Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I think this explains it from an RC point of view:

Host in Chalice

Not uncommon in anglocatholic churches either. Interestingly the practice seems to vary at St Albans Holborn depending upon who is presiding.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

Not uncommon in anglocatholic churches either.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
... pretty high up the candle,

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:

Not uncommon in anglocatholic churches either.

---

Not all that specifically Anglo-Catholic. Lots of Anglicans, though not the lowest or many evangelicals. In the CofE ladder of candleheight it probably comes a little below calling the priest "Father" or using incense.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by windsofchange:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
... pretty high up the candle,

---

I have nothing meaningful to contribute to this thread, other than that I am sitting here at my desk absolutely charmed by this expression.

---

Don't worry - it's all good!

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
[Why is this in Purgatory?]

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Generally in our neck of the woods the Fraction occurs during the embolism following the Lord's Prayer; the sign of the Cross is made with the particle over the chalice three times during the Pax, and then the particle is dropped in. The priest is supposed to consume the particle when he receives the chalice, thereby preventing an unwary communicant from swallowing something soggy.

(Yes, it is the Body of our Lord, but an unexpecting parishioner might not realize that at first...)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm still baffled. Apparently the president/priest puts the fragment of the host in the wine and prays that the mingling of the body and blood of Christ may bring eternal life to those who receive it. Then he (I'm assuming usually he)receives it himself - thereby gaining eternal life himself, but denying it to the rest of the congregation - particularly if they're only receiving in one kind. Or am I being unfair?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
Having been corrected on that (here on the Ship, by I think Triple Tiara) it still seems a rather fiddly and unnecessary bit of symbolism especially as it will be unnoticed by 99.9% of most congregations.

---

Yes, that would have been me

Ecclesiantics is very faithful to a lectionary cycle of its own, as certain topics come up every few years. This is one of them.

The commixture is thought by many (especially by those with a smattering of liturgical history) to derive from the fermentum of the bishop's mass. My point to Angloid would have been that this was not reserved to a papal mass, but happened with other bishops as well. The Bishop of Rome did, however, send particles to other bishops (as well as the parishes in Rome) as a sign of communion. Some letters exchanged between popes and other bishops with whom he was having a tiff allude to this. The favour was never returned, however: it was always the Bishop of Rome who sent a particle from his Mass. No-one sent one to him.

But there is more. At the fraction way back then, a particle from a previous Mass would be brought from the place of reservation and added to the Chalice as well. It was a sign of the Mass being an ongoing, eternal sacrifice, the present one always linked with the previous one.

This custom died out and only lives on vestigially, as TSA points out, at High Mass with the subdeacon in humeral veil holding the paten. That's the bit that has to do with the bishop's particle.

But in the first millennium there were in fact two comminglings: the addition of the fermentum, or particle from the bishop's mass, and then the other one. The first has died out, the second continues. To find the reason for the second we simply need to look East. They don't just add a particle but all of the consecrated bread. The understanding, as I'm sure some of the Orthodox could verify, is an eschatological, post resurrection one. At the crucifixion the body and blood of Christ were separated, but at his resurrection they are once again united. We are feeding on the living Christ, not a dead Christ.

The prayer at the commingling makes this explicit. The prayer says nothing about being in communion with anyone - it talks about our sharing in the eschaton. In the modern form: "May this mingling of the Body and Blood of Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it".

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
American Episcopalians are getting irritatingly germophobic, and often insist on intincting. In parishes that use "real" bread, the cup usually turns into a disturbing slurry of crumbs and backwash. The cup of salvation indeed.

Not really what you're asking about though.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
American Episcopalians are getting irritatingly germophobic, and often insist on intincting. In parishes that use "real" bread, the cup usually turns into a disturbing slurry of crumbs and backwash. The cup of salvation indeed.

Not really what you're asking about though.

---

I remember in South Wales when this became quite common in the late 1980s. The local bishop issued an instruction to the clergy that if a communicant wished for intinction and stood (or knelt) with the host in his or hand, the priest was to remove it, dip it in the chalice, and then place it on the communicants tongue. I believe this was then then Bishop of Monmouth Church in Wales).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
I think I have been adequately answered in historical and liturgical terms. But it still does not compute, Captain; to my mind, the body and blood of Christ are most meaningfully 'commingled' when the consecrated bread and wine are received by the believing communicant. Nothing more is necessary.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
...Nothing more is necessary.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
[Why is this in Purgatory?]
My liturgical comfort zone is well on the sunny side of MOTR, but I have never done this, nor noticed (perhaps I'm just not observant) many other priests doing it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The Bishop of Rome did, however, send particles to other bishops (as well as the parishes in Rome) as a sign of communion. Some letters exchanged between popes and other bishops with whom he was having a tiff allude to this. The favour was never returned, however: it was always the Bishop of Rome who sent a particle from his Mass. No-one sent one to him.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

My liturgical comfort zone is well on the sunny side of MOTR, but I have never done this, nor noticed (perhaps I'm just not observant) many other priests doing it.

