|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Two questions on communion
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
As a communicant (never a giver) I do not make eye contact - for one thing if you receive kneeling down as we tend to do in the Anglican church, you would get a crick in the neck trying to make eye contact, especially if the giver is particularly tall.
I do, however, like our parish priest's custom of giving the bread to us by name, as in "The body of Christ, Gwalchmai".
Hmm. If I'm honest, I struggle with this. It seems to turn it into a personal exchange between the priest/administrator and communicant, when really it ought to be between the communicant and God only, with the priest performing a necessary, but not personal, function. Like confession.
There's also the difficulty of not knowing everyone's names - if it's a small service and you've been there long enough you're probably all right, but if you don't know everyone, I rather feel you shouldn't call anyone by name. Otherwise it's 'Bob, Sue, Joan, (nothing), Fred...' which is awkward for the person whose name was forgotten or not known at all. It's liable to be a distraction from what's going on.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Our vicar does the naming-the-recipient thing. Mrs A, who very rarely comes to church, says that she finds this very powerful and intense- but often too intense. It doesn't bother me much but I'd prefer that it wasn't done, for the reasons stated above
--------------------
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
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
Please don't deliberately make eye contact with me during Communion (accidental eye contact is ok) as it makes me feel very uncomfortable. I guess I'm a very reserved person who doesn't appreciate close contact with aquaintances who are not close friends ( just as I dislike passing the peace cuddles).
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Thanks all for your replies. Very helpful.
Seems the eye contact thing is quite personal and depends on whether you think the moment is between the person and God or it's more a communal act.
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
2) In my tradition, which does believe in Real Presence, extra consecrated elements may be reverently consumed, or disposed of in consecrated ground (e.g., a garden on the church property), or, in the case of wine, poured into the piscina, which goes straight into the ground.
A few of you have mentioned piscinas and I was curious about leo's description of diluting the wine in a bucket then pouring it out. I've never heard of a piscina before. Perhaps because Australian churches are not very old.
Is pouring the wine directly onto consecrated ground acceptable or not? Seems to be the same thing as a piscina in the end.
There is another angle I've heard: "If Jesus can get into it then he can get out of it". Makes sense. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) What do youse think?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A few of you have mentioned piscinas and I was curious about leo's description of diluting the wine in a bucket then pouring it out. I've never heard of a piscina before. Perhaps because Australian churches are not very old.
Is pouring the wine directly onto consecrated ground acceptable or not? Seems to be the same thing as a piscina in the end.
Due to some lovely Victorian reordering the piscinas in our church have been covered over making them completely unuseable (although I know where they are, and one day may just take an axe to the rubble).
I'm not sure on what authority, but pouring onto consecrated ground seems to be common practice in those situations where there is no Piscina for use, as long as it is an area which is not open to becoming profane (beyond all reasonable ability of course).
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is another angle I've heard: "If Jesus can get into it then he can get out of it". Makes sense. What do youse think?
That it answers the wrong question. Of course Jesus *can* (he is God, after all). But if he lovingly self-empties himself into being sacramentally present to us, putting God to the test by asking what he *can* do to leave us, seems to have rather missed the point.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Our vicar does the naming-the-recipient thing. Mrs A, who very rarely comes to church, says that she finds this very powerful and intense- but often too intense. It doesn't bother me much but I'd prefer that it wasn't done, for the reasons stated above
This is standard operating procedure in the Orthodox Church. "The servant/handmaiden of God NN. receives the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ unto remission of sins and life everlasting" (or slight variants in word order). Every communicant, every time.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
E]A few of you have mentioned piscinas and I was curious about leo's description of diluting the wine in a bucket then pouring it out. I've never heard of a piscina before. of it". Makes sense. What do youse think?
The diluting comes from the generL Instruction on the Roman missal.
Piscinas were in medieval churches for holy water. NOT for consecrated wine. That is an American practice and horrifies me.
--------------------
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
|
|
AndyB
Shipmate
# 10186
|
Posted
1. In my view, it's all about the words.
Words such as "The blood of Christ keep you in eternal life" or the long version from 1662 etc are prayers over the recipient, and in my opinion it's therefore in order to look at the person you are praying over and indeed to have eye contact.
Using "The blood of Christ [given for you]" is an address to the recipient and again can be delivered in the same way.
