ?

Is the use of the Tridentine rite of Mass part of the 'core' or the 'culture'

Is the use of a rood screen or a communion rail part of the 'core' or the 'culture' ?

IF Latin is 'core' what about the many Catholics who use other rites where Latin has never been used ?

IF Tridentine rite is 'core' and certainly mandated by the Council of Trent what about the other Latin rites, such as Dominican, Ambrosian etc ?

If we think that the Tridentine rite is the only mandated rite for Latin Catholics ,then are we allowed to change it as has happened down the centuries with the addition of new Feast Days and the setting aside of others ? If we have been able to change it up to 1962 then why not afterwards if the changes are authorised by the Supreme Pontiff ?

Are rood screens and communion rails of the 'esse' of the Church or simply ,at certain times and places, of the 'bene esse' of the Church ? Even the Byzantine rite Catholic church in Edinburgh has no rood screen/iconostasis.

Whatever is not part of the 'core' of the Church teaching can be changed,whether we think the changes are a good thing or not.

If we believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be then we need have no fear that the Lord will be with us, as He said, to the end of time.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
However not everything from the pre Conciliar time was wonderful either.

I doubt there is anyone who believes that it was.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The Second Vatican Council, while certainly not laying aside the idea of 'shewing forth the death of the Lord' wished to emphasise that the Mass is a family meal of the people of God

This rather clouds over a point of central importance: that whilst the Mass is indeed a sacred ritual meal it is pre-eminently a propitiatory sacrifice, with Christ as both priest and victim, identical with the Sacrifice of Calvary (but for the latter's unbloody nature). That's dogma, that is.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
and that as many of the people as possible should have an active role in the celebration.

If you mean the actuosa participatio called for by the Council, it exhorted that not "as many as possible" but that all should participate in this way. Only, this form of participation does not entail everyone running around and "doing a job" but that everyone should above all have a "full conscious and active" interior participation in the rite.

There are certainly external ways of manifesting that interior participation too: singing the parts proper to the congregation, adopting the postures of kneeling, standing, bowing, making the sign of the Cross, takimg part in processions, and so on. But many of the Council Fathers actually warned against letting it be thought than an "external/doing jobs" interpretation of that phrase was primarily meant. For example, I doubt if anything other than a tiny minority (if any) of the Fathers could have forseen (or would not have been alarmed at the thought of) their decree being used to justify the introduction of innumerable ranks of ubiquitous "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist".

As to your other post, I really think addressing that would take us way out of the remit of Eccles. By all means, put your queries to me on the Purg thread.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Active participation does not necessarily mean running around. Until the 1960s in the UK at least only the altar servers would have answered the priest and singing would have been possibly one hymn in English at a Sunday Sung Mass.

Yes,active participation can be that interior contemplation of the august mystery taking place before our eyes ( thanks to the removal of rood screens in the period after the Council of Trent)

But it is easier to have a more active participation when people can follow more easily in their own language.

Both aspects of the Eucharistic liturgy are important BOTH the propitiatory sacrifice and the family meal. The meal aspect for many centuries was somewhat downplayed. You may think now that it is overemphasised.

In the two main parishes which I regularly attend one priest celebrates the liturgy three times for an attendance figure of 600 +. Were he to distribute Communion personally to all these people it would be a lot of work, particularly were he to offer Communion in both kinds. In a church where all are equally members of the Church
lay ministers (commissioned by the bishop) are necessary.

We have to see the Church as she tries to serve a wider group of people than those who value highly (just as I myself do!) the Latin Mass. That is why I ask you to have faith with those who want to be Catholics and who want to be as inclusive as possible. Don't be afraid to go to a mainstream diocesan church sometime. Things will not be perfect but they will be just as authentically Catholic.

I don't have any queries, so maybe we should let matters rest.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Active participation does not necessarily mean running around. Until the 1960s in the UK at least only the altar servers would have answered the priest and singing would have been possibly one hymn in English at a Sunday Sung Mass.

True, and I'm certainly not suggesting we go back to the pre-1962 UK norm.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Yes, active participation can be that interior contemplation of the august mystery taking place before our eyes.

My point is that it is necessarily (and more importantly) that interior attentiveness. The external participation would mean nothing unless it fostered the inner devotion; the inner devotion would still be valuable without so much as blinking.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
But it is easier to have a more active participation when people can follow more easily in their own language.