---

You surprise me, given that we move in much the same churchpersonship miracles.

---

Miracles?
My training incumbent used to do it and taught me to do the same, so I may have done it at my first mass. But never again, not having had the benefit of TT's wisdom. Maybe most of the priests I've worked with have been further down the candle, but I've rarely noticed anyone else doing it. As I said, perhaps I've just not looked.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sebby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
American Episcopalians are getting irritatingly germophobic, and often insist on intincting. In parishes that use "real" bread, the cup usually turns into a disturbing slurry of crumbs and backwash. The cup of salvation indeed.

Not really what you're asking about though.

---

I remember in South Wales when this became quite common in the late 1980s. The local bishop issued an instruction to the clergy that if a communicant wished for intinction and stood (or knelt) with the host in his or hand, the priest was to remove it, dip it in the chalice, and then place it on the communicants tongue. I believe this was then then Bishop of Monmouth Church in Wales).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Always nice to know that "embolism" doesn't have to mean a life-threatening occlusion of an artery, may also be just another item in the course of a prayer.

Context, context, context!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Deliver us we beseech thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present, and to come, and at the intercession of the Blessed and Glorious and Ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God, of thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, <insert your favorite hit parade here; your poster suggests: of Joseph, Stephen, Andrew, Charles,> and of all thy saints deliver us from sin and save us from all disquietude, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm not sure where is the right place to raise this,but never mind. A previous Vicar used, when consecrating at the Eucharist, to break off a tiny fragment of communion wafer and carefully put it in the wine in the chalice. Stupidly, I never got round to asking him why he did this before he retired. Our present Vicar can offer no view on the practice, which she considers pretty high up the candle, beyond suggesting it is to symbolise the uniting of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist. I remain puzzled; surely body and blood are united in any case when the elements are received by the faithful communicant? Can anyone aboard the Ship offer an explanation? (The Vicar in question was an (Anglican)Franciscan Tertiary, if that gives any clue.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

My liturgical comfort zone is well on the sunny side of MOTR, but I have never done this, nor noticed (perhaps I'm just not observant) many other priests doing it.

---

You surprise me, given that we move in much the same churchpersonship miracles.

---

Miracles?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I remember priest's hosts that had an impressed line so that they would break first in half and then with a sliver for commingling.

Do they still make them?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
embolism—Gk. emballein, to insert or intercalate.

In this context, it is this prayer, or a variant:

quote:

---

Deliver us we beseech thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present, and to come, and at the intercession of the Blessed and Glorious and Ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God, of thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, <insert your favorite hit parade here; your poster suggests: of Joseph, Stephen, Andrew, Charles,> and of all thy saints deliver us from sin and save us from all disquietude, through the same Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end.

---

which is said between the the end of the Lord's Prayer and its doxology (For thine is the Kingdom, etc). Or else it is said secretly by the celebrant as the congregation plows by itself through the Lord's Prayer.


But wait. You asked what it means.

I think it means that God isn't really swift enough to fully understand what he meant when he taught to us to pray, "deliver us from evil." And, that he figures we need our posse backing us up in this expanded petition.

---

Thanks for the explanation!

I've had a professor or two (RC priests as it happens) use the Lord's Prayer with an insertion to lead the class in prayer for a particular concern, using the same pattern. I find it a useful way to pray on my own, especially when I don't know quite what or how to pray (e.g., when I hear of someone who's in the hospital, but I don't know the situation well). It's pretty handy - and when you don't know what/how to pray, using our Lord's template is a pretty good way to go, relying on the Spirit to fill in whatever might be needed.

But in the context of the Mass, it sounds like it gives you an embolism, TSA!

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posted                          

quote:

---

Still not as bad as 30 hands doing their own dipping, a long, long nailed elderly princess with God knows what under those red nails,then a Parkinson's sufferer, then a little child who dips to far, then a dear old blind lady, all innocently dabbling their fingers in the MPB to avoid drinking it as Jesus said to do.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
But in the context of the Mass, it sounds like it gives you an embolism, TSA!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:
But in the context of the Mass, it sounds like it gives you an embolism, TSA!

---

Oh, not at all. I know the prayer by heart. I hew to that old Anglocatholic saw, Nothing succeeds like excess. I believe the faithful should tell God what they're gonna tell him, then tell him, and then wrap things up by telling him what they just told him. Is this the Army model?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
Probably 40% of the people in my parish self-intinct. I serve the chalice three Sundays out of four and I've never seen crumbs in the wine. Maybe we're more fastidious.

---