|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Double-consecration
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Does it matter if the elements of the Eucharist have been consecrated before?
Let me give a semi-hypothetical(!) example...
Let's say that on a Sunday morning, the priest discovers that there is no communion wine left, because the members of the altar guild forgot to re-order. Let us all imagine that there was, in the aumbry, a small quantity of previously consecrated wine (sufficient for the 8:00am BCP service).
Should the priest:
a) Just carry on with the full Eucharistic Prayer, even though the wine is already consecrated
b) Pause at the relevant place in the Eucharistic Prayer and make up something on the spot to acknowledge the pre-consecrated nature of the wine
c) Skip that part of the EP altogether and just move on swiftly
d) Give up, go home and have a stiff drink.....
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
d is tempting, but I would do a.
I've always found it theologically odd that you can apparently consecrate one species without the other - I suppose if you run out during administration you could argue that the provided formula is an extension of the Eucharistic Prayer said a few minutes previously. Certainly a eucharist service requires a Eucharistic Prayer!
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
Maybe he could add some water to the wine and then say the eucharistic prayer over it conditionally (sotto voce "if this be not already . . .").
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
kingsfold
Shipmate
# 1726
|
Posted
e) consecrate the bread and then just use the already consecrated wine?
(we had a huge number of consecrated wafers left over from Easter, so on low Sunday, we consecrated about ten and added them to the reserved wafers which used them up nicely)
Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
We have a large congregation, and I shudder to confide to you how much wine we suck through every week, and wafers too. After building and personnel salaries, this is surely the biggest item on our budget.
Therefore, to save money, we do recycle. The wine in the chalices does get poured into the earth sink. But the wine in the flagons (six big ones, OMG) gets poured back into bottles and saved for the next Eucharist. Wafers are also saved and re-run.
The only pickiness about the consecration is when I fill the little flagon that is set aside for the visitation ministry. Those ministers fill the little bottle in the visitation kits from this flagon, and I take care to refill it with wine that has definitely been consecrated.
Otherwise, our philosophy seems to be that additional consecrations piled up on top of the first one do no harm at all. (Mysteriously this not apply to baptisms or consecrations; you only get one each of those.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
e) consecrate the bread and then just use the already consecrated wine?
How about f) Pop home, or ask a congregant who lives nearby to pop home, and fetch a decent bottle.
It seems unlikely that you're in a situation where wine can't be acquired.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
As Lutherans, we have no strict thought-out analyzed theology of what exactly happens when at the Lord's Supper, bar the fact of the Real Presence itself. So we follow the practice of "better safe than sorry" ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif) and we consecrate both bread and wine whenever we are having communion, regardless of whether one or both have been served in this way before. (For example, my son and I, due to various commitments, rarely make it to Vietnamese service on time to participate with the rest of the congregation; so when we come in at the tail end of the service (usually after the last Amen), Mr. Lamb will say the Words of Institution again, so we can hear them, and then give us the bread and wine. I doubt the Lord minds, and it is a help toward faith.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If we had to have brand-new wine, and wafers fresh from the packet, at every Eucharist, the costs would quintuple. We have 3 or 4 services every Sunday, always with a Eucharist. At Easter and on Christmas Eve we may do as many as 8 or 9. The consumption of wine has dropped, slightly, with intinction -- during an especially bad flu season a couple years ago the clergy urged it from the pulpit. But we still burn through an incredible quantity every week.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.
Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.
No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Agreed. But supposing you weren't sure whether some bread or wine had been consecrated, could you / should you 'conditionally' consecrate it?
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
. . . The consumption of wine has dropped, slightly, with intinction -- during an especially bad flu season a couple years ago the clergy urged it from the pulpit. . .
At the last scare (bird flu?) C of E clergy were told intinction was more dangerous / less hygienic than sharing the cup (as well as being illegal).
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
At the last scare (bird flu?) C of E clergy were told intinction was more dangerous / less hygienic than sharing the cup (as well as being illegal).
