|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dipping - what's the big deal?
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
The bishop sent out a reminder recently to the whole diocese that the practice of "dipping" (intinction) was frowned upon. Communicants should sip from the chalice or receive only in one kind.
Now I understand the theory behind this. As far as I know (ie - I am ready to proved a dunce yet again), the risks of being infected from the chalice are minimal. Dipping raises that risk - but only marginally.
My issue here is the response that I have had from some members of the congregation. Whilst some erstwhile dippers have happily taken the chalice, a few have reacted far more strongly than I had ever anticipated, even to the point of saying that they won't receive at all if they can't dip.
I'm afraid that I just don't understand it. Is dipping really that big an issue?
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that it wasn't that long ago that "official advice" suggested that if people didn't want to sip from the chalice (for fear of infection), they should dip instead.
And how would others deal with this? One suggestion (rather unAnglican) is that we could provide "wee cups" for the few who really don't want to sip from the chalice.
The line I am taking at the moment is pretty straightforward - here the bishop's clear instructions in this matter. If you don't like it, you can talk to me but ultimately take it up with the bishop.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
In my church a couple winters ago during a flu epidemic the rector announced from the pulpit that dipping was preferred. I would say that it is now about 75% dippers. What the Altar Guild has noticed is that this is a significant savings in wine.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There was an article from the Diocese of Toronto (Anglican) some years back, which I didn't locate on their website just now abut this; I think this one may be a relocation of that one.
quote:
it would seem that communion in only one kind (the bread) is the best option for those fearful of the cup?both from the standpoint of preventing the spread of infection, and from the theological perspective. Nor should there be any discouragement directed to those who choose to do so.
quote:
There is, however, real concern that many of the modes of intinction used in parishes do not diminish the threat of infection, and some may actually increase it. Hands, children’s and adult’s, are at least as likely to be a source of infection (often more so) as lips. Retention of the wafer in the hand of the recipient then intincting it means that the wafer, now contaminated by the hand of the recipient, is placed in the wine?thus spreading the infection to it. The use of an intinction chalice would make no difference in this instance.
My parish until they closed it (sigh), had a small separate intinction chalice, where those who insisted on dipping could receive.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Three questions:-
1. Has the bishop frowned upon it or forbidden it? There's a difference?
2. Has he actually ordered you to refuse communion to those who don't follow his instructions?
3. Is his reason theological or medical?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I remember oh so well the fuss some years ago when a dipper left behind her false fingernail. It wasn't noticed until the priest was doing the ablutions. He didn't handle the situation well, but that's another story.
Experientially, I understand, there is no evidence of infection spread from a common cup, so long as people use common sense and take only the bread if they are infectious (in which case they should probably be at home in bed, or receiving at a home communion when they're the only communicant after the priest). If there's an increased risk because people -- effectively -- are washing their findernails and finger tips in the cup when they dip, then please, please ban dipping. There's no theological reason, but an eminently practical one. WHen dipping was banned here, it was the medical evidence that was cited.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. Has the bishop frowned upon it or forbidden it? There's a difference?
Wellll.... When he says it is not acceptable, I guess that's pretty much forbidding it, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
2. Has he actually ordered you to refuse communion to those who don't follow his instructions?
No. The instructions are clear about the alternatives. But at the end of the day, if someone doesn't want to take those alternatives, they are left with not receiving.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
3. Is his reason theological or medical?
100% Medical.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The bishop sent out a reminder recently to the whole diocese that the practice of "dipping" (intinction) was frowned upon. Communicants should sip from the chalice or receive only in one kind.
It works rather better if the priest or other minister intincts the host and places it on the tongue of the communicant. This is standard practice for those wishing to receive by intinction at our TEC shack, and I gather is mandated for intinction in the RCC.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It works rather better if the priest or other minister intincts the host and places it on the tongue of the communicant. This is standard practice for those wishing to receive by intinction at our TEC shack, and I gather is mandated for intinction in the RCC.
This only works if the communicant knows how to receive the host. I once served as a Eucharistic Minister at a funeral with very few Episcopalians. The first person to receive knew what to do and held the host out to me in his/her hand, and I intincted and put it in his/her mouth. The rest of the group watched and did likewise but had obviously never received in this manner before. Many of them wound up practically licking my fingers. And this was during flu season. I was able to wash my hands thoroughly immediately after Communion, but the whole thing was rather disturbing.
