Ship of Fools: Distribution of Communion within the Congregation

Thread: Distribution of Communion within the Congregation 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=028759

Posted by BokBok (# 18340) on :

Hi all, this is the first time I have posted here so please forgive me if I have put this in the wrong place.

At my church, at one of our Sunday services (the one I am most involved with) we take Communion once a month. While the consecration is performed by one of the priests, we distribute via each other - i.e. the priest gives bread and wine to one person, who gives it to the next, who gives it to the next and so on around a circle.

For reasons that I cannot quite explain, this makes me deeply uncomfortable and I would much prefer it if we were to go up and receive from one of the priests/readers as we do in the other services.

My understanding is that distribution of the elements of Communion are to be done by clergy or licensed Eucharistic ministers rather than by, well, all of us. (We are middle-of-the-road C of E, incidentally) That said, our Vicar does not seem troubled, so I'm not sure why I am.

I suppose this is a wandering way of saying that I could use some advice on figuring out why the practise makes me uncomfortable - because it makes me dislike taking Communion at that service and I generally force myself to do so, and sadly, in the process, do not take the sacrament as seriously as I would wish.

Help would be appreciated (as would a 'you're asking in the wrong place' comment!)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BokBok:
While the consecration is performed by one of the priests, we distribute via each other - i.e. the priest gives bread and wine to one person, who gives it to the next, who gives it to the next and so on around a circle.
[..]
(We are middle-of-the-road C of E, incidentally)

From Canon B 12 of the Church of England:

quote:

3. No person shall distribute the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper to the people unless he shall have been ordained in accordance with the provisions of Canon C 1, or is otherwise authorized by Canon or unless he has been specially authorized to do so by the bishop acting under such regulations as the General Synod may make from time to time.

You are right to be concerned. Your priest is in breach of canon law.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You are right to be concerned. Your priest is in breach of canon law.

That being said, this law is to do with the good order of the church. The consecrated sacraments do not somehow stop being Jesus as they are passed from person to person - the communion is not invalid - but it is a question of dignity and seemliness.

Some of the posters on this board would tell you that, in their view of church, each person serving his neighbour is a far better expression of community than everyone queueing at the altar to receive from people in special clothes. I won't speak any more for them, but I'm sure a representative of this kind of opinion will be along to speak for himself.

Quite apart from the fact that this practice is, as far as I can tell, not permitted in the C of E (and C of E priests should have the honesty not to go around ignoring bits of canon law just because they don't like them), I agree with you that it lacks dignity. I went to one or two such services in my youth, and had uneasy feelings similar to those that you describe.

Oh, and let me welcome you aboard the Ship, BokBok, and hope you have a pleasant voyage with us. You have found the correct spot for your question, and I hope you find some of the varied responses that you're about to get useful [Smile]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

As the post above hints, what you are describing (or a variant of it) would be very common in (British) Nonconformist churches, especially smaller ones. In Baptist churches and in at least most URC ones, the elements are served to people in their seats, they do not "go up" the front to receive. Methodist practice that I have seen is more akin to the CofE.

Of course (a) we have a different view of the priesthood to many Anglicans and (b) we are not bound by Canon Law.

I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable, though.

[ 07. February 2015, 08:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

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

That circular distribution was how communion was distributed in St Giles Cathedral Edinburgh when I attended a service there last year. Several circles were required to accommodate all the congregation present.

I've experienced the same distribution method in small ecumenical chaplaincy meetings (maybe 6 of us), and at the start of church meetings (maybe 20) and not felt uncomfortable, but I agree with BokBok, I really don't feel comfortable with this method of distribution in an otherwise formal church service.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
C of E priests should have the honesty not to go around ignoring bits of canon law just because they don't like them

I thought that was a noble Anglican tradition? [Two face]

[ 07. February 2015, 11:21: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Welcome, BokBok! This is exactly the right place to ask your question.

I'm sure you've already found the Ten Commandments and the UBB Practice Thread, but there's the links if you haven't.

Again, welcome to the Ship. I hope you enjoy your time here. If you have any questions, PM me or one of the other hosts and we'll get it sorted.

Barefoot Friar
Eccles. Host

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I went to a CofE/URC Communion service the other week and the elements were passed around the seats. I was surprised at this, because when worshipping there on previous occasions I had to queue up. Mind you, that was before they'd entered into their Local Ecumenical Partnership (LEP), so perhaps the practice had been influenced by the URC presence.

What I don't like about it is that lots of different people finger the loaf of bread as it's passed around. The practice of ripping off a piece for your neighbour seems especially unhygienic (but I think the same about the use of the single chalice too).

However, as I'm not much of a sacramentalist it doesn't bother me that the minister isn't handing out every single piece of bread, or personally offering every sip of wine. If he or she has asked for God's blessing on the elements at the start that should be enough.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Hang on, Hang on, its strange to me therefore it is wrong is not a good precedent.

The URC tradition almost certainly comes from the habit of having everyone around the central table as can still be seen in some churches in Scotland. Indeed the putting out of white cloths along the pews to represent the table is still the practice in some URCs (well up to 1990s and yes I know that is Crown Court). I have equally known URCs move the communion table into the nave precisely to symbolise this gathering around the table.

There is no slight here, the symbolic reasoning is different and therefore the implications. the focus is far more on the heavenly banquet and meal before the passion than on the idea of the communion as Sacrifice. We are there as guests not a supplicants. Oddly enough the theological idea is caught in George Herbert's poem Love bade me welcome. Note the last line is "sit and eat".