Indeed. We have in our diocese advice that intinction should be discouraged, including a leaflet that's left in the pews about it, and that hands are a vector of infection perhaps worse than the common cup. There was at one point a helpful page I thought from Diocese of Toronto, but I haven't located it just now.
As for conditionally consecrating, when I was a lay assistant, this is precisely the solution that was tendered three bishops ago.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
How is intinction more contagious than sipping? I am assuming that the dippers are not dunking the wafer in to the first knuckle, but only bobbing it in half way.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peter Owen
Shipmate
# 134
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
How is intinction more contagious than sipping? I am assuming that the dippers are not dunking the wafer in to the first knuckle, but only bobbing it in half way.
You've obviously never administered the chalice in a church where some people intinct.
--------------------
Πετρος
Posts: 266 | From: overlooking Liverpool Bay | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
How is intinction more contagious than sipping? I am assuming that the dippers are not dunking the wafer in to the first knuckle, but only bobbing it in half way.
There are apparently more active germs on the hand (especially after sharing the Peace). Dippers always shake the host (and therefore their hands) over the wine.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Intinction is also bad news for coeliacs wanting to receive only the wine, as it contaminates the chalice (and yes, contamination makes coeliacs genuinely ill).
I remember my church swapping to intinction when swine flu was around though, so some wires must have got crossed somewhere.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Intinction is also bad news for coeliacs wanting to receive only the wine, as it contaminates the chalice (and yes, contamination makes coeliacs genuinely ill).
Which is why gluten-free bread, if permitted by a church's discipline, and the chalice for those who need to be gluten-free must always be kept separate from other patens and chalices, especially if intinction is added to the mix.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
e) consecrate the bread and then just use the already consecrated wine?
How about f) Pop home, or ask a congregant who lives nearby to pop home, and fetch a decent bottle.
It seems unlikely that you're in a situation where wine can't be acquired.
Ummm....
Let us imagine (purely hypothetically of course) that neither the priest nor the server noticed that the altar guild hadn't prepared the wine (although everything else was set up) until half way through the service.....
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
At the last scare (bird flu?) C of E clergy were told intinction was more dangerous / less hygienic than sharing the cup (as well as being illegal).
Indeed. We have in our diocese advice that intinction should be discouraged, including a leaflet that's left in the pews about it, and that hands are a vector of infection perhaps worse than the common cup. There was at one point a helpful page I thought from Diocese of Toronto, but I haven't located it just now.
This is a tangent, but I HAVE an electronic version of the Toronto advice. What puzzles me is that I can find NO research that actually backs up their assertions. At one point, intinction was being recommended as an alternative to sharing the common cup. Then - and seemingly without any solid evidence to justify it - intinction was discouraged. And we have now reached the point where it seems to be taken for granted among church hierarchy that this matter is resolved and intinction is to be strongly discouraged.
Seriously - if someone could point me in the direction of good research into this issue, I would be very appreciative. I am often asked why the bishop has so clearly discouraged a practice that many members of the congregation had become accustomed to.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.
Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.
No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Other than your own cast-iron certainties, on what do you base this sweeping claim?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes, I find it difficult to believe that lips are less germy than hands. And, if the alcohol in the wine is germ-killing, this ought to hold for intinction as well.
The logical solution to this is the Lutheran practice of stacks of little pre-poured cups.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Which is why gluten-free bread, if permitted by a church's discipline, and the chalice for those who need to be gluten-free
Our shack does gluten-free folks first, so there's no possibility of human error involving the wrong chalice.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Other than your own cast-iron certainties, on what do you base this sweeping claim?
Our RC brethren, who have a canon for every occasion, no doubt have some explicit canonical statement somewhere saying just that.
In Anglican-land, I have encountered no form of authorized service anywhere which admits the possibility of a Eucharist without wine. There is a provision to consecrate extra of just one species, but that is very much set within a context of a mass containing the initial consecration of both species.
