|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: The Ecclesiantics Altimeter
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
My theological objection to the stole is based solely on my understanding of the nature of the Free Church ministry, where one is, to use the ancient phraseology, "set aside" (or "apart") to the pastorate. Ordination is, basically, the solemn installation of a minister into his/her office. The minister has no particular powers that a layperson doesn't have; he/she serves as "pastor and teacher" of the church. (Theoretically, an appointed layperson could, if necessary, celebrate Holy Communion in the absence of an ordained minister, though this is seldom done.)
Thus the Geneva gown is an appropriate vestment; it symbolizes the minister's preaching and teaching role. (The hood does as well, and is regularly worn by some of our clergy.) The collar, as a convenient badge of office, is optional; some Congregational ministers wear it and some don't. I find it helpful as a means of identification. I also wear bands on special occasions.
The stole, in my mind, carries with it a sacerdotal connotation that stands in opposition to the Congregational concept of ordained ministry. The same would be true of Baptists.
All this having been said, there are Congregational ministers who wear the stole; some also wear the cassock-alb. They're a minority, however, and some of us grumble about it (with the full recognition that "each to his own" is the Congregational way --- those who object can't do a thing about it). This is about as liturgical as we get in terms of vesting; chasubles, copes and so forth would be a total no-no.
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
WearyPilgrim: many thanks, that makes sense.
moonlitdoor: a 'vested chalice' is one that is covered up before (and sometimes after) the Communion part of the service with a cloth that matches the vestments. It is also a rag of screaming popery -- the BCP simply stipulates a a linen cloth cover the Cup. I believe the Spirit of Vatican II is has also turned its back on the cup covers.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Indeed. I'm trying to think if I've ever seen them at a RC church. If I have it'll only have been at an EF Mass. Were they even compulsory then? I'm not sure.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
My theological objection to the stole is based solely on my understanding of the nature of the Free Church ministry, where one is, to use the ancient phraseology, "set aside" (or "apart") to the pastorate. Ordination is, basically, the solemn installation of a minister into his/her office. The minister has no particular powers that a layperson doesn't have; he/she serves as "pastor and teacher" of the church. (Theoretically, an appointed layperson could, if necessary, celebrate Holy Communion in the absence of an ordained minister, though this is seldom done.)
Thus the Geneva gown is an appropriate vestment; it symbolizes the minister's preaching and teaching role. (The hood does as well, and is regularly worn by some of our clergy.) The collar, as a convenient badge of office, is optional; some Congregational ministers wear it and some don't. I find it helpful as a means of identification. I also wear bands on special occasions.
The stole, in my mind, carries with it a sacerdotal connotation that stands in opposition to the Congregational concept of ordained ministry. The same would be true of Baptists.
All this having been said, there are Congregational ministers who wear the stole; some also wear the cassock-alb. They're a minority, however, and some of us grumble about it (with the full recognition that "each to his own" is the Congregational way --- those who object can't do a thing about it). This is about as liturgical as we get in terms of vesting; chasubles, copes and so forth would be a total no-no.
Yes, that all sounds logical. However, on this (other) side of the Atlantic, at least some of the Free Churches refer to 'ordination to the ministry of word and sacraments'. The pastor is more than just a teacher. The wearing of an approximation to the garb of a c16th academic (Geneva gown, academic hood, bands and so on) reflects only the teaching (word) role of the minister, and, it could be argued, plays down the 'and sacraments' aspect. I don't get out and about that widely, I must admit, but within eg the URC I have seen eucharistic celebrants clad in anything from a flowery print dress to full vestments. The latter is a bit unusual, I suspect. The tendency seems to be between the adoption of distinct, formal robes of whatever sort, and some version of 'street wear'. SPK's comments in the past suggest that the position in Canada is similar. New England puritanism didn't spread that far north?
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Indeed. I'm trying to think if I've ever seen them at a RC church. If I have it'll only have been at an EF Mass. Were they even compulsory then? I'm not sure.