Jengie

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Hang on, Hang on, its strange to me therefore it is wrong is not a good precedent.

I don't think anyone's said that. The only way it seems to have been said to be 'wrong' is in the legal sense that it appears to be prohibited by the Canon Law of the Church of England and the service in question took place in a Church of England church.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

Passing the elements is a very Protestant Innovation and neither Anglican nor Catholic.
Furthermore, are Anglicans and United Reformed in communion with each other ?
I do not think so.
So it is right to have united communion services if the two churches are not in communion with each other ?
The ministry of the United Reformed is very different from the Church of Canterbury.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:

Furthermore, are Anglicans and United Reformed in communion with each other ?

The URC is covered by canons B43 and B44, which permit various forms of joint worship and Local Ecumenical Partnerships.

The distribution of the elements from person to person, whilst not permitted by canon B12, is a matter of good order rather than essential doctrine, so my reading of B44 suggests that the Bishop has the authority to permit it in the context of an LEP. I'm no canon lawyer, though.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

If the URC minister is presiding then it is a Reformed Communion; if an CofE priest is presiding it is an Anglican Eucharist.

As both have open tables, this really does not affect the congregants. There are all sorts of rubrics that have to be followed so as not to scare the horses, but essentially that is how it works.

For instance from the URC perspective it is strongly recommended that any Anglican Eucharist held uses a Eucharistic prayer that contains the warrant (most do). URC would equally tend to use Great Thanksgiving prayers that have the epiclesis in them.

Jengie

[ 07. February 2015, 14:33: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If the URC minister is presiding then it is a Reformed Communion; if an CofE priest is presiding it is an Anglican Eucharist.

That's a good point. I had assumed from SvitlanaV2's post that this was a C of E priest presiding, in the context of the wider thread, but now I see she didn't actually say that.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In fact, the CofE vicar was preaching elsewhere that day, and the service was being led by the URC minister - although a Catholic deacon preached the sermon! (It was the week of the yearly pulpit exchange.)

I don't know if communion happens differently when the vicar is leading worship.

Posted by Polly Plummer (# 13354) on :

I've been at C of E Communion services where there weren't many people (early morning or midweek) and this sort of distribution took place, and found it very moving. It hadn't occurred to me that it might not be legal.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

I'm not a fan of this method of distributing communion. First, because it's an almighty faff and takes far longer. Second, because once you receive you then have to worry about the mechanics of handing things over, rather than prayer. Third, because it assumes that everyone is happy to offer communion to people -- some don't want to. Fourth, because it assumes that everyone wants to receive communion, which isn't always true.

In a small, intimate situation (e.g. a PCC meeting or similar) I can see how it can make sense, especially if you can be sure that everyone wants to receive communion and is happy to distribute communion.

But it still doesn't seem like a sensible way to do things to my mind.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Like a lot of others, I have seen this done (in Anglican and non-Anglican contexts) but mainly in a more intimate and informal setting. I don't think I have ever encountered this practice in a main Sunday morning Eucharist.

I don't think it is contra to Canon law as such. It certainly isn't something where an archdeacon or bishop would ever tap the priest on the shoulder and say "don't do that again, chum". But I think that it DOES require a few things:
a) Relatively small numbers. If you can't stand in one circle, then don't do it.
b) Clear instructions on what to do. If the participants are all well-known and experienced in churchy things, then you can leave this out. But if there is any chance that someone present may not have done this before, then instructions should be gioven and it shouldn't be assumed that people will know what to do.
c) Space for people to NOT receive. Again, this comes down to who is present. If there is someone who does NOT want to receive (or even someone who is not well-known, and so cannot be assumed to be ready to receive communion), then they need to be allowed a way to decline without embarrassment.

In short, I would do this in a home group or with a Parish Council. I don't think it is good practice to do it in situations where there may be strangers or newcomers.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't think it is contra to Canon law as such.

I quoted canon B 12 part 3 above. Unless your entire congregation consists of those licensed by the bishop to dispense communion, this practice would seem to be excluded.

Can you explain why you think it is permitted?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
C of E priests should have the honesty not to go around ignoring bits of canon law just because they don't like them)

Most (if not all) priests do it. It happens all the time. Why not on this matter?

The explanation always appears to be one of expediency and/or community inclusion. Why not in this case too?

[ 08. February 2015, 06:36: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't think it is contra to Canon law as such.
I quoted canon B 12 part 3 above. Unless your entire congregation consists of those licensed by the bishop to dispense communion, this practice would seem to be excluded.

Can you explain why you think it is permitted?

Because sometimes common sense and context rules over legalism. The early communion in a church where few gather? Probably not, because early Mass gatherers tend in most places to be more passive in liturgical preference. A gathering of youth leaders in a paddock? Probably, and bugger the rubrics. Becuae in the end what narrative most effectively serves as a vehicle of Christ-love, Christ-hospitality in that context?

Solemn High Mass in a cathedral? No: order and common sense and chronos, the latter ironically, dictate that the rubrics rule. But let's not even Anglicans be anal and legalistic about this: what's the context dude, and what best communicates Christlove?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think that it DOES require a few things: ...
Space for people to NOT receive. Again, this comes down to who is present. If there is someone who does NOT want to receive (or even someone who is not well-known, and so cannot be assumed to be ready to receive communion), then they need to be allowed a way to decline without embarrassment.

Yes, this is something we have to provide for in our set-up, where people routinely receive Communion in their pews. We say something like, "If, for any reason, you do not wish to receive, simply pass the plate/cups to the next person".