Then there's the infamous story of Ronald and Nancy Reagan receiving Communion in an Episcopal church...
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Now I understand the theory behind this. As far as I know (ie - I am ready to proved a dunce yet again), the risks of being infected from the chalice are minimal. Dipping raises that risk - but only marginally.
No you're not a dunce - just wrong. Ask any infection control nurse: there's marginal value in dipping but the risk of being infected from the chalice is extremely high. Many nurses (Mrs and the Misses M included) will neither use the chalice nor dip for this very reason.
The very fact that, in recent flu scares, intinction has been promoted, suggests that the hierarchy is aware of the infection risks.
Solution -- fill the chalice, bless it then decant into small glasses.
[ 22. October 2014, 07:12: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The very fact that, in recent flu scares, intinction has been promoted, suggests that the hierarchy is aware of the infection risks.
Not around here it wasn't. During the Swine Flu panic a few years ago, the chalice was withdrawn completely, much to the upset and annoyance of many
quote:
Solution -- fill the chalice, bless it then decant into small glasses.
Too complicated and time consuming as well as the risk of some of it being spilled. For those of us who believe in the Real Presence in the sacrament, that is a very serious issue.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I recently presided at a church when the vicar was on holiday, and almost all of the congregation intincted the host. It's not something that I have a problem with in principle, but I noticed as I administered the chalice that most of those who "dipped" did so to the extent that they dipped their fingers as well as the Host.
I frankly admit to the somewhat unpresidential thought, partway through Communion, of "Oy! I've got to drink the leftovers after you lot have had your hands in there!"
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
For those who say the risk of infection from the shared chalice is 'high'- how high? What sort of level of risk, and risk of what, are we talking about? And I don't want to hear 'well, you could get....' or 'I knew someone who got....'- I'd like to see some figures, please, and to know what they are based upon. And does it make any difference that (in the CofE at least) we are mostly talking about alcohol, from a silver chalice, or not?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
I believe that in the '80s the medical advice was that indiction was safer. So a lot of people indicting are doing so because of a belief that it reduces the risk of infection which is well-founded, based on good medical research but out of date. (In fact, I find indiction is most common among churches that would have been particularly sensitive to the needs of people with AIDS in the '80s)
A lot of people also have an 'ickiness' issue with a shared cup and hence prefer indiction. These people aren't going to be swayed by the latest medical research as it's not related to their concerns but it's ineffective to assume these concerns don't exist (even if they aren't rationally founded). Of course, some people are sticking with the old medical advice as they find the new medical advice icky.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The Diocese of Toronto has banned intinction from 2009 and maintains this. The decision outlines this, and was based on a 2003 report. Appendix A of this gives the medical basis, although not a lot of detailled statistical stuff.
One of the problems with fingers in the chalice has to do with the unfortunate reality that not everyone (even Anglicans!) washes their hands after using the toilet. I must note that, in my acolyting years, I found the clergy very assiduous in washing their hands just before vesting, although I only observed two who used the handwashing prayer (the one who used the Latin was not an anglo-papalist, but a surplice & scarf 1930s ordinand with a Trinity College Toronto classics degree).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I certainly don't like receiving the chalice after a certain elderly gentleman at church who noticeably dribbles into the cup. I'm sure he isn't the only culprit. maybe during times of epidemics we should change to individual cups in the Anglican church.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe ... we should change to individual cups in the Anglican church.
We'll get you doing Correct Liturgy yet!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In addition to not allowing intinction with the "drinking cup" and having a separate mini-chalice for those who insist on dipping, during one of the flu scares (or perhaps it was SARS), we were instructed as lay assistants to use alcohol hand gel cleaner prior to handling any of the elements for distribution, and it is also available for communicants before they approach the altar. Having been itinerant in the diocese as we try to locate a church home, I see that all of the churches have the alcohol hand gel, with priests using it after the Peace.
Is there an objection to taking the hygiene steps and not allowing intincting?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The very fact that, in recent flu scares, intinction has been promoted, suggests that the hierarchy is aware of the infection risks.
Not around here it wasn't. During the Swine Flu panic a few years ago, the chalice was withdrawn completely, much to the upset and annoyance of many
quote:
Solution -- fill the chalice, bless it then decant into small glasses.
Too complicated and time consuming as well as the risk of some of it being spilled. For those of us who believe in the Real Presence in the sacrament, that is a very serious issue.
