|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: (Ex) alcoholic priests and the Eucharist?
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Bread and fishes?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
That must be very dispiriting for a member of the laity who wishes to partake in one kind only - the one that is withheld.
I've never really understood communion in one kind full stop. The fullness of the sign is in both kinds. Anything less is not the sign Christ instituted.
[fixed code]
Yes, but the Priest must always communicate in both kinds so the 'sign' is completed and proclaimed. The presence of Christ is complete in either element so the faithful receiving in one kind receive the full benefit of the Sacramental 'sign' (and indeed those who do not communicate also share in the grace).
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Ad Orientem,
Welcome to Ship of Fools and to Ecclesiantics! If you haven't done so already, it's good to acquaint yourself with the 10 Commandments and with the guidelines of each board (linked in the description at the top of the board). I hope that you find this community interesting and engaging.
May I suggest that you may find it helpful to explain your points of view? Simply asserting it doesn't help the discussion to develop.
Happy sailing!
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
In the diocese of British Columbia (ACC)
intintion was banned because peoples fingers were getting in to the wine .
This was at the time of the H1N1 flu scare. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
I'll explain further. Whether Christ is or is not fully present under either kind is ultimately irrellevant, communion under one kind is not what Christ commanded. The fully present under one kind argument is merely a scholsatic rationalism designed to justify what is an abuse.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
I'll explain further. Whether Christ is or is not fully present under either kind is ultimately irrellevant, communion under one kind is not what Christ commanded. The fully present under one kind argument is merely a scholsatic rationalism designed to justify what is an abuse.
Could be, but my abuse could be someone else's pastoral application of economia. I tend to be shy of suggesting what OLJC might have wanted, but I do not think that gluten or alcohol poisoning was in mind-- and that is what is involved for some people. The general application of communion in one kind might be argued to be an abuse, but that is not what we are speaking of on this thread.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you intinct in the way I do it (only slight contact with the wine) there is no way my fingers - even accidentally - could touch the surface of the wine. They are a good couple of centimetres away. If someone is actually going to drown their host, ahd their fingers as well, they might as well go the whole hog, put the chalice to their lips, and take a gurt big gulp.
I agree completely, but many are not so adept as you. I realize that this aspect is tangential to the aim of the topic, but I felt my prior post missed some information about the web link to info on intinction. I hope it okay to add this information.
It turns out that fingers are a greater source of infection than fingers (links inline below). It is cleaner to use the common cup properly than to ever intinct. We actually don't have the intinction option if there is no additional smaller intinction cup available per diocesan directive.
The issue came to fore in our parish, as I noted during the flu scares, and in the lay assistants, honourary clergy and rector meetings about it, and the discussion further turned to 'incidents' with the cup, including people with bandages (bandaids) on fingers that were also dipped, people whose hands were dirty or stained. It was suggested that the alcohol in the wine does service as germ killer but apparently it actually doesn't do very well at all. We'd have to use scotch or something equally powerful in alcohol content to kill germs.
We studied the Diocese of Toronto info. The document they had posted on their website has moved or been deleted, but I found this directive on their website, and then via further search a webpage on the Anglican Church of Canada website which seems to contain the relevant information as I recall it. There is a good discussion if you scroll down to the "intinction" heading.
It is also suggested that hand sanitizer would remedy the risk of infection from hands, but it is not usually used properly. It must be of the right formulation (60% or greater alcohol) applied in sufficient quantity onto non-moist or sweaty hands, and let dry for at least a minute to do the job.
It rather amazed (and continues to amaze) me that such a simply thing such as intinction versus drinking from the common cup could be such a complicated topic.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
I'll explain further. Whether Christ is or is not fully present under either kind is ultimately irrellevant, communion under one kind is not what Christ commanded. The fully present under one kind argument is merely a scholsatic rationalism designed to justify what is an abuse.
Could be, but my abuse could be someone else's pastoral application of economia. I tend to be shy of suggesting what OLJC might have wanted, but I do not think that gluten or alcohol poisoning was in mind-- and that is what is involved for some people. The general application of communion in one kind might be argued to be an abuse, but that is not what we are speaking of on this thread.
Fair enough, but that brings me on to another point. Now I guess the following depends upon how one views the Eucharist but if we believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of our Lord things like gluten or alcohol poisoning are surely non-issues? I'm not trying to be difficult but in all the time I've attended the Divine Liturgy it's never been an issue.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Fair enough, but that brings me on to another point. Now I guess the following depends upon how one views the Eucharist but if we believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of our Lord things like gluten or alcohol poisoning are surely non-issues? I'm not trying to be difficult but in all the time I've attended the Divine Liturgy it's never been an issue.