People can follow what's going on (and be attached to it spiritually) in their own language without the rite being celebrated in their own language.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Both aspects of the Eucharistic liturgy are important BOTH the propitiatory sacrifice and the family meal. The meal aspect for many centuries was somewhat downplayed. You may think now that it is overemphasised.

Most of the "family meal" thinking has been pretty much invented in the last 60 years. The meal aspect, from the earliest time, was always sacral and ritual - even from its very origin in the Upper Room.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
In the two main parishes which I regularly attend one priest celebrates the liturgy three times for an attendance figure of 600 +. Were he to distribute Communion personally to all these people it would be a lot of work, particularly were he to offer Communion in both kinds. In a church where all are equally members of the Church
lay ministers (commissioned by the bishop) are necessary.

They are pricipally "necessary" because Communion is so frequently distributed in both kinds, almost everyone receives at every Mass, and there is a serious shortage of Ordinary Ministers (i.e., deacons and priests). If you have seen (as you will have) a single priest administer the Host to a large body of people kneeling in a row at an commuinion rail, you will know how little time it acually takes to do so reverently - the moreso with the shorter form of the words of administration ("Corpus Christi"). Also, Communion is a sacred moment - does it have to be over as quickly as possible?

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
That is why I ask you to have faith with those who want to be Catholics and who want to be as inclusive as possible.

I keep faith with all my fellow Catholics, but I can't make myself like all that they might want to "include".

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Don't be afraid to go to a mainstream diocesan church sometime.

I do so with great frequency.

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Things will not be perfect but they will be just as authentically Catholic.

Some things are objectively less "authentically Catholic" than others and there's a lot of variation out there; so I'm not sure what makes you confident that whatever I encounter will be "authentically Catholic". I've seen plenty of things over decades of Mass attendance that are anything but "authentically Catholic" - abuses and errors aplenty. I would be astonished if you had not also. The old rite is not immune from them either, of course, and I don't pretend that it is; but followed to the letter of the rubrics, there's a lot less room for most types of "liturical abuse".

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I don't have any queries, so maybe we should let matters rest.

Then since it seems that your questions a few posts up were rhetorical, I'm happy to let this be my last contribution to this exchange. Pax tecum.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
They are pricipally "necessary" because Communion is so frequently distributed in both kinds, almost everyone receives at every Mass, and there is a serious shortage of Ordinary Ministers (i.e., deacons and priests). If you have seen (as you will have) a single priest administer the Host to a large body of people kneeling in a row at an commuinion rail, you will know how little time it acually takes to do so reverently - the moreso with the shorter form of the words of administration ("Corpus Christi"). Also, Communion is a sacred moment - does it have to be over as quickly as possible?

Here in the States it is not uncommon to see Communion distributed by the EMHCs while the Deacon sits on a chair in the sanctuary.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

And that speaks volumes.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... I keep faith with all my fellow Catholics, but I can't make myself like all that they might want to "include". ...

As a matter of pious curiosity, do you equally extend to them the privilege of not having to like the things you might want to see included - or for that matter, liking things that you'd prefer to see left out?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... I keep faith with all my fellow Catholics, but I can't make myself like all that they might want to "include". ...
As a matter of pious curiosity, do you equally extend to them the privilege of not having to like the things you might want to see included - or for that matter, liking things that you'd prefer to see left out?

"Extend to them the privilege"? Truly, I don't have so delusive an opinion of myself as that.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I recall being intrigued, and not a little puzzled, when I first moved to this area by the Presbyterian practice of celebrating communion on only 4 occasions in the year. My initial assumption was that this formed some part of the direction of either Knox or Calvin, and like others was surprised to find that both had advocated at least weekly celebration. My current understanding is that the infrequency of celebration was partly out of reverence but also because of the extensive process of penitence required in former times. Is anyone able to clarify or expand on this?

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

You will still find it fairly customary in a number of the strands of the Free Church to have a week's preparation for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

In the not so distant past there was also a Fast day before the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

As was the tradition in the Catholic church Communion was felt to be so special that it should not be received too often.

Similarly a good number of the parishioners would not approach the Holy Table. Of course in practice the Holy Table was not approached by anyone as Communion was passed round in the form of bread as well as the famous wee cuppies.

Those who were not going to receive would sit in the galleries or if no galleries they would not sit 'in the body of the kirk.

On the other hand some people would go to other parishes to participate in the Lord's Supper there.

It is said that the Fast days which were usually held on the Friday before Communion are the origins of the confusing Monday holidays in Scotland. They were changed from Friday to Monday when it became clear that people were not necessarily fasting on a day free from work, so the holidays were moved away from the Friday.

