|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Two questions on communion
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
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...
I'm pretty certain they're not concelebrating as I've seen this done at large diocesan events with lay people holding the chalices as well
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Are we gonna play the Mithras or the Osiris connection?
I don't think we need play either. As my previous jokey post indicated, it's not hard for magical thinking to creep into the theory and practice of the Eucharist.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Hmm, yeah - bread becomes actual flesh but doesn't change in appearance, taste or any other physical way. Likewise, wine becomes blood. I can understand why people unfamiliar with the theology would think that rather weird...
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Sure, and you can say the same thing about Jesus being fully God and fully human.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
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...
I'm pretty certain they're not concelebrating as I've seen this done at large diocesan events with lay people holding the chalices as well
Our cathedral has a blast zone of at least 10x10 - lay or ordained.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
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?
Not 'harmed' - but the eucharist would be invalid because there has to be consecration of BOTH elements at every eucharist.
So if wine is not consecrated, because of its already being consecrated, that the eucharist is null and void.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
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?
Neither confusing or sniping. Simple stating what happens, according to an Anglican priest from England who did a two year stint in TEC and explained that it was common practice NOT to do the ablutions but simply to pour the remnants of consecrated wine from the chalice down the piscina (it being in the sanctuary; the stoup being at the entrance.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
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?
Not 'harmed' - but the eucharist would be invalid because there has to be consecration of BOTH elements at every eucharist.
So if wine is not consecrated, because of its already being consecrated, that the eucharist is null and void.
Ok, I see that. In this case there would be some wine that was newly consecrated and other wine that had been previously consecrated but it would not be possible to distinguish the two because they would have mingled in the bottle.
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
--------------------
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
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
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.
I thought that all properly brought up priests formed a permanent intention to consecrate everything on the altar and nothing not on the altar.
I seem to recollect that a certain Scottish bishop consecrated an enormous flagon of wine left on the corner of the altar by a careless server; the ablutions took weeks.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
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?
Neither confusing or sniping. Simple stating what happens, according to an Anglican priest from England who did a two year stint in TEC and explained that it was common practice NOT to do the ablutions but simply to pour the remnants of consecrated wine from the chalice down the piscina (it being in the sanctuary; the stoup being at the entrance.)
You stated above that piscinas were for holy water and not for the Precious Blood. What do you mean they are "for holy water"? What holy water? It's this statement that made me think you were confusing stoups with piscinas.
We agree that the pouring of the PB undiluted down the piscina is sub-optimal - I'd add that it should never be necessary. But the whole point of the piscina up by the altar - with a drain straight down to the consecrated ground of the church - is to dispose reverently of abluted matter which may contain particles of the Sacrament or sacred substances (chrism, etc.).
[And I still think you're being unduly sniffy to the Yanks, as if they were the originators and/or principal malefactors in this field - without anything other than anecdote to back this up. I believe there are occasional US readers on this site...]
[ 08. October 2013, 18:15: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You stated above that piscinas were for holy water and not for the Precious Blood. What do you mean they are "for holy water"? What holy water? It's this statement that made me think you were confusing stoups with piscinas.
We use our piscina, which is built into the credence table near the high altar, to pour the water from the lavabo bowl just after the celebrant's fingers are cleansed.
One side of the double sink in the sacristy is also a piscina, with a lockable cover on it, and I think that's where excess Precious Blood would be poured if it had to be. But we normally opt to consume it rather than pour it. I think both the credence-table piscina and the lockable sink have pipes that go to the same place, but I could be wrong.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
christianbuddhist
Apprentice
# 17579
|
Posted
Regarding the question about wine, is it really reasonable to expect the vicar of a multi parish benefice to consume the remaining wine in six different churches before attempting to drive home? Theological purity needs to be tempered with discretion. It's hard to imagine Jesus having been overly concerned with whether all the wine was consumed at the Last Supper, after all.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mama Thomas
Shipmate
# 10170
|
Posted
I personally dislike Communion being all about the minister and the communicant. Looking the person in the eye, saying their name, squeezing their hand and you saying "the body/blood of Christ" and they say "thank you" to me shows neither one understands what is going on, or to be fair, their understanding is quite different from mine.