I don't think anyone in history has ever claimed that alcohol molecules are turned into red blood cells, or that gluten turns into muscle. Even the most fanatic transubstatiationists wouldn't go to that extreme.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
What I mean is this, as far as I'm aware there is no provision for such things in Orthodoxy yet people still receive holy communion under both kinds.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
With certain alcoholics it is not the physical reality but the association in their minds that is the trigger. Therefore they avoid wine gums. There is no alcohol in wine gums, never has been, instead the name was coined as a reference to them being an alternative to wine.
None provision does not imply non issue. Just as the non-provision of large type hymn books in many churches until recently did not imply no-one needed them to read the hymns.
Jengie
[ 28. February 2013, 09:41: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What I mean is this, as far as I'm aware there is no provision for such things in Orthodoxy yet people still receive holy communion under both kinds.
A message from a ROCOR friend informs me that an alcoholic cousin was communicated by bread alone, after discussion with his priest and the bishop's blessing. This the only instance I know of, but there may be others.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
That must be very dispiriting for a member of the laity who wishes to partake in one kind only - the one that is withheld.
I've never really understood communion in one kind full stop. The fullness of the sign is in both kinds. Anything less is not the sign Christ instituted. [fixed code]
Do you realise how rude that could be seen as (in this thread in particular)?
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
That must be very dispiriting for a member of the laity who wishes to partake in one kind only - the one that is withheld.
I've never really understood communion in one kind full stop. The fullness of the sign is in both kinds. Anything less is not the sign Christ instituted. [fixed code]
Do you realise how rude that could be seen as (in this thread in particular)?
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
It's not meant to be rude. It's a valid point unless you want to get into scholastic gobbledegook, something I avoid like the plague.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
1. General rule: Section 8 of the Sacrament Act 1547 is still in force and is mandatory. This states:
“ ... the said most blessed Sacrament be hereafter ... commonly delivered and ministered unto the people within the Church of England ... under both kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine except necessity otherwise require ... ” (spelling modernised: emphasis supplied)
(Here the word ‘commonly’ is used to mean ‘in a way common to all’ or ‘universally’, as is shown by its context: see the Oxford English Dictionary.)
All I can do is pray for the grace of my necessity. I am pretty sure He is ok with it, but thanks for reminding me what a thin line I tread.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
In case anyone is worried that I might turn up at their church and infect their wine, I'd just like to reassure that it is a response to a particular situation at my own church, properly authorised and common to many communicants there. I'm sensitive to differing traditions in other churches and do not intinct there (I've never come across anywhere else yet where it has been necessary).
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Fair enough, but that brings me on to another point. Now I guess the following depends upon how one views the Eucharist but if we believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of our Lord things like gluten or alcohol poisoning are surely non-issues? I'm not trying to be difficult but in all the time I've attended the Divine Liturgy it's never been an issue.
I don't think anyone in history has ever claimed that alcohol molecules are turned into red blood cells, or that gluten turns into muscle. Even the most fanatic transubstatiationists wouldn't go to that extreme.
Ad Orientem, transubstantiation means that the substance of the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, but that the accidents or physical properties remain those of bread and wine. There's no conflict here. No theologian has ever claimed that drinking a huge amount of consecrated wine will not get you drunk, because drunkenness is an effect of the interaction between the physical accidents of the wine and, well, you.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
I'll explain further. Whether Christ is or is not fully present under either kind is ultimately irrellevant, communion under one kind is not what Christ commanded. The fully present under one kind argument is merely a scholsatic rationalism designed to justify what is an abuse.
I've never been to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and I don't mean to be insulting; please let me know if I am. But it's my impression that communion is usually served to the people from a spoon, with the bread and wine mixed together. Do you believe that's "what Christ commanded"?
Welcome to the Ship, by the way! As others have said.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
To carry the intincting tangent further, during the swine flu scare,our diocese was told to withhold wine or intinct. Intinction being done by the priest before the wafer was given to the communicant, so there was not danger of many hands in the cup.
The sanitzer is to help reduce the effects of the peace ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
We have a lot of people who won't come and take when they have a cold so as to not spread the germs. Our vicar usually tells them to just take the bread, as to take in one kind is better than to not take at all.
In fact I have been told somewhere but can't remember where, that taking one of the elements covers you for both, if you see what I mean. Can anyone enlighten me on that?
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
The sanitzer is to help reduce the effects of the peace
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In fact I have been told somewhere but can't remember where, that taking one of the elements covers you for both, if you see what I mean. Can anyone enlighten me on that?