2. Isn't the requirement that unreserved elements are consumed reverently by whomever the president might call forward?
Posts: 149 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
On the question of looking in the eyes on distribution, I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the words of distribution. The C of E authorized words do seem addressed to the receiver, often using an explicit 'you'. It seems normal to look at someone when talking directly to that person. So, I do.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Lutherans, of course, have a slightly different take con the elements after communion. We hold that they are the body and blood of Jesus in, with and under the bread and wine in the act of communion. Once communion is over, the sacredness of the elements are no more.
That said, any bread that is left over should be consumed; and, if there is too much wine to consume, it should be poured directly onto the ground.
As far as looking into the eye of a person while communing them, as a communicant, I would find that somewhat unnerving. Look at them, yes; but looking into everyone's eyes? I think I would take my que from the communicant, if they look up at me, I have no problem looking back. If they are looking at the elements as they are distributed, it is best to move on.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lutherans, of course, have a slightly different take con the elements after communion. We hold that they are the body and blood of Jesus in, with and under the bread and wine in the act of communion. Once communion is over, the sacredness of the elements are no more.
Indeed, Gramps. A Lutheran understanding is more focused on the event of Eucharist rather than the substances. This can create some awkward moments ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) in Anglican-Lutheran joint Eucharistic services. However, such awkwardness can be avoided with a little discussion and planning.
For example: Need more bread in the middle of distribution? For Lutherans, you can get more from the credence table, the sacristy, or even run out to your car and get it if you need to, and continue distributing. All such bread distributed as the Body of Christ is considered to have been covered by the initial consecration and is part of the event of Holy Communion. By contrast, Anglicans have a kind of "blast zone" understanding of consecration: if the bread wasn't on the altar, it isn't considered to be consecrated.
Oh, the fun we had ![[Frown]](frown.gif) when a Lutheran bishop distributed bread from the credence table!
In a (greatly simplified) version of Lutheran Eucharistic understanding: once the event is over, the elements return to bread and wine. If you can wrap a substance-based mindset into an event-based mindset, you can see that it would not be scandalous to pour wine back into bottles or wafers back into boxes to await the next event. The substances are no longer considered sacred out of the context of the Eucharist.
Having said that, it is just easier to defer to Anglican scruples than try to keep explaining this to their horror. Lutherans have moved toward consuming/reverently disposing of the consecrated elements.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
R.A.M.
Shipmate
# 7390
|
Posted
Gramps, Leaf, I never knew that about lutheran understanding of the real presence. (Despite having briefly known a Swedish Lutheran chaplain at university.)
Do Lutherans have a tradition of administering the elements to the sick at home? I understand that in the Anglican (and RC?) traditions this can be done by an authorised lay person, because the elements are reserved, and still maintain the real presence, however that is understood. Does this not really happen, or does it happen but have to be performed by a priest on each occasion, with the full rite?
--------------------
Formerly Real Ale Methodist
Back after prolonged absence...
Posts: 1584 | From: (Sunshine on) Leith | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
And is there any difference between Swedish Lutherans, whom I understand to be generally 'higher' than most, and the rest when it comes to theology and practice. Is reservation of the MBS practised in Sweden or anywhere else in Lutheranism?
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
On the question of looking in the eyes on distribution, I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the words of distribution. The C of E authorized words do seem addressed to the receiver, often using an explicit 'you'. It seems normal to look at someone when talking directly to that person. So, I do.
Really? I'm not so sure about that. I don't look directly at people when I talk, not even my closest friends, and I'd be very disturbed if someone sought to do so. That's just not me!
I don't think it has anything to do with how 'personal' the act is, or even - pace Evensong further up the thread - whether one values a sense of community. I just don't look people in the eye as a matter of personal preference, and I would be dubious about any attempt to read a theological interpretation into this...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I don't think it has anything to do with how 'personal' the act is, or even - pace Evensong further up the thread - whether one values a sense of community. I just don't look people in the eye as a matter of personal preference, and I would be dubious about any attempt to read a theological interpretation into this...
And it's a bit difficult to look people in the eye when one is standing and administering the chalice to people who are kneeling (and some of whom have hats on). They're not looking up to catch my gaze; I'm not looking to connect with them via eye contact, just let them receive the Precious Blood with no spills or other glitches.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Not sure about the differences in Swedish Lutheran understanding of the real presence.