My chapel in the North veils the chalice on the altar. The Chalice and Paten are veiled and placed in the centre of the altar table throughout the liturgy of the word and then unveiled at the offertory. The chapel is of a very modern persuasion otherwise.
It reminds me an awful lot of the evangelical Anglican Churches here in Somerset who follow the same practice.
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
Re: Puritanism in Canada
There were New England Puritan settlements in Nova Scotia, but after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 everything changed. The New England Planters in Nova Scotia became remained loyal to the Crown and Nova Scotia was bolstered by Loyalist immigration and then Scots settlers in the 1820's.
The New England Planters formed part of the Congregational Union of Canada and subsequently passed into the United Church of Canada.
St. Matthew's United Church, Halifax, founded as the Protestant Dissenting Church was Presbyterian/Congregationalist and is the oldest United Church congregation in Canada, going strong since 1759.
The Scots (who dominated Canadian Presbyterianism) had a higher view of ministry and thus were quite comfortable with "Ministers of Word and Sacrament". The Methodists had similar views, so the United Church of Canada fits Met's views. The Methodists had altar rails, and almost every Minister in the UCCan wears a stole to celebrate the Lord's Supper.
Furthermore the Congregationalists were the smallest party to Union by quite a bit, and the Presbyterian/Methodist ways have come to predominate in liturgical matters. Lay celebration in the UCCan? No, we're just far enough up the candle to be beyond that. The dominant flavour of United Churchism is MOTR Protestantism according to MartinL's scale.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
The Chalice and Paten are veiled and placed in the centre of the altar table throughout the liturgy of the word and then unveiled at the offertory. The chapel is of a very modern persuasion otherwise.
It reminds me an awful lot of the evangelical Anglican Churches here in Somerset who follow the same practice.
That's what most, but not all, the CofE churches I am familiar with do. And they put the cloth, whatever its called, back over the things at the end.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Hart - in the 'olden' days only clergy were allowed ,in the rc church ,to touch the sacred vessels directly - at least that was the idea - those who cleaned the vessels would wear gloves.
Thus the priest at the beginning of Mass would bring the chalice and paten,always veiled, to the altar.Just occasionally he would put the chalice,always veiled in the liturgical colour of the day, on the altar before Mass.
(Similarly it would always be a priest who brought in,and later took away,the monstrance used for Exposition and Benediction.)
At the end of the Mass the priest would leave the altar,carrying the veiled chalice with him.
The only exceptions to this would have been at a solemn Pontifical Mass.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
The Chalice and Paten are veiled and placed in the centre of the altar table throughout the liturgy of the word and then unveiled at the offertory. The chapel is of a very modern persuasion otherwise.
It reminds me an awful lot of the evangelical Anglican Churches here in Somerset who follow the same practice.
That's what most, but not all, the CofE churches I am familiar with do. And they put the cloth, whatever its called, back over the things at the end.
Strange how evangelicals always seem to adopt the pointless bits of tat. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Like the Solemn Elevation of the almsdish.
A church where I sometimes officiate, and where the 'north end' position is the rule, has a 'fully vested' chalice and paten prominent in the centre of the Lord's Table just like it would be in an old-fashioned anglo-catholic mass. Then at the offertory one has to unveil it and drag it in a somewhat undignified manner to the north end of the table. Strange!
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Hart - in the 'olden' days only clergy were allowed ,in the rc church ,to touch the sacred vessels directly - at least that was the idea - those who cleaned the vessels would wear gloves.
This seems to be the new rule too! See the Swine Flu thread.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
++Fulton Sheen was probably the last great R.C. preacher in the U.S.; he died twenty-odd years ago.
I must admit that Theodore Cardinal McCarrick's sermons occasionally at televised Masses on EWTN gave me new hope about RC preaching.