Are there not any Free churches where you are ?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't know about the Kirk, but in the Baptist tradition it was (and still is in some places) common for Communion to be celebrated privately in a separate service after the main service. Only those "in the know" would attend - and in some jurisdictions, non-members are not even told that it was going to happen. The idea of membership-only communion has dwindled in many, but not all, of the various flavours of Baptists in the West if not elsewhere.

I also think it is still uncommon for Baptists to celebrate communion on a very regular basis, usually once or twice a month.

I'd imagine this was originally about purity and purification of the membership to ensure worthiness, but in more recent times I think is more likely to be related to practical and historical precedence/tradition.

On a personal note, I've found this thread really eye-opening, so thank you all for your contributions. There is much here that I had been totally unaware of, particularly relating to RCC practice.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My current understanding is that the infrequency of celebration was partly out of reverence but also because of the extensive process of penitence required in former times. Is anyone able to clarify or expand on this?

The reverence and extensive process of preparation were not really the reasons for quarterly communion to start with, at least not in Geneva, but they were certainly part of the reason that quarterly communion persisted for so long.

The practice in Calvin's Geneva, which formed the basis for practice in Reformed churches elsewhere, has to be considered in the context of the pre-Reformation practice. Prior to the Reformation, the norm would of course have been celebration of the sacrament every Sunday, but most people would only have communed once a year, during Easter. In other words, there was no expectation that the entire congregation would commune at every celebration of the sacrament.

The expectation of Calvin and others was weekly celebration and communion by all (or mostly all) present at every celebration. That's what the Geneva city council resisted—they thought it was too big a leap to go from communing once a year to communing every week. Their compromise, then, was communion four times a year. (Calvin got another compromise at one point; he arranged that the four communions Sundays would be different in each congregation in Geneva, so that communion would be celebrated in at least one church every Sunday.)

Preparation for communion would certainly have been part of Calvin's plan, built into the weekly structure. (He suggested the use of tokens, but the Geneva council rejected that as well.) But certainly with time, that preparation became more formalized and extensive, which did reinforce quarterly celebration. And of course, there came a time where "this is how we've always done it" came into play—that and the idea that communion wouldn't be "special" if we did it every week, which is the reverence factor from a different angle.

I can't speak to Scotland, but in the U.S., monthly communion has become the norm for most Presbyterians, and weekly communion can be found. The move toward weekly communion has been officially advocated for 50+ years now.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

At an urban Presby church where I subbed occasionally for the organist, they adopted the practice of 'early communion' -- that is the 8:30 am service involved all (or most) of the congo coming forward and forming a circle around the Holy Table for the communion service (can't remember what they called it) and passing a loaf (on a salver) and a common cup from one to the other. Two of the elders would then serve those who had remained in the pews.
Don't know how common this practice is, though.

Also, on the subject of fasting:

I have the church roll and minute book from my great grandmother's Southern Methodist (US) congo. from about 1880. All the members are listed, together with their 'state in grace,' and on the first page is inscribed 'Remember the Friday before the Quarterly Meeting as a day of fasting and prayer.' Holy Communion would presumably have been observed at that QM.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Nick

One of the reasons clearly stated for favouring the Strasbourg model was that weekly communion did not give adequate time for catechism of the people in preparation. To quote Elsie Ann McKee

quote:
from Christian Worship in Reformed Churches Past and Present pg 19
A particular concern of Calvin's was that right participation in the Lord's Supper necessitated prior repentance, trust in God and reconciliation with one's neighbours. The value placed on preparation and discipline is usually regarded as distinctively Reformed, but in addition its corporate character must also be noted

To pick up McNeill writing of Calvin's first stay in Geneva:

quote:
The History and Character of Calvinism pg 138-139
The reason for the Calvinist discipline is not, as is often supposed, to be discovered in premises of ethical and scriptural legalism but in the sense of 'the holy' and in reverence for the sacrament as the meeting of Christ and his people and of the people as one body in Christ

Barring of people from Communion goes back at least as far as Geneva with the most obvious event being his dispute with the Libertines

I am sorry I have mislaid my copy of Reforming Worship so can not quote from David Cornick's magisterial essay on Communion during the Reformation.

Jengie

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Nick

One of the reasons clearly stated for favouring the Strasbourg model was that weekly communion did not give adequate time for catechism of the people in preparation. . . .

