|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Germaphobes and Communion
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
If you're allergic to red wine, you simply receive in one kind. That's both traditional and sensible.
(And if you're allergic to red wine, you're probably allergic to something in red grape juice, too, if you're using the real stuff and not a "juice drink.")
I think it's worth noting that both Jesus's first public miracle at Cana and the Last Supper involved wine prominently.
(In vino veritas.)
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Your tradition, not mine. I'm not an Anglican.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Or again am I mistaken?
Why are you making this personal? Others have said the same things more or less...
What's unthinkable is that God would be overcome by germs, if it's God's Body and Blood that you are receiving that is. If it's not then OK anything might happen. But if we approach God in faith, in order to get deified ourselves, do you really think God won't deify us, but we will get sick because of germs? I reckon we should worship germs instead, as they are more powerful.
Or is God's power something only to read in Old Testament books, that is not to be seen nowadays? Is this the god we are to worship? I don't think so.
To put it differently: Christ whom I worship, touched Peter's mother-in-law and her fever left her. He touched the leper and he was cleansed. Are you seriously saying that by receiving communion I will get sick instead of getting well???
[ 11. October 2008, 11:39: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Your tradition, not mine. I'm not an Anglican.
Are wee cuppies a tradition? They were only invented in the 19th century, predictably by a germaphobe American preacher IIRC.
Likewise isn't unfermented juice a 19th Century temperance-driven innovation as well?
How's any of that tradition?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Ellis
Shipmate
# 14063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
It also seems that you regard the Holy Communion as the result of some kind of divine magic trick, the confection of which obliterates all harmful pathogens, and the discussion of which is beneath you, though you are very much here and dicussing it with some considerable condescenion ... ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ... Or again am I mistaken?
Dunno about Andrew, Mr Rob, but, shorn of the somewhat deprecatory and sneering way in which you express it, something like that is precisely what I was saying.
And you spotlight his "considerable condescension"?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Y mae'r trysor hwn gennym mewn llestri pridd, i ddangos mae eiddo Duw yw'r gallu tra rhagorol, ac nid eiddom ni. (I Corinthiaid 4:7)
Posts: 276 | From: Greater Manchester, England, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
beachpsalms
Shipmate
# 4979
|
Posted
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras - Our denomination is less than a hundred years old, with Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist roots. In my area, our older congregations are celebrating 150th anniversaries. It might not seem much to you, but the 19th century is pretty far back for us. (And we're not the most traditionalist denom you'd ever meet.)
--------------------
"You willing to die for that belief?"
"I am. 'Course, that ain't exactly Plan A."
Posts: 826 | From: a hamster's cheek-pouch full of raisins | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
John Ellis reminisces about the Good Ole Days:
That used to evoke from me an occasional brief tirade on the irreverence and lack of consideration involved in receiving the sacrament wearing glutinous and oily lipsticks, accompanied by a lurid, but not over-stated, description of the scum that could float on the surface of the consecrated wine as a consequence. I only had to do this every three or four years - most lipstick-wearers genuinely felt that this was an irreverence, but, beguiled by manufacturers' false assurances, really didn't think that their lipsticks could create this effect. But memories fade in time!
At OLoHW, it's the gentle ladies of the altar guild who mostly take care of this part of the parish education, as they are the ones who have to get lipstick out of the purificators. (It is especially hard to get out of the little embroidered crosses.) The second help in this regard is to set the norm that brushing the lips with the Most Precious Blood is sufficient for reception; one ought not to swill it down. Not relinquishing the chalice into the hand of the communicant helps to set the tone.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Please refer to my dear co-religionist beachpsalms second last post. She's heavily allergic to red wine. If you're going to say that white wine is OK, but grape juice is not, then you're splitting hairs.
The wine can be red, white, tawny, whatever. Regardless of colour, it's still wine. Grape juice isn't. That's the difference, for those in many traditions at least.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Right, so should it be an alcoholic beverage or a red-coloured beverage? Where's my razor?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Right, so should it be an alcoholic beverage or a red-coloured beverage? Where's my razor?
Why should it be red? Whoever said there was any need for it to be red?