No Lutherans, huh? ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarum Sleuth
Shipmate
# 162
|
Posted
The use of chalice veils by low and MOTR Anglicans, not to mention cathedrals which should know better is beyond my comprehension. They are totally without Anglican authority and can't even be justified on the grounds of practicality, since they have no obvious use. Just another bit of tat to get in the way ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) Cut them up and turn them into soemthing useful like amice apparels.......
The use of a burse, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.
SS
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 848 | From: England, 1549 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarum Sleuth:
The use of chalice veils by low and MOTR Anglicans, not to mention cathedrals which should know better is beyond my comprehension. They are totally without Anglican authority and can't even be justified on the grounds of practicality, since they have no obvious use. Just another bit of tat to get in the way Cut them up and turn them into soemthing useful like amice apparels.......
Some things simply look nice. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
The Chalice and Paten are veiled and placed in the centre of the altar table throughout the liturgy of the word and then unveiled at the offertory. The chapel is of a very modern persuasion otherwise.
It reminds me an awful lot of the evangelical Anglican Churches here in Somerset who follow the same practice.
That's what most, but not all, the CofE churches I am familiar with do. And they put the cloth, whatever its called, back over the things at the end.
Strange how evangelicals always seem to adopt the pointless bits of tat. Like the Solemn Elevation of the almsdish.
A church where I sometimes officiate, and where the 'north end' position is the rule, has a 'fully vested' chalice and paten prominent in the centre of the Lord's Table just like it would be in an old-fashioned anglo-catholic mass. Then at the offertory one has to unveil it and drag it in a somewhat undignified manner to the north end of the table. Strange!
We do the solemn elevation of the alms complete with doxology every Sunday. I always understood that was a low church thing. The stack is vested and sitting on the corporal. This is the tradition for the entire diocese. Sometimes, the altar guild still puts an extra corporal inside the burse. My wife asked why they would do that. I told her it was probably because the instructions for the altar guild still say the corporal goes inside the burse. That this is a diocesan wide practice suggests that Bishop So and So way back when preferred that way of doing it and it has been done that way ever since.
My understanding is that they don't even vest the chalice at Nashotah. However, it is still practiced in many places some that aren't particularly high church.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
My understanding is that they don't even vest the chalice at Nashotah. However, it is still practiced in many places some that aren't particularly high church.
This is the point. It's the low church people (who I have a lot of time for, but you've got to admit that most of them don't understand liturgy) who cling on to these meaningless customs.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
My understanding is that they don't even vest the chalice at Nashotah. However, it is still practiced in many places some that aren't particularly high church.
This is the point. It's the low church people (who I have a lot of time for, but you've got to admit that most of them don't understand liturgy) who cling on to these meaningless customs.
It's strange that! My RC place which Ken has identified as "Low Church Catholic" would shudder at the thought of having Chalice veils (it was quite difficult to get chasubles to become normal practice).
It's as if Catholics dumped EVERYTHING fiddly in order to become more modern whilst evangelicals kept some things in order to be in touch with their historical pre-reformation past... even if they don't fully understand that!
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
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
Umm... this "chalice veil".. would that be something covering the bread and wine until communion is reached in the running order?
It might not be down to anything other than Food Hygiene rules..
It's bread and wine; ergo it's food; it's not being used until 45 mins to an hour into the service; so therefore it's being breathed on during that time. To avoid that... cover it.
Typically with Cuppies, the top layer of trays offers a cover to the top row of cups..
With platters in a Bring and Share buffet - if they're being pre-positioned, normally the covers stay on (think clingfilm over a bunch of sandwiches) until just before.
Instead of clingfilm, a cloth will do as well, and a white sheet carried with the communion bits is less likely to go missing than a tea towel.
Makes perfect sense to me...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick the less saintly
Shipmate
# 14355
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
[
It's as if Catholics dumped EVERYTHING fiddly in order to become more modern whilst evangelicals kept some things in order to be in touch with their historical pre-reformation past... even if they don't fully understand that!
