|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Blessing non-communicants
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
Our vicar blesses children and non-commmunicants at the altar rail by makimg the sign of the cross over them with the host. It has been suggested he should place his hand on their heads instead, and that this is the more usual thing to do. Is it? And should he?
[ 16. February 2014, 17:43: Message edited by: Corvo ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I was taught to make the sign of the cross on their foreheads with my thumb whilst saying the words of blessing.
Some clergy won't, now, make physical contact with a blessee and waving the host around is, presumably, a substitute for that. Personally I think that is excessive but, given the sensitivities around clerical abuse at the moment, if that is where your vicar is coming from you had best leave it alone. At the end of the day it is God's blessing and He will not withhold it from His children, however the priest bestows it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
I do a hand on the head. I am right handed, so I give bread to each communicant with my right, while holding the loaf (wrapped in a cloth) in my left. Since I don't want to put the hand that's distributing bread on someone's head, I switch the bread from left to right and put my left on their head.
The bit that I always manage to mess up is the blessing itself. I think I need to memorize one, but I don't know which one to memorize.
Still, like Gildas said, it's God's blessing, and God won't withhold it just because I say the wrong words or use the wrong hand or wrong gesture.
[ 16. February 2014, 18:13: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Choose one and go for it! I was taught "the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be upon you this day and forevermore" for my first Mass as a Deacon and could do it in my sleep. At an 8am Communion Service, I probably have done. The main thing is that the non-communicant person and, yet more importantly, their child understands that you are conveying God's love.
I think that getting the blessing right is missiologically more important, on some level, than communicating the faithful. Which, obviously, is hardly negligible!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bene Gesserit
Shipmate
# 14718
|
Posted
So, would one (i.e. a non-communicant) stand/kneel in the appropriate place and simply say "bless me please"? Or...?
--------------------
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus
Posts: 405 | From: Flatlands of the East | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
Individuals requesting a blessing tend to either keep their hands clasped below the altar rail or bring up a service book. In either case, their hands are not put forward to receive the host. We sometimes invite people to come for a blessing if they don't feel able to take communion (Church in Wales, if anyone's interested)
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
I was told that I should go forward with my arms across my chest. It worked at my brother's wedding when I went forward for a blessing instead of taking communion.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
Since I'm Methodist, we allow everyone who wishes to receive. But I will bless small children, especially infants, when parents want me to or when they're unable to receive. On rare occasion I'll have an adult come forward for a blessing; they've invariably been people who are either Lutheran (LCMS) or another tradition that practices closed Communion. Most people around here, however, don't come forward at all if they don't wish to receive. Asking for a blessing isn't common at all, except in RC or possibly TEC circles.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Barefoot Friar - the opposite as well for those of us in a church which does have an open table. When we go to one we know is closed, we go up with arms crossed over our chests, unless we have had an opportunity to talk to the priest beforehand to clear the way. It saves both embarrassment and an abuse of hospitality.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Choose one and go for it! I was taught "the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be upon you this day and forevermore" for my first Mass as a Deacon and could do it in my sleep. ...
I thought that unless a person is a priest, they aren't allowed to bless anyone apart from their own children.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Good call.
"May the blessing..." as a Deacon.
"The blessing of..." as a Priest.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Barefoot Friar - the opposite as well for those of us in a church which does have an open table. When we go to one we know is closed, we go up with arms crossed over our chests, unless we have had an opportunity to talk to the priest beforehand to clear the way. It saves both embarrassment and an abuse of hospitality.
Exactly what I do when I go to RC mass (fairly often). Even though I can happily accept transubstantiation, I would see receiving the host as a non-RC as very rude behaviour.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I thought that unless a person is a priest, they aren't allowed to bless anyone apart from their own children.
In the RCC, deacons can perform a number of "lower level," generic blessings, including of people.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The crossed-hands-for-a-blessing approach is an anglophone one, and not much known elsewhere. My sources inform me that, at the Cathedral in Santiago de Compostela, they became aware that many of the non-RC pilgrims who felt unable to take communion still wanted some gesture at the end of their 700km, so the cathedral clergy were briefed on the anglophone custom, and over the past year it has become common at the pilgrims' mass for those who do not communicate.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Asking for a blessing isn't common at all, except in RC or possibly TEC circles.