That the Most Precious Blood cannot be re-consecrated is, I think, self-evident to anyone with a "high" sacramental view. For a memorialist (and I have heard stories here of left-over wine being poured back into the bottle for re-use next week - although not, I think, from Anglicans) perhaps it's not important.
Here's a solution g):
If you have consecrated wine in the aumbry, it is probable that you also have consecrated bread. It would therefore seem open to you to have communion from the reserved sacrament at your small 8am service, and nip out for a bottle afterwards.
[ 25. May 2015, 23:20: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
e. Go to the store and buy some wine.
f. Do MP.
g. Use the reserve sacrament as in if doing a season's mass.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The church I attend is Anglican. The Altar Guild essentially does whatever the clergy wants. Change comes from them, not us. (Fixing, now fixing comes from us. I spend all my time twitching stoles so that they hang symmetrically and even.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Therefore, to save money, we do recycle. The wine in the chalices does get poured into the earth sink. But the wine in the flagons (six big ones, OMG) gets poured back into bottles and saved for the next Eucharist. Wafers are also saved and re-run.
I don't understand why this is a bigger problem because of your large congregation. If you routinely have enough left-over wine that it makes a significant financial difference to pour it back into bottles at the end of the service, you are consecrating too much.
Use less.
Horrific abuse aside, if you're aiming to save money, reduce is better than reuse.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Using wee cuppies is not exclusively Lutheran--in fact, we tend to prefer the common cup, though you'll usually find it offered both ways at a service. As for re-consecration excluding a high view of the Real Presence--well, you aren't going to get higher than what we believe, it's just that we don't think God sweats the small stuff in cases of necessity and/or human error. The same Christ who allowed his body and blood to be horribly treated and splashed about with abandon on Calvary is unlikely to have a hissy fit if a pastor or priest inadvertently mistakes the best way of dealing with a Eucharistic shortage, IMHO.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
We very rarely reserve the precious blood anyway, so I don't see this arising, but in this situation, you could not have a Roman Catholic Mass. Consecrated 'wine' isn't wine. A Mass needs bread and wine. You don't have wine, ergo no Mass.
If I was in the situation of having no wine, but having reserved precious blood, then you could indeed do as someone suggested and have what we call a Communion Service (ie. Liturgy of the Word plus administration of reserved sacrament). I'm finding it hard to imagine a situation in which you have this, but you can't purloin some wine from somewhere, even if it means a slight delay.
Curiously, I would have thought a Lutheran would have no cause for compunction about 'reconsecrating.' If you're a consubstantiationalist, then consecrated wine really is wine (as well as being the precious blood), so it's valid matter for consecration.
[ 26. May 2015, 02:42: Message edited by: Adam. ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The same Christ who allowed his body and blood to be horribly treated and splashed about with abandon on Calvary is unlikely to have a hissy fit if a pastor or priest inadvertently mistakes the best way of dealing with a Eucharistic shortage, IMHO.
Sure - but we should offer Him the best we can, which IMO includes trying to do our best with the small stuff.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
[tangent]
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
This is a tangent, but I HAVE an electronic version of the Toronto advice. What puzzles me is that I can find NO research that actually backs up their assertions.
With searching I found a link on this page, which may be what you have? It lacks the actual reference to bacterial counts, dead and alive that the original much longer document had. This also from the Anglican Church of Canada website also lacks some of the data I recall, but I see in the footnotes some references that may represent the info.
[/tangent]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, I find it difficult to believe that lips are less germy than hands.
Think about it. Our hands come into far more contact with unclean surfaces than our lips do. Unclean surfaces can be as mundane as door handles or computer keyboards. Even if your hands are clean, you may have shaken hands with someone who is less hygienic. 80% of germs are transmitted by our hands.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.
Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.
No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Ahem. This argument works if you are an RC but not if you are CofE- Article XXVIII: Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
I think one can agree with leo's argument without the "real presence" clause. Well, I can: I don't see how there could a second consecration without overthrowing the meaning of consecration.