Some people try to catch my eye. I usually cross the Body over the paten before giving it into their hand or mouth, which I where I look rather than their eyes. I feel is should be as inconspicuous as possible, as unobtrusive as a telegram delivery boy. It's not about the communicant and me, I am not deigning to give them anything. They are communing with the risen Christ and all his glory, and all his body throughout time and space and beyond.
The whole point of liturgy is to find yourself in Christ Jesus by losing yourself in him. That's why the sacred ministers don't wear their own clothes, what makes the Mass a cosmic event as well as oh-so-local.
If there happens to be too much remaining of the MPB, goodness, call up some communicants to help you finish the chalice. I've never heard of it being poured down a piscine. I suppose if for some weird one in a million chance no one can finish the chalice at that moment, one can put It into the tabernacle and call somebody to come and finish It. Once, when there was too much left over after a serious miscalculation, the next day the priest did a mass of the pre-sanctified and gave everybody there three or four hosts and reminded them all to take a big swig from the chalice. Problem solved.
--------------------
All hearts are open, all desires known
Posts: 3742 | From: Somewhere far away | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
Regarding the question about wine, is it really reasonable to expect the vicar of a multi parish benefice to consume the remaining wine in six different churches before attempting to drive home? Theological purity needs to be tempered with discretion. It's hard to imagine Jesus having been overly concerned with whether all the wine was consumed at the Last Supper, after all.
It happens all the time. Intelligent clergy learn how much wine to consecrate so that there is not too much left to be consumed at the ablutions. Actually, what's tougher is doing a big choral mass in a collegiate chapel and discovering that only a few of the musicians come up to receive.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
Regarding the question about wine, is it really reasonable to expect the vicar of a multi parish benefice to consume the remaining wine in six different churches before attempting to drive home? Theological purity needs to be tempered with discretion. It's hard to imagine Jesus having been overly concerned with whether all the wine was consumed at the Last Supper, after all.
Who says anything about the 'vicar' consuming it all? Any of the communicants present could help to finish off the contents of the chalice. Though unless the six hypothetical churches all had wildly fluctuating numbers of communicants, any priest with any nous would be able to estimate the quantity of wine needed and never normally over-consecrate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
As someone who from time to time prepares the chalices, it's not always that easy Amos. Some weeks, everyone will take the cup; on others, quite a few will intinct. All non-predictably. Then there are the older children, some of whom will not take the cup, but others who will. It's a bit hard to remember just who's who. The best a poor server can do is aim over a bit, and then help with any leftover which is not being reserved.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
What Mama Thomas said.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
For what it's worth, some of us have the automatic "thank you" beat into us so thoroughly in childhood that we say it any time someone hands us something, even if it's a dirty diaper or a parking ticket. It's a reflex, not personal. ( yes, i've said this at the communion rail) ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
It's very similar to the reflex which makes us apologise to the person who barges into us in the checkout queue ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[You stated above that piscinas were for holy water and not for the Precious Blood. What do you mean they are "for holy water"? What holy water? It's this statement that made me think you were confusing stoups with piscinas.
Now I understand - just looked back to a previous post of mine.
I meant that piscinas can be used for water that has been used in the ablutions. Certainly not for consecrated wine.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
I would not want to expose the sick and housebound to wine that was previously in a chalice which people had dribbled into.
We reserve wine in small screw-top containers that are place on the corporal at the offertory and are then put straight into the tabernacle.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[You stated above that piscinas were for holy water and not for the Precious Blood. What do you mean they are "for holy water"? What holy water? It's this statement that made me think you were confusing stoups with piscinas.
Now I understand - just looked back to a previous post of mine.
I meant that piscinas can be used for water that has been used in the ablutions. Certainly not for consecrated wine.
Great. Thanks for the clarification, leo.