In my TEC context, blessings are pretty common, to the point of probably averaging two blessings every three services, in a congregation of about 20 per Sunday. Of course, that's partly because, as a congregation of 20, we gather around the altar for the liturgy of the table, so there isn't really a "don't go up" option.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I thought that unless a person is a priest, they aren't allowed to bless anyone apart from their own children.
In the RCC, deacons can perform a number of "lower level," generic blessings, including of people.
Not quite accurate. Deacons give only those blessings expressly permitted by law. There is nothing "lower level" about such a blessing, it is simply more restricted. So, I blessed people today at the conclusion of the baptism I presided at (as the rite tells me to), but while administering communion at the Mass beforehand I simply prayed for those who came up 'for a blessing' in my line.
The US Catholic standard to signal this is to come up with your arms over your chest (opposite hand on opposite shoulder). We have one person I sometimes see at church who always approaches with her finger over her lips, as if she's about to "shush" me. The meaning is perfectly clear.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
What's the arrangement for travellers? In Rome in 1958 I went to an Anglican service and spoke beforehand to the priest, who said it was permitted to share communion with a communicant member of the Presbyterian (or presumably other) church who had no church of their own denomination in the vicinity.
Don't remember what happened on shipboard but I expect the Bishop on our trip had a similar dispensation. (I was roped in as pianist for the main services.)
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Our vicar blesses children and non-commmunicants at the altar rail by making the sign of the cross over them with the host.
It has been suggested he should place his hand on their heads instead, and that this is the more usual thing to do.
Is it? And should he?
Could I return to the original question which was about touching the non-communicant?
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Do you think it won't 'stick' unless the person is touched on the head? At a guess, the reason why the priest has the host is in his hand is symbolic of the blessings of the Eucharist. Seems a perfectly right way to do it in my opinion.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
What's the arrangement for travellers? In Rome in 1958 I went to an Anglican service and spoke beforehand to the priest, who said it was permitted to share communion with a communicant member of the Presbyterian (or presumably other) church who had no church of their own denomination in the vicinity.
Don't remember what happened on shipboard but I expect the Bishop on our trip had a similar dispensation. (I was roped in as pianist for the main services.)
GG
You'd be surprised how few Anglican services there are in the wilds of Provence or the Auvergne . Our practice is to have a chat to the priest before Mass, explain as best we can in our poor French, and his probably better English, our understanding of what happens at the consecration of the elements, and be told it's quite ok to take communion.
AFAIK Presbyterians practise a closed table here (the Uniting Church are different). But if you came to our Anglican church, the only requirement would be that you are a baptised member of another church. It would not matter if you had not attended church for the last 10 years, as long as you had been baptised. I think the same or similar would apply in al other Anglican churches in OZ.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
dj-ordinaire , I've just seen your post on the Bridges etc thread. I don't this transgresses your ruling, but if it does, I apologise.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
On rare occasion I'll have an adult come forward for a blessing; they've invariably been people who are either Lutheran (LCMS) or another tradition that practices closed Communion. Most people around here, however, don't come forward at all if they don't wish to receive. Asking for a blessing isn't common at all, except in RC or possibly TEC circles.
Interesting that you see it as an issue of open vs closed communion.
I thought it was common across most churches that the unbaptized, or those who feel they are in a state of sin or unrepentant should not take communion. I attended a Church of Scotland service once and was the priest asked each person (it was a small service) if we were baptized before he offered me the bread and wine.
So I generally assume that adults who ask for a blessing instead of Communion aren't Christians. Especially as our rector says "We invite all Christian believers to partake in the bread and wine, if you do not feel you can take Communion please do come forward anyway and we will say a blessing for you" which makes it fairly clear that it's open.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
Our vicar blesses children and non-commmunicants at the altar rail by making the sign of the cross over them with the host.