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What I don't like about it is that lots of different people finger the loaf of bread as it's passed around. The practice of ripping off a piece for your neighbour seems especially unhygienic

I experienced that one Maundy Thursday - by the end, the loaf smelt of and tasted like perfume

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Like a lot of others, I have seen this done (in Anglican and non-Anglican contexts) but mainly in a more intimate and informal setting. I don't think I have ever encountered this practice in a main Sunday morning Eucharist.

*snip* But I think that it DOES require a few things:
*more snip*
c) Space for people to NOT receive. Again, this comes down to who is present. If there is someone who does NOT want to receive (or even someone who is not well-known, and so cannot be assumed to be ready to receive communion), then they need to be allowed a way to decline without embarrassment.

In short, I would do this in a home group or with a Parish Council. I don't think it is good practice to do it in situations where there may be strangers or newcomers.

One further consideration is that there are those who cannot receive one element or the other. I have one friend who receives in wine only on account of some wheat-related ailment and several who cannot receive the wine (often as they are in AA). While this can be done without much fuss coming up to the rail, it can be very awkward in a circle, especially for those who are self-conscious.

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

This passing and not taking has the closest analogue in my mind of the passing on of a joint and not taking circa 1974.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Yeah and is that inappropriate or do I not need to take seriously all these high church types who talk of Eucharist very much as if it is a fix.

Actually the nearest analogy is passing the gravy, if you do not wish to partake, to the next person at a family meal.

Jengie

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

IMHO passing the elements round from one communicant to the next, should be done, amongst experienced communicants only and not for every occasion.

I sympathise, with BokBok about feeling uncomfortable in passing the elements round, because at a certain church where I used to go, this informal practice has become the invariable use on every occasion and (join the club!) so am I uncomfortable! I must have made my communion at thousands of churches in my life, and that is the only church anywhere, where I feel uncomfortable about making my communion. I could go on, but it would take too long!

Last time I went there to make my communion, the process was so chaotic, that I declined to handle the pottery communion set, but left that to the communicants next to me on either side, receiving the Precious Blood by intinction. As far as I am concerned, this process is having the opposite effect to that intended - proving to be hellish rather than heavenly. Consequently, I am darkening the doors of the said church to receive communion, seldom to never. Some were people in the line whom I did not know whether communicant or non-communicant and so, I did not know what to do.

I should make it clear that the said church is an Anglican church in England. It is my experience that Canon B12 is not strictly adhered to all the time.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yeah and is that inappropriate or do I not need to take seriously all these high church types who talk of Eucharist very much as if it is a fix.

Actually the nearest analogy is passing the gravy, if you do not wish to partake, to the next person at a family meal.

Jengie

Yes, except, I seem to be inhaling the holy smoke these days because of God's refusal to shoot me up any more with his hero(in) son.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

A question to BokBok and Ecclesiastical FlipFlop: What is it precisely that makes you so uncomfortable about this? Is it:

- that you'd prefer to receive it directly from a priest rather than the person next to you? And, if so, why?
- that you feel it is too informal and/or in some way "not very holy"(whatever that may mean)?
- that you are worried about dropping it?
- that interacting with the person next to you interrupts your personal worship?
- or simply because it "isn't what you've been accustomed to" and so feels "wrong"?
- or what?

No, I'm not being snidey: these are genuine questions from someone whose tradition has done something akin to this for centuries and really doesn't have any problems with it.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Our practice we get away with because we're an FE. The children distribute. Yes, really. This is a practice that evolved organically. It just happened.

When we took the service to Greenbelt it was commented that this was on of the most moving aspects of the service.

We see the Eucharist very much in its context as coming together to share a meal; a social gathering if you will. It's significant that we follow the Eucharist with a bring and share lunch which has always been as much an essential part of our gathering as anything else.

My inner Anglo-Catholic struggled with this a little at first, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Interesting. Our Communion services are pretty formal traditional Nonconformist in the morning, more relaxed (smaller congregation) in the evening.

But at Easter morning we have Communion straight after Breakfast together, still seated at the table. We do some tidying-up (to make space) but not all of it - partly to maintain the "mealtime" atmosphere, and partly to stop folk disappearing into the kitchen to wash up.

We use a fairly formal, almost Anglican, liturgy which lasts about 20 minutes. The elements are passed round the table; any children may partake if they (and their parents) wish. As Karl says, this makes it a true family occasion: how could one think of them not taking part? (Mind you, having non-alcoholic wine makes it easier!)

We were discussing this service one year at our Church Meeting. One person said that she really didn't like it as it was too informal; what she particularly disliked was the idea of sitting at the meal table. One other member replied, "But that's the way Jesus did it, isn't it?" There wasn't much discussion after that.

Might some churches (not just Anglican or RC, by the way) be in danger of so "sacralising" the Eucharist that they have forgotten its simple and communal origins? Yes, it is a special and holy occasion; but I also remember reading something written by Michelle Guinness, Jewish convert to Christianity and wife of a CofE priest, who always wondered how the Church had so distorted her Passover meal by turning it into the Communion service.

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

The problem with the circular distribution in a main service with 100+ communicants is that you can't put everyone in a circle to share, unlike at the start of a PCC meeting or a chaplaincy meeting. So you have to have several circles, which feels an unnecessary additional faff. When I've taken communion like this in large services it hasn't felt like sharing between the community but additional artifice that doesn't make sense.

In smaller groups when you can see the whole group, it does make sense.