I take your point on both counts. However, in my old locality during the swine flu scare, the local CofE (highish church) borrowed some of our little cups and decanted after blessing. It can be done and was done.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I too see lots of fingers going into the chalice in one of the churches I preach at - mercifully, the servers do the ablutions.
I once watched a TV programme where they analysis bowls of peanuts and other nibbles from pub tables they contained traces of urine and faeces.
I believe that they found traces of urine from 21 different people
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Now I understand the theory behind this. As far as I know (ie - I am ready to proved a dunce yet again), the risks of being infected from the chalice are minimal. Dipping raises that risk - but only marginally.
No you're not a dunce - just wrong. Ask any infection control nurse: there's marginal value in dipping but the risk of being infected from the chalice is extremely high. Many nurses (Mrs and the Misses M included) will neither use the chalice nor dip for this very reason.
The very fact that, in recent flu scares, intinction has been promoted, suggests that the hierarchy is aware of the infection risks.
Solution -- fill the chalice, bless it then decant into small glasses.
You see - here's the problem. During the Swine Flu scare four years ago, the C of E issued a statement that included this:
quote:
Studies have suggested that in the context of pandemic flu the practice of intinction [dipping the bread in the wine] may involve a greater risk than the common cup.
In the diocese I was in at the time, the bishop issued a letter to all clergy which contained the following:
quote:
Please note that the practices of intinction and giving communion directly onto the tongue are not to be encouraged. These customs may increase the possibility of spreading the virus.
Another statement that I have seen a number of times is
quote:
No episode of disease attributable to the common cup has ever been reported
So just what IS the science in all of this?
(In passing, it is interesting to note that the letter sent out by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York at the time of the Swine Flu scare is now unavailable on the C of E website, and also unavailable on both websites for the archbishops.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
For those who say the risk of infection from the shared chalice is 'high'- how high? What sort of level of risk, and risk of what, are we talking about? And I don't want to hear 'well, you could get....' or 'I knew someone who got....'- I'd like to see some figures, please, and to know what they are based upon. And does it make any difference that (in the CofE at least) we are mostly talking about alcohol, from a silver chalice, or not?
I don't think anyone's done a scientific survey per se but as regards a "high" risk - it's a higher risk to share something that may have bacteria or something else in it as opposed to having your own (sterilised) portion of the same.
Silver and alcohol may have some effect - but again there's no medical evidence that I'm aware of. Effective Infection control in hospital includes alcohol gel (at a concentration way above communion wine), plus anti bac soap and water allied to a barrier (gloves). Since these aren't present in a standard communion, the infection risk is consequently greater (always assuming there's someone around with an infection).
The point about "yuckiness" is well founded: some will associate their feeling of revulsion at sharing someone else's drink with an exposure to infection. For others it's just well yucky - we choose with great care those few people with whom we are prepared to (potentially) exchange bodily fluids.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe ... we should change to individual cups in the Anglican church.
We'll get you doing Correct Liturgy yet!
I find it interesting that whenever this gets suggested, the Anglican Church (especially the C of E) tends to get shirty and points out forcefully that such a practice is "unlawful".
From all I have seen from bishops over the years, Anglicans don't have the option of individual cups. But the reasoning behind such a prohibition is - shall we say - a trifle vague.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
I can't imagine why it would be a problem to pour unconsecrated wine into wee cuppies, then consecrate the lot, then minister them to the faithful.
OK, there would be a few leftover drops of Precious Blood in each wee cuppie after consumption, but I should think they could be rinsed off in the sacrarium.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
There is more of a health hazard from intincting if you use normal bread rather than wafers. The wafers we use are about 2 cm in diameter and this gives plenty of space for holding one side and dipping the other.
We have varying numbers intincting, which makes life difficult for those preparing the chalice. If few intinct, more wine is consumed, and vice versa. How much do you pour out?
At least 1 young fellow, about 13 or 14, intincts as a way of taking both elements but reducing the amount of alcohol consumed to an absolute minimum.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
For those who say the risk of infection from the shared chalice is 'high'- how high? What sort of level of risk, and risk of what, are we talking about? And I don't want to hear 'well, you could get....' or 'I knew someone who got....'- I'd like to see some figures, please, and to know what they are based upon. And does it make any difference that (in the CofE at least) we are mostly talking about alcohol, from a silver chalice, or not?