It should be an alcoholic beverage because that is part of the definition of 'wine'. You know, the stuff that Christ used.
Why are you mentioning colour? Any number of drinks are red, it doesn't make them wine. And any number of wines aren't red - which doesn't make them cease to be wine.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
That's my point, dj. You've gone for one interpretation, we've gone for another. You choose to emphasize the "wine" part, my church chooses to emphasize the "red, colour of blood" bit.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That's my point, dj. You've gone for one interpretation, we've gone for another. You choose to emphasize the "wine" part, my church chooses to emphasize the "red, colour of blood" bit.
Okay, I understand that. Although I still prefer 'our' interpretation (well, I would, wouldn't I!) because Christ took a cup of wine as used at Passover meals. He never mentioned the colour. It could well have been some sort of tawny colour, probably full of honeys and spices and things. Not being an expert in Middle Eastern bevvies of the first century AD, I don't know. So I would say that it is valid to assume that we 'ought' to be using wine - I still can't get my head round why colour enters into it. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
Not relinquishing the chalice into the hand of the communicant
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
Not relinquishing the chalice into the hand of the communicant
Make that
We'll bang our heads together.
Max
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
I have thought about this occasionally when I have served for a Priest who coughs into his hand at a period after I've washed his hands, well, fingers. I'm not aware of getting sick from the Sacrament, though.
Whether it's a question of faith, or not is something I don't know. What I do think is that the risk of picking up germs is less than one thinks.
I thought this thread was about those who don't like Germans when I looked at it.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ships Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That's my point, dj. You've gone for one interpretation, we've gone for another. You choose to emphasize the "wine" part, my church chooses to emphasize the "red, colour of blood" bit.
Okay, I understand that. Although I still prefer 'our' interpretation (well, I would, wouldn't I!) because Christ took a cup of wine as used at Passover meals. He never mentioned the colour. It could well have been some sort of tawny colour, probably full of honeys and spices and things. Not being an expert in Middle Eastern bevvies of the first century AD, I don't know. So I would say that it is valid to assume that we 'ought' to be using wine - I still can't get my head round why colour enters into it.
For Orthodox, colour enters into it because of how we perceive the Mysteries. We would be wary of, and would hastily distance ourselves from, any interpretation of the wine being a sort of prop in a play that has to be red because it represents blood. However, we douse red wine because of the association with the colour of blood. For us the Mysteries operate on at least two easily identifiable levels: there is the representational element that speaks to the physical senses and there is the spiritual element that speaks to the soul.
So in Baptism, we use water primarily because this is the tradition of the Church that we have received from earliest times but also because water is known for its cleansing properties and its association with purging of filth. It also is a means by which people can die, through drowning. While the representational element of the use of water is not all that the Mystery of Baptism entails, it is certainly a part of it and, partly for this reason, we would never use orange juice. The wine of the Eucharist is similar. That red is the colour of blood is one of the reasons that we use red wine but any suggestion that this representational aspect is all that there is, and that the wine does not actually become Christ's Blood, would be a gross misunderstanding of the Mystery of the Eucharist.
I understand that many Anglo-Catholic parishes use white/amber-coloured wine. I have had years of experience of that myself. I understand that the reasoning is that the wine becomes the Blood of Christ regardless of what colour it is. I held to this position myself for some years as I felt that it was necessary to emphasise this, especially as there were many within my own church would deny this. There was almost a need to make the point. I just don't feel that anymore and would respectfully suggest that this approach does not take account of the layered nature of the Mysteries of the Church, in which the physical elements used on the body usually bear some relation to the effect of God's grace on the soul: the water of Baptism, the oil of Chrismation, the tonsuring of the monastic, and yes, the red wine of the Eucharist. If only white wine were available, could it be used? Possibly - I really don't know - but if so it would certainly be considered far from ideal.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
quote:
Leo said:
Maybe but no rotating please. When we do the ablutions, we wash everything that has come into contact with the precious blood and that is easier if only one part of the chalice, above the cross or jewel, has been used.
A priest friend (half-)jokes that "You can always tell a church that's run by the Altar Guild: They use white wine."
Some, in doing ablutions, add a little water and rotate the chalice while drinking so as to (theoretically) clean as you drink.