And to be clear myself, in the RCC throwing away the Sacred Species is a very serious delict, and just pouring It down the plughole - even onto consecrated ground - would normally be seen as just that. Gives me the collywobbles just thinking about it.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
I would not want to expose the sick and housebound to wine that was previously in a chalice which people had dribbled into.
We reserve wine in small screw-top containers that are place on the corporal at the offertory and are then put straight into the tabernacle.
Yes yes, but slobbering and dribbling aside, woulkd the mingling of the consecrated and unconsecrated elements make it improper to use it?
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
AIUI there wouldn't be any unconsecrated elements. The wine in the cruets would be consecrated along with the chalice, and then reserved. (Though I have never reserved both kinds separately like this: either - at one incumbent's insistence - the hosts were pre-intincted; or, more usually, we reserved in one kind only. I wonder what the general practice is, in the C of E and elsewhere? I know the RC custom is to reserve in one kind only.)
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
In our local hospital the recommended practice is to pre-intinct the wafers, and then consecrate them. The reason AIUI is infection control. Apart from those administered in the chapel, assistants then take consecrated wafers to those on the wards who have requested. There is never much difficulty about numbers with that service, i.e. we always know fairly accurately how many people will be there.
The chalice is filled with only a small quantity of wine, for the president to consume, and a priest's host to be broken, (ditto). Everyone received an intincted wafer.
There is also the reserved sacrament, although I have never had occasion to use it.
[ 09. October 2013, 12:24: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
AIUI there wouldn't be any unconsecrated elements. The wine in the cruets would be consecrated along with the chalice, and then reserved. (Though I have never reserved both kinds separately like this: either - at one incumbent's insistence - the hosts were pre-intincted; or, more usually, we reserved in one kind only. I wonder what the general practice is, in the C of E and elsewhere? I know the RC custom is to reserve in one kind only.)
No, I was thinking of the eventuality that i supposed above: that is, consecrated wine pured into the bottle which already contains some unconsecrated wine, so that the consecrated and the unconsecrated mingle.
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In our local hospital the recommended practice is to pre-intinct the wafers, and then consecrate them.
Recommended by whom? No-one with any knowledge of liturgy I hope. Surely both kinds must be consecrated separately. By 'pre-intincted' I mean the practice of dobbing a tiny drop of consecrated wine on each consecrated host and letting them dry.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In our local hospital the recommended practice is to pre-intinct the wafers, and then consecrate them.
Recommended by whom? No-one with any knowledge of liturgy I hope. Surely both kinds must be consecrated separately. By 'pre-intincted' I mean the practice of dobbing a tiny drop of consecrated wine on each consecrated host and letting them dry.
... Which is what we do at the hospital where I work, following discussion with our infection control nurse. The elements are consecrated while still physically separate; those intended for reservation are intincted and set aside; then members of the congreation each intinct their own host in the small amount of the Precious Blood in the chalice (so small that it avoids what often happens with a fuller chalice, with people dipping their fingers as well as the host). On rare occasions, a small amount of wine is consecrated and reserved, for instance if we anticipate being asked to give communion to a patient who can't swallow solids, in which case they're given the Blood.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Recommended by whom? No-one with any knowledge of liturgy I hope. Surely both kinds must be consecrated separately. By 'pre-intincted' I mean the practice of dobbing a tiny drop of consecrated wine on each consecrated host and letting them dry.
Recommended by the hospital chaplaincy team, and you're right about pre-intincted.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Oops! Read in haste, and then too late to edit. Unconsecrated wine is place on unconsecrated wafer, before the service.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Oops! Read in haste, and then too late to edit. Unconsecrated wine is place on unconsecrated wafer, before the service.
To be clear, this liturgical abhorrence was, in fact, on the table during our discussion with the infection control nurse. We'd have done it if we'd been made to do it, though I made it clear we didn't want to do it. My sense of liturgical propriety is slightly outweighed by my desire not to be remembered as the chaplain who killed a patient.
In the event, the infection control nurse was slightly bemused that we were asking her advice at all. The assessment of any risk has to involve asking the question "How often has this happened before?" If the answer is "never" then you should be open to the possibility you're making a fuss over next to nothing.