But I've experienced a method where everyone still comes forward and stands in a circle around the communion table, not where people stay in their seats and the communion bread and wine comes around to the people in the pews.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

Why is everyone so focused on the 'circle' thing? An actual circle is not strictly necessary for this form of communion, just the ability to pass the elements around from one to another. This can easily be done in rows, back and forth, and there is no reason why large numbers (within reason) should preclude this method.

I grew up amongst the Open Brethren and this was the only form of Communion I was aware of as a child. It happened weekly, an was the main focus of Sunday worship. There were no clergy, so it couldn't have been one differently for us anyway! The chairs were arranged in our blocks of rows, with the Table in the centre. When it was time for the elements to be distributed, somebody broke the bread (we used a cottage loaf) into four segments, placing a piece in each of the 4 wooden platters. One platter was then taken to the back row of each section of sating. It was passed back and forth, finishing up with the front row where the last person put it back on the table. Very simple. The process was then repeated for the wine - poured into 4 large goblets, then one distributed around each section of seating. Those who were not partaking just let it pass them by - which is much less obvious and embarrasing (in my opinion) than keeping your seat when others go forward to receive.

And yes Baptist Trainfan is right about our Easter Morning communions around the breakfast table - possibly the most meaningful and memorable that I have ever been part of - its the draw of this that will get me out of bed and out of the house an hour or two earlier than usual on Easter morning!

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But I've experienced a method where everyone still comes forward and stands in a circle around the communion table, not where people stay in their seats and the communion bread and wine comes around to the people in the pews.

quote:
"METHOD OF ADMINISTERING HOLY COMMUNION"
Until the Mastership of Dr Evans <elected 1864> it was the custom here, as still at St Mary's <the University Church> and the Cathedral <Christ Church> and formerly in several college chapels, to bring the Elements to the communicants kneeling in their places. It has been disputed whether this usage was a relic of Puritanism or a custom of Community life ... Shortly before Jeune <appointed Bp of Peterborough 1864> resigned the Mastership an undergraduate was accidentally passed over by the minister of one Species, and on November 20 1864, the custom was abandoned. In 1898, while hot-water pipes were being laid under the chapel floor, a skeleton was found.

College Histories of Oxford - Pembroke College, Douglas Macleane: 1900. The last sentence is something of a non-sequitur ...

[ 08. February 2015, 21:09: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I've actually seen this at St. Mary's. I assume they don't do it for their main Sunday service, which I never attended, but they did it as recently as the early 0ies at at least one weekday service once.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

At a church I attended nearly fifty years ago, as a special way of doing the Communion Service on the evening of Maundy Thursday, we used to be sat in alternate rows. The clergy then brought the bread and wine to serve us in our pews. It was very moving, a bit like a metaphorical foot-washing. I suppose it was their way of expressing 'why is this night different from all other nights?'

On your original question BokBok, I'm with Oscar the Grouch and Zappa. I'm also not quite as certain as Leorning Cniht is that this is actually in breach of Canon B12. I can see the argument, but I can also see quite a convincing argument that both elements here are really being distributed by the President.

BokBok, even if you decide you don't want to share your answers with us, Baptist Trainfan's questions are wise ones to ask of yourself.

Metaplegius, that might not be a non sequitur if it was the person who was missed whose bones ended up being found!

[ 08. February 2015, 22:05: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This passing and not taking has the closest analogue in my mind of the passing on of a joint and not taking circa 1974.

I don't understand this "not taking" aspect of the context you describe ... [Biased]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
- that you'd prefer to receive it directly from a priest rather than the person next to you? And, if so, why?

No, not this. Our usual Sunday has a priest and three LEMs, and I have no preference as to who I receive from.

quote:
- that you feel it is too informal and/or in some way "not very holy"(whatever that may mean)?

This might get close, although there are elements of some of the others. But let me say first that all of this is more or less a matter of taste, and my tastes run to the formal. But here's a list of the things that I think make me uncomfortable:

Passing Jesus round like a plate of biscuits. On the rare occasion I have experienced this, it hasn't seemed very reverent, and I think this is why.
Risk of dropping etc. This is another reverence thing. Passing the plate seems to have a greater inherent risk of dropping.
Enforced interaction. Some people find personal interaction difficult. We here from some of these every time we discuss an "enthusiastic" passing of the peace.
I also dislike it when whoever is distributing presses a Host into my hand, gazes meaningfully into my face and uses my name.
And yes, probably an element of "it's weird, and not what I'm used to"

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

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This passing and not taking has the closest analogue in my mind of the passing on of a joint and not taking circa 1974.
I don't understand this "not taking" aspect of the context you describe ...

It's just something I have observed. More for the rest of us sas my thought. Which wld be an interesting way of considering communion. Let us praise God together on our knees.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Yes, a motion concerning Canon B 12 was put to the GS in 2012, but that doesn't automatically change how things are or bring into being any change,

If you go to the Church of England website it is abundantly clear what the regulations are, but to save you the effort (and stop any claims of justification through ignorance), here it is:

quote:
Current regulations apply until further notice and the law has not yet changed

Whether or not you approve of the Canon is irrelevant - the rule is clear.

The OP asked is the situation at his church was legal or 'right': the answer to that is NO, not legal and not right.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I've actually seen this at St. Mary's. I assume they don't do it for their main Sunday service, which I never attended, but they did it as recently as the early 0ies at at least one weekday service once.

The only time I have seen this in St Mary's was at the start-of-term University Communion using the BCP in its Latin version. Of course the chancel desks were decently draped with houselling cloths. As I recall it the celebrant and gospeller brought the elements; no passing along the row!