However you do it, though, washing the entire chalice seems the least of the pressures put on the Altar Guild!
We (the sacred ministers) do the ablutions immediately after communion in full view of the congregation and it looks most unsightly if you drink all around the chalice in so doing.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
If you're allergic to red wine, you simply receive in one kind. That's both traditional and sensible.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Your tradition, not mine. I'm not an Anglican.
quote:
Originally posted by beachpsalms:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras - Our denomination is less than a hundred years old, with Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist roots. In my area, our older congregations are celebrating 150th anniversaries. It might not seem much to you, but the 19th century is pretty far back for us. (And we're not the most traditionalist denom you'd ever meet.)
What about, you know, the... Apostles' Tradition?
This discussion is getting more and more bizarre. We are discussing about denominational traditions as if we have any right whatsoever to isolate that from the historical current of ancient Church practice. I don't think anyone is given that right.
It's little surprise that the Eucharist was one of the main issues during the Schism... Rome was rejected for not using hot water along with the red wine, and for using azumes instead of the bread we use at our homes for food... An additional issue was that communion under the azymes alone was given to people...
It's an on going controversy, judging from this thread's posts. It's a good thing that old mistakes are challenged, and corrections are made. I'm only surprised by the easiness even more novel changes are made though, as if it's an issue for us to decide.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Andrew has pretty much given the response that I decided not to give: What about the tradition of what the Church has ever done throughout history? Why does the venerable tradition suddenly get thrown out in the 19th century? That was my point to begin with -- in terms of Christian liturgical praxis, something that cropped up a hundred-twenty years ago in a minority expression of Christianity is hardly "tradition".
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
Not relinquishing the chalice into the hand of the communicant
Make that
We'll bang our heads together.
Max
I don't get it.
I've read this thread with interest - especially since I started it. I, too, think that people are too germaphobic these days and let squeamishness and general distrust of their fellow worshipers override or come close to overriding what the sacrament is to be about. We pray, "Make us one with you, one with each other, and one in ministry to all the world ..." Being one with each other involves a certain amount of trust.
Next, Welch was indeed a Methodist in America during the time of temperance. However, Wesley had become all to keenly aware of the perils of alcohol and the way some people seem to get addicted to it. They didn't know of alcoholism as such, but long before the temperance movement, Wesley advised against drinking alcohol altogether unless it was for medicinal purposes. (maybe that's why he received communion several times a week!) Anyway, once Welch came up with a way to pasteurise grape juice, the church "went with it" (especially in America) for two reasons: it doesn't take as long to make grape juice as it does to make wine. People were still carving out livings on farms in the US and not that interested in vineyards and wine-making. Two, it seemed in keeping with the temperance that had been advocated since the beginning of the Methodist movement.
As to whether it has to be red: no, but the symbolism of red or the dark purple kind is rather symbolic. I once grabbed a juice box out of our cupboard thinking it was grape juice (it had a picture of grapes) only to realize too late that it was a juice punch containing berry juice and apple juice, as well as grape juice. Once I prayed over it and asked God to "pour out his holy spirit on us gathered here and on these gifts of bread and wine and to make them be for us the body and blood of Christ so that we can be for the world the body of Christ redeemed by his blood" - it was Christ's blood nonetheless.
If Dietrich Bonheoffer could celebrate communion with his prison mates by pantomiming, then I'd say wine, grape juice, red, white, chartreuse ... doesn't matter. What matters is the real presence of God among the communion of those gathered.
[ 11. October 2008, 15:46: Message edited by: Angel Wrestler ]
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
I have thought about this occasionally when I have served for a Priest who coughs into his hand at a period after I've washed his hands, well, fingers. I'm not aware of getting sick from the Sacrament, though.
Whether it's a question of faith, or not is something I don't know. What I do think is that the risk of picking up germs is less than one thinks
I thought this thread was about those who don't like Germans when I looked at it.
The Lavabo is a symbolic washing only. It certainly wouldn't qualify as a proper material cleansing. It's just that the risk of infection from the Eucharist is nonexistant for the faithful (IMO).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by §Andrew:
What's unthinkable is that God would be overcome by germs, if it's God's Body and Blood that you are receiving that is. If it's not then OK anything might happen. But if we approach God in faith, in order to get deified ourselves, do you really think God won't deify us, but we will get sick because of germs?