(Rather like the advice a hospital chaplain was given when their fire officer was getting worried about having candles in chapel - "Ask your fire officer how many burning churches he drives past on his way to work every Monday morning.")
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(Rather like the advice a hospital chaplain was given when their fire officer was getting worried about having candles in chapel - "Ask your fire officer how many burning churches he drives past on his way to work every Monday morning.")
Tangent, but a certain retreat house well-known to me has a draconian policy re (not) lighting candles. So much so that the altar 'candles' are in fact battery operated substitutes.
Last time I was there I lit a big paschal candle as a devotional focus and nothing happened (I mean no alarms went off; I trust some spiritual growth occurred).
--------------------
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
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Yes. I'm pondering why it was done that way. I can see obvious risks with a common cup and a quantity of people immunologically vulnerable. Ideally, then one would go for consecration of separate elements and intinction by the president. That would be OK in the chapel, except for the fairly high proportion who wish/expect to receive in the hand.
It wouldn't work for the elements taken round the wards. Where, even if it was reasonable for the president to intinct them, there wouldn't be time for them to dry, so they'd get irretrievably stuck together. I guess somebody thought that receiving in both kinds trumped separate consecration.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(Rather like the advice a hospital chaplain was given when their fire officer was getting worried about having candles in chapel - "Ask your fire officer how many burning churches he drives past on his way to work every Monday morning.")
Tangent, but a certain retreat house well-known to me has a draconian policy re (not) lighting candles. So much so that the altar 'candles' are in fact battery operated substitutes.
Last time I was there I lit a big paschal candle as a devotional focus and nothing happened (I mean no alarms went off; I trust some spiritual growth occurred).
Ah, but remember the Lisbon earthquake: hit on All Saints Day 1755 when all the churches had all their candles lit, and the city went up in flames. You wouldn't want that to happen again, would you?
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
I would not want to expose the sick and housebound to wine that was previously in a chalice which people had dribbled into.
We reserve wine in small screw-top containers that are place on the corporal at the offertory and are then put straight into the tabernacle.
Yes yes, but slobbering and dribbling aside, woulkd the mingling of the consecrated and unconsecrated elements make it improper to use it?
Not just improper, invalid, since there would be no consecration of wine at the next euchasrist, it already have been consecrated.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
AIUI there wouldn't be any unconsecrated elements. The wine in the cruets would be consecrated along with the chalice, and then reserved. (Though I have never reserved both kinds separately like this: either - at one incumbent's insistence - the hosts were pre-intincted; or, more usually, we reserved in one kind only. I wonder what the general practice is, in the C of E and elsewhere? I know the RC custom is to reserve in one kind only.)
I read somewhere that official C of E rules (do't know where they come from) demand reservation in both kinds. I wish they didn't as I find it inconvenient.
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And to be clear myself, in the RCC throwing away the Sacred Species is a very serious delict, and just pouring It down the plughole - even onto consecrated ground - would normally be seen as just that. Gives me the collywobbles just thinking about it.
Me too - it happens mainly in evangelical churches - but it certainly didn't back in the days when the Prayer Book was followed - there having been rubric after rubric insisting upon 'reverent consumption' after the 1552 version dropped it. Insistence on the ablutions came about as part of the Elizabethan settlement - a compromise to keep catholically-minded on board.
Sadly, it is becoming more widespread and many Anglicans seem not to think it important. I went seriously ballistic when that happened in my church, during a vacancy, after a visiting celebrant left the consecrated elements on the credence table (where they shouldn't have been in the first place). A churchwarden's response was that 'Leo has some odd views about this sort of thing.'
Should this practice become even more widespread, i shall cross the Tiber instead of merely fantasising about it.
[ 10. October 2013, 15:46: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
I watch the person and if they look at me I will look back.