(As far as I know nothing has changed, but I haven't been for a bit.)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The OP asked is the situation at his church was legal or 'right': the answer to that is NO, not legal and not right.

Er - no, it wasn't the OP. I in fact asked that questions on a different thread, about the service I attended, where we had the first section of Holy Communion without the Sacrament itself on an occasion when, due to illness, the Sacrament itself could not be offered.

Others brought up the legality (or not) of "passing round" Communion.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
I've actually seen this at St. Mary's. I assume they don't do it for their main Sunday service, which I never attended, but they did it as recently as the early 0ies at at least one weekday service once.
The only time I have seen this in St Mary's was at the start-of-term University Communion using the BCP in its Latin version. Of course the chancel desks were decently draped with houselling cloths. As I recall it the celebrant and gospeller brought the elements; no passing along the row!

(As far as I know nothing has changed, but I haven't been for a bit.)

That's precisely the context in which I remember it.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When I was a chaplain in the USAF our general Protestant service had it both ways. For those accustomed to receiving it from the altar, I would distribute the elements. For those more accustomed to receiving them in the pews either the Baptist or Methodist chaplains would distribute them.

I think the point about canon law is a good point--it is there only to insure good order. It is not a hare and fast command. But if you insist on it technically when the priest hands the elements to the first person in the circle or pew distributing the elements? Does it really say the congregant must receive the elements from the priest or licensed assistant (notice the similarity to the question the snake asked Eve)?

Think of it, at that first meal, did Jesus go to each individual disciple and give the disciple the element himself? Or did he pass them around the table? Tradition gets murky.

No, the most important part of the distribution is that the elements are taken and eaten/drunk.

Now, at my congregation, the altar is in the center of the sanctuary, the congregation sits around the altar. We all go up to commune at the table--there may be a couple of elderly who cannot come up, in those cases the assistants will go to them to commune them.

At my congregation, we will have several people assist in the distribution, the head usher will normally ask people if they are willing to assist before the beginning of worship. And, yes, we have had kids in the later grades of elementary and middle school distribute communion. One girl was tasked with distribution the day she was baptized (not even confirmed) She was in the fourth grade at the time. I was following her, coaching her as she assisted--she did real well.

I say don't let canon law become legalistic. Understand its purpose. Honor it as much as possible. If there is a question, consult your bishop (going through proper channels, of course).

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

I say don't let canon law become legalistic. Understand its purpose. Honor it as much as possible. If there is a question, consult your bishop (going through proper channels, of course).

Canons aren't suggestions. They really are binding on the members of a church, and especially upon the clergy. A priest who flouts his church's canons is walking on thin ice.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

While that is true - and the canons regarding property issues are probably fairly important - the last time I checked even Anglican Christianity was not Torah-based, and a couple of blokes called Jesus and Paul buggered up legalistic impositions.

Therefore context becomes critical, for canonical hermeneutics as much as for biblical hermeneutics. What best serves a gospel of grace in all the nuances of this context.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.

Or better to do what is pastorally right and take the risk that the church hierarchy will see it differently. I'm not sure our exemplar Christ played it safe.

Gramps - some of our children helping in distribution are as young as 6. It seems to work.

[ 10. February 2015, 06:37: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

It's not just about playing by the rules lest you be disciplined. It's also about participating in the rites and disciplines of the wider church. The Church of England is not congregationalist.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Depends how tightly you define "rites and disciplines" really Basilica.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

And so - to somewhat repeat one of my questions upthread - is at least one of the reasons for the Opening Poster not liking the elements being passed round simply because it's not the "prescribed" or "legal" way? (Which, BTW, is a perfectly sensible objection in an Anglican setting but not elsewhere, where Canon Law doesn't apply).

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Canons aren't suggestions. They really are binding on the members of a church, and especially upon the clergy.

It is some time since I read Bishop Mortimer on Western Canon Law, and of course a lot has changed since he wrote the book, but I seem to remember that he thought it doubtful that the laity in England were bound by the Canon Law.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Canons aren't suggestions. They really are binding on the members of a church, and especially upon the clergy.
It is some time since I read Bishop Mortimer on Western Canon Law, and of course a lot has changed since he wrote the book, but I seem to remember that he thought it doubtful that the laity in England were bound by the Canon Law.

Of course we are bound by it! It's against Canon Law for a lay person to,preside at the Eucharist or to give absolution for instance

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Canons aren't suggestions. They really are binding on the members of a church, and especially upon the clergy.
It is some time since I read Bishop Mortimer on Western Canon Law, and of course a lot has changed since he wrote the book, but I seem to remember that he thought it doubtful that the laity in England were bound by the Canon Law.
Of course we are bound by it! It's against Canon Law for a lay person to, preside at the Eucharist or to give absolution for instance

I that's too simplistic. There has been plenty of discussion among English lawyers about how far the 1603 canons bound the laity (google Lord Hardwicke on Middleton v Crofts). It may be that the current canons do, as they've been approved by Parliament, but even so, if they infringe on religious freedom they won't bind.

Posted by East Price Road (# 13846) on :

If community inclusion is the thing, can I preach the sermon next Sunday?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If you're a respected and knowledgeable member of your own Christian community and have good communication skills you could probably get an invitation to be a guest preacher at a local Methodist church, if there's a Methodist minister or lay preacher who could vouch for you. But not next week, as the plan is made well in advance!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I that's too simplistic. There has been plenty of discussion among English lawyers about how far the 1603 canons bound the laity (google Lord Hardwicke on Middleton v Crofts). It may be that the current canons do, as they've been approved by Parliament, but even so, if they infringe on religious freedom they won't bind.

