Ship of Fools: Dipping - what's the big deal?

Thread: Dipping - what's the big deal? 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=028705

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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?

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

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

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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 ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

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.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

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!"

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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?

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

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.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

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).

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe ... we should change to individual cups in the Anglican church.

We'll get you doing Correct Liturgy yet!

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

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?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.)

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

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.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

Then there's the infamous story of Ronald and Nancy Reagan receiving Communion in an Episcopal church...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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 ]

Posted by Roselyn (# 17859) on :

There are a lot of very old priests around.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

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.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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. [Eek!]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

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!).

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Coeliacs consign imtincters to warm regions. They leave crumbs, and your friendly neighborhood coeliac in agony.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roselyn:
There are a lot of very old priests around.

FWIW

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

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.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

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.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.)

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

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

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

The tradition of a loving cup is an old one.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

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'.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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 ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

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 ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, "buying it themselves" is precisely how two churches known to me have handled the issue. The folks who could actually tell good from bad got together with the pastor, and settled on a vintage that was neither horrible nor so fancy it would be a form of showing off--oh, and one sweet enough that the wine neophytes (new confirmands etc) wouldn't have an automatic "ugh" reaction.

They then quietly donated bottles of that to the church as one of their particular acts of service.

The rest of us benefited from having something drinkable, the church budget was helped, and the oenophiles got to use their skill in the service of the Lord. All good.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

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.

Occupational hazard. We deal.

I discourage self-intinction, but I'm not about to wrestle with someone who's determined to dip for himself. This is generally only an issue with visitors; if someone who attended regularly wanted to do it, I'd have a word with him after the service.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Well, we've tried it once, with no success. (My advice was ignored -- gradualism. We should have adulterated the sweet wine with Two Buck Chuck v-e-r-y slowly, over the period of a year shifting from the expensive to the cheap. Nobody would notice! But nooo, somebody more impatient decided to go from 100% good stuff to 100% cheap in one Sunday and naturally people could taste the difference...)

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...Christmas there are at least six or eight services, with overflow in the basement. All fully Eucharistic...

Can a service be partially Eucharistic?
[Confused]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

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.)

I think we can comfortably say symbol and still understand the puissant reality of the change.

I'm pretty much with you, Angloid, but then we are engaging in a miserable discussion in which a bishop, a bishop! gets both his science and his theology wrong. So, I mention what is required, not as a way to advocate what ought to be done.

As far as the science, done properly, the common cup will not be a vector for disease. Theologically and in reality, the Medicine of Immortality can only be a cause of healing.

Posted by crunt (# 1321) on :

S.o.F. discussion on communion and the like always brings up the gulping phenomenon at the communion rail. As an obedient young confirmand, I was told only to 'wet my lips'. Of course, the young uns all joked about gulping more than their fair share, but it never occurred to me that people did - but reading threads on the Ship confirms that actually, yes, they do.

As far as intinction goes, it was never in my tradition, but when I lived in Korea it was the norm at the Anglican churches I visited. Likewise, my drilling at confirmation class kicked in again and as soon as the host was placed in my hand I consumed it, only to move to the chalice with nothing to intinct. During my years in Korea, I only received in one kind; not because I find intinction icky, but because I forgot to save my host for the next station.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
S.o.F. discussion on communion and the like always brings up the gulping phenomenon at the communion rail. As an obedient young confirmand, I was told only to 'wet my lips'. Of course, the young uns all joked about gulping more than their fair share, but it never occurred to me that people did - but reading threads on the Ship confirms that actually, yes, they do.

Whereas I teach those who receive communion to take a decent swig - wetting lips would be a sign of the meanness of the reign of God, not the wondrous richness thereof.

And yes, I do use large wafers that provide around 20-30 munches.

While I can see the oneness implicit in the simultaneous sip advocated by Sipech, and know the syndrome well from many drunken orgies celebrated with the cry "Skål" the common cup idiom is about the receptacle, not the consumption. We drink of the cup that is blessed because the cup is the receptacle of the one Christ, not the many little plastic individualistic Christs.

And yeah , I know: we had a big gig at my pad last week and had to use eight chalices. But the chalice was each a unifier, rather than an individualiser. We touched, imbibed, even backwashed the same Christ, and all the holiness of that Christ was reverently consumed at the completion of the rite. No Jesus-blood in the dishwasher.