Now as to the issue of distributing to the sick: we can actually go both ways on this since we would say their communion is an extension of the congregational communion event, or we can consecrate the elements to be used in the presence of the sick person. Myself, I prefer the latter. If we used lay persons to distribute the communion to the sick, they have to be licensed to do so--and there are various ways to do that: by the pastor, with the approval of the church council or by request of the church council to the bishop (depending on which Lutheran Synod you are in). Usually though, unless you it is a large congregation, it is expected that the pastor will commune the sick--it forces the pastor to get out and visit the sick.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Leaf, that's not actually true for the Lutherans I live among; we have no clear "blast radius" for the Eucharist either in time or space, and we'd rather eat lutefisk than venture a guess--
But in practice, if the bread or wine was not on the altar at the Words of Institution, someone will quietly say them again before distributing "oops" supplies; and once the celebration is ended (even five minutes ended!) my church will reconsecrate in the hearing of latecoming communicants. But equally we will not treat as common any once-consecrated element, no matter how long ago. So I guess you could call it a belt-and-suspenders approach.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
As a communicant (never a giver) I do not make eye contact ...
Hmm. If I'm honest, I struggle with this. It seems to turn it into a personal exchange between the priest/administrator and communicant, when really it ought to be between the communicant and God only,
I have a lot of difficulty with this.
I try to imagine any doctrine, any tradition, of Communion at the last supper itself. Does the idea fit with people reclined around a table?
The idea of no communication with each other, never mind not looking at the priest, does not seem to fit.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
At the last supper, people would have looked at Jesus; at Communion I look at Jesus, in the most Holy Sacrament.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Christ is present at the Eucharist in the Blessed Sacrament itself, and also in his Body the Church gathered for worship. So although obviously the primary focus at the moment of communion is the sacramental elements, it's not really a distraction to acknowledge one's fellow-Christians.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
At the last supper, people would have looked at Jesus...
Yes, but... If we're going to draw direct parallels to the Last Supper (which I'd certainly like to) then we should all be eating a proper meal together, not merely sharing bread and wine. Jesus took the Passover meal and added new meaning to it; he didn't just gather his followers together to share a loaf of bread and some wine.
I realise we all, whatever our tradition, copy some elements of the Last Supper, adapt others, and ignore still others. But ISTM it would be a significant loss to remove the communal, sharing element of the meal as Jesus instituted it (and as it seems to have been practised at least among the Corinthian Christians - as per 1 Cor 11:20-34).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Words such as "The blood of Christ keep you in eternal life" or the long version from 1662
It's a shame that virtually no-one uses the 1662 version any more. It's not as if most churches have a couple of hundred communicants every week, where longish words would actually make much difference.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Yes, but... If we're going to draw direct parallels to the Last Supper (which I'd certainly like to) then we should all be eating a proper meal together, not merely sharing bread and wine.
It certainly raises questions about the widespread practice of fasting communion.
And if we're really going to mention parallels, there's also that other strand, represented by John, the Didache, and Addai and Mari, where the Last Supper connection is absent.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
At the last supper, people would have looked at Jesus; at Communion I look at Jesus, in the most Holy Sacrament.
Carys
Quite right.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Christ is present at the Eucharist in the Blessed Sacrament itself, and also in his Body the Church gathered for worship. So although obviously the primary focus at the moment of communion is the sacramental elements, it's not really a distraction to acknowledge one's fellow-Christians.
Quite right.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
And to maintain the congregationalism that infects North American Lutheranism, yet another Lutheran experience:
The ELCA's worship book provides a prayer for the sending off of eucharistic visitors to the shut-ins. The holy sacrament is then transported and not consecrated again when administered to those in need. This is how we do it at my church. The distribution sometimes happens throughout the week.
Yes, we haven't really figured out who we are, yet. It certainly makes it hard to represent Lutheranism to others!
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Scruples about the consecrated elements vary across the Lutheran spectrum, it is true.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Olaf's congregational practices are on the assumption that communion of the shut ins are an extension of the congregational communion.
However, I found when I visited shut ins, they appreciated hearing the words of institution as part of the individual communion rite. This is also in the ELCA's Occasional Services book.
Different strokes, for different folks.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Olaf's congregational practices are on the assumption that communion of the shut ins are an extension of the congregational communion.
However, I found when I visited shut ins, they appreciated hearing the words of institution as part of the individual communion rite. This is also in the ELCA's Occasional Services book.
Different strokes, for different folks.