The rules on faculties do. They even bind non-members of the CofE, and people that don't know they exist or who you would expect were entitled to trust the church authorities to have responsibility for dealing with them correctly.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A question to BokBok and Ecclesiastical FlipFlop: What is it precisely that makes you so uncomfortable about this? Is it:

- that you'd prefer to receive it directly from a priest rather than the person next to you? And, if so, why?
- that you feel it is too informal and/or in some way "not very holy"(whatever that may mean)?
- that you are worried about dropping it?
- that interacting with the person next to you interrupts your personal worship?
- or simply because it "isn't what you've been accustomed to" and so feels "wrong"?
- or what?

No, I'm not being snidey: these are genuine questions from someone whose tradition has done something akin to this for centuries and really doesn't have any problems with it.

Baptist Trainfan, having been on brief shore leave, I have just read your post and by checking your profile, I see that your perspective is that of a Baptist Minister. I note also that BokBok has not posted again.

The experience I mention is a symptom of a very complex situation far too complicated to go fully into here. Briefly, a long-standing vicar of that church, who inherited an old-fashioned traditional anglo-catholic church, with long overdue changes from his predecessor, gradually made it much more modern to the extent of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, changing it beyond all recognition. I am not a traditionalist and up to a point, I wholeheartly supported these changes, but he did not know where to stop.

No, I do not require to receive communion from a priest and I am equally happy to receive from a lay persom.

I have nothing against informal communion for occasional use, but I feel it is only suitable for a small congregation of experienced communicants.

The former vicar introduced a pottery set of communion vessels, discarding the silverware. I am not worried about myself being the one to drop it, but other people who might do so. The church has shown hospitality to people with mental health issues in more recent years; an uncontrolled lack of reverence has developed and I am suspicious of people receiving communion who are not entitled to receive it. It should be borne in mind that that is an Anglican church and not a Baptist church, where the position of who may receive communion is different, holding a middle-of-the-road between members only and open table regardless of Christian initiation or not.

I hope this clarificaton is of some help.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Indeed it is, and I thank you!

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't think it is contra to Canon law as such.
I quoted canon B 12 part 3 above. Unless your entire congregation consists of those licensed by the bishop to dispense communion, this practice would seem to be excluded.

Can you explain why you think it is permitted?

Ummmm

Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.
Or better to do what is pastorally right and take the risk that the church hierarchy will see it differently. I'm not sure our exemplar Christ played it safe.

This all probably comes under the category of things where, if you specifically ask your bishop "Do I have your permission to do this?" He will say "I cannot formally give my permission. But if you don't ask me, I am not going to stop you."

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't think it is contra to Canon law as such.
I quoted canon B 12 part 3 above. Unless your entire congregation consists of those licensed by the bishop to dispense communion, this practice would seem to be excluded.

Can you explain why you think it is permitted?
Ummmm

Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?

But that doesn't mean the practice is permitted by the canons. It means that the bishops allow the practice despite the canons.

In a case where canons have been broken, it's not the bishop but the Ecclesiastical Court that has jurisdiction (IIRC). It seems to me that the bishop's permission is neither here nor there, except as a (rather weak) CYA move.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I think the point is that Canon Law is not completely legalistic. There are certainly parts where - because of the C of E's position as an Established Church - adherence to Canon Law is undeniably required. But other parts are more along the lines of what you might call "approved practice".

To take this particular matter as an example. I don't think that any bishop (certainly none I've known) would want to apply this particular Canon in a legalistic strictness. Nor would any bishop really want to spend endless time trying to rephrase the Canon so that it covered all possible allowable eventualities.

What is needed is "good practice", much of which is common sense.

When I was a member of a Baptist church (rather untypical and very charismatic), communion consisted of having bread and fruit juice (not wine) and then allowing anyone to go and share it with anyone else. It was rather chaotic, but then no-one had any belief that this was anything more than "remembering the death of Jesus". I certainly wouldn't want to go back to that. But in the right context, sharing communion in a circle, with each person serving their neighbour, is extremely appropriate and moving.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?

The posted speed limit on the local interstate highway is 55 mph. All the traffic routinely travels at 70 mph, and those travelling at that speed are not routinely stopped by the police or prosecuted.

Would you argue that doing 70mph was not "against the law as such"? (Actually, I might. There is "interesting" history between the federal government and state and municipal governments on speed limits and so on.)

quote:

What is needed is "good practice", much of which is common sense.

In which case, rewriting the canons that you consider to be "guidelines" to say something like "the following should be the normal practice. Deviations from this practice are permitted at the discretion of the incumbent on an occasional basis; doing so at the principal Sunday service or more often than once a month requires the Bishop's authorization" should be straightforward.

If you want these canons to be guidelines, you don't need to rephrase them to cover every eventuality, you say "these are guidelines. You should normally observe them, but occasional differences for good reason are permitted. If you want to do this often, ask your Bishop."

If we don't like the rules, we can change the rules. Just ignoring the ones we don't like is bad practice.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?
The posted speed limit on the local interstate highway is 55 mph. All the traffic routinely travels at 70 mph, and those travelling at that speed are not routinely stopped by the police or prosecuted.

Would you argue that doing 70mph was not "against the law as such"?

As I have already said, seeing Canon Law in the same way as the laws of the land - such as speed limits - is an error. That's not how it works and it is not how bishops think it works. There ARE parts of C of E Canon Law which DO have an equivalent force, certainly. But regarding ALL of Canon Law in this way is needlessly legalistic. It's just not how it works.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

What is needed is "good practice", much of which is common sense.
In which case, rewriting the canons that you consider to be "guidelines" to say something like "the following should be the normal practice. Deviations from this practice are permitted at the discretion of the incumbent on an occasional basis; doing so at the principal Sunday service or more often than once a month requires the Bishop's authorization" should be straightforward.