It is the doctrine of concomitance. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, deals with it in the Summa.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
1. General rule: Section 8 of the Sacrament Act 1547 is still in force and is mandatory. This states:
“ ... the said most blessed Sacrament be hereafter ... commonly delivered and ministered unto the people within the Church of England ... under both kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine except necessity otherwise require ... ” (spelling modernised: emphasis supplied)
(Here the word ‘commonly’ is used to mean ‘in a way common to all’ or ‘universally’, as is shown by its context: see the Oxford English Dictionary.)
All I can do is pray for the grace of my necessity. I am pretty sure He is ok with it, but thanks for reminding me what a thin line I tread.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
You're treading it well.
The legalism of some posts by other above verges on the superstitious. if the magic isn't performed in exactly the right way, the universe will explode.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
1. General rule: Section 8 of the Sacrament Act 1547 is still in force and is mandatory. This states:
“ ... the said most blessed Sacrament be hereafter ... commonly delivered and ministered unto the people within the Church of England ... under both kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine except necessity otherwise require ... ” (spelling modernised: emphasis supplied)
(Here the word ‘commonly’ is used to mean ‘in a way common to all’ or ‘universally’, as is shown by its context: see the Oxford English Dictionary.)
All I can do is pray for the grace of my necessity. I am pretty sure He is ok with it, but thanks for reminding me what a thin line I tread.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
You're treading it well.
The legalism of some posts by other above verges on the superstitious. if the magic isn't performed in exactly the right way, the universe will explode.
I'm not sure what is legalistic in following the direct instruction of our Lord. It is enough to believe that what we receive in holy communion is truely the body and blood of our Lord and if there is anything to be avoided it's all the philosophical waffle which surrounds it, but then I have no love for the scholastics and their jargon for it is in them where the true legalism lies. It's this simple faith in the real presence which surely leads us to no longer consider what we receive to be bread and wine.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LostinChelsea
Shipmate
# 5305
|
Posted
Well, Ad Orientam, you may not understand it, but others do.
From the USCCB document linked to by Augustine the Aleut above: "As a final note, it is important to recall that through the doctrine of concomitance the Church teaches that under either species of bread or wine, the whole of Christ is received."
Thinking theologically, it's hard to argue that it takes both to be valid. Receiving both may be preferable, but that's not the issue at hand.
--------------------
Best when taken in moderation.
Posts: 237 | From: Deep South USA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
Well, Ad Orientam, you may not understand it, but others do.
From the USCCB document linked to by Augustine the Aleut above: "As a final note, it is important to recall that through the doctrine of concomitance the Church teaches that under either species of bread or wine, the whole of Christ is received."
Thinking theologically, it's hard to argue that it takes both to be valid. Receiving both may be preferable, but that's not the issue at hand.
I try not to talk in terms of "validity". It's not the Orthodox way. It's the Holy Spirit which ultimately makes a sacrament a sacrament. "Concomitance" is just another one of those scholastic pieces of jargon I try my best to shy away from because ultimately it's irrelevant. My point was not one of validity, rather that the sign of the sacrament Christ instituted is realised under both forms. I'm sure the early Christians never worried about such things.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Speaking as someone who is high non-conformist. I would stress different things about the action. I would put a lot more emphasis on it being a shared meal. I would say that normally bread and wine should be consumed by those present, without implying that every participant should have bread and wine. I would also stress that to use the Aquinas terminology, the accidents should not put at risk the health or well being of participants and that where such risk is known*, provision for a "safe" participation by individuals should be made as part of it being a shared meal. This is part of being a community and expressing care for the body of Christ.
Jengie
*I have taken communion when there was real risk involved to my health. That was my decision and I only realised the risk in the service. I had basically not remembered the wine would be alcoholic and I was on medication where alcohol was prohibited, I had no idea of what quantity of alcohol the medicine reacted to as this was normally a non issue as my home congregation used non-alcoholic wine. I decided it was a small risk but not negible and I took it. That was my decision and nobody at that service but me has responsibility for that. If I had been aware before hand, I would have been under duty to discuss and work through what to do with others.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
Apropos of wine gums etc above.
My friend says it is not just alcohol of wine in communion which is an issue for him as an alcoholic.
Brasso fumes are a problem for him also.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
Well, Ad Orientam, you may not understand it, but others do.
From the USCCB document linked to by Augustine the Aleut above: "As a final note, it is important to recall that through the doctrine of concomitance the Church teaches that under either species of bread or wine, the whole of Christ is received."
Thinking theologically, it's hard to argue that it takes both to be valid. Receiving both may be preferable, but that's not the issue at hand.
I try not to talk in terms of "validity". It's not the Orthodox way. It's the Holy Spirit which ultimately makes a sacrament a sacrament. "Concomitance" is just another one of those scholastic pieces of jargon I try my best to shy away from because ultimately it's irrelevant. My point was not one of validity, rather that the sign of the sacrament Christ instituted is realised under both forms. I'm sure the early Christians never worried about such things.