Well, not all Catholics, surely? Not even all Roman Catholics. The current pontiff is hardly the world's greatest advocate of a simple, low-church, liturgy.
--------------------
'[Your religion consists of] antiquarian culturally refined pseudo-Anglicanism'— Triple Tiara
Posts: 1802 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
My understanding is that they don't even vest the chalice at Nashotah. However, it is still practiced in many places some that aren't particularly high church.
This is the point. It's the low church people (who I have a lot of time for, but you've got to admit that most of them don't understand liturgy) who cling on to these meaningless customs.
Oh, I think it looks better. We vest the altar. We vest ourselves. We even vest the lectern.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Stone altars? They're thin on the ground where I am...
Stone altars sometimes reveal more about the architect than the congregation. I know of at least one church near Boston with a stone altar. If you go into the nether depths, you discover it is masonry all the way down to the bedrock--far exceeding what would be necessary to support the weight of the altar.
The congregation--at its highest--was MOTR. At the time the church was built, it seems to have been lower still. The architect, however, was very High.
I suspect its a similar story with the architect with the church I know of. The parish doesn't seem to be rabidly evangelical, and the altar looks more like a table, so the theological significance probably hasn't occurred to them.
Other than that, the church has a fairly sparse, modern interior.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Umm... this "chalice veil".. would that be something covering the bread and wine until communion is reached in the running order?
It might not be down to anything other than Food Hygiene rules..
It's bread and wine; ergo it's food; it's not being used until 45 mins to an hour into the service; so therefore it's being breathed on during that time. To avoid that... cover it.
Typically with Cuppies, the top layer of trays offers a cover to the top row of cups..
With platters in a Bring and Share buffet - if they're being pre-positioned, normally the covers stay on (think clingfilm over a bunch of sandwiches) until just before.
Instead of clingfilm, a cloth will do as well, and a white sheet carried with the communion bits is less likely to go missing than a tea towel.
Makes perfect sense to me...
Really old fashioned Evangelical Anglicans (FCE/RECGBI) used to use a linen cloth about 30 inches square to cover the elements until it was removed for the Prayer of Consecration. The aforementioned cloth would be replaced after Communion. The left over elements would be consumed at the end of the service before the clergy wandered out singing.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Umm... this "chalice veil".. would that be something covering the bread and wine until communion is reached in the running order?
It might not be down to anything other than Food Hygiene rules..
It's bread and wine; ergo it's food; it's not being used until 45 mins to an hour into the service; so therefore it's being breathed on during that time. To avoid that... cover it.
Typically with Cuppies, the top layer of trays offers a cover to the top row of cups..
With platters in a Bring and Share buffet - if they're being pre-positioned, normally the covers stay on (think clingfilm over a bunch of sandwiches) until just before.
Instead of clingfilm, a cloth will do as well, and a white sheet carried with the communion bits is less likely to go missing than a tea towel.
Makes perfect sense to me...
It hate to say it, but it's possible that was the original idea in medieval times... to stop dust and things falling on it.
There is another cover called the Pall which is like a piece of stiff cardboard covered in cloth, in the old tradition (and some still practice this... especially in hot countries) the priest covers the chalice with the pall before and after the consecration, only taking it off when he says the institutional words. The reason? To stop flies contaminating the cup!
Alex, you have received ONE black button for your cassock. Receive another 32 and you shall be ordained a priest!
Max. Who has negative buttons
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Umm... this "chalice veil".. would that be something covering the bread and wine until communion is reached in the running order?
It might not be down to anything other than Food Hygiene rules..
It's bread and wine; ergo it's food; it's not being used until 45 mins to an hour into the service; so therefore it's being breathed on during that time. To avoid that... cover it.
I agree it makes sense, if the chalice and paten are already full of bread and wine. Maybe that is the low-church custom. But in most churches that I know, the bread and wine are not placed in the vessels, nor on the altar, until just before the eucharistic prayer. (An exception might be, a 'priest's host' already on the paten; but this would be covered by the pall anyway.)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
It's as if Catholics dumped EVERYTHING fiddly in order to become more modern whilst evangelicals kept some things in order to be in touch with their historical pre-reformation past...