That's quite true, the Words of Institution are said, but they are prefaced with something like:
"Gathered for worship, our congregation heard that 'in the night in which he was betrayed...' ". They are most definitely not a repetition. Our shut-ins seem to relish in their reception being a part of the regular Sunday assembly, rather than a private affair.
That said, at the same moment that many of our shut-ins are receiving the sacrament by extension, the altar guild is busily emptying unused wee cuppies back into the wine bottle by funnel.
This makes for sloppy and ambiguous eucharistic theology. Much better to just follow the directions of The Use of the Means of Grace, and consume what remains.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Olaf's congregational practices are on the assumption that communion of the shut ins are an extension of the congregational communion.
However, I found when I visited shut ins, they appreciated hearing the words of institution as part of the individual communion rite. This is also in the ELCA's Occasional Services book.
Different strokes, for different folks.
That's quite true, the Words of Institution are said, but they are prefaced with something like:
"Gathered for worship, our congregation heard that 'in the night in which he was betrayed...' ". They are most definitely not a repetition. Our shut-ins seem to relish in their reception being a part of the regular Sunday assembly, rather than a private affair.
This is essentially the PC(USA) practice as well. At least 2 elders and/or deacons must be the ones to take communion to the homebound, though others may accompany them or be present. There is an expectation that the delivery will take place the same day or, if necessary, the following day.
That's what wife is doing right now.
As for wee cuppies, we rarely use them anymore.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Since this has got onto a discussion of communion for the sick and housebound there are two different ways that it might be practiced within the URC.
There are those who do communion by extension which is what is described.
However,a few ministers will also hold communion services at the house or bedside of someone who is unable to receive at home. This is more common I suspect where the practice of regular pastoral visits by the minister is kept up rather than places where a visit after communion. In such cases the minister will normally visit with someone else to represent this being part of the wider congregation and not separate from it. Often this person is an individuals elder but it may be just a close friend who is also a member.
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
However,a few ministers will also hold communion services at the house or bedside of someone who is unable to receive at home. This is more common I suspect where the practice of regular pastoral visits by the minister is kept up rather than places where a visit after communion. In such cases the minister will normally visit with someone else to represent this being part of the wider congregation and not separate from it. Often this person is an individuals elder but it may be just a close friend who is also a member.
Until 10 or 15 years ago, this was the only permissible way of providing communion to the homebound in the PC(USA). The presence of an elder as well as the minister was required, and still is if this option is used.
[ 06. October 2013, 21:33: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
When I help serve, I try to look individuals in the eye, at least if they will let me (Lutherans being a shy people).
As far as leftover wine -- we try not to have any, but if we do it is discreetly spilled into our garden after the service. (Much to the consternation of a couple of the older church ladies, who at one point, before the church had regular training for helpers, tried pouring it back into the bottle before being discovered and corrected. One of them didn't like that a bit, and I suspect that on her watch at least some of the leftovers got poured back into the bottle anyway. Oy gevult.)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Do people actually pour wine from a chalice, that has been drunk from and slobbered into, back into a bottle? Apart from the irreverence/sacrilege (depending on your view of the sacrament) it is surely extremely icky.
If they simply pour unconsecrated wine back from the cruet, what's the problem?
--------------------
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
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Some time ago I was asked to take a weekday Holy Communion at a large church (CofE, open Evangelical) in the West Midlands. At the ablutions, I consumed what remained in the chalice. The LLM who was serving said to me afterwards, 'I can't believe you drank all that wine!' 'What do you usually do?' I asked. 'X [the Vicar, now something considerably more elevated] puts it back in the bottle with a funnel,' she said.
I felt pretty queasy, and not entirely for reasons of sacramental theology.
X, IIRC, trained at Wycliffe in the late '70s: I bet he's not the only clergyman to recycle TPBOOLJC.
[ 07. October 2013, 16:13: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Do people actually pour wine from a chalice, that has been drunk from and slobbered into, back into a bottle? Apart from the irreverence/sacrilege (depending on your view of the sacrament) it is surely extremely icky.
Afraid they do. Some of us have moved mountains to stop it.
It would help if the clergy took the abutions during the service instead of doing all the handshaking and then going back to the altar only to be told that 'Mrs. X has dealt with it.'
--------------------
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 Amos:
Some time ago I was asked to take a weekday Holy Communion at a large church (CofE, open Evangelical) in the West Midlands.