Thirty years of reverently consuming backwash and I'm still okay.

Relatively.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

We use a large wafer, which breaks into 2 dozen pieces, and as many smaller wafers as will be needed for the expected numbers. And then some gluten free ones for those who need them.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Can a service be partially Eucharistic?

To a conservative Anglican observing a Pentecostal communion, it can seem that way.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

For whatever it is worth (little, I am certain), I was taught that one ought to to consume enough wine that at least a few drops go down your throat. Not just wetting one's lips, but certainly not swilling like a law student drinking on someone else's dime (not that I know anything about that, either...).

Try as I might, I can't see that how much wine one receives has anything to do with the communion itself. The point is not how much one receives, but that it exists for us to receive at all.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Pigwidgeon

quote:
Can a service be partially Eucharistic?

Have you never observed Good Friday?

The liturgy runs as follows:

Morning Prayer (Matins) with The Litany
Ante Communion (in high churches with communion from the reserved sacrament, lower churches it stopped before the prayer of consecration)
Evening Prayer (Evensong)

Sometimes things were added between Ante Communion and Evensong - for example singing a setting of The Reproaches, or the Lamentation.

In some places the whole thing was run together, in other Evensong took place later and was followed by Tenebrae.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Pigwidgeon
quote:
Can a service be partially Eucharistic?
Have you never observed Good Friday?

The liturgy runs as follows:

Morning Prayer (Matins) with The Litany
Ante Communion (in high churches with communion from the reserved sacrament, lower churches it stopped before the prayer of consecration)
Evening Prayer (Evensong)

Sometimes things were added between Ante Communion and Evensong - for example singing a setting of The Reproaches, or the Lamentation.

In some places the whole thing was run together, in other Evensong took place later and was followed by Tenebrae.

Brenda Clough was talking about Christmas.

(I'm quite familiar with Good Friday liturgies.)

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Pigwidgeon
quote:
Can a service be partially Eucharistic?
Have you never observed Good Friday?

The liturgy runs as follows:

Morning Prayer (Matins) with The Litany
Ante Communion (in high churches with communion from the reserved sacrament, lower churches it stopped before the prayer of consecration)
Evening Prayer (Evensong)

Sometimes things were added between Ante Communion and Evensong - for example singing a setting of The Reproaches, or the Lamentation.

In some places the whole thing was run together, in other Evensong took place later and was followed by Tenebrae.

[tangent] No, that's one liturgy used on Good Friday. I know and have used in Anglican churches at least two other utterly different liturgies on Good Friday -- different from the one you describe and also from each other.

One is the series of meditations on the Seven last words from the cross, with hymns and so on.

The other I have in mind is the liturgy prescribed (but not required) in the BAS in the ACC, which treads no where near Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer, though it may involved communion either from the reserved sacrament or from elements consecrated as part of the service. If anything, it resembles the modern RC rites -- and the modern rites in most Anglican churches including, I believe, the CofE.

[/tangent]

John

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Pigwidgeon
quote:
Can a service be partially Eucharistic?
Have you never observed Good Friday?

The liturgy runs as follows:

Morning Prayer (Matins) with The Litany
Ante Communion (in high churches with communion from the reserved sacrament, lower churches it stopped before the prayer of consecration)
Evening Prayer (Evensong)

Sometimes things were added between Ante Communion and Evensong - for example singing a setting of The Reproaches, or the Lamentation.

In some places the whole thing was run together, in other Evensong took place later and was followed by Tenebrae.
[tangent] No, that's one liturgy used on Good Friday. I know and have used in Anglican churches at least two other utterly different liturgies on Good Friday -- different from the one you describe and also from each other.

One is the series of meditations on the Seven last words from the cross, with hymns and so on.

The other I have in mind is the liturgy prescribed (but not required) in the BAS in the ACC, which treads no where near Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer, though it may involved communion either from the reserved sacrament or from elements consecrated as part of the service. If anything, it resembles the modern RC rites -- and the modern rites in most Anglican churches including, I believe, the CofE.

[/tangent]

John

From all appearances, what the historic BCP had in mind for Good Friday was the same service of Holy Communion that would be celebrated on a Sunday, with propers appropriate to the day. The 1928 US book has no rubric to indicate that only the Ante-Communion is appropriate for Good Friday.