And I can't get my head round the idea that in an anglican church wine is a major expense: just looked at the last couple of years accounts of our 15-masses-a-week operation and see that Bread and Wine cost approx 700 pounds out of a total expenditure of about 90,000 pounds.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If we had to have brand-new wine, and wafers fresh from the packet, at every Eucharist, the costs would quintuple. We have 3 or 4 services every Sunday, always with a Eucharist. At Easter and on Christmas Eve we may do as many as 8 or 9. The consumption of wine has dropped, slightly, with intinction -- during an especially bad flu season a couple years ago the clergy urged it from the pulpit. But we still burn through an incredible quantity every week.
I agree with the consensus here. According to how the Episcopal Church understands Communion, your parish isn't really celebrating the Eucharist if there isn't fresh bread and fresh wine. If you regularly consecrate so much more than you need for a service, why not reserve it till the next service, and at that service only consecrate a token amount of bread and wine, maybe a priest's host and a sip of wine for her or him. Then you could communicate everybody else from the reserved sacrament that was consecrated at the previous service. I would think this is how most churches would handle the problem you lay out. It happens all the time, and I've never heard of a church "reconsecrating" anything.
All this being said, however, as you say, it's up to the clergy, and you have little say in it.
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yeah, I assure you that nobody asks me.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I think one can agree with leo's argument without the "real presence" clause. Well, I can: I don't see how there could a second consecration without overthrowing the meaning of consecration.
And I can't get my head round the idea that in an anglican church wine is a major expense: just looked at the last couple of years accounts of our 15-masses-a-week operation and see that Bread and Wine cost approx 700 pounds out of a total expenditure of about 90,000 pounds.
I figure that a C$20 bottle of generic quality wine or even port at C$20, with a bottle each Sunday, would add up to about C$1,100. Even doubling that would be C$2,000 which is not a huge amount out of a typical mid-range parish budget of C$150K-C$250K. BulldogChristian's summation of the consensus looks pretty sound to me.
I do not want to open this tangent (there have been threads on this in the past) but transubstantion is but one explanation of the Real Presence-- there are others around. And (also referencing other threads in the past), the XXXIX articles have no juridicial authority in many Anglican churches and this particular article has been superseded by canons and liturgies in several Anglican churches.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, I find it difficult to believe that lips are less germy than hands.
Think about it. Our hands come into far more contact with unclean surfaces than our lips do. Unclean surfaces can be as mundane as door handles or computer keyboards. Even if your hands are clean, you may have shaken hands with someone who is less hygienic. 80% of germs are transmitted by our hands.
During the swine flu episode we were advised to intinct BUT the advice was that only the person administering the chalice was to do it – not to have everybody’s hand in the cup.
I am constantly reading that our computer keyboards hold more germs than pour toilet seats and these germs come from our hands. – and knowing the hygiene levels of some of our congregation I don’t want to think about their germs being shed into the cup…
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
FFS people, stop being so namby pamby. Where are the verified cases of significant incidence of illness, not during pandemics, acquired by sharing tne common cup?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
During the swine flu episode we were advised to intinct BUT the advice was that only the person administering the chalice was to do it – not to have everybody’s hand in the cup.
In our diocese we were told to only receive in one kind and that only the celebrant would drink from the cup. Those administering the host were to apply hand sanitiser before the administration.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
During the swine flu episode we were advised to intinct BUT the advice was that only the person administering the chalice was to do it – not to have everybody’s hand in the cup.
In our diocese we were told to only receive in one kind and that only the celebrant would drink from the cup. Those administering the host were to apply hand sanitiser before the administration.
Ditto for our diocese. Although there were huge numbers of people (some with extensive medical experience) who really didn't like that.
Part of the problem was that so much attention was being placed on something which was relatively "low risk". As a retired nurse pointed out to me, if we're that bothered about the risks of catching swine flu, we shouldn't be coming outside anyway. We certainly shouldn't be greeting our friends or sharing the peace or almost anything. Of all the things you do in church, sharing the chalice by no means carries the highest risks of catching a disease.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.
Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.
No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Ahem. This argument works if you are an RC but not if you are CofE- Article XXVIII: Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
That being so, Calvin. Luther and the C of E believe(d0 in the 'real presence', however defined (or not defines).
That is why the (1662 and all subsequent) rubrics insist that leftover consecrated elements should be 'reverently consumed.'
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
During the swine flu episode we were advised to intinct BUT the advice was that only the person administering the chalice was to do it – not to have everybody’s hand in the cup.
In our diocese we were told to only receive in one kind and that only the celebrant would drink from the cup. Those administering the host were to apply hand sanitiser before the administration.
Yes too to the hand santitizer - though people still insisted on sharing the peace which rather defeated the object
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.
Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.
No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Agreed. But supposing you weren't sure whether some bread or wine had been consecrated, could you / should you 'conditionally' consecrate it?
I guess so - in fact i have witnessed that, albeit pover 30 years ago but it sticks in my mind. We had some Latvian Lutherans use our church for some special service. Hardly any of them communicated so there were 3 full chalices left on the altar.
Being anglo-catholic and sceptical of protestant, non-episcopally ordained ministers, the vicar took the chalices to the vestry. For the next three Sundays, he put one of the chalices on the corporal and consecrated another, very small, chalice of fresh wine.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.
Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.
No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Ahem. This argument works if you are an RC but not if you are CofE- Article XXVIII: Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
Fair enough. However, based on the theology of the 39 Articles reserving the leftover wine in the first place is problematic. I also don't understand the people who have a problem with Benediction but not keeping watch in front of an altar of repose from Maundy Thursday until Good Friday. If Jesus is really present on that altar, then what's wrong with benediction. If Jesus is not really present on that altar, why are you awake in the wee hours of the morning sitting in front of tasteless bread and cheap wine?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Well, AIUI Real Presence does not necessarily imply transubstantiation. If you believe in some kind of consubstantiation then you believe that the wine is both Blood and wine.
[ 26. May 2015, 20:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
... and for what it's worth, Lutherans are not technically consubstantiationalists, as we decline to make any statement about what's going on beyond the bare text "this is my body" etc. and also the bits that refer to it as wine and bread. So one may theorize the Lutheran position is similar to consubstantiationalism, but not get any confirmation of it--because this is an area where we prefer to keep our lips (and logic) zipped.
That attitude explains why we don't fuss about whether there is consecratable matter still existing after a first consecration. We figure that as human beings we really don't know much at all of what God is doing during the Eucharist, only the bare promise we've been given--so we try to cling to that like little children and not give in the temptation to theorize beyond our knowledge.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, I find it difficult to believe that lips are less germy than hands.
Think about it. Our hands come into far more contact with unclean surfaces than our lips do. Unclean surfaces can be as mundane as door handles or computer keyboards. Even if your hands are clean, you may have shaken hands with someone who is less hygienic. 80% of germs are transmitted by our hands.
And saliva is anti-bacterial. There is a reason animals lick their wounds.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Seriously - if someone could point me in the direction of good research into this issue, I would be very appreciative. I am often asked why the bishop has so clearly discouraged a practice that many members of the congregation had become accustomed to.
The Holy Spirit moved in a wise but mysterious way.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.
No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
In Roman Catholic theology, this statement is not quite correct.
As far as the (Roman) Catholic Church is concerned, it would be correct to say that there would be no Mass in such a case - as the Sacrifice requires both species to be consecrated, notwithstanding the doctrine of concomitance - but not correct to say that there would be no vaild consecration of the host.
Having said that, it is considered amongst the most heinous of priestly delicts deliberately to consecrate one species only (until recently, punishable by excommunication).
[ 27. May 2015, 19:58: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
FFS people, stop being so namby pamby. Where are the verified cases of significant incidence of illness, not during pandemics, acquired by sharing tne common cup?
Yes but some of us are choosy who we share our bodily fluids with. A few of us are very choosy indeed.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