Indeed, so-- their concern was not being hauled in front of the prefect and then sent off to the lions. Jargon, of course, is often just a term for different language, sometimes articulating a different perspective. For the Orthodox, their more pneumatic (or Spirit) approach has its own way of providing for human frailty through economia. A tradition of counsel through spiritual fathers has provided direction in this and many other areas. In the west, for historical reasons, a more structured approach has been in play, careful to explain itself, careful to structure a strong logic, and careful to anticipate problems.
In this particular area of the human condition, both provide us with useful pointers and, in the case of the RCs and their instruction, some great practical tips. The rest of us should be grateful that we are being give a chance to support our fellows who live with these issues.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Jengie - to set your mind at rest, to cause an adverse reaction with medication you'd need to drain the chalice.
As a moderate drinker (rarely more than a couple of pints) I've never actually observed the "avoid alcohol" warnings on any meds and have yet to notice any effect from doing so. May just be the meds I have, and I'm not advocating ignoring the warnings, but they don't apply to minuscule amounts.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Let's just remember that the Ship isn't the place for giving or receiving medical advice and you should always consult your doctor, read the instructions on any medication etc. etc.
We now return to your regularly scheduled discussion regarding alcoholic priests and the Eucharist.
seasick, Eccles host
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jengie - to set your mind at rest, to cause an adverse reaction with medication you'd need to drain the chalice.
Not all medication, and it was probably not the medication you are thinking of. IRC it was an epileptic drug taken to control migraine, pre current era. I have not taken it for years. It was one of those when the Doctors tell you "NOT TO DRINK".
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jengie - to set your mind at rest, to cause an adverse reaction with medication you'd need to drain the chalice.
Not all medication, and it was probably not the medication you are thinking of. IRC it was an epileptic drug taken to control migraine, pre current era. I have not taken it for years. It was one of those when the Doctors tell you "NOT TO DRINK".
Jengie
Yeah, Mrs KLB was on several of those. She found a couple of pints made no difference.
I don't think a sip of communion wine counts as "drinking" pharmacologically, that's all.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
To carry the intincting tangent further, during the swine flu scare,our diocese was told to withhold wine or intinct. Intinction being done by the priest before the wafer was given to the communicant, so there was not danger of many hands in the cup.
Our (ECUSA) shack acquired an "intinction cup" rather like this a year or so ago. The priest brings the hosts on the plate, with some of the blood in the central cup. For those wishing to intinct, the priest will take the host, dip it in the cup and place it on the tongue, so there's no concern about contact with the grubby hands of the congregation. For those who prefer not to intinct (the majority), the common chalice follows as usual.
Our service sheet carries instructions for what to do if you want to intinct, receive in one kind only, or not receive at all but come to the altar rail for a blessing. On occasions when we have lots of visitors (such as Baptisms), the priest will give some verbal guidance as well.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Do many people like having the host placed on their tongue? I'm really quite squeamish about this and, if it was compulsory, would rather have a blessing. But I'd be interested to know if this is a minority view.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
May I return to the OP and title, and raise a question arising from an earlier post....
Do mainstream churches such as RC, Anglican, Greek Orthodox allow wine of Communion to be non alcoholic? - or permit a little for non alcoholics?
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Do many people like having the host placed on their tongue?
I've never received any other way. It was mainly a personal choice for myself. I suppose most people who have reservations about it feel that way because the priest's fingers could potentially touch the communicant's tongue. In 22 years of receiving communion this way, it has happened to me only a handful of times (although, to be fair, the number of times I receive as a man-in-the-pew has dropped considerably since I've been in ministry). If you do it right (open up wide enough, stick out your tongue far enough, and the person distributing knows what they are doing) the chance of finger-to-tongue contact is very, very small.
Currently, about a quarter of my parishioners receive in that manner.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Interesting again. About the cup, as a lay assistant, I have connected the cup with teeth of those who do not place a hand on mine when taking from it. It has helped immeasurably to hesitate in front of those who will not assist in their communion. I think some have a 'touching the cup phobia', which may extend to the chalice bearer's hand?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
May I return to the OP and title, and raise a question arising from an earlier post....
Do mainstream churches such as RC, Anglican, Greek Orthodox allow wine of Communion to be non alcoholic? - or permit a little for non alcoholics?
Basically no. For individuals who cannot consume alcohol, the RCs allow the use of mustum, unpasteurized grape juice where the fermentation has not begun or is infintesimal. Some Anglican churches--only in England and a part of Australia AFAIK --break church law by offering grape juice. Anglicans and RCs believe that one can communicate effectively through either the bread or wine alone.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