I don't think anyone's done a scientific survey per se but as regards a "high" risk - it's a higher risk to share something that may have bacteria or something else in it as opposed to having your own (sterilised) portion of the same.
Silver and alcohol may have some effect - but again there's no medical evidence that I'm aware of. Effective Infection control in hospital includes alcohol gel (at a concentration way above communion wine), plus anti bac soap and water allied to a barrier (gloves). Since these aren't present in a standard communion, the infection risk is consequently greater (always assuming there's someone around with an infection). ..
Right. So saying, as you did upthread, that infection risk from a shared chalice is 'extremely high' is not actually something you have any evidence for, apart from some general stuff on the principles of infection control, from the context of a hospital - a context in which you would expect more people to be carriers of infection and/or to have a diminished resistance to infection than you might in a normal congregation?
[ 22. October 2014, 21:28: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roselyn
Shipmate
# 17859
|
Posted
There are a lot of very old priests around.
Posts: 98 | From: gold coast gld australia | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
The Medicine of Immortality, the Holy Mysteries, the most sacred Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ is not going to be a vector of disease.
But, we should use human prudence anyway.
Use hosts. Use a silver chalice with a gold plated interior, if your lot can afford it. Use real wine.
Wipe the chalice with a different part of the purificator after each person receives. Only the administrator of the cup should intinct the host.
No slurping; in fact, any sipping or drinking at all isn't necessary. All that is required is that the surface of the wine brush the communicant's lips.
Oh. Did I forget to say, it is The Medicine of Immortality, so the bishop should stop obsessing about disease and get on with saving souls.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
All the wine in the chalices, alas, has to go down the earth sink in the sacristy. The wine in the flagons, which was consecrated but not yet poured into the chalices, gets decanted back into the wine bottles and saved for next time around. In spite of this thriftiness our church (800+ communicants) drinks like fish. The quantity of wine we suck down would horrify you. This is only slightly slowed by intinction. It is surely the largest cost of running the church after salaries/insurance/building/utilities.
And! Once in a spirit of thriftiness I tried to swap in a cheaper vintage, the Three-buck Chuck they sell at Trader Joe. The congregation revolted. In spite of our cries that if you want an oenological experience you shouldn't be in church, we had to shift back to the spendy port communion wine.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The wine in the flagons, which was consecrated but not yet poured into the chalices, gets decanted back into the wine bottles and saved for next time around.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm going to be sorry, in fact I'm sorry already, but....
Just how much wine do your 800 communicants get through on a Sunday?
I can understand expensive compared to (say) letterhead or something, but salaries and utilities? I'd expect copying/printing costs and coffee-and-doughnuts would be far worse than wine. Unless you've pulled off a miracle and don't have to do either of those.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I am coming round more and more to the belief that we should have individual cups for communion poured from the large consecrated chalice. After all, we don't drink out of each other's cups and glasses anywhere except in church (unless we are real slobs!).
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
All the wine in the chalices, alas, has to go down the earth sink in the sacristy. The wine in the flagons, which was consecrated but not yet poured into the chalices, gets decanted back into the wine bottles and saved for next time around.
Into an earth sink? Not here - unless there's to be some reserved (unlikely from wine in the chalices) it gets consumed by the Presider, and others in the chancel. Then during the last hymn, the ablutions are carried out with the chalices and patens rinsed with clean water which is then consumed by a server. It there is any left in a flagon/carafe, that is reserved for later use.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Coeliacs consign imtincters to warm regions. They leave crumbs, and your friendly neighborhood coeliac in agony.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This only works if the communicant knows how to receive the host. [..] The first person to receive knew what to do and held the host out to me in his/her hand, and I intincted and put it in his/her mouth.
We have something like this. Priest brings around cup-and-saucer affair with wine in cup and hosts on saucer. For intinctors, the priest intincts a host and places it on the communicant's tongue - it never goes near his potentially grubby mitts. Those not wishing to intinct receive in the hand, and wait for the chalice to come around.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I am coming round more and more to the belief that we should have individual cups for communion poured from the large consecrated chalice. After all, we don't drink out of each other's cups and glasses anywhere except in church (unless we are real slobs!).
So we can drink to our isolation from and distrust of each other.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Quite. Indeed, although wafers are my tradition, I'd FWIW prefer in principle a common loaf, for the same reason- or at least big wafers, broken up.
[ 23. October 2014, 09:23: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I am coming round more and more to the belief that we should have individual cups for communion poured from the large consecrated chalice. After all, we don't drink out of each other's cups and glasses anywhere except in church (unless we are real slobs!).