IME it's the open evangelicals who are most neglectful of Prayer Book rubrics. The more conservative sort (or at least the old-fashioned conservatives) tend to be more careful.
Though nothing like that happens in our archetypally open-evangelical parish church.
[ 07. October 2013, 16:53: 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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Do people actually pour wine from a chalice, that has been drunk from and slobbered into, back into a bottle? Apart from the irreverence/sacrilege (depending on your view of the sacrament) it is surely extremely icky.
Afraid they do. Some of us have moved mountains to stop it.
We Baptists recycle the wine. But (a) we don't have the same understanding of what "happens" to it (indeed we don't "consecrate" as such); (b) we usually use those wee cuppies, so the liquid will not have been slobbered into!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
...Anglicans have a kind of "blast zone" understanding of consecration: if the bread wasn't on the altar, it isn't considered to be consecrated.
...
Just wanted to say what an excellent mental picture that creates!
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I don't know what current practice is at Southwark Cathedral, but some years ago at big diocesan eucharists, assistant priests would stand in front of the altar each holding a chalice or ciborium to be consecrated along with those on the altar itself. The 'blast zone' was obviously understood to include everything in the bishop's line of sight.
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Questions of slobber aside, what would be wrong with mingling consecrated and unconsecrated wine in the bottle if- big if- the wine in the bottle were only ever used for sacramental purposes (that is, would be consecrated at some point)? After all, if the consecrated wine is unalterably the Blood of Christ, it's not going to be harmed by having the Prayer of Consecration said over it again, is it?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caedmon
Apprentice
# 17482
|
Posted
Communion is all kinda pagan anyway.
Posts: 3 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caedmon:
Communion is all kinda pagan anyway.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Only in the same sense that all religion is.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Are we gonna play the Mithras or the Osiris connection?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Piscinas were in medieval churches for holy water. NOT for consecrated wine. That is an American practice and horrifies me.
I think you're confusing piscinas with stoups. And what's the swipe at our Americans cousins for?
Here's how the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia defines piscina: quote:
(Lat. from piscis, a fish, fish-pond, pool or basin, called also sacrarium, thalassicon, or fenestella)
The name was used to denote a baptismal font or the cistern into which the water flowed from the head of the person baptized; or an excavation, some two or three feet deep and about one foot wide, covered with a stone slab, to receive the water from the washing of the priest's hands, the water used for washing the palls, purifiers, and corporals, the bread crumbs, cotton, etc. used after sacred unctions, and for the ashes of sacred things no longer fit for use. It was constructed near the altar, at the south wall of the sanctuary, in the sacristy, or some other suitable place.
Therefore, they are properly used to dispose of the (preferably heavily diluted) remnants of the Precious Body and Blood which will inevitable adhere to priests' fingers and altar vessels & linens.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caedmon:
Communion is all kinda pagan anyway.
Hello Caedmon and welcome to the Ship.
Although we encourage robust discussion of many topics on the Boards, please note that we prefer threads to keep on topic, in this case as laid out quite clearly in Evensong's opening post. If you want to discuss the relationship between Holy Communion and 'pagan' practices, it would be better to start a separate thread in which to do so.
It might also be worthwhile giving a bit more detail on your thinking than a ingle line assertion, assuming that you interested in serious debate!
Thanks,
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know what current practice is at Southwark Cathedral, but some years ago at big diocesan eucharists, assistant priests would stand in front of the altar each holding a chalice or ciborium to be consecrated along with those on the altar itself. The 'blast zone' was obviously understood to include everything in the bishop's line of sight.
Likewise, I don't know the current practice, but I think the justification there is those assisting priests are concelebrants, each with their own small blast zone. Whether the bishop's range was that broad was never clarified in my hearing...
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know what current practice is at Southwark Cathedral, but some years ago at big diocesan eucharists, assistant priests would stand in front of the altar each holding a chalice or ciborium to be consecrated along with those on the altar itself. The 'blast zone' was obviously understood to include everything in the bishop's line of sight.
Likewise, I don't know the current practice, but I think the justification there is those assisting priests are concelebrants, each with their own small blast zone. Whether the bishop's range was that broad was never clarified in my hearing...
Hmmm.
Name: Consecrate Mass Elements
Components: S, M, V
Range: Line of sight
Area of Effect: All intended elements within range
That's from the classic Players' Handbook; might have changed with 2nd Ed. of course.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
