|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Distribution of Communion within the Congregation
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
And so - to somewhat repeat one of my questions upthread - is at least one of the reasons for the Opening Poster not liking the elements being passed round simply because it's not the "prescribed" or "legal" way? (Which, BTW, is a perfectly sensible objection in an Anglican setting but not elsewhere, where Canon Law doesn't apply).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Canons aren't suggestions. They really are binding on the members of a church, and especially upon the clergy.
It is some time since I read Bishop Mortimer on Western Canon Law, and of course a lot has changed since he wrote the book, but I seem to remember that he thought it doubtful that the laity in England were bound by the Canon Law.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Canons aren't suggestions. They really are binding on the members of a church, and especially upon the clergy.
It is some time since I read Bishop Mortimer on Western Canon Law, and of course a lot has changed since he wrote the book, but I seem to remember that he thought it doubtful that the laity in England were bound by the Canon Law.
Of course we are bound by it! It's against Canon Law for a lay person to,preside at the Eucharist or to give absolution for instance
--------------------
"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
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Canons aren't suggestions. They really are binding on the members of a church, and especially upon the clergy.
It is some time since I read Bishop Mortimer on Western Canon Law, and of course a lot has changed since he wrote the book, but I seem to remember that he thought it doubtful that the laity in England were bound by the Canon Law.
Of course we are bound by it! It's against Canon Law for a lay person to, preside at the Eucharist or to give absolution for instance
I that's too simplistic. There has been plenty of discussion among English lawyers about how far the 1603 canons bound the laity (google Lord Hardwicke on Middleton v Crofts). It may be that the current canons do, as they've been approved by Parliament, but even so, if they infringe on religious freedom they won't bind.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
East Price Road
Shipmate
# 13846
|
Posted
If community inclusion is the thing, can I preach the sermon next Sunday?
--------------------
"Fishes stop and ask me where I'm bound." (Incredible String Band)
Posts: 739 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
If you're a respected and knowledgeable member of your own Christian community and have good communication skills you could probably get an invitation to be a guest preacher at a local Methodist church, if there's a Methodist minister or lay preacher who could vouch for you. But not next week, as the plan is made well in advance!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I that's too simplistic. There has been plenty of discussion among English lawyers about how far the 1603 canons bound the laity (google Lord Hardwicke on Middleton v Crofts). It may be that the current canons do, as they've been approved by Parliament, but even so, if they infringe on religious freedom they won't bind.
The rules on faculties do. They even bind non-members of the CofE, and people that don't know they exist or who you would expect were entitled to trust the church authorities to have responsibility for dealing with them correctly.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A question to BokBok and Ecclesiastical FlipFlop: What is it precisely that makes you so uncomfortable about this? Is it:
- that you'd prefer to receive it directly from a priest rather than the person next to you? And, if so, why?
- that you feel it is too informal and/or in some way "not very holy"(whatever that may mean)?
- that you are worried about dropping it?
- that interacting with the person next to you interrupts your personal worship?
- or simply because it "isn't what you've been accustomed to" and so feels "wrong"?
- or what?
No, I'm not being snidey: these are genuine questions from someone whose tradition has done something akin to this for centuries and really doesn't have any problems with it.
Baptist Trainfan, having been on brief shore leave, I have just read your post and by checking your profile, I see that your perspective is that of a Baptist Minister. I note also that BokBok has not posted again.
The experience I mention is a symptom of a very complex situation far too complicated to go fully into here. Briefly, a long-standing vicar of that church, who inherited an old-fashioned traditional anglo-catholic church, with long overdue changes from his predecessor, gradually made it much more modern to the extent of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, changing it beyond all recognition. I am not a traditionalist and up to a point, I wholeheartly supported these changes, but he did not know where to stop.
No, I do not require to receive communion from a priest and I am equally happy to receive from a lay persom.
I have nothing against informal communion for occasional use, but I feel it is only suitable for a small congregation of experienced communicants.
The former vicar introduced a pottery set of communion vessels, discarding the silverware. I am not worried about myself being the one to drop it, but other people who might do so. The church has shown hospitality to people with mental health issues in more recent years; an uncontrolled lack of reverence has developed and I am suspicious of people receiving communion who are not entitled to receive it. It should be borne in mind that that is an Anglican church and not a Baptist church, where the position of who may receive communion is different, holding a middle-of-the-road between members only and open table regardless of Christian initiation or not.
I hope this clarificaton is of some help.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't think it is contra to Canon law as such.
I quoted canon B 12 part 3 above. Unless your entire congregation consists of those licensed by the bishop to dispense communion, this practice would seem to be excluded.
Can you explain why you think it is permitted?
Ummmm
Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.
Or better to do what is pastorally right and take the risk that the church hierarchy will see it differently. I'm not sure our exemplar Christ played it safe.
This all probably comes under the category of things where, if you specifically ask your bishop "Do I have your permission to do this?" He will say "I cannot formally give my permission. But if you don't ask me, I am not going to stop you."