It has been suggested he should place his hand on their heads instead, and that this is the more usual thing to do.
Is it? And should he?
Could I return to the original question which was about touching the non-communicant?
May I combine the two slightly?
If someone who is not a priest (clearly not the case in your original question, but related) is doing the blessing, by using the MBS it could be considered, in the same manner as the blessing at Benediction, that it is the MBS giving the blessing, not the person. Following that line of thinking, during a service of Benediction, the priest does not bless anything (e.g. incense added to the thurible) in the presence of the exposed Sacrament. When distributing communion, the priest carries the Sacrament, and whilst it is not solemnly exposed at that point, the MBS is still exposed and present, and therefore we might argue the same principle applies.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Interesting that you see it as an issue of open vs closed communion.
I thought it was common across most churches that the unbaptized, or those who feel they are in a state of sin or unrepentant should not take communion. I attended a Church of Scotland service once and was the priest asked each person (it was a small service) if we were baptized before he offered me the bread and wine.
So I generally assume that adults who ask for a blessing instead of Communion aren't Christians. Especially as our rector says "We invite all Christian believers to partake in the bread and wine, if you do not feel you can take Communion please do come forward anyway and we will say a blessing for you" which makes it fairly clear that it's open.
I've come across a few who were cradle Baptists and who over the years had heard someone preaching on 1 Corinthians 11 in such a way that the person in question never again felt they were worthy to receive.
One woman in particular was regularly attending my church, and she approached me to apologize that she wasn't coming forward for Communion. Even though I gently explained the passage, the prayer of confession and pardon, and the absolution, she was still worried that she wasn't worthy and wouldn't receive.
All of these have just stayed in their seats instead of coming for a blessing.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
TomM
That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.
[ 17. February 2014, 11:12: Message edited by: Corvo ]
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
TomM
That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..
For the CofE any body is allowed to ask for God's blessing ie 'may the blessing' but only a priest is allowed to pronounce it.
Making a sign of the cross over somebodies head with the wafer might make liturgical sense, but if I came as somebody not used to Christianity then I think I would find it weird and maybe excluding. It would feel like – you can’t join in with us so I’ll just wave it over you to emphasise your exclusion.
In my corner of the CofE the crossing of arms to indicate wanting a blessing is what RCs do. CofEs leave their hands by their side.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
TomM
That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.
Except that "blessing" with the host would be analogous to benediction, which is reserved to those in holy orders, whereas the laying on of hands with prayer is regularly done by the laity.
As I understand it, though, the sign of the cross with the host is part of the pre-1970 rite for the distribution of communion, and as such was not intended to be a blessing. I'd be wary of re-appropriating it as a blessing.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
dj-ordinaire , I've just seen your post on the Bridges etc thread. I don't this transgresses your ruling, but if it does, I apologise.
No seems on topic and quite alright... although the same point about not getting too much into the question of open/closed Communion itself still stands! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..
I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England. 'Chalice bearers' are simply lay people 'authorized to distribute the Holy Sacrament'.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
TomM
That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.
Except that "blessing" with the host would be analogous to benediction, which is reserved to those in holy orders, whereas the laying on of hands with prayer is regularly done by the laity.
As I understand it, though, the sign of the cross with the host is part of the pre-1970 rite for the distribution of communion, and as such was not intended to be a blessing. I'd be wary of re-appropriating it as a blessing.
Non-communicants who come to the altar 'for a blessing' are presumably somehow expecting something more than those who remain in their seats, and that 'something more' would seem to have something to do with the sacrament they are not receiving. Maybe (particularly in the case of a lay minister) showing them the host and using a 'May . . . ' form of blessing would be appropriate (though I have never seen this).
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
A prayer that ISTM works well when a lay Eucharistic assistant is charged with giving a "blessing" is: "Bless, O Lord, this thy child through all the days of her/his life, until at length s/he come to thine eternal joy." Although I'm used to this particular idiom, the language could obviously be conformed to the contemporary idiom.