What pre-Reformation past?
You know perfectly well that church history jumped through a time warp from the Council of Chalcedon in 451 direct to the ordination of Wyclif in 1361. Nothing at all of interest or merit happened in the Church during the intervening 910 years. All educated evangelicals realise this!
Of course uneducated evangelicals think the gap was from the accession of Constantine in 306 to Martin Luther's visit to the Wittenberg Door in 1517 so they have 1211 years they can happily ignore.
Some of the odder Pentecostalists seem to jump straight from the Apostle Timothy putting the last full stop on the original manuscript of 2 Corinthians to the Welsh Revival of 1905 which gives them about 1850 years they don't have to bother about. But we don't bother with them either.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marginal Catholic
Apprentice
# 14735
|
Posted
I was told that chalice veils were used out of reverence for any particles of the Host or the Precious Blood that might be left in the chalice or on the paten when Masses was said several times in succession.
The veil and burse is used here for weekday Mass (OF), but never for Sunday or Solemnity when the Gospel book is enthroned on the altar. Many RC do not use them at all nowadays.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
We do the solemn elevation of the alms complete with doxology every Sunday. I always understood that was a low church thing. The stack is vested and sitting on the corporal. This is the tradition for the entire diocese.
I think it's more-or-less TEC SOP. One is more likely to find the brocade veils than not, and the only places I've ever been that don't do the Solemn Elevation of the Decent Basin are Anglo-Catholic ones.
My dear Angloid
quote:
This is the point. It's the low church people (who I have a lot of time for, but you've got to admit that most of them don't understand liturgy) who cling on to these meaningless customs.
I would assume most low-church types would argue that the embroidered Cup Covers demonstrate the dignity of the Sacrament -- a special and holy thing worthy of special adornment.
Your North-enders, however, have no business having the Communion Plate on the Table at all until the offertory sentences. And even if it must be, surely there is no reason to cover it? And even if it must be covered, surely a linen cloth would suffice?
I am intrigued enough to inquire, though, whether you cover what remaineth after the communion with the brocade veil?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
In response to Ken: I have a Southern Baptist pastor friend (Southern Baptist Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, and Mansfield College Oxford-educated) who told me he went to a regional Baptist ministers' meeting once at which one of the speakers was a fundamentalist Southern Baptist of the "Landmark" variety. "Landmarkers" believe that Baptists are the only true Christians: that Jesus and the apostles established the Church with a congregational polity and an immersionist view of believer's baptism. This speaker held to this position, and stated that Southern Baptists could trace their history from Thomas Helwys to
Roger Williams to the English Puritans to the Anabaptists and all the way back through Church history to "Polycrap"!
[ 24. July 2009, 17:32: Message edited by: WearyPilgrim ]
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I agree it makes sense, if the chalice and paten are already full of bread and wine. Maybe that is the low-church custom. But in most churches that I know, the bread and wine are not placed in the vessels, nor on the altar, until just before the eucharistic prayer.
Alex is right. You can't assess one part of the evangelical norm out of the context of the whole and put it in a higher church service.
In many evangelical Anglican churches, the bread would be real bread and put out on the paten on the cloth on the table before the service, and then covered. Likewise the wine (with a dash of water) would be poured into the chalices, which would each be covered. Then the whole lot would be covered. Just as you might do with a picnic of sandwiches and ribena before meal time.
When it comes to the fraction of the bread, the covers would be removed (usually during a song immediately before). After the last communicant has received the covers would be replaced. After the end of the service, the lay assistants would remove the covers, eat and drink the leftovers and wash up.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
In many evangelical Anglican churches, the bread would be real bread and put out on the paten on the cloth on the table before the service, and then covered. Likewise the wine (with a dash of water) would be poured into the chalices, which would each be covered.