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't think it is contra to Canon law as such.
I quoted canon B 12 part 3 above. Unless your entire congregation consists of those licensed by the bishop to dispense communion, this practice would seem to be excluded.
Can you explain why you think it is permitted?
Ummmm
Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?
But that doesn't mean the practice is permitted by the canons. It means that the bishops allow the practice despite the canons.
In a case where canons have been broken, it's not the bishop but the Ecclesiastical Court that has jurisdiction (IIRC). It seems to me that the bishop's permission is neither here nor there, except as a (rather weak) CYA move.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I think the point is that Canon Law is not completely legalistic. There are certainly parts where - because of the C of E's position as an Established Church - adherence to Canon Law is undeniably required. But other parts are more along the lines of what you might call "approved practice".
To take this particular matter as an example. I don't think that any bishop (certainly none I've known) would want to apply this particular Canon in a legalistic strictness. Nor would any bishop really want to spend endless time trying to rephrase the Canon so that it covered all possible allowable eventualities.
What is needed is "good practice", much of which is common sense.
When I was a member of a Baptist church (rather untypical and very charismatic), communion consisted of having bread and fruit juice (not wine) and then allowing anyone to go and share it with anyone else. It was rather chaotic, but then no-one had any belief that this was anything more than "remembering the death of Jesus". I certainly wouldn't want to go back to that. But in the right context, sharing communion in a circle, with each person serving their neighbour, is extremely appropriate and moving.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?
The posted speed limit on the local interstate highway is 55 mph. All the traffic routinely travels at 70 mph, and those travelling at that speed are not routinely stopped by the police or prosecuted.
Would you argue that doing 70mph was not "against the law as such"? (Actually, I might. There is "interesting" history between the federal government and state and municipal governments on speed limits and so on.)
quote:
What is needed is "good practice", much of which is common sense.
In which case, rewriting the canons that you consider to be "guidelines" to say something like "the following should be the normal practice. Deviations from this practice are permitted at the discretion of the incumbent on an occasional basis; doing so at the principal Sunday service or more often than once a month requires the Bishop's authorization" should be straightforward.
If you want these canons to be guidelines, you don't need to rephrase them to cover every eventuality, you say "these are guidelines. You should normally observe them, but occasional differences for good reason are permitted. If you want to do this often, ask your Bishop."
If we don't like the rules, we can change the rules. Just ignoring the ones we don't like is bad practice.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?
The posted speed limit on the local interstate highway is 55 mph. All the traffic routinely travels at 70 mph, and those travelling at that speed are not routinely stopped by the police or prosecuted.
Would you argue that doing 70mph was not "against the law as such"?
As I have already said, seeing Canon Law in the same way as the laws of the land - such as speed limits - is an error. That's not how it works and it is not how bishops think it works. There ARE parts of C of E Canon Law which DO have an equivalent force, certainly. But regarding ALL of Canon Law in this way is needlessly legalistic. It's just not how it works.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
What is needed is "good practice", much of which is common sense.
In which case, rewriting the canons that you consider to be "guidelines" to say something like "the following should be the normal practice. Deviations from this practice are permitted at the discretion of the incumbent on an occasional basis; doing so at the principal Sunday service or more often than once a month requires the Bishop's authorization" should be straightforward.
If you want these canons to be guidelines, you don't need to rephrase them to cover every eventuality, you say "these are guidelines. You should normally observe them, but occasional differences for good reason are permitted. If you want to do this often, ask your Bishop."
If we don't like the rules, we can change the rules. Just ignoring the ones we don't like is bad practice.
In one sense, I agree with you. But in reality, no-one but a Canon lawyer would want to create such enormous amounts of words and clauses etc. For a start, as soon as you had completed such a revision, you would quickly find that it was out of touch with reality and would need further revision. The alternative would be to create something so vague and wishywashy that it was meaningless.
In reality, almost everyone in the C of E understands that certain parts of Canon Law are to be regarded as "good advice". If you wander away from it and then fall flat on your face, or if you deliberately go contrary to it, then you can expect an episcopal rebuke. If, on the other hand, you work within the "spirit" of the law and no-one has a problem, then bishops quite frankly don't want to know.
In addition, it is widely accepted that many good innovations have come by people going outside the strict letter of Canon Law, which has then had to catch up. For example, such things as "Family Services" and Service of the Word were - when they were first being developed - contrary to a strict interpretation of Canon Law, which then had to catch up.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.
There's probably regional differences here - I suspect IN NZ about the only Canon Law you might be hauled for breaking would be that thou shalt not ever vote for a conservative politician and or government, but in general terms I doubt anyone has been knuckle-smacked in NZ since Cook arrived. I was told I wasn't allowed to reserve communion on Maundy Thursday in 1991, but later found that the glutinous prick who told me that was lying.