Isn't it equally unthinkable (in abstract theology) that God's Body and Blood would create a severe allergic reaction in some believers?
But we know it happens to some few with the wine, and with the wheat, the substances retain their allergins even after becoming God's Body and Blood.
Never let theology blind you to reality. If God's Body and Blood is carrying germs, you receive both the Body and Blood and the germs.
Whether people today are too germ-phobia, is a valid but different question.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Ellis
Shipmate
# 14063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
At OLoHW, it's the gentle ladies of the altar guild who mostly take care of this part of the parish education, as they are the ones who have to get lipstick out of the purificators. (It is especially hard to get out of the little embroidered crosses.) The second help in this regard is to set the norm that brushing the lips with the Most Precious Blood is sufficient for reception; one ought not to swill it down. Not relinquishing the chalice into the hand of the communicant helps to set the tone.
That doesn't deal with the problem - just tries to minimize it. A ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) TIRADE works better .. at least for a year or two! Can't your priest do tirades? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Y mae'r trysor hwn gennym mewn llestri pridd, i ddangos mae eiddo Duw yw'r gallu tra rhagorol, ac nid eiddom ni. (I Corinthiaid 4:7)
Posts: 276 | From: Greater Manchester, England, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Andrew has pretty much given the response that I decided not to give: What about the tradition of what the Church has ever done throughout history? Why does the venerable tradition suddenly get thrown out in the 19th century? That was my point to begin with -- in terms of Christian liturgical praxis, something that cropped up a hundred-twenty years ago in a minority expression of Christianity is hardly "tradition".
Because as Andrew shows, to state that there was one unified praxis is a historical fallacy. There have been variations in Communion practices for well over 1000 years, and I'm quite confident that the were variations before that too.
If you'll indulge a hick moment, until the 1960's most wine in the United States and Canada had to be imported. The phylloxera aphid, which is native to North America meant that classic European vines can't grow here. Many, many farmers including Thomas Jefferson were infuriated at this problem.
The Labrusca vines that do grow, of which Concord grapes of juice fame are one, make regrettable wine. Grape juice meant that people could use domestic grapes, which is less expensive and seems less extravagant. Look at the churches that switched to see their attitude to external extravagance.
BTW we can now grow classic vines in North America by grafting European vines onto American rootstock. Most of Europe has to do this too due to the unfortunate spread of Phylloxera.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The Lavabo is a symbolic washing only. It certainly wouldn't qualify as a proper material cleansing. It's just that the risk of infection from the Eucharist is nonexistant for the faithful (IMO).
Lavabo, that's the word. It's been a few years....
Yeah you're right mate now I come to think about it.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Because as Andrew shows, to state that there was one unified praxis is a historical fallacy. There have been variations in Communion practices for well over 1000 years, and I'm quite confident that the were variations before that too.
So, Rome opened the bag of Aeolus. And your point is what?
The whole issue with the schism is not that various practices existed, but that novel practices were introduced in worship and that those practices compromised the very worship of the Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
If Dietrich Bonheoffer could celebrate communion with his prison mates by pantomiming, then I'd say wine, grape juice, red, white, chartreuse ... doesn't matter. What matters is the real presence of God among the communion of those gathered.
Father Arseny (I think of Russia) was under heavy persecution by the communists. In prison he went under all movements of the eucharist, together with the people, using bread and water. He didn't consider that to be the Body and Blood of Christ though. He knew they were blessed and very holy, but not the Actual Body and Blood of Christ, as they would have been were he to use wine mixed with water the way the Church does.
I don't see why we have to force the sacraments into what we have, and why we can't be content with what we actually have. It's not that big deal if in prison under all persecution you are deprived of the Very Body and Blood of Christ. Preserve the Faith, the Hope and the Love, endure the temptations, bless and benefit the oppressors, pray to God. Why aren't those enough?
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Isn't it equally unthinkable (in abstract theology) that God's Body and Blood would create a severe allergic reaction in some believers?