I don't think you will find many evangelicals who use a 'mixed chalice', i.e. they don't add water. The mixed chalice was one of the 'six points' of ritualism for which priests were taken to court in the Victorian era.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think you will find many evangelicals who use a 'mixed chalice', i.e. they don't add water. The mixed chalice was one of the 'six points' of ritualism for which priests were taken to court in the Victorian era.
Be that as it may, they do round 'ere. I frequently celebrate in evangelical parishes and the mixed chalice seems to be the rule
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I agree it makes sense, if the chalice and paten are already full of bread and wine. Maybe that is the low-church custom. But in most churches that I know, the bread and wine are not placed in the vessels, nor on the altar, until just before the eucharistic prayer.
Alex is right. You can't assess one part of the evangelical norm out of the context of the whole and put it in a higher church service.
In many evangelical Anglican churches, the bread would be real bread and put out on the paten on the cloth on the table before the service, and then covered. Likewise the wine (with a dash of water) would be poured into the chalices, which would each be covered. Then the whole lot would be covered. Just as you might do with a picnic of sandwiches and ribena before meal time.
When it comes to the fraction of the bread, the covers would be removed (usually during a song immediately before). After the last communicant has received the covers would be replaced. After the end of the service, the lay assistants would remove the covers, eat and drink the leftovers and wash up.
That's pretty much what I remember from helping out in Low-Evangelical shacks as a deacon.
* The bread and wine were prepared before the service and placed on the Holy Table.
* The alms were brought to the Table at the offertory, and the elements shuffled across to the north end
* The cloth over the elements was removed during the Sanctus
* After Communion the bread and wine were covered again
* After the service the remain bread and wine were consumed.
There were some variants on this, but that was pretty much the SOP. I usually did not see chalice veils used in the really Low shacks. I think you needed to be one or two notch up the candle before you use those.
In the USA I tend to associate chalice veils with Episcopalianism. From what bit I have seen of local practice - which is mainly modern MOTR-Low - some churches put the stack on the credence, others on the altar, but all use the veil.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think you will find many evangelicals who use a 'mixed chalice', i.e. they don't add water. The mixed chalice was one of the 'six points' of ritualism for which priests were taken to court in the Victorian era.
Be that as it may, they do round 'ere. I frequently celebrate in evangelical parishes and the mixed chalice seems to be the rule
and round 'ere.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
Red / White wine was mentioned as a difference. Like our good friend Sarum Sleuth I query that one.
But I don't know much about it. Can anyone go into detail on why some choose one colour and others another?
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laetare:
Red / White wine was mentioned as a difference.
...and why do some just go straight to the whiskey?
[ 25. July 2009, 21:30: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marginal Catholic
Apprentice
# 14735
|
Posted
Using white wine can be a reminder to the faithful that the liturgy is not just about symbols (ie red for blood)- it actually is blood, the colour being irrelevant.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
Not from the perspective of Baptists like me...
Or Methodists, or evo Anglicans, or Pentecostals...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarum Sleuth:
The use of chalice veils by low and MOTR Anglicans, not to mention cathedrals which should know better is beyond my comprehension. They are totally without Anglican authority and can't even be justified on the grounds of practicality, since they have no obvious use. ....
The use of a burse, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable.
SS
The low-church shack where I presided this morning had the (empty) chalice and paten on the altar from the beginning of the service, covered in a green chalice veil. Underneath this was an empty burse! The mind boggles. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Underneath this was an empty burse! The mind boggles.
Oh, you mean the coaster?
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
... the bread would be real bread and put out on the paten on the cloth on the table before the service, and then covered. Likewise the wine (with a dash of water) would be poured into the chalices, which would each be covered. Then the whole lot would be covered. Just as you might do with a picnic of sandwiches and ribena before meal time.