Bah! Horrible, horrible practice.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
bib: After all, we don't drink out of each other's cups and glasses anywhere except in church (unless we are real slobs!).
Speak for yourself. There are a number of drinks where you're supposed to share the cup, for example Argentinian / Brazilian maté.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
No slurping; in fact, any sipping or drinking at all isn't necessary. All that is required is that the surface of the wine brush the communicant's lips.
'All that is required' for a Christmas dinner is a slice of bread to stave off hunger. But what a miserable world that would be. Surely the way we celebrate the Eucharist should be a response to God's generosity. Of course we are receiving sacramental tokens* and not an actual banquet, but the signs should be more than just the legalistic minimum. Surely?
In practice this shouldn't mean 'slurping', but taking enough of a sip to savour the goodness of the wine. Hence it must be preferable for the communicant to take hold of the chalice.
(*I believe that the elements are in fact the Body and Blood of Christ, not 'just' tokens. But what is 'sufficient' in one sense can seem like a grudging way of experiencing a foretaste of the heavenly banquet.)
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
bib: After all, we don't drink out of each other's cups and glasses anywhere except in church (unless we are real slobs!).
Speak for yourself. There are a number of drinks where you're supposed to share the cup, for example Argentinian / Brazilian maté.
At the annual Gambit Memorial Shipmeet we pass around a pint of Fullers ESB and all take a swig
--------------------
"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
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
The tradition of a loving cup is an old one.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I am coming round more and more to the belief that we should have individual cups for communion poured from the large consecrated chalice. After all, we don't drink out of each other's cups and glasses anywhere except in church (unless we are real slobs!).
So we can drink to our isolation from and distrust of each other.
Actually, it's so that everyone can drink together. You take a small cup, take the bread and hold it. Then the whole congregation can take communion at the same time. Some, myself included, find that far more symbolically unifying than one cup one after another. c.f. the difference between a toast at a wedding and a communal fountain.
Logistically, it also helps with larger congregations. Last year I visited an Anglican church where they insisted on having one cup when a quick headcount indicated there were over 300 people present. The upside of this is that it gave one an added appreciation of the word 'eternity'.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, if you have lots of communicants, you have more than one communion station, don't you? And the period when the Sacrament is being administered to other people is a very good time for prayer and adoration.
[ 23. October 2014, 12:27: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This only works if the communicant knows how to receive the host. [..] The first person to receive knew what to do and held the host out to me in his/her hand, and I intincted and put it in his/her mouth.
We have something like this. Priest brings around cup-and-saucer affair with wine in cup and hosts on saucer. For intinctors, the priest intincts a host and places it on the communicant's tongue - it never goes near his potentially grubby mitts. Those not wishing to intinct receive in the hand, and wait for the chalice to come around.
Doesn't keep the inexperienced from slobbering on your fingers.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Now you're asking a hard question, because my vision isn't good enough for me to make out how many ml each of our wine bottles holds, and I refuse to bring my magnifying glass to Altar Guild. We go through 4 or 5 of them per Sunday. They are not the regulation-sized wine bottles you buy wine in at the store, which are (as I recall) 750 ml. So each bottle must be, what, 1.5 liters? Does that sound like a standard big wine bottle?
This is just for your common or garden Sunday. Easter we have several massive services, packed to the rafters. And for Christmas there are at least six or eight services, with overflow in the basement. All fully Eucharistic. The frantic washing and resetting in back those days is like a restaurant on Saturday night.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
All the wine in the chalices, alas, has to go down the earth sink in the sacristy. The wine in the flagons, which was consecrated but not yet poured into the chalices, gets decanted back into the wine bottles and saved for next time around.
That makes the 'next time around' invalid unless some UN consecrated wine is consecrated it.
The real presence is for keeps.
When you consecrate bread, you must consecrate wine too of there has been no mass.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
Christ our God, that is a lot of wine! I mean seriously, regardless of whether it is a huge expense or not (see above), that is a huge amount of alcohol.
It sounds to me like your pastor might need to issue a PSA about proper communion etiquette, and the altar guild needs to switch to wine of the box or jug variety. If these people want fine wine, they can buy it themselves; the Sacred Blood of our Lord, shed for the salvation of the world, is a rare enough vintage as it is.
[ 23. October 2014, 16:19: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