Thanks, Jengie Jon. I stand somewhat corrected; concern for preparation and reverence may indeed have played a bigger part at the start than I gave credit for being the case. There can be a fair amount of interplay, of course, between these concerns and concerns over whether people were ready to move from annual communion to weekly communion.

I would say, though, that Calvin clearly did not view the preparation needed prior to communion to be incompatible with weekly communion.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
At an urban Presby church where I subbed occasionally for the organist, they adopted the practice of 'early communion' -- that is the 8:30 am service involved all (or most) of the congo coming forward and forming a circle around the Holy Table for the communion service (can't remember what they called it) and passing a loaf (on a salver) and a common cup from one to the other. Two of the elders would then serve those who had remained in the pews.
Don't know how common this practice is, though.

Not particularly common for an early morning communion service (a la Episcopalians before the 1979 prayer book), but not so rare as to take anyone by surprise. I've belonged to two congregations that had this practice. I think I read somewhere that perhaps 10% of PC(USA) congregations now have weekly communion, either at at least one Sunday service or at all Sunday services.

One practice that a number of congregations I know of have adopted, or at least tried, is to have communion every Sunday of Easter. This serves both as a time-limited trial run of weekly communion and a counter to services so-solemn-as-to-be-dour that some congregations were used to.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

Are there not any Free churches where you are ?

One CofS, one Baptist, one independent house church. The CofS retains the 4 times annually communion (though now with an additional celebration on Maundy Thursday) but the service of preparation on the Friday prior ceased shortly after I arrived here. I gather more frequent celebration is common in many mainland parishes.

Incidentally, I understood that the wee cuppies were a relatively late introduction, around the turn of the last century, and that the CofS used the common cup prior to that. Happy to be corrected if that's not the case.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I think that is pbssiblyly correct about the 'wee cuppies' say I ,who have little personal connection with the Kirk.

Just the other day I was in St Andrew's and St George's (West) in George St. Edinburgh. There was an exhibition of communion cups from the 18th century. You will find such common cups on display in a good many Presbyterian churches.

I've never seen a display of 'wee cuppies' only seen them being used at an actual Lord's Supper.

There are quite often in older churches displays also of communion tokens which have been mentioned on this thread.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Sorry about misspelling of 'possibly'

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

"Wee Cuppies" are liturgically a recent innovation wherever they occur. They grew in popularity during Victorian health scares iirc.

Jengie

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know about the Kirk, but in the Baptist tradition it was (and still is in some places) common for Communion to be celebrated privately in a separate service after the main service. Only those "in the know" would attend - and in some jurisdictions, non-members are not even told that it was going to happen. The idea of membership-only communion has dwindled in many, but not all, of the various flavours of Baptists in the West if not elsewhere.

I also think it is still uncommon for Baptists to celebrate communion on a very regular basis, usually once or twice a month.

I'd imagine this was originally about purity and purification of the membership to ensure worthiness, but in more recent times I think is more likely to be related to practical and historical precedence/tradition.

On a personal note, I've found this thread really eye-opening, so thank you all for your contributions. There is much here that I had been totally unaware of, particularly relating to RCC practice.

The practice of a separate communion service has ceased in Baptist Churches - at least in those in covenant through the Baptist Union of Great Britain. I can't recall it happening (much) since the late 1980's.

The last time I can remember it happening was in a Baptist Church in Scotland (part of the BU) where communion followed the service. We were invited to stay provided we had a recommendation from the Minister.

There are still some independent Baptist Churches (Grace Baptist - once known as Strict and Particular Baptist Churches) who still have separate communion services. In one case in Bedfordshire the practice until 2010 of so was to hold a Sunday afternoon Communion Service, with the doors locked.

In our own fellowship, membership of the local church is not yardstick for entry to communion. Our invitation to share is open to all who know, love and serve Christ. People are served where they sit and I usually go into the Creche and other classes to pray there too. I will also go up to and pray for any children in the church who don't receive communion. [We share communion as an full all age community about once a quarter].

We have communion twice a month - although it is available for the housebound and those in hospital. Some of our home groups will also share communion as part of a common meal.

The "wee cups" idea reflects a historic link between many Non Conformist churches and the temperance movement. Many church deeds prohibit the drinking of any alcohol on church premises, the church being very conscious of the position of various people in the congregation who have had or do have issues with alcohol dependency. No alcohol means that, for health and hygiene reasons, the small cups are used.

In actual fact, it is incorrect to claim as some do that the presence of alcohol serves as a disinfectant once in the chalice. The abv of the wine used in most churches is way below that of an alcohol gel as used in hand wash and you are therefore open to infection by using a shared cup. Worse still if people intinct.