Not quite true. I believe an obstreperous priest was hauled recently, but his practices were so beyond the pale that Oral Roberts would have had difficulty condoning them.
Canon-hauling is really a rare, rare, rare event here, and in general terms there is very little that would be frowned upon. Lay presidency might get a rap, but not much beyond that (and that has been happening in some circles, too, not out of a Sydneyesque theological premise but because the said persons and their community didn't realise that ordination was, er, slightly prerequisite to Eucharistic presidency).
I wouldn't argue for the world from NZ, but most circles I have moved in have been fairly flexible with regards to Eucharistic administration in certain contexts deemed appropriate by the responsible priest.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't think it is contra to Canon law as such.
I quoted canon B 12 part 3 above. Unless your entire congregation consists of those licensed by the bishop to dispense communion, this practice would seem to be excluded.
Can you explain why you think it is permitted?
Ummmm
Because I know a number of Anglican bishops who have, at some time or other, indulged in this practice and encouraged others to do the same?
Actually, thinking about the slightly flippant earlier comment, I have belonged to at least one congregation where the electoral roll had been given permission to distribute.... Nobody except the priests and readers ever did but we all could.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
The former vicar introduced a pottery set of communion vessels, discarding the silverware.
Despite what I said above about the absence of canons here, that is banned on the basis of the greater authority of Occupational Health and Safety regulations.
I like to think you are right Zappa. Somehow, the former Vicar was never taken to task because of it. It was due to a whole string of issues like that, that I ceased to attend that church.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.
Any tribunal biting this particular bullet better have nothing else to do with their lives for the next century or two! Many, many CofE gaffs either occasionally or regularly do the breaking the bread and passing it on amongst themselves kind of thing.
Doesn't do much for me, I have to say, but I've never run from the church screaming when confronted with it. And there have been times when I can see that certain acts of worship, in certain contexts lend themselves to this particular form of distribution.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It's occurred to me that one advantage of passing the elements around in this way is that people with mobility problems aren't singled out. IME people with such problems often have to wait until everyone else has been served, then the minister and his assistant have to trek the full length of the church to get to the folk who feel safer in their chairs.
Since some churches have a lot of elderly members, this way of doing things might have a practical benefit. I imagine it's also a lot quicker than sending everyone shuffling up to the altar.
[ 14. February 2015, 20:48: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I get what you're suggesting. But if I get hauled before the ecclesiastical tribunal for breaking canons, the issue is not going to be so much how I feel about them as how the tribunal feels about them. Better safe than sorry.
Any tribunal biting this particular bullet better have nothing else to do with their lives for the next century or two! Many, many CofE gaffs either occasionally or regularly do the breaking the bread and passing it on amongst themselves kind of thing.
Doesn't do much for me, I have to say, but I've never run from the church screaming when confronted with it. And there have been times when I can see that certain acts of worship, in certain contexts lend themselves to this particular form of distribution.
As others have said, it rather depends on context. I wouldn't want it as part of a solemn Sunday celebration but as a midweek Communion in the University chapel I sometimes attended with a small group? Most appropriate, somehow.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
This practice is really more appropriate for small groups. I encountered it at Holy Trinity, Trinity Square, in Toronto, where everybody seemed to love it circled around the altar, except for about 25 people who stayed in their pews until a slightly grumpy pair of administrators came down; then those communicants lined up to kneel and take the sacrament. It was obvious that the parish was divided into the handing-arounders and the kneelers; this seemed to have gone on for some time.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
We were recently at a Eucharist in a circular church. The altar was in the centre, with 2 rings of seats, about 60 in all, broken enough to comfortably allow a procession to the altar. The rings were set far enough apart easily to allow the priest and deacon to distribute while we remained seated/standing in our place. It worked quite well.
Incidentally, the church had been recently re-carpeted in a maze pattern. Seats were only set out for services, allowing at other times for those who wished to walk the maze; there was a separate and traditional chapel for those who preferred that.
[ 19. February 2015, 06:00: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
The best compromise on this is where the congregation gathers in a circle around the altar (like they do at CR Mirfield, and at another church where I often worship ) where the priest and assistants administer the sacrament to the people, standing. It's best if they stand there throughout the whole eucharistic prayer, but it's a nuisance if they need to hold a service leaflet because it's one of those prayers with frequent (and unmemorable) responses.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
It's best if they stand there throughout the whole eucharistic prayer, but it's a nuisance if they need to hold a service leaflet because it's one of those prayers with frequent (and unmemorable) responses.
If the celebrant intincts the host and places it on their tongues, the service sheet presents no problems - their hands are not required ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We were recently at a Eucharist in a circular church. The altar was in the centre, with 2 rings of seats, about 60 in all, broken enough to comfortably allow a procession to the altar. The rings were set far enough apart easily to allow the priest and deacon to distribute while we remained seated/standing in our place. It worked quite well.
That's not far from a typical "Plymouth Brethren" pattern - tho' