|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Miscellaneous questions of a liturgical nature
|
Dies Irae
Shipmate
# 2804
|
Posted
Thurible is indeed correct and the frontal that was observed was, in fact, purple - just very dark purple and a trick of the light/camera.
A further query:
If a bishop presides over a celebration that includes a procession when at least one hand will occupied by carrying something (e.g. a candle Candlemas, a palm on Palm Sunday, the monstrance on Corpus Christi, etc), the crozier is to be carried directly in front of him by a server with a vimpa. However, is the crook of the crozier to face forwards (as if the bishop were holding it himself) or backwards on account of it being carried by another?
Posts: 148 | From: London | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
This is a slightly different context, but in traditionally low church TEC dioceses, the crosier was typically carried in front of the bishop - as though it were a mace of office - by a server or bishop's chaplain whilst in procession. Awful, antiquated custom. In such instances IME the crook was turned outward (in the case of a bishop in his own diocese), just as though the bishop himself were walking with it.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Another way of handling communion is to have the gluten-intolerant communicant receive only the Precious Blood.
Not unless they have a separate chalice for coeliacs - a chalice used by everyone will be contaminated. The lack of understanding about contamination (which is a serious problem for coeliacs) makes it a nightmare.
No lack of understanding here. In my FSSP parish, when someone who has celiac notifies the priest, a second chalice is consecrated, from which only that communicant receives. This is unusual in the sense that in a parish that offers the traditional Latin Mass, people receive only the Host as a matter of course. But in this instance, the communicant comes to the rail at the end of communion and receives the special chalice. We do this by special arrangement, just as we do when the priest must bring the Host to a sick person in the pew.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by LostinChelsea
I only have one person who needs a gluten-free wafer (serious celiac, not just a picky eater). What I do is have the Altar Guild put one gluten-free rice wafer in a Pyx, which I administer by turning the Pyx over into the person's hand.
When I first read this I thought that this was over the top. But asking a friend who is a coeliac I learned that even the dust from a previous wafer on the priest's hands could be dangerous. So thanks to those who have contributed to my awareness.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Another way of handling communion is to have the gluten-intolerant communicant receive only the Precious Blood.
Not unless they have a separate chalice for coeliacs - a chalice used by everyone will be contaminated. The lack of understanding about contamination (which is a serious problem for coeliacs) makes it a nightmare.
No lack of understanding here. In my FSSP parish, when someone who has celiac notifies the priest, a second chalice is consecrated, from which only that communicant receives. This is unusual in the sense that in a parish that offers the traditional Latin Mass, people receive only the Host as a matter of course. But in this instance, the communicant comes to the rail at the end of communion and receives the special chalice. We do this by special arrangement, just as we do when the priest must bring the Host to a sick person in the pew.
That is great - my comment wasn't a slight on you, by the way, just the fact that lots of people understand 'gluten-free' but not about contamination, and it causes a lot of problems for coeliacs. Thank you for being so careful!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Unfortunately as a rule normal grain used for bread making contains gluten. That is because gluten plays a significant role in the texture and form of bread. Gluten free bread flours have to have a substitute for the gluten to allow them to make bread. Hence the Roman Catholic Church's big problem with gluten free wafers.
Jengie
Indian sorghum flatbreads are just sorghum flour and water mixed together, rolled out and fried - no gluten replacement. They are still bread. Gluten-free bread only needs a substitute to make it like our idea of what bread is, which isn't universal at all. As Fr Weber says, the RCC have a problem with gluten-free wafers because they go against what their canons consider to be bread, not because they go against some universal idea of bread - because there is no universal idea of bread.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
<snip> there is no universal idea of bread.
In my childhood, for my Scottish relatives, 'bread' meant what I would have called oatcakes, what I called bread was 'loaf'.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
<snip> there is no universal idea of bread.
In my childhood, for my Scottish relatives, 'bread' meant what I would have called oatcakes, what I called bread was 'loaf'.
And at Culloden oatcake was used in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist (and whisky!) Clearly Bp Forbes saw this as incorrect, but he doesn't seem to have doubted it was the Holy Eucharist.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dies Irae:
Thurible is indeed correct and the frontal that was observed was, in fact, purple - just very dark purple and a trick of the light/camera.
A further query:
If a bishop presides over a celebration that includes a procession when at least one hand will occupied by carrying something (e.g. a candle Candlemas, a palm on Palm Sunday, the monstrance on Corpus Christi, etc), the crozier is to be carried directly in front of him by a server with a vimpa. However, is the crook of the crozier to face forwards (as if the bishop were holding it himself) or backwards on account of it being carried by another?
I was always given to understand that the crook points away when it is in that bishop's diocese, and inward in all other cases. I suppose for a bishop of a military ordinariate, it would face away when he is in exercise of his jurisdiction.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
I would like to begin using the Alleluia and Verse, during the Advent season. I'm OK with the musical requirements,but need advice about when the Gospel procession gets moving.
We sing a gradual hymn, and then do we move directly into the Alleluia? Does the procession get going at the beginning of the alleluia? Or on the last verse of the grad. hymn, as is our custom?
There's not a very long walk to the stopping place. Thanks for your advice, and if it doesn't matter, please say that too.
Pearlie
P.S. After the Gospel reading I usually play something short- probably reminiscent of the grad. hymn. But I've heard some play fanfares and very energetic improv's. What is most appropriate?
--------------------
Oinkster
"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Why play anything at all after the Gospel?
Silence is very under-rated in worship - I'd suggest that a period of silence after the Gospel would enable to digest/think on the reading they've just heard.
As for a fanfare or other musical fireworks at this point - God forbid.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Why play anything at all after the Gospel?
Silence is very under-rated in worship - I'd suggest that a period of silence after the Gospel would enable to digest/think on the reading they've just heard.
As for a fanfare or other musical fireworks at this point - God forbid.
Amen to that.
There is a modern custom (I think it's a CoE thing: I haven't encountered it anywhere else) of having a reprise of the Alleluia as the Gospel returns to the sanctuary.
I cringe every time.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
I think the source of that practice is a horror of the procession back to the sanctuary being silent.
I'm betting congregations can deal with the silence for a few seconds; let 'em think about the Gospel before the Creed (or the sermon) begins.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
There is a modern custom (I think it's a CoE thing: I haven't encountered it anywhere else) of having a reprise of the Alleluia as the Gospel returns to the sanctuary.
One custom I've encountered is invariably singing the hymn "Diolch i ti, yr Hollalluog Dduw" (words with translation, score). Definitely an eccentricity of certain shacks in Wales; but in any event, putting a hymn there is a better solution than having a gradual hymn immediately followed by an alleluia. At the very least it would be a good compromise if one can't get the vested interests down to a maximum of four hymns.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I think the source of that practice is a horror of the procession back to the sanctuary being silent.
I'm betting congregations can deal with the silence for a few seconds; let 'em think about the Gospel before the Creed (or the sermon) begins.
I think part of the source of the practice is a horror of any period of silence when the choir could Do Something.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
There is a modern custom (I think it's a CoE thing: I haven't encountered it anywhere else) of having a reprise of the Alleluia as the Gospel returns to the sanctuary.
I cringe every time.
I've seen it done at the Vatican, so apparently it's not just a CofE thing.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
Thanks for your good advice, all of you. I will not be providing Music To Walk By any more. Can you give me similar reasoning about when to begin the Alleluia- and how it relates to the action taking place? After all, the Gradual is meant to go with the movement to the place where the Gospel will be read, yes? Thanks in advance.
--------------------
Oinkster
"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
At our place, the choir begins the Gradual when the Epistle has ended, during which I pray the Munda cor meum silently at the altar and the server moves the book. The Alleluia follows immediately, and by this point the book has been moved, I have finished the prayer, and I take my place at the Gospel horn ready for the Gospel lesson. Around about the final "Alleluia," I pick up the book, turn toward the server who is standing ready to hold it, and place it in his hands. By this time the Alleluia is finished and I begin to announce the Gospel.
This will obviously need to be re-jigged depending on the settings of the minor propers in use (how long they are and so on), the size of the sanctuary, and the resemblance of the above ceremonial to anything that you do in your place.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Traditionally, the gradual is a scriptural verse said or sung immediately after the epistle, which is then followed immediately by the alleluia verse--or during Lent and at requiems, by the tract, which is another scriptural verse. In practice, the gradual leads directly into the alleluia, and especially when they are recited, many people tend to them of them as all one piece. The source of these verses is from the Roman Missal and the chant notes come from the Roman Gradual. Anglican parishes who use a form of the missal have typically used the same verses.
For a much larger portion of Anglicans, the gradual is the hymn that follows the epistle and comes before the gospel, and its source is usually some hymnal or other collection.
After Vatican II, the reforms of the Roman Missal replaced the gradual with a responsorial psalm that came between the old and new testament readings, since an extra reading had been added. The alleluia verse then stood between the epistle and the gospel by itself, and has thus taken on a greater prominence as a sung piece. In most churches, it is started immediately after the epistle ends, as the deacon gets the evangelary (book of gospels) and receives the blessing from the celebrant, or the latter gets the book himself, and proceeds to the ambo, possibly with acolytes with candles and maybe even a thurifer.
In cathedrals and larger churches, sometimes a few notes of the alleluia melody are played at first, then the actual alleluia verse sung just as the procession leaves the altar, if the gospel procession takes a longer route. Though I have heard an alleluia refrain sung after the gospel, this practice seems to be be dying out (partly through the influence of Benedict XVI, I suspect, as it does not appear in the Order of Mass.)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
Thank you very much Fr Weber and Ceremoniar. I appreciate your explanations.
Pearlie
--------------------
Oinkster
"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
Sorry for the late reply but my mind has been occupied with a lot of things.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And they are NOTHING LIKE communion wafers...
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I disagree, however, that a traditional communion wafer is at all like a soft wheat tortilla or a chapati. Beyond being generally round and flat, I see little similarity.
What do you guys mean that they’re nothing alike or that you see little similarity? Wafers are flat and round. Tortillas and chapatis are flat and round. Wafers are made of wheat. Flour tortillas and chapatis are made of wheat. Tortillas and chapatis are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Wafers are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Other than the addition of oil or salt or shortening to chapatis and tortillas the preparation is substantially the same: mix flour and water then bake on a flat surface. The color makes no difference: flour tortillas can be as white as any wafer and I’ve had brown, whole-wheat hosts at mass. The smooth consistency of a communion wafer is like that of an undercooked flour tortilla (and I suspect an undercooked chapati) and fully cooked are still more alike than a crusty baguette or an airy, spongy loaf of bread you buy at the supermarket. They are all made without leaven. I think it’s fair to say that in shape, preparation, ingredients and appearance they appear to be and are substantially similar.
Slightly Hellish tangent:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
the last time I ate some wheat tortillas was certainly less than a month ago. (Though shops here call them 'wraps" for some arcane reason no doubt related to mildly out-of-date notions about Californian or Australian fast food).
I hate that. I see it in the U.S., too. I can’t help but see the renaming of tortillas and burritos as “wraps” as a case of cultural appropriation and what I’d call “de-mexicanification”
On a more Heavenly note, below is a video made by Passionist nuns in Kentucky on how they prepare communion bread. It was made for a class of children about to make their First Holy Communion.
The Making of Communion Bread for Holy Communion
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What do you guys mean that they’re nothing alike or that you see little similarity? Wafers are flat and round. Tortillas and chapatis are flat and round. Wafers are made of wheat. Flour tortillas and chapatis are made of wheat. Tortillas and chapatis are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Wafers are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. . . . I think it’s fair to say that in shape, preparation, ingredients and appearance they appear to be and are substantially similar.
Sure they're similar in shape and appearance. A coaster can be flat and round, too. Yes, they're similar in ingredients. As noted above, so is glue.
When I say they're not similar, I mean specifically that wafers do not resemble real food. They have no flavor or aroma, the texture is more like styrofoam than bread, and they certainly are incapable of satisfying hunger. Nothing about them says "food" except that fact that they are indeed edible.
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What do you guys mean that they’re nothing alike or that you see little similarity? Wafers are flat and round. Tortillas and chapatis are flat and round. Wafers are made of wheat. Flour tortillas and chapatis are made of wheat. Tortillas and chapatis are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Wafers are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. . . . I think it’s fair to say that in shape, preparation, ingredients and appearance they appear to be and are substantially similar.
Sure they're similar in shape and appearance. A coaster can be flat and round, too. Yes, they're similar in ingredients. As noted above, so is glue.
When I say they're not similar, I mean specifically that wafers do not resemble real food. They have no flavor or aroma, the texture is more like styrofoam than bread, and they certainly are incapable of satisfying hunger. Nothing about them says "food" except that fact that they are indeed edible.
Nick will likely be horrified to learn that they are locally (Ottawa Valley) consumed as real food. Sold in dépanneurs (corner stores) as little boxes of "hosties," they are consumed as snacks by office workers. I have even seen them at gatherings in a little bowl alongside other snacks. If we call potato chips and corn puffs and such like food, the hosties could find a place in that category and at least spare us salt and fat.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick will likely be horrified to learn that they are locally (Ottawa Valley) consumed as real food. Sold in dépanneurs (corner stores) as little boxes of "hosties," they are consumed as snacks by office workers. I have even seen them at gatherings in a little bowl alongside other snacks. If we call potato chips and corn puffs and such like food, the hosties could find a place in that category and at least spare us salt and fat.
LOL! Maybe not so much horrified as puzzled, but still . . . . At least potato chips and corn puffs have flavor.
I'm willing to grant that maybe I've never encountered a "good" wafer, though they may be out there. And I'll grant that they might be considered "food" in some cultures. Mine is not one of those cultures. Here, they would never be encountered except in some churches, and they would only be considered "bread" because we're told it's bread.
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
As an aficionado of sea urchins and squid, I admit that what constitutes food is to some extent culturally determined. As well, my nutritionist friends would deny that corn puffs and such are food, and say that we only think that they have flavour as advertisers tell us so, and our neolithic brains crave salt and fat. Should Nick Tamen ever make it here, I will treat him to a little box of hosties so that he might judge for himself.
It may be the lack of salt which concerns some, but I have had whole-wheat wafers in some churches which have had more flavour. There are a number of suppliers.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick will likely be horrified to learn that they are locally (Ottawa Valley) consumed as real food. Sold in dépanneurs (corner stores) as little boxes of "hosties," they are consumed as snacks by office workers. I have even seen them at gatherings in a little bowl alongside other snacks. If we call potato chips and corn puffs and such like food, the hosties could find a place in that category and at least spare us salt and fat.
I don't normally condemn whole populations, as the Lord was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for only 10 good men, but surely we should call down the Wrath of God (or at least a number of multi-megaton nuclear weapons) upon the Ottawa Valley for this abomination?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
I can definitely see the argument for allowing gluten-free varieties of bread, even if that does mean using non-wheat flower. Alcohol-free 'wine' is another matter, and one that I think needs to be resisted wheresoever it should rear its hideous head.
There is simply no remotely valid argument that can assume that when Our Lord took wine, he really meant pasteurized grape juice. As for those struggling with severe alcoholism, well — either the Church teaches the doctrine of concomitance or she doesn't. And she does, as I astonishingly had to explain to an RC laywoman who had apparently attended weekly mass for decades without realizing that the Church clearly and unambiguously teaches this doctrine.
[ 10. November 2013, 21:03: Message edited by: S. Bacchus ]
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick will likely be horrified to learn that they are locally (Ottawa Valley) consumed as real food. Sold in dépanneurs (corner stores) as little boxes of "hosties," they are consumed as snacks by office workers. I have even seen them at gatherings in a little bowl alongside other snacks. If we call potato chips and corn puffs and such like food, the hosties could find a place in that category and at least spare us salt and fat.
I don't normally condemn whole populations, as the Lord was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for only 10 good men, but surely we should call down the Wrath of God (or at least a number of multi-megaton nuclear weapons) upon the Ottawa Valley for this abomination?
You will need to cover Québec and much of New Brunswick as well. I am not really certain how we ended up with hosts as snacks but in my former office, our dieters were big fans of them.
A minor tangent on the ten good men-- some years ago a friend was exploring Judaism and had to patiently endure the Chabad rabbi rambling on through midrash after midrash. He reached the passage about the ten righteous men and, to his wrath and consternation, a voice said: "Not in Ottawa." Queried, he pointed out that we didn't need ten righteous men, because we had Marion Dewar (a much-loved former mayor, no Rob Ford, and who had been a vocal advocate for refugees and was likely responsible for the succesful resettlement and establishment of thousands of Vietnamese boat people in the late 1970s).
The infuriated rabbi cooled down and said that the interruption was just, and he will now amend the midrash accordingly.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Oh, Amen and amen ... But I was sadly losing that battle with my rather more Low™ colleagues before I left the Territory. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) Grape juice was the growing trend there and while I much liked the Boss I wouldn't say he was particularly proactive in squashing the insidious practice.
At least with grape juice, a communicant can take a decent and thirst-quenching swig with no fears about driving home afterwards.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I can definitely see the argument for allowing gluten-free varieties of bread, even if that does mean using non-wheat flower. Alcohol-free 'wine' is another matter, and one that I think needs to be resisted wheresoever it should rear its hideous head.
There is simply no remotely valid argument that can assume that when Our Lord took wine, he really meant pasteurized grape juice.
Well of course there isn't because the wine as the last supper was plainly alcoholic. However, there isn't a valid argument either that the bread at the last supper was gluten-free. The question is what adjustments for pastoral circumstances are allowable. My own tradition uses non-alcoholic wine at the Eucharist because of our historic engagement with those affected by the problem of alcoholism and its attendant social destruction. We've never sought to argue that we use it because the wine Jesus used was actually non-alcoholic.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I can definitely see the argument for allowing gluten-free varieties of bread, even if that does mean using non-wheat flower. Alcohol-free 'wine' is another matter, and one that I think needs to be resisted wheresoever it should rear its hideous head.
There is simply no remotely valid argument that can assume that when Our Lord took wine, he really meant pasteurized grape juice. As for those struggling with severe alcoholism, well — either the Church teaches the doctrine of concomitance or she doesn't. And she does, as I astonishingly had to explain to an RC laywoman who had apparently attended weekly mass for decades without realizing that the Church clearly and unambiguously teaches this doctrine.
But not all in the CoE will believe in concommitance, and priests still need to receive in both kinds - are former alcoholics not deserving of the priesthood, then? Also, there are reasons aside from alcoholism that mean people must avoid alcohol.
Heaven forbid that we should include everybody at church ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
What do you guys mean that they’re nothing alike or that you see little similarity? Wafers are flat and round. Tortillas and chapatis are flat and round. Wafers are made of wheat. Flour tortillas and chapatis are made of wheat. Tortillas and chapatis are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. Wafers are baked on a flat stove, griddle or iron. . . . I think it’s fair to say that in shape, preparation, ingredients and appearance they appear to be and are substantially similar.
Sure they're similar in shape and appearance. A coaster can be flat and round, too. Yes, they're similar in ingredients. As noted above, so is glue.
When I say they're not similar, I mean specifically that wafers do not resemble real food. They have no flavor or aroma, the texture is more like styrofoam than bread, and they certainly are incapable of satisfying hunger. Nothing about them says "food" except that fact that they are indeed edible.
To me they taste like rice paper which I was weirdly obsessed with as a child - and which I do still consume if I have flying saucers !
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
As far as alcoholic priests are concerned, the RCs recommend for their use a liquid called mustum, which is apparently technically wine, but with a microscopic alcohol content, the fermentation having been stopped. Otherwise, I would suppose that the alcoholic cleric would have worked out with their bishop how to operate under the doctrine of concomitance.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
Not to stir up a hornets' nest either, but the only people who say that former alcoholics cannot have one drop of wine is AA. Certainly not doctors or medical professionals.
That isn't to say that if some people feel they cannot have any alcohol that the church should make them feel that they should. My problem is this infantilizing notion that they will feel excluded if the church doesn't offer them an option of Welch's. I trust them to know if they should should drink any wine or not. In the end, why is it any less exclusionary for them to simply get up after they take the host than to make them flag down a server to get a cup of grape juice.
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I have read recently, whether here or elsewhere I cannot remember, about a supplementary lectionary for use with the Prayer Book Epistles and Gospels issued by ?the House of Bishops? in the 1960s.
Can anyone point me to it, please?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Are you talking about Lesser Feasts and Fasts (1963 ed.)?
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Sorry, no; I should have specified Church of England. It provided for three readings (including the two in the BCP) and possibly a psalm too - but all on the same one year cycle.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
Such a supplementary lectionary was indeed published: just a list of references. I daresay I still have a copy buried somewhere, but from memory I seem to remember it was adapted from Church of South India sources. I can't imagine it exists anywhere in the internet!
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Not to stir up a hornets' nest either, but the only people who say that former alcoholics cannot have one drop of wine is AA. Certainly not doctors or medical professionals.
That isn't to say that if some people feel they cannot have any alcohol that the church should make them feel that they should. My problem is this infantilizing notion that they will feel excluded if the church doesn't offer them an option of Welch's. I trust them to know if they should should drink any wine or not. In the end, why is it any less exclusionary for them to simply get up after they take the host than to make them flag down a server to get a cup of grape juice.
There are other reasons for people to avoid alcohol completely (medical reasons eg certain medications) where yes, one can't have a sip of wine.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
crunt
Shipmate
# 1321
|
Posted
I was taught to merely 'wet my lips' with the wine in the chalice (also, it was the custom for the chalice bearer to keep hold of the cup). As an adult, it has come as something of a revelation to find that people actually drink TMPB!
--------------------
QUIZ: Bible
QUIZ: world religions
LTL Discussion
languagespider.com
Posts: 269 | From: Up country in the middle of Malaysia | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crunt:
I was taught to merely 'wet my lips' with the wine in the chalice (also, it was the custom for the chalice bearer to keep hold of the cup). As an adult, it has come as something of a revelation to find that people actually drink TMPB!
And some chalice-bearers want the last person to finish it up, while others of the more obsessive variety want some left over for the ablutions. The ones who want it finished usually give some sort of signal, or just say so.
Olaf
Frequent Back Corner Dweller
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
The problem is that, whilst the semantic range of 'bread' can cover non-wheat based products, that of 'wine' doesn't extend to cover grape juice or anything remotely like it.
The earliest Church Fathers, including Cyprian and Augustine, were absolutely adamant that the Eucharist be celebrated with wine, and not water. And it is with wine that the Church has celebrated it: in the East and in the West, in the Churches of Rome and of England. This is not a matter, such as in azymite controversy where the precept of Scripture may be said to support either interpretation and where the practices of the historic churches differ. Scripture and Tradition clearly require the use of real wine, and there is no serious argument from 'reason' other than a wishy-washy desire to be 'inclusive' that is based more on feelings than on thought, and therefore has no real claim to the title reason.
I seem to remember an American Protestant theologian (I think a Presbyterian) opining that wine was suitable for the Eucharist precisely because it was dangerous and potentially intoxicating and thus a good metaphor for Jesus, whilst grape juice was totally unsuitable by virtue of being the opposite. I'd be grateful to anyone who knows the exact quote; I can't track it down myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But not all in the CoE will believe in concommitance
I am astonished to hear this. Given that this doctrine was defined before the Reformation, and was not disputed by Cranmer or by any of the other reformers, what possible justification is there to deny it? Even memorialists may believe in concommitance, or at least I assume so.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Sorry, no; I should have specified Church of England. It provided for three readings (including the two in the BCP) and possibly a psalm too - but all on the same one year cycle.
Thurible
Thurible, here , I think,is proof that you are not insane.
The C of E website seems to assert that the BCP lectionary they make available online is the one that was released in the 1960s, as you suggest, and based upon that of the CSI. I guess that means these readings here.
Shortly after these were released in the mid 60s, the Joint Liturgical Group released the lectionary that would eventually become part of the ASB, portending the end of one-year lectionaries.
The Church of South India did indeed provide some innovations that spread around the world, this being one of them. We Lutherans in the US borrowed the CSI's Revelation canticle alternate for the Gloria.
Well, that's my attempt at answering the question, anyway. I'd love to see the original document from the 60s. (Oh, how pathetic that sounds.)
[ 11. November 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
The problem is that, whilst the semantic range of 'bread' can cover non-wheat based products, that of 'wine' doesn't extend to cover grape juice or anything remotely like it.
The earliest Church Fathers, including Cyprian and Augustine, were absolutely adamant that the Eucharist be celebrated with wine, and not water. And it is with wine that the Church has celebrated it: in the East and in the West, in the Churches of Rome and of England. This is not a matter, such as in azymite controversy where the precept of Scripture may be said to support either interpretation and where the practices of the historic churches differ. Scripture and Tradition clearly require the use of real wine, and there is no serious argument from 'reason' other than a wishy-washy desire to be 'inclusive' that is based more on feelings than on thought, and therefore has no real claim to the title reason.
I seem to remember an American Protestant theologian (I think a Presbyterian) opining that wine was suitable for the Eucharist precisely because it was dangerous and potentially intoxicating and thus a good metaphor for Jesus, whilst grape juice was totally unsuitable by virtue of being the opposite. I'd be grateful to anyone who knows the exact quote; I can't track it down myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But not all in the CoE will believe in concommitance
I am astonished to hear this. Given that this doctrine was defined before the Reformation, and was not disputed by Cranmer or by any of the other reformers, what possible justification is there to deny it? Even memorialists may believe in concommitance, or at least I assume so.
Given that there needs to be Real Presence for Christ to be present in both bread and wine at the same time, I don't think memorialists would look too fondly on concomitance.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
My own tradition uses non-alcoholic wine at the Eucharist because of our historic engagement with those affected by the problem of alcoholism and its attendant social destruction. We've never sought to argue that we use it because the wine Jesus used was actually non-alcoholic.
I'm afraid I have run into folks who do so argue.
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As an aficionado of sea urchins and squid, I admit that what constitutes food is to some extent culturally determined. As well, my nutritionist friends would deny that corn puffs and such are food, and say that we only think that they have flavour as advertisers tell us so, and our neolithic brains crave salt and fat. Should Nick Tamen ever make it here, I will treat him to a little box of hosties so that he might judge for himself.
And I'd be most pleased to try them for myself.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Thanks, Olaf!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Offeiriad
Ship's Arboriculturalist
# 14031
|
Posted
Yes, thank you Olaf. I was at least in the right sub-continent with my recalling of the origins! If by any remote chance my copy turns up I'll pm you. Don't get too excited though - the original is only a folded sheet with the readings listed on it!
Posts: 1426 | From: La France profonde | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Given that there needs to be Real Presence for Christ to be present in both bread and wine at the same time, I don't think memorialists would look too fondly on concomitance.
The BCP & XXXIX both exclude memorialism. I'd think a memorialist in the C of E would be placing himself outside the church at any rate.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