Is there any evidence over the course of the two-thousand year history of the Orthodox Church of that issue? How did the ancient or modern Saints handle that? And who says God is absent from allergies? Isn't He to be found in all things? Are you saying, someone is allergic and it's OK that we give him fish and say "here, it's the Bread of Life"???
quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
I once grabbed a juice box out of our cupboard thinking it was grape juice (it had a picture of grapes) only to realize too late that it was a juice punch containing berry juice and apple juice, as well as grape juice. Once I prayed over it and asked God to "pour out his holy spirit on us gathered here and on these gifts of bread and wine and to make them be for us the body and blood of Christ so that we can be for the world the body of Christ redeemed by his blood" - it was Christ's blood nonetheless.
Emphasis mine. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
What on earth does it mean to pray over grape juice saying "these gifts of wine"???
And one more question: How do you know it was Christ's blood nonetheless? Where does this assurance come from? Has He revealed that to you to resolve your concern?
[ 11. October 2008, 16:55: Message edited by: §Andrew ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
My point is that variation has existed for a very long time. Since I don't believe that Orthodoxy is utterly correct in everything, I don't have a problem with being at odds with Eastern Orthodox practice. But don't let that stop you from reinforcing your schismatic status by decrying my praxis.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Andrew: The Orthodox objected strongly when they heard rumors that the Latins were introducing new practices over the ancient practices of the catholic church.
Sober Preacher's Kid: variation has existed for a very long time... I don't have a problem with being at odds with Eastern Orthodox practice
Andrew: Variation exists because some Latin speaking guys changed the universal practice of the ancient church. "Eastern Orthodoxy" doesn't enter into this, but to condemn the innovation. It's not a "my practice over your practice" as is the case with all this "it's traditional because this is what we have been doing for the past one hundred years" discussion.
Sober Preacher's Kid: don't let that stop you from reinforcing your schismatic status by decrying my praxis
Andrew: I didn't know I was cut off from your denomination. I thought you guys have been cutting off from each other and that you all come from the Catholic Church. Didn't get the memo where I was cut off from you.
I assume you didn't mean I got cut off from you. Yet you used the word schism. It's very obvious that you give new meanings to the words, to fit your theology. Schism happens when a group cuts itself off from the one Church. Not when two denominations aren't in communion with each other.
The change of the meaning of words is not only suspect but also another step into a damaging path.
Also, I don't decry "your practice" as such. What I am doing is preserve the consistent faith of the Church. What was a mistake one thousand years ago, can't be OK now. We were really serious when we said those things back then. You shouldn't act surprised to see that we really meant them.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
set the norm that brushing the lips with the Most Precious Blood is sufficient for reception; one ought not to swill it down. Not relinquishing the chalice into the hand of the communicant helps to set the tone.
Absolutely agree.
I don't agree. I'm one of these people who likes mass to be BIG! Big Altar, Big Cross, Big Cloth on Altar Table, Big Sermon, Big Actions, Big Washing Bowl, Big Host, Big Cup etc.
The Eucharist is a meal and that needs to be emphasised, but it's not a snack like one would have at a Starbucks on the way home from work, it's a Banquet, a Celebration, a Feast and the host of the meal is Jesus Christ himself.
It's the most wonderful meal that we ever take part in that week. We set the table with the best white altar clothes, we put nice candles out, we use the best cups, we use the best bowls and we should be using tasty bread and tasty wine. Watches shouldn't be worn as we're worshipping an eternal God who is outside of space and time and therefore he doesn't work to time and a lower level it's simply bad form to keep looking at your watch when you're at a meal.
Jesus Christ humbled himself that he could take the substance of bread and wine so that he can enter into our lives, not just spiritually but physically, to feed our bodies as well as our souls.
So when we receive him, we should actually be fed, not in a minimalist way but in a big way. Huge big hunk of host, huge swig from the chalice thank you!
Christ offers himself to us in this fantastic way, we should choose to embrace this gift as much as possible, we should choose to take part in this banquet as fully as we able to and we should make a BIG deal of the Eucharistic Feast, not taking it lightly but by actually emphasising that this is an important meal, much more important than the Ambassidor's Ball
Max.
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Andrew:
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
As ever you are preaching as if you speak for the One True Church. I'm saying you're flat wrong. You claim to defend Ancient Tradition&trade . No, you're defending Greek Orthodox tradition, the two are not the same.
You're surprised when I think you are in error? That I believe that my own church authentically represents Christ's Truth?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
The fact that you disagree and act upon that disagreement by saying you are not in communion with my church makes you a schismatic.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Sober Preacher's Kid
You aren't appealing to history. I am. I am making a very tangible appeal to actual people and churches. You think you can interpret the Scriptures and "get it". No appeal to real people. Just what you think Christianity should be. If you were right, it would be very easy to prove your point. You could point me to all the variety in ancient Church practice. You could find a historical justification that shows you are in continuity with someone rather than what you are doing.
Also, my being Greek doesn't play a role here. I suggest you should get over that. You don't think that Russian or Romanian or Bulgarian or Korean or English Orthodox would say something different than what I am saying. Yet you are using my nationality to make an attack that is completely unjustified.
Fine. Continue giving words the meanings you like. Schism = not in communion with each other. Bread = fish. Wine = juice or water or color red. You are free to make your choices. As I am to make mine.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
No, you're appealing to your particular version of history. Big difference.
Haven't we had threads where the differences between Greek and Russian Orthodox practice has been discussed? I seem to remember that discussion.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I would like to ask those who say that the Eucharist cannot carry infection, what they would do if they saw the person in front of them slip some cyanide into the chalice, unnoticed by the priest.
Do you reckon that would be safe to drink ? Seems to me that if it could contain poison, it could contain germs.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
This is interesting, because essentially the substance would have changed, so it would be a question of whether or not the Real presence has been maintained by the addition of cyanide.
Max.
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I would like to ask those who say that the Eucharist cannot carry infection, what they would do if they saw the person in front of them slip some cyanide into the chalice, unnoticed by the priest.
Do you reckon that would be safe to drink ? Seems to me that if it could contain poison, it could contain germs.
I would drink the entire contents of the chalice.
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Prosfonesis:
set the norm that brushing the lips with the Most Precious Blood is sufficient for reception; one ought not to swill it down. Not relinquishing the chalice into the hand of the communicant helps to set the tone.
Absolutely agree.
I don't agree. I'm one of these people who likes mass to be BIG! Big Altar, Big Cross, Big Cloth on Altar Table, Big Sermon, Big Actions, Big Washing Bowl, Big Host, Big Cup etc.
The Eucharist is a meal and that needs to be emphasised, but it's not a snack like one would have at a Starbucks on the way home from work, it's a Banquet, a Celebration, a Feast and the host of the meal is Jesus Christ himself.
It's the most wonderful meal that we ever take part in that week. We set the table with the best white altar clothes, we put nice candles out, we use the best cups, we use the best bowls and we should be using tasty bread and tasty wine. Watches shouldn't be worn as we're worshipping an eternal God who is outside of space and time and therefore he doesn't work to time and a lower level it's simply bad form to keep looking at your watch when you're at a meal.
Jesus Christ humbled himself that he could take the substance of bread and wine so that he can enter into our lives, not just spiritually but physically, to feed our bodies as well as our souls.
So when we receive him, we should actually be fed, not in a minimalist way but in a big way. Huge big hunk of host, huge swig from the chalice thank you!
Christ offers himself to us in this fantastic way, we should choose to embrace this gift as much as possible, we should choose to take part in this banquet as fully as we able to and we should make a BIG deal of the Eucharistic Feast, not taking it lightly but by actually emphasising that this is an important meal, much more important than the Ambassidor's Ball
Max.
There is a certain appeal in what you say but the logic could extend, say to baptism by total immersion?
--------------------
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
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Of course, in fact the church says that wherever possible total immersion should be the norm for baptism.
Babies, Teens, Adults... dunk 'em in Splosh Splosh Splosh!
Max.
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
The cosmetically impaired John Ellis avers:
That doesn't deal with the problem - just tries to minimize it.