My wife and daughter who are both nurses would never use a shared cup - health concerns overriding theological principles. My daughter - a specialist infection control nurse - points out the potential hazards inherent in the practice

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Not trying to be awkward, but how do we identify those who 'know, love and serve Christ'?

A Mormon or a JW would claim to do that.

How do any of us - in whatever tradition - go about determining the credentials of anyone who approaches the Lord's Table?

Ultimately, it seems to me, we have to take any of these things on trust.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

It is interesting but it is an invitation and if you feel you are addressed by that invitation you are welcome to come up.

It has problems, not just that but the whole subjective nature of it makes it hard for individuals to decide what side of the line they fall. It can exclude those it is intended to include (e.g. believing Christians of other congregations who are not happy with the "loving Jesus" terminology) and include those it is intended to exclude.

There is no foolproof way of deciding who can come to communion and who cannot. I suspect that is because we are asking the wrong questions around communion.

Jengie

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

There is no foolproof way of deciding who can come to communion and who cannot. I suspect that is because we are asking the wrong questions around communion.

As you may know, the way the Grace Baptists (who are confusingly not a denomination, but rather an association of like-minded independent congregations) and other types of Independent Baptist/Evangelical churches do this is to only have Communion with people they actually know have been determined to be suitable. Which usually means people who are members of the church or at a stretch people who are members of another local congregation they know well.

Is it foolproof? Well, no, I guess a very deceptive person could say all the right things whilst being a "wolf in sheep's clothing".

But I guess a Grace Baptist - and others who think like this - would say that they've done everything possible to ensure that the Lord's Supper is not partaken dishonourably or extended to people who should not be taking it.

I guess there is quite a dramatic contrast to practice in (much of) the Anglican church where the Eucharist is extended as widely as possible.

I have to say that I'm much more inclined to the latter way of thinking than the former, albeit that I'd prefer if more Anglican churches encouraged confirmation before people took Communion.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
"Wee Cuppies" are liturgically a recent innovation wherever they occur. They grew in popularity during Victorian health scares iirc.

Jengie

Coincidentally, reading Daniel Owen's novel Rhys Lewis (published 1885) last night I found a description of a Calvinistic Methodist communion service in NE Wales c 1850s (at a guess) using the shared cup. And Owen, as a chapel elder and sometime candidate for the ministry, knew what he was writing about.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE] My daughter - a specialist infection control nurse - points out the potential hazards inherent in the practice

I think there are probably more hazards from others having inadvertently handled your wee cube of bread (or, worse, tearing from the same roll) than from the shared cup. Hands are generally far filthier than mouths.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think there are probably more hazards from others having inadvertently handled your wee cube of bread (or, worse, tearing from the same roll) than from the shared cup. Hands are generally far filthier than mouths.

I'd imagine the risks of either must be very small. But I could tell you some stories (from my Baptist childhood) about how the bread and "wine" was stored and handled.

It'd be boring, so I won't - but let's just say it wasn't really handled with much dignity and hygiene.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

When my Dad was helping out the (Methodist) communion stewards, I was sometimes tasked with throwing the leftover bread to the birds in the church garden. As a small boy, I generally ate it instead. I think nowadays I have a fairly 'high' view of the host for a non-con prod - and I feel no shame about either of those options. I remember munching and feeling entirely thankful!

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Years ago when the Blessed Sacrament was exposed on the altar, particularly at a devotion called Quarant'ore,it was considered very bad form to turn one's back on the Blessed Sacrament and that one should walk backwards out of the church.

I don't think people would do that today. Within the mainstream of the Catholic Church, things are much simpler. Of course some people say that there is a lack of respect. I might even say that myself sometimes.

I've seen people walk backwards in church at all times, not just when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. It's been done in CMRI churches for decades, and some still practice it.

Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
"Wee Cuppies" are liturgically a recent innovation wherever they occur. They grew in popularity during Victorian health scares iirc.

Jengie

https://christandpopculture.com/story-little-communion-cups-whatever-technically-called/, and links therein, are worth noting here. We must inundate the author with the authoritative word, that they are technically called "wee cuppies."

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Even south of The Border?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Note the quotes, afaik it's a Sober Preacher Kid's* coinage.

So

a)Canadian
b)SOF specialism

Jengie

*afterthought it might just be Episcoterian.

[ 26. February 2017, 10:59: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0