Ship of Fools: Bread and Wine in the Chalice

Thread: Bread and Wine in the Chalice Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024800

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

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 by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

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 by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

I don't think I've ever noticed this NOT being done in an Anglican church.

Where did your vicar train?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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. [Two face]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

In Orthodoxy, the leavened bread is always dipped into the wine before it is fed to the communicant. I've never asked why, but now...

...I've just found out that the leaven symbolises the presence of the Holy Ghost...

...OK - I'm not sure why the elements are mixed, but I know there's people on this board who are more Orthodox than me so, help me out guys!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Thanks - this prettywell answers my question (above)

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Our Vicar trained at Ripon College, Cuddesdon, since you ask.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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 by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

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 by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

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.

[ 17. May 2012, 17:54: Message edited by: windsofchange ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

In the CofE I've tended to be familiar with MOTR churches, and some time ago conservative evangelical. Where I was a curate the 'big' church - out of a team of five - was on the high side of MOTR and I believe our Team Rector used to do this. But the other clergy didn't. Similarly, in the other team ministry where I served - six parishes - it wasn't a known practice. Though only one of those six would've been considered higher than MOTR and quite possibly the priest there did do this.

I don't remember it specifically featuring on the agenda at our ecumenical theological college, though our liturgy tutor was high church. It could be it was referred to as something that some priests do, if that's where they are in their theology and practice. And some certainly were.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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! [Smile]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

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 by Adrian1 (# 3994) on :

Mostly using the BCP rite, I perform the Fraction during the Consecration and, although I might have done it once or twice, particularly when using other rites, I don't normally bother with the Commixture. I don't see the point in dropping a fraction of the host into the chalice only to fish it out later.

Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :

As a Coeliac (requiring a strict gluten free diet) I receive gluten free bread/wafer or if that is not available, just the wine. So when the bread has been put into the chalice that also makes receiving in one kind impossible and is rather frustrating! It also means keeping a close eye on what the priest is doing when visiting other churches to see if the wine is going to be 'safe'.
Just an aside really - but it does make a difference to some.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

[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. I had always assumed it was to symbolise us being in communion with the Pope, and since we (Anglicans) are not it seemed rather perverse. 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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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

'Cos I've been out all day and busy all evening on other RL stuff.

This is Eccles, so off it goes.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Bread from the bishop's mass shows up twice in the old rite. Once with the conmixture of the fermentum being the inbound—the particle coming from the bishop's mass to the parish. The other being the paten dance of the subdeacon, reflecting the deacon standing with a sack of bread at the bishop's consecration, ready to scurry off with it to the suburban parish mass.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

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...)

That's pretty much what happens in the Western Diocese of my jurisdiction, except we tend to do a partial fraction at 'he brake it' and then complete the job after the Lord's Prayer, without using the embolism. Then it is

The pea+ce of the Lo+rd be al+ways with you

and with thy Spirit and in goes the particle. At that point I usually say 'May this mingling of the Body and Bood of Christ be unto us who receive it an approach unto everlasting life.

However you would not see that sort of thing back in 'Bama!

It comes from the 4th/5th century custom of a deacon carrying a small particle from the bishop's Mass to the Mass in the suburban churches where it was dropped into the chalice as a sign of their communion with the Bishop. This was referred to IIRC as the fermentum. Later on it acquired a certain mystical significance regarding the union of body and blood to complete the 'life' of Christ in the sacrament, or as somehow a reminder of the incarnation. It is a prime example of a ceremony continuing after it has ceased to have its original purpose.

PD

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

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 by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

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?

The sacrament is always offered in both kinds at our place (excepting Good Friday, which is a special case). If people are receiving in one kind, it's by choice--usually related to health issues, I imagine, though I don't pry.

There's also the doctrine of concomitance, which states that the sacrament is complete in either kind. It's certainly not an excuse for withholding the chalice from the congregation, but it nicely covers any scruple over receiving only the host (for recovering alcoholics, say) or only the chalice (for people with gluten sensitivities, say).

With that in mind, your objection doesn't really seem to hold. If the sacrament is being offered to them in both kinds, then they are receiving the commingling of the Body and Blood of Christ; at least as far as I know, they don't descend into separate compartments in the stomach.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

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 [Big Grin]

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".

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

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 by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

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 by Basilica (# 16965) on :

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).

As someone who grew up in that diocese, I can indeed confirm that this advice is still heard there.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

That would be my take on it, too, FWIW. Communion in one kind is also efficacious, and the 'spiritual communion' of those who are unable to receive.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

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

It isn't about necessity. Liturgy isn't about minimalist necessity, it's about the multi-layered and the significant. As you've been shown here, the commingling is vestigial and the Church retains these vestiges (as, for example, with the kyrie) because they carry in them something of significance - in this case the symbolism of synchronic and diachronic communion. That is, ISTM, sufficient justification.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

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

The vicar of a neighbouring church, when i was a teenager, regularly did house for duty swaps - no shortage of holiday cover as we were at the seaside. He always quizzed the incoming priest about the comixture and did not allow anyone to celebrate at 'his' altar unless they did it. I guess he thought it was somehow invalid.

He never allowed our many curates to cover for him.

[ 19. May 2012, 16:31: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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.