If you want these canons to be guidelines, you don't need to rephrase them to cover every eventuality, you say "these are guidelines. You should normally observe them, but occasional differences for good reason are permitted. If you want to do this often, ask your Bishop."

If we don't like the rules, we can change the rules. Just ignoring the ones we don't like is bad practice.

In one sense, I agree with you. But in reality, no-one but a Canon lawyer would want to create such enormous amounts of words and clauses etc. For a start, as soon as you had completed such a revision, you would quickly find that it was out of touch with reality and would need further revision. The alternative would be to create something so vague and wishywashy that it was meaningless.

In reality, almost everyone in the C of E understands that certain parts of Canon Law are to be regarded as "good advice". If you wander away from it and then fall flat on your face, or if you deliberately go contrary to it, then you can expect an episcopal rebuke. If, on the other hand, you work within the "spirit" of the law and no-one has a problem, then bishops quite frankly don't want to know.

In addition, it is widely accepted that many good innovations have come by people going outside the strict letter of Canon Law, which has then had to catch up. For example, such things as "Family Services" and Service of the Word were - when they were first being developed - contrary to a strict interpretation of Canon Law, which then had to catch up.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.

There's probably regional differences here - I suspect IN NZ about the only Canon Law you might be hauled for breaking would be that thou shalt not ever vote for a conservative politician and or government, but in general terms I doubt anyone has been knuckle-smacked in NZ since Cook arrived. I was told I wasn't allowed to reserve communion on Maundy Thursday in 1991, but later found that the glutinous prick who told me that was lying.

Not quite true. I believe an obstreperous priest was hauled recently, but his practices were so beyond the pale that Oral Roberts would have had difficulty condoning them.

Canon-hauling is really a rare, rare, rare event here, and in general terms there is very little that would be frowned upon. Lay presidency might get a rap, but not much beyond that (and that has been happening in some circles, too, not out of a Sydneyesque theological premise but because the said persons and their community didn't realise that ordination was, er, slightly prerequisite to Eucharistic presidency).

I wouldn't argue for the world from NZ, but most circles I have moved in have been fairly flexible with regards to Eucharistic administration in certain contexts deemed appropriate by the responsible priest.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by East Price Road:
If community inclusion is the thing, can I preach the sermon next Sunday?

One of DioSydney's original arguments for lay-presidency was that lay-preaching is permitted.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The former vicar introduced a pottery set of communion vessels, discarding the silverware.

Despite what I said above about the absence of canons here, that is banned on the basis of the greater authority of Occupational Health and Safety regulations.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't think it is contra to Canon law as such.
I quoted canon B 12 part 3 above. Unless your entire congregation consists of those licensed by the bishop to dispense communion, this practice would seem to be excluded.

Can you explain why you think it is permitted?
Ummmm

Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?

Actually, thinking about the slightly flippant earlier comment, I have belonged to at least one congregation where the electoral roll had been given permission to distribute.... Nobody except the priests and readers ever did but we all could.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:

quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The former vicar introduced a pottery set of communion vessels, discarding the silverware.
Despite what I said above about the absence of canons here, that is banned on the basis of the greater authority of Occupational Health and Safety regulations.

I like to think you are right Zappa. Somehow, the former Vicar was never taken to task because of it. It was due to a whole string of issues like that, that I ceased to attend that church.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.

Any tribunal biting this particular bullet better have nothing else to do with their lives for the next century or two! Many, many CofE gaffs either occasionally or regularly do the breaking the bread and passing it on amongst themselves kind of thing.

Doesn't do much for me, I have to say, but I've never run from the church screaming when confronted with it. And there have been times when I can see that certain acts of worship, in certain contexts lend themselves to this particular form of distribution.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's occurred to me that one advantage of passing the elements around in this way is that people with mobility problems aren't singled out. IME people with such problems often have to wait until everyone else has been served, then the minister and his assistant have to trek the full length of the church to get to the folk who feel safer in their chairs.

Since some churches have a lot of elderly members, this way of doing things might have a practical benefit. I imagine it's also a lot quicker than sending everyone shuffling up to the altar.

[ 14. February 2015, 20:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.
Any tribunal biting this particular bullet better have nothing else to do with their lives for the next century or two! Many, many CofE gaffs either occasionally or regularly do the breaking the bread and passing it on amongst themselves kind of thing.

Doesn't do much for me, I have to say, but I've never run from the church screaming when confronted with it. And there have been times when I can see that certain acts of worship, in certain contexts lend themselves to this particular form of distribution.

As others have said, it rather depends on context. I wouldn't want it as part of a solemn Sunday celebration but as a midweek Communion in the University chapel I sometimes attended with a small group? Most appropriate, somehow.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

This practice is really more appropriate for small groups. I encountered it at Holy Trinity, Trinity Square, in Toronto, where everybody seemed to love it circled around the altar, except for about 25 people who stayed in their pews until a slightly grumpy pair of administrators came down; then those communicants lined up to kneel and take the sacrament. It was obvious that the parish was divided into the handing-arounders and the kneelers; this seemed to have gone on for some time.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

We were recently at a Eucharist in a circular church. The altar was in the centre, with 2 rings of seats, about 60 in all, broken enough to comfortably allow a procession to the altar. The rings were set far enough apart easily to allow the priest and deacon to distribute while we remained seated/standing in our place. It worked quite well.