Notice that this is a prayer to invoke God's blessing, rather than definitively declaring a blessing in the manner of an ordained minister.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
TomM
That's very interesting. There are occasions when the host is not given out by the vicar but by a layperson holding the bishop's licence to administer HC. The latter call themselves 'chalice bearers' because that is what they usually do although they are equally authorised to give out the host. It would seem odd for them to touch the non-communicant in blessing but natural to bless them with the host.
Except that "blessing" with the host would be analogous to benediction, which is reserved to those in holy orders, whereas the laying on of hands with prayer is regularly done by the laity.
As I understand it, though, the sign of the cross with the host is part of the pre-1970 rite for the distribution of communion, and as such was not intended to be a blessing. I'd be wary of re-appropriating it as a blessing.
I'd express similar reservations, but it seems an obvious (albeit probably improper) link.
I'm not sure I would have a problem with a priest signing with the cross before laying on hands though - though I would be hesitant to say at what exact point the blessing was given, and would avoid explaining it in the context of benediction! (And for the lay administrator or deacon - according to jurisdiction - then the blessing can still invoked, rather than the priestly explicit form).
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..
I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England.
Yes it is, although it's possible the description may vary between dioceses
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..
I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England.
Yes it is, although it's possible the description may vary between dioceses
It doesn't appear in the Canons where the term 'minister' always seems to refer to ordained ministry.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..
I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England.
Yes it is, although it's possible the description may vary between dioceses
It doesn't appear in the Canons where the term 'minister' always seems to refer to ordained ministry.
Indeed, the regulations that permit lay people to assist with the distribution (available here) don't specify a term. The General Synod paper from 2012 that proposed changes to the regulations (available here) uses the term "lay assistant".
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Hand on shoulder, never on head. the latter feels patronising and hair gel has made a comeback.
Instruction to Bishops for ordination rite?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Those in church who don't wish to receive Communion are instructed to bring a hymn/prayer book up to the altar rail, to indicate that they wish to have a blessing. The method of blessing varies according to the priest - some still place hand on head, others make the sign of the cross in the air over their head or just hover their hand above the head. We are about to enter another interregnum, meaning there will be several different priests helping out. So I will be interested to note any new or different styles.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
TomM
The technical term is Eucharistic ministers..
I don't think 'Eucharistic Minister' is a term officially used in the Church of England. 'Chalice bearers' are simply lay people 'authorized to distribute the Holy Sacrament'.
Eucharistic minister, as a term has just been used by our diocesan bishop, in an official communique about getting permission for people to distrubute communion
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Whereas our bishop only wants us to use that term for priests (and bishops, I guess). The minister of the sacrament of the Eucharist is the presider. The people who distribute communion are ministers of holy communion. It can seem linguistically pedantic, but the distinction is an important one.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
I think most lay C of E people would think any kind of 'minister' was a 'vicar'. i am sure the commonest term for those authorized to distribute communion is 'chalice bearer' even though they are equally authorized to give out the host. I can remember hearing (when for some reason the latter happened in our church) some one say it was the first time they had 'received communion' from a lay person - even though the chalice bearer is always lay.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It is perfectly proper to refer to a 'Lay Eucharistic Minister' but it does not follow that the term will be understood by the punters. I vividly remember a PCC discussion where we were supposedly nominating a LEM and half the PCC thought the lady in question would be training as a Reader.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
Administrant is the term used chez nous.
Hand on head is probably what I experienced as a child, but have seen the host used. Both are fine IMO.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
At our last church the custom was to make the sign of the cross on children's heads but to shake hands with the non-communicant adults...which always struck me as rather odd and inconsistent. At our new congregation, I can't recall seeing any adults requesting a blessing in lieu of participating in Communion, nor do I remember any guidance in the bulletins.