Our own observation consists of the Altar Service (i.e. Liturgy of the Word) followed by the Solemn Collects, the Veneration of the Cross, and Communion from the reserved Sacrament. Fairly similar, at least in form, to the RC rite.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
No, that's one liturgy used on Good Friday. I know and have used in Anglican churches at least two other utterly different liturgies on Good Friday -- different from the one you describe and also from each other.

One is the series of meditations on the Seven last words from the cross, with hymns and so on.

No, that is not a 'liturgy' - it's a meditation.
Hence some churches distance themselves by advertising as 'Liturgical Three Hours' which INCLUDES the Liturgy and, possibly, the offices.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

Getting back to intiction, Holy Trinity Brompton and its nearby sites (with the exception of the sung Eucharist at St Augustine's) insist that only intinction can be used. It felt very odd to not drink from the chalice and I refused to intinct and just consumed the host. The basis for this ridiculous precedent appears to be hygine, and they seem surprised when challenged by myself and others after the service about this practice.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Our Lord said 'drink this', not 'dunk this'. If you are going to be legalistic, to receive in one kind only is perfectly valid. It doesn't become any more valid with this sort of carry-on. There is more to the sacrament than 'validity', and it is best expressed by drinking as well as eating.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Last swine flu epidemic the advice was definitely to ban both intinction and a shared chalice on medical advice. Communion to be received by wafers or bread alone. Here the wafers were intincted by dropper, before the service.

Research on infection through shared cup (1988)

quote:
In conclusion, there is experimental evidence suggesting that sharing a communion cup contaminates the wine and cup. However, there has never been a documented case of illness caused by sharing a chalice reported in the literature. Research on religious rituals including the shared cup

The references to intinction being less hygienic all refer back to the David Gould article. My google-fu only came up with this research which didn't come to the same conclusion.

(Apologies for the owly links to a couple of articles - they had parentheses)

And the 2010 conversation about intinction on the Ship

Posted by Richard M (# 16447) on :

At my ordination, earlier this year, I was administering one of the chalices at the Eucharist. It was fairly clear that many of the congregation had no real idea about how to receive communion either by dipping or any other method, and I doubted whether some of them had ever been confirmed, but the senior clergyman administering the wafers didn't seem to mind.

Anyway, one couple came up. He received the host, paused, and then dipped it into the chalice that I held up for him. The pause was just enough time for her to take her wafer and place it on her tongue. She then saw what he had done and very swiftly took the wafer back out of her mouth and dipped it into the chalice before I could do anything. I was aghast, and didn't quite know what to do. With hindsight I suppose I should have finished the chalice off and returned to the altar for a refill, but it was a big occasion and I just sort of carried on. I spent a few sleepless nights wondering if some sort of pandemic could be traced back to the Cathedral.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

So, why dip, anyway? Does the dipper think it's more hygenic? Would they stop dipping if they knew it isn't? Is it a theological stance of some sort? Some kind of 'receiving in two kinds is the only way to go' cult?

I admit that I have dipped myself (I mean the wafer, not me!) when I've been spluttering and coughing, and wanting to reassure folks they're not going to be poisoned! But I can't think of any other reason to do this.

One place I worked, it used to be a mystery to me why all the teens and young people of a certain age in one area dipped their wafer in the chalice. Then I found out that the reason was the school they went to; a local CofE secondary where staff had taught the kids, in preparation for their confirmation and first communion, to dip the bread so they could whizz through school communion services a lot quicker, than it took when everyone sipped.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Richard M:
It was fairly clear that many of the congregation had no real idea about how to receive communion either by dipping or any other method,

Yeah, I've never officially given anyone first communion, but I'm sure I give out quite a few at most weddings and funerals. Not my ordination, though, as I did the seminarians, religious brothers and lectors section.

I once asked a second grader a few days before her first communion whether she was looking forward it. She told me she very much was, but it was going to be her second communion. Just smile and nod...

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

When I am setting the table I always make sure that our small intinction chalice is only part-way filled, to minimise the ability of the dippers to get their fingers into it.

I've been in a church where we were thorough with the use of sanitising hand gel, but not the current one. I wonder whether the interregnum is the time to introduce it...

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Last swine flu epidemic the advice was definitely to ban both intinction and a shared chalice on medical advice. Communion to be received by wafers or bread alone. Here the wafers were intincted by dropper, before the service.