Incidentally, the church had been recently re-carpeted in a maze pattern. Seats were only set out for services, allowing at other times for those who wished to walk the maze; there was a separate and traditional chapel for those who preferred that.

[ 19. February 2015, 06:00: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

The best compromise on this is where the congregation gathers in a circle around the altar (like they do at CR Mirfield, and at another church where I often worship ) where the priest and assistants administer the sacrament to the people, standing. It's best if they stand there throughout the whole eucharistic prayer, but it's a nuisance if they need to hold a service leaflet because it's one of those prayers with frequent (and unmemorable) responses.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's best if they stand there throughout the whole eucharistic prayer, but it's a nuisance if they need to hold a service leaflet because it's one of those prayers with frequent (and unmemorable) responses.

If the celebrant intincts the host and places it on their tongues, the service sheet presents no problems - their hands are not required [Devil]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We were recently at a Eucharist in a circular church. The altar was in the centre, with 2 rings of seats, about 60 in all, broken enough to comfortably allow a procession to the altar. The rings were set far enough apart easily to allow the priest and deacon to distribute while we remained seated/standing in our place. It worked quite well.

That's not far from a typical "Plymouth Brethren" pattern - tho' they'd just have a Table at the centre.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

We have a wide and fairly uncluttered sanctuary, and last Maundy Thursday we did indeed gather around the altar (well, not quite a circle - more of a horseshoe!) for the whole of the Eucharistic Prayer. Communion was distributed by Father and I simply working our way around the horseshoe. Given the small numbers involved (20 or so) it went well, and meant that everyone was in place for the start of the procession to the Altar of Repose. [Two face]

I've only experienced the passing around of the Sacrament in an informal setting (a local meeting of Readers IIRC), and it was so long ago that we were using ASB Rite A hot off the press!

Ian J.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Jengie John:

quote:
Indeed the putting out of white cloths along the pews to represent the table is still the practice in some URCs (well up to 1990s).

We (Church of Scotland congregation) still have the white cloths, though we don't use them for every Communion. They're fixed onto the pews with silver clips; our church owns dozens of these clips. They're the sort of object I can imagine future archaeologists puzzling over.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We were recently at a Eucharist in a circular church. The altar was in the centre, with 2 rings of seats, about 60 in all, broken enough to comfortably allow a procession to the altar. The rings were set far enough apart easily to allow the priest and deacon to distribute while we remained seated/standing in our place. It worked quite well.
That's not far from a typical "Plymouth Brethren" pattern - tho' they'd just have a Table at the centre.

The church in question is in Newcastle diocese, one quite high on the candle. I have never been to any Plymouth Brethren service, of either the Open or Exclusive orders, and have tucked this away as a little bit learned.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We (Church of Scotland congregation) still have the white cloths, though we don't use them for every Communion. They're fixed onto the pews with silver clips; our church owns dozens of these clips. They're the sort of object I can imagine future archaeologists puzzling over.

Like Communion Cards or Tokens - do you still have them?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

We stopped using Communion cards about 5 years ago, and there was protest - elders now give out a postcard with the date of communion on it, but people aren't supposed to bring them to church.

I don't think anyone still uses the tokens, but some churches still have proper Communion cards.

Something else which is dying out as our older members die off is the black suit, black shoes and black tie for Communion. For a while you could spot the every week attenders, who were dressed smartly, but not that formally, from the only-come-four-times-a year-for-Communion attenders, who were far more formally dressed.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Now that truly is an interesting observation!

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

The two Church of Scotland congregations in London maintain the practice of the white cloths at Holy Communion, and I remember when I visited St Columba on a quarterly Communion Sunday I was handed a Communion card. In both the elements were brought to the congregation. The circular style reception was used at ST Giles Edinburgh. Austere, and earnest yet warm and communal, I found it very moving.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

A friend who is recently familiar with the church of my childhood tells me that there the use of white cloths on the pews on Communion Sundays ceased only fairly recently. He thought that the reason was that the lady who had for many years been responsible for laundering (and starching) the things simply gave up - possibly because of age and infirmity, or having had enough of doing it, or perhaps a combination of the two.

A generation or so back in Oxford the elders wore dark suits, white shirts and white bow ties on Communion Sundays - subfusc without gown or hood, in effect. Communion cards were distributed, though not collected (I still use mine as bible bookmarks, which seems fitting in a way). There were also services of preparation on the Friday eveining before, and of thanksgiving on the Sunday evening - a relic of the 'Communion Season', I suppose.

[ 26. February 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
[...]
A generation or so back in Oxford [t]here were also services of preparation on the Friday eveining before, and of thanksgiving on the Sunday evening - a relic of the 'Communion Season', I suppose.

There were indeed: and that was where I was one Friday in 1963 when the news of the assassination of JFK broke.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Communion Cards still given out here as far as I know. I once tried to get this done ecumenically! This was Anglicans and Methodists. Well they kept insisting they wanted it according to the tradition of the host church and as we were hosting and we distributed communion cards I thought that they should do the same then.

We printed cards to be distributed (not our normal ones) with a note on to bring it to the service and suggested they handed them out the Sunday before. I then put out the usual bowl at the entrance explaining why.

Actually now thinking about it we should have staged a Friday pre-communion service with a preach off (three sermons one from somebody representing each of the traditions given a single text) and distributed them at that.

White cloths elsewhere in the URC up to just over a decade ago to my knowledge.

Jengie

[ 28. February 2015, 10:54: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0