Re non-communicants: In my ELCA neighborhood, the adults who decline to participate in Communion tend to be visitors from Bapticostal-ish churches, who have issues with our sacramental theology even though we practice open Communion and explain that in the context of the service...RC and LCMS visitors don't seem to have much hesitation in joining us. (Shhhh!) This is in contrast to the church of my childhood, where members in good standing regularly sat out Communion for various personal reasons, and where in general anyone who availed themselves of the sacrament at every available opportunity (which was only twice a month plus holidays in that Pietist congregation) tended to be looked upon by other churchgoers with suspicion, either as someone engaged in an unseemly display of works-righteousness or else as someone who must be struggling with some particularly awful habitual sin so as to feel the need for forgiveness and strength so often. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
On the final day of my Personal Best of 17 straight days of Daily Mass last (Southern) winter I went up for a blessing. Since people received satnding at the head of a queue I did the arms crossed thing like the school kiddies.
I had met the priest on Day One and explained my Presbyterian origins and was left in no doubt that receiving was "not on" . I didn't mind especially, though I do come from a shack where "The Table is open to all who love the Lord". (This delivered in a Scots accent with appropriately welcoming smile and sparkling eyes before and after the actual statement).
Anyway I looked up to make eye contact and here is this host before me! Surprised, I automatically clicked my tongue twice (which means "No" in the Middle East), realised I was not understood and tried to shake my head unobtrusively.
I got a cross on my forehead and a "God be with you, Galilit"
What I thought was so nice about that was that Fr T would have given me, I refused, I got a blessing and that was the Best Possible Outcome: Fr T. offering despite what he had said 17 days before, me Doing the Right Thing by refusing and him
blessing me which was what we both wanted in the first place. Unforgettable moment!
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I think most lay C of E people would think any kind of 'minister' was a 'vicar'. i am sure the commonest term for those authorized to distribute communion is 'chalice bearer' even though they are equally authorized to give out the host. I can remember hearing (when for some reason the latter happened in our church) some one say it was the first time they had 'received communion' from a lay person - even though the chalice bearer is always lay.
Weras in my neck of the woods cahlice bearer is completely unknown, chalice assistant is used sometimes.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
a paragraph form the service our diocese sends us to use for the
'Commissioning of Lay Persons to assist in the Administration of Holy Communion
N, have been chosen to serve this Church by ministering the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, (and by taking the Holy Communion to the sick). This is an important duty, to be undertaken in prayer and humility, and with a deep desire to serve the Lord.
N, are you willing to be entrusted with this ministry?'
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I think most lay C of E people would think any kind of 'minister' was a 'vicar'. i am sure the commonest term for those authorized to distribute communion is 'chalice bearer' even though they are equally authorized to give out the host. I can remember hearing (when for some reason the latter happened in our church) some one say it was the first time they had 'received communion' from a lay person - even though the chalice bearer is always lay.
Weras in my neck of the woods cahlice bearer is completely unknown, chalice assistant is used sometimes.
"Chalice bearer" and "chalice assistant" are both equally wrong, because a person is authorised to administer the sacrament, in either kind. In the case of the communion of the sick it usually includes the Host, as in church (especially with large congregations) it may well do. 'Eucharistic minister' is not (except maybe in some dioceses) the official title in the C of E, but it is accurate. There is no other commonly used phrase which is suitably concise.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
So, to return to the original question, what does a lay eucharistic minister administering the host do when non-communicants present themselves for a blessing?
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
I think most lay C of E people would think any kind of 'minister' was a 'vicar'. i am sure the commonest term for those authorized to distribute communion is 'chalice bearer' even though they are equally authorized to give out the host. I can remember hearing (when for some reason the latter happened in our church) some one say it was the first time they had 'received communion' from a lay person - even though the chalice bearer is always lay.
Weras in my neck of the woods cahlice bearer is completely unknown, chalice assistant is used sometimes.
"Chalice bearer" and "chalice assistant" are both equally wrong, because a person is authorised to administer the sacrament, in either kind. In the case of the communion of the sick it usually includes the Host, as in church (especially with large congregations) it may well do. 'Eucharistic minister' is not (except maybe in some dioceses) the official title in the C of E, but it is accurate. There is no other commonly used phrase which is suitably concise.
Probably the bearer and assistant titles, are used for people who administer the chalice, as the word administrator sounds even more wrong...
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