If there is left over bread and wine, and no one is around to help consume it, I soak any bit of bread in the wine and pour both down the Piscina. If no Piscina is available I have gone outside and poured it down into the ground. This is rare, perhaps on Christmas or at a large funeral when you are not sure how many people will be coming forward to receive.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Ah, but remember the Lisbon earthquake: hit on All Saints Day 1755 when all the churches had all their candles lit, and the city went up in flames. You wouldn't want that to happen again, would you?
Correlation =/= causation.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
I would not want to expose the sick and housebound to wine that was previously in a chalice which people had dribbled into.
We reserve wine in small screw-top containers that are place on the corporal at the offertory and are then put straight into the tabernacle.
Yes yes, but slobbering and dribbling aside, woulkd the mingling of the consecrated and unconsecrated elements make it improper to use it?
Not just improper, invalid, since there would be no consecration of wine at the next euchasrist, it already have been consecrated.
Sorry, still not making myself clear. Never mind- just idle curiosity.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And to be clear myself, in the RCC throwing away the Sacred Species is a very serious delict, and just pouring It down the plughole - even onto consecrated ground - would normally be seen as just that. Gives me the collywobbles just thinking about it.
Me too - it happens mainly in evangelical churches - but it certainly didn't back in the days when the Prayer Book was followed - there having been rubric after rubric insisting upon 'reverent consumption' after the 1552 version dropped it. Insistence on the ablutions came about as part of the Elizabethan settlement - a compromise to keep catholically-minded on board.
Sadly, it is becoming more widespread and many Anglicans seem not to think it important. I went seriously ballistic when that happened in my church, during a vacancy, after a visiting celebrant left the consecrated elements on the credence table (where they shouldn't have been in the first place). A churchwarden's response was that 'Leo has some odd views about this sort of thing.'
Should this practice become even more widespread, i shall cross the Tiber instead of merely fantasising about it.
IIRC the 1662 Prayer Book makes no comment about ablutions, merely about consumption of remaining elements. It has two things to say about consecrated elements which are not used in the service quote:
When all have communicated, the Minister shall return to the Lord's Table, and reverently place upon it what remaineth of the consecrated Elements, covering the same with a fair linen cloth.
and quote:
And if any of the Bread and Wine remain<snip> of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.
If anything the impression given is that ablutions will not take place until after the end of the service.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The 'ablutions' are just a reverent way of ensuring that all that remains is consumed. Be that as it may, the BCP certainly doesn't envisage leaving the Blessed Sacrament lying around on credence tables or poured down sinks.
--------------------
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 leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
AIUI there wouldn't be any unconsecrated elements. The wine in the cruets would be consecrated along with the chalice, and then reserved. (Though I have never reserved both kinds separately like this: either - at one incumbent's insistence - the hosts were pre-intincted; or, more usually, we reserved in one kind only. I wonder what the general practice is, in the C of E and elsewhere? I know the RC custom is to reserve in one kind only.)
I read somewhere that official C of E rules (do't know where they come from) demand reservation in both kinds. I wish they didn't as I find it inconvenient.
There are no CofE rules on reservation - other than the ones that arguably ban it. The rule you are talking about is the one that says that communion must be in both kinds except in cases of necessity. And inconvenience is not necessity.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The 'rules' I was thinking about are in our diocesan handbook - since it is up to each diocesan bishop.
The inconvenience is that it is easy to carry a pyx in my pocket to use during calls where needed during a day.
With consecrated wine, it necessitates a small chalice, carried around with the cruet and pyx in a little case and returned to the tabernacle at the end of each day - lots of extra journeys.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
It's the same thing. Servers are distributing communion to the congregation. It's just some of them are further away than others so it takes longer to get there.
--------------------
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 BroJames:
[QUOTE]...
Indeed the only necessity I have ever encountered which has compelled me to administer the sacrament in one kind, is an inability to swallow even a small morsel of wafer. Then I have given wine only - a tiny drop.
You managed to avoid all that sodding about with bread only during the swine flu flap a few years ago, then?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It's the same thing. Servers are distributing communion to the congregation. It's just some of them are further away than others so it takes longer to get there.
Servers at St Sanity prepare the chalices and so forth. Assistants prepare the altar and distribute.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