When it comes to the fraction of the bread, the covers would be removed (usually during a song immediately before). After the last communicant has received the covers would be replaced. After the end of the service, the lay assistants would remove the covers, eat and drink the leftovers and wash up.
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
* The bread and wine were prepared before the service and placed on the Holy Table.
* The alms were brought to the Table at the offertory, and the elements shuffled across to the north end
* The cloth over the elements was removed during the Sanctus
* After Communion the bread and wine were covered again
* After the service the remain bread and wine were consumed.
Apart from north end, this is pretty much exactly what I think of as normal non-high-church Anglican practice.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't think you will find many evangelicals who use a 'mixed chalice', i.e. they don't add water. The mixed chalice was one of the 'six points' of ritualism for which priests were taken to court in the Victorian era.
Be that as it may, they do round 'ere. I frequently celebrate in evangelical parishes and the mixed chalice seems to be the rule
and round 'ere.
The padre at the Missions to Seamen in Southampton c1992 used to use the mixed chalice, but I suspect from reasons fo economy as much as anything else ('more water- less wine! Wine's dear- water's cheap!' as he said to me once when i was serving). He was a CofI man and used to celebrate in surplice and stole but nonetheless I think I worked out that he habitually did all but one of the things that +Edward King was prosecuted for.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marginal Catholic:
Using white wine can be a reminder to the faithful that the liturgy is not just about symbols (ie red for blood)- it actually is blood, the colour being irrelevant.
Is that really why people use white wine rather than red? Seems a weak argument to me.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laetare:
quote:
Originally posted by Marginal Catholic:
Using white wine can be a reminder to the faithful that the liturgy is not just about symbols (ie red for blood)- it actually is blood, the colour being irrelevant.
Is that really why people use white wine rather than red? Seems a weak argument to me.
Sounds like one of those stories made up after the fact to me. A liturgical explanation that followed rather than preceded the action it explains.
But I don't know the history of it. (I could make up a Just So story, but I don't really know)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
I agree Ken. Why would people say White in just to show its blood and not depending on the colour of the wine.
Maybe its to say the blood has white blood cells too, lol.
I bet it was chosen just because some priests preferred white.
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
It's easier to get out of purificators. I suspect that's many people's reason. My former parish used Rosé because people that don't like wine found it easier to consume (seeing as Rosé doesn't really taste like wine...).
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marginal Catholic
Apprentice
# 14735
|
Posted
In 'Redemptionis Sacramentum' there are several things about ensuring the wine used for the Eucharist is valid matter, however colour is not mentioned ie. the colour of the wine doesn't matter.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
While I prefer red white for normal drinking, I prefer white for communion. There is always a slight shock factor with the first sip of a dry wine; sweet wine doesn't have this, and most good sweet wine happens to be white. I celebrated yesterday using the foulest red wine I have ever tasted*: I suspect it had been left in an open bottle all week. But even properly looked after red altar wine tends to taste yucky.
I know that Holy Communion is not meant to be a gourmet wine tasting, but if the stuff is so foul as to make you gag, it seems to me that it's not really contributing to a sense of devotion.
*and because we had told people that the chalice was optional in the light of the flu crisis, I could have been left with a whole chalice-full of the stuff. Fortunately most people received in both kinds.
[ 27. July 2009, 22:01: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marginal Catholic
Apprentice
# 14735
|
Posted
Ours is amber colour, and tastes like cheap sherry -(but the altar wine aint cheap!) We had a bad batch recently with loads of sediment floating in it, but we returned it as wine that has gone bad is not valid matter.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Ours is Cooperative Fairtrade Red Wine (of varying types). Sometimes we use Kosher Wine ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Anything not used in the chalice that day, is left in the bottle at the back of the Church for anybody to have at Coffee time!
Max.
[ 27. July 2009, 22:45: 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
|
|
Marginal Catholic
Apprentice
# 14735
|
Posted
Max, is that wine approved as valid matter? The validity of the sacrament is in question if the bread and wine are not valid.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