Research on infection through shared cup (1988)

quote:
In conclusion, there is experimental evidence suggesting that sharing a communion cup contaminates the wine and cup. However, there has never been a documented case of illness caused by sharing a chalice reported in the literature. Research on religious rituals including the shared cup
The references to intinction being less hygienic all refer back to the David Gould article. My google-fu only came up with this research which didn't come to the same conclusion.

(Apologies for the owly links to a couple of articles - they had parentheses)

And the 2010 conversation about intinction on the Ship

Thanks for doing the research on this. I think this confirms my suspicion that opinion (on all sides) is based less upon actual evidence and fact and more upon tradition, rumour and hearsay!

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Communion to be received by wafers or bread alone. Here the wafers were intincted by dropper, before the service.

And, of course, never touched by human hand at any time. Yeah, sirree Bob.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Zappa, the whole thing made me giggle - saw the intinction by dropper done a few times.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Communion to be received by wafers or bread alone. Here the wafers were intincted by dropper, before the service.
And, of course, never touched by human hand at any time. Yeah, sirree Bob.

I'll expect to see Ecclesiastical Tweezers show up on Gadgets for God soon.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I admit that I have dipped myself (I mean the wafer, not me!) when I've been spluttering and coughing, and wanting to reassure folks they're not going to be poisoned! But I can't think of any other reason to do this.

Likewise. When I have been clearly coughing and spluttering throughout the service, I will dip the wafer (holding it at the edge to ensure my fingers do not touch the wine) to reassure other members of the congregation. After reading this thread, however, I will probably change my practice and just receive in one kind when I have a cold, much as I dislike that.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

What a depressing thread.

Are you aware of the damage that this present-day obsession with "hygiene" is causing? Read this.

Of course there may be short-term worries about specific novel vectors. They can be dealt with on a one-off basis. But the obsession with hygiene in inappropriate circumstances is hugely damaging. Our immune systems are, it appears, attuned to cope with continuing challenges. Remove that and problems start.

Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on :

We started intinction when an alcoholic was advised to adopt the practice, it quickly caught on and is now in general use. It also enables children to receive in both kinds in the same way as the adults. Having Orthodox leanings I like the idea of receiving both kinds together. Another communicant who is an alcoholic on antabuce passes the wafer over the chalice. Having survived well into "retirement" I can say I my health has not been affected by being the last to drink from the chalice. Health concerns are not the only reasons for intinction.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I don't intinct due to fear of germs but because I can't stand the wine used in my church (even one sip makes me gag, and feel ill for quite a while afterwards). I don't know what sort it is. I offered to receive in one kind only, but one of the churchwardens suggested I intinct instead, so only dip in the tiniest amount possible. My fingers therefore don't go anywhere near the wine and just touching the surface means such a minute amount doesn't cause me problems. Thus everyone is happy.

The only downside is that I could do with a large swig to lubricate my throat before singing the anthem, rather than wanting to cough on a dry wafer. Can't have it all ways.

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... The only downside is that I could do with a large swig to lubricate my throat before singing the anthem ...

Hip-flask of GIN in the choir-stalls? [Big Grin]

We go up to receive Communion after singing the anthem, so the size of swig is immaterial ... [Disappointed]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... I could do with a large swig to lubricate my throat before singing the anthem, rather than wanting to cough on a dry wafer.

One church I sang in puts wafers and individual cups on a side table for the singers, so they came partake after singing instead of immediately before singing. Much more confidence about hitting and staying on the right notes when not simultaneously choking down crumbs while trying to sing the "sung during everyone else's communion" song.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
... The only downside is that I could do with a large swig to lubricate my throat before singing the anthem ...
Hip-flask of GIN in the choir-stalls?

We go up to receive Communion after singing the anthem, so the size of swig is immaterial ...

It is said that the clergy of Brompton Oratory gargle with malt whiskey before services where they are to sing/intone.

Posted by Chap (# 4926) on :

I am against dipping for one reason - I have seen more than one person go knuckle deep while trying to intinct.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Here's your answer: wafer straws. Consecrate the straws, communicants drink the wine through them and then eat them! I think I should patent that.

Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Here's your answer: wafer straws. Consecrate the straws, communicants drink the wine through them and then eat them! I think I should patent that.

Sheer genius Albertus! You will make a fortune!