And, you, obviously, have never had an enraged member of the Altar Guild sidle up to you to discuss your lavish use of lipstick. quote:
And y'kno, Max. and LQ go like:
brickwall brickwall
Do you boys wanna buy a verb?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Yes - let's have a Indicative imperfect
"We used to do that but now we know better"
Max who gives the Eucharistic cup to the congregant when they draw near to receive the Precious Blood of Christ: Reduces the possibility of knocked front teeth, reduces the likelihood of spillage and emphasises the idea that the blood of Christ is given freely to humankind
[ 11. October 2008, 20:50: Message edited by: Max. ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
<<<<<I'm going to get in first!>>>>
And do you say "Drink it NOW"?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
A study commmissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury some years back found that there was no risk when from the common cup when the Sacrament was administered from a precious metal chalice and a purificator properly used.
Modern society is of course rather obsessed with health, for want of other standards or desiderata upon which we can all agree. So people need to be reminded of this information from time to time and the church should bear in mind that it is a popular concern, even if not a particularly rational one. For this reason, the use of a ceramic or earthenware chalice when one of precious metal is available annoys me considerably. Why give ammunition to the skeptics?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
This is interesting, because essentially the substance would have changed, so it would be a question of whether or not the Real presence has been maintained by the addition of cyanide.
Max.
To my understanding, the accidents no longer veil the Substance of the Most Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ when the accidents no longer have their essential character. Thus if a consecrated host molds or otherwise decays, Christ is no longer therewith present. The example of a chalice of the MPB containing cyanide is an interesting one. Wouldn't the cyanide change the essential character of the wine to a sure poisen and thus either make it impossible for the Sacrament to be confected in the first place (if the poisen were introduced prior to the intended consecration) or effect the "de-consecration" of the contents if the poisen were introduced after a valid consecration?
Fr TT, I'm sure, knows the answer.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angel Wrestler
Ship's Hipster
# 13673
|
Posted
From Andrew:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
I once grabbed a juice box out of our cupboard thinking it was grape juice (it had a picture of grapes) only to realize too late that it was a juice punch containing berry juice and apple juice, as well as grape juice. Once I prayed over it and asked God to "pour out his holy spirit on us gathered here and on these gifts of bread and wine and to make them be for us the body and blood of Christ so that we can be for the world the body of Christ redeemed by his blood" - it was Christ's blood nonetheless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emphasis mine.
What on earth does it mean to pray over grape juice saying "these gifts of wine"???
And one more question: How do you know it was Christ's blood nonetheless? Where does this assurance come from? Has He revealed that to you to resolve your concern?
We still call it wine even though it's not fermented. You'll probably have apoplexy but it's what we do.
I believe that it is still the blood because I have faith that God responds and answers the part of the Great Thanksgiving that institute the elements of bread and wine. You could work up a good indignation over that one, too, while you're at it! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
The fact that no one understands you does not make you an artist.
(unknown)
Posts: 2767 | From: half-way up the ladder | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
<<<<<I'm going to get in first!>>>>
And do you say "Drink it NOW"?
Take this ya Papist!
Max.
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Fr TT, I'm sure, knows the answer.
He probably does as zaps bread in Jaysus at least once a week.
What you said above is actually what we were discussing in a Sacraments seminar a while back and it makes a lot of sense. The question was posed "We receive Christ in true physical body, blood, soul and divinity, so do we digest him also? And what about after digestion" and the answer was that as soon as the bodily acids change the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, they cease to be the Body and Blood of Christ and we only digest simple bread and wine as the substance is broken down into a new substance. We absorb the spiritual aspect of the sacrament into our hearts and we are renewed and regenerated by the sacrament.
So Catholics don't have holier toilets than anybody else
Max.
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
The Jesuits are teaching you well.
PS: I zap Jesus into bread daily, not weekly.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The Jesuits are teaching you well.
PS: I zap Jesus into bread daily, not weekly.
Some people say that my college is so liberal that it's no longer Catholic! Pah! Catholics Unite to tell the world that Jesuit Education is AWESOME!
P.S. Do you really? Every DAY?
I said at least because I assumed that sometimes you took a day off and simply attended a mass a couple of days a week.
Max.
[ 11. October 2008, 23:28: Message edited by: Max. ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