TT, your post was so beautiful I hate to sound flippant, but this bit reminded me of what must have been some tradition between certain Anglican cathedral vergers of sending each other "furch" - dust bunnies collected in their cathedrals. All I know about this is we once found a bunch of envelopes containing such furch from many cathedrals (I think mostly in England, though) in our vault, and someone on staff - I think the Canon Sacrist - remembered that a previous head verger used to exchange the stuff with other vergers. She then immediately deposited all the envelopes in the nearest trash can.

More recently, we've been given tea towels by visiting vergers from far away cathedrals. In this case, English; American cathedrals don't tend to have souvenir tea towels.

/tangent

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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).

All kinds of germs get into the wine that way. It's actually better to just sip from the Cup.

We have re-trained our congregation to not intinct, which is good since we use home-baked, leavened bread. Occasionally you'll get someone intincting; we're supposed to (as Chalice bearers) encourage them to consume the bread and then offer the Cup, but in the moment that usually doesn't feel right. We keep slotted spoons on the credence tables in case some bread needs to be fished out of the wine.

We get all kinds of retired priests celebrating at the weekday Masses, and one of them is really particular about that. We use a small priest's Host (the one that breaks into four pieces), and he will drop a whole quarter into the Cup (after making the sign of the Cross with it), consume another of the quarters, then use yet another quarter to scoop the one out of the Cup, and consume both of them. The other quarter goes to the server/lay assistant, and all the rest of the congregation get the small Hosts. I've never seen anyone else do it that way! I've seen some of our other retired priests break a tiny bit off the corner of their quarter of the Host, drop it in the Cup, and fish it back out with the rest of their quarter-Host, leaving 3 quarters of the Host for other people.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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!

What does it mean in this context?

Another question for Orthodox folks: What does a person do if they're either unable to have wine for whatever reason, or allergic to wheat/have celiac disease? Is there any possibility of them receiving only bread or only wine?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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.

[ 20. May 2012, 00:43: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

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.

For Anglicans the practice is, and always has been, a bit of ceremomial shoplifting from it's context in the Roman Mass. This
co-mixture of a particle of the bread was simply inserted into the Eucharistic liturgy by Anglicans with fondness for Roman Catholic ceremonial customs. The others here have explained the history of the co-mixture what its supposed to signify in the context of the Roman rite.

My point: To date, no published and approved Anglican Eucharistic liturgy contains the co-mixture custom and ceremony, as far as I know.

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

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 by leo (# 1458) on :

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?

Very Freudian slip - I meant 'circles'!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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?

Yes they do.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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! [Biased]

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Those words, "co-mixture" and "co-mingling" sound horrible and made up! I am sure there is another word for this action but I've forgotten it.

As a sign of the resurrection it is a powerful symbol. One friend of mine has found the perfect solution to getting it out: just pucker your lips and blow. It will soon come to the front of the chalice or back of it whatever and you can drink it down.

I do hate to see priests take a people's host and fish it out or just as bad leave it there where It gets stuck to the side of the chalice and ALMOST swallowed. Two or three times.

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.

But I digress. I have rarely seen priests omit this gesture. Most are not apeing Rome, but have picked it up from other Anglican priests, a wonderful part of the Chrisian tradition being passed down from one generation to the next.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

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.

But is this not Christ's body, the Church?

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Of course they are! But they believed some hogwash about catching diseases by drinking after an unclean person. But keeping with the OP, in parishes where self-intinction is common, you'll find A LOT of sacred crumbs and hosts in the chalice. Many times when they accidently drop, they'll try to fish it out, but I give them a fresh host anyway after wiping their fingers with the purificator.

Self-intincting parishes have lots of experience with "commingling."

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

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. [Biased]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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 by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

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?

SofF needs a like button!

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

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.

REAL fastidious people don't self-intinct. The leave the "commixture" to the priest or to the MPB catching up with the Body a moment later.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Even if someone holds the Host in their hand and lets the priest take it and intinct it, it's still been handled quite a bit.

Then again, with drinking from the cup, you get mustaches bathing in the Cup... That's a kind of commingling I really don't want to think about.

ETA: I have to add, though, that the Eucharist has gone a long way toward curing me of my germophobia. I used to be unable to share a beverage even with my own sister. Now I can share beverages with friends. But my experience was that the first time I went up for Communion in the church where I became Episcopalian, I was worried about how I'd bring myself to drink from the Cup, but as I approached, that worry just melted away. Same experience each week, until it wasn't a problem for me. I thought, "Wow, there's really something to this Real Presence!" Now you might even see me eating consecrated Bread that falls on the floor! (Just not if someone's stepped on it or if it's been there all week...)

[ 21. May 2012, 05:17: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Comixture is the drop of water into the (main!) chalice at the offertory, comingling is the other - just before communion.

Intinction is just one more thing you don't want to worry about. There's no need for it.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

This tread reminds me of what happened once with President Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan attended an Anglican Service in South Carolina once. Being rather inactive Presbyterians they did not know what to do when it came to communion, Their aide, though, was Anglican so he told Nancy to just follow him and do what he did. Ronald did not hear the aide, so when he asked Nancy what to do, Nancy told Ronald to do what she did. The aide, Nancy, and Ronald went to the communion rail together. The aide took the bread and, when the chalice came, dipped the bread in the wine, then ate it. Nancy was next. She took the bread, dipped it in the chalice, then became flustered and dropped the bread in the wine. Ronald came next. He took the bread and when the chalice came, dropped it in the wine just as he seen his wife do. Reports were that as the Reagans left the altar rail, they were pleased with themselves; but the priest was left with two bits of bread in the chalice.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0