One of the problem for me with dippers is trying to figure out how much wine I need - since I have a Cathedral in a town with lots of tourists, you see all sorts of strange permutations of receiving communion. If they are mainly sippers, the chalice is dry; if mainly dippers, too much of the blood left, sometimes with strange dregs lurking just under the surface.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:

One of the problem for me with dippers is trying to figure out how much wine I need - since I have a Cathedral in a town with lots of tourists, you see all sorts of strange permutations of receiving communion. If they are mainly sippers, the chalice is dry; if mainly dippers, too much of the blood left, sometimes with strange dregs lurking just under the surface.

Also, if the chalice isn't full enough the dippers can't reach the wine very easily.

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

I had always thought that the silver of the chalice plus the alcohol in the wine reduced the risk of infection, but the Anglican Church of Canada says otherwise.

quote:
Some have trusted in the fact that the silver or gold in chalices has a weak antiseptic quality, however studies have shown that the effect is too minor to significantly reduce bacterial counts in the wine. Similarly, the concentration of alcohol in wine used at communion has an inadequate antiseptic effect.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A friend told me last night her church usually offers a choice - two stations, one dipping one sipping - but Christmas Eve all stations are dipping because in a crowded church it's much faster.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chap:
I am against dipping for one reason - I have seen more than one person go knuckle deep while trying to intinct.

me too

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Here's your answer: wafer straws. Consecrate the straws, communicants drink the wine through them and then eat them! I think I should patent that.
Sheer genius Albertus! You will make a fortune!

You can have the Australian franchise [Biased]

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Here's your answer: wafer straws. Consecrate the straws, communicants drink the wine through them and then eat them! I think I should patent that.
Sheer genius Albertus! You will make a fortune!

You can have the Australian franchise

Drinking straws - there may be more truth in this method of drinking from the chalice than we realise. Some years ago, I seem to remember reading about that means from a Roman Catholic source, but I will have to check this out again now.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

It's called a fistula, which is just the Latin word for tube (careful if you google it; it also has a medical meaning). If I recall correctly, the GIRM listed it as an option for receiving communion up until the revision that was issued with MR3.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Rats. Does that mean it's public domain? The beauty of my idea is that you don't have to worry about what happens if drops of the MPBOOLASJC get left on or in the tube.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
It's called a fistula, which is just the Latin word for tube (careful if you google it; it also has a medical meaning). If I recall correctly, the GIRM listed it as an option for receiving communion up until the revision that was issued with MR3.

A "tube" is permitted by GIRM as revised in 2003:

quote:
245. The Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon.

GIRM ¶245

It's referred to as a calamus (reed/straw) in Latin, rather than a fistula.

[ 21. November 2014, 09:52: Message edited by: Basilica ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

A common spoon or "bring Your own"?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
A common spoon or "bring Your own"?

In the eastern churches, it is a common spoon.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
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.

I'm just about 100% with this. The main thing I'd add is that even if you knew you were going to get sick from receiving the Blood of Christ, would that stop you? There's a Communion meditation, I think! What does Communion really mean if we turn away from it for fear of germs?

I've always been a slight germophobe, myself. The common cup cured me of it. Seriously! I was nervous the first few times going up to receive it, wondering if I'd even be able to receive from the common cup, but my fears melted away at the altar rail. Apart from Communion, I used to not even let my sister take a sip from a drink I was having, but now I'll share a beverage with, well, not anyone, but anyone I know.

All that being said, I think it's important not to give others qualms about receiving, so if I'm noticeably sick, I won't receive from the Cup.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
What does Communion really mean if we turn away from it for fear of germs?

I'm now picturing the Last Supper with the Apostles arguing about the Common Cup vs. intincting. It could explain some of the facial expressions and gestures in Leonardo's painting.
[Biased]

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

Basilica, I stand corrected. You learn something every day!

But...

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
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.

This I have to very much disagree with. It's almost a prosperity gospel in miniature. Carrying a Bible is enough in some places today to warrant a death sentence. If the Word of God can be a magnet for human evil, I don't see why the Precious Blood can't be a vector of natural evil.

Now, practically, I don't think the risks really are very great, especially if you take the quite sensible precautions you mention. But, participating in an embodied sacramental ritual must expose us to at least potential bodily risks. The solace is that we're not to fear the one (or the thing) that can harm the body and not the soul.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I am a fan of gulping, but this is purely personal.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Get thee behind me, Finbarr Saunders

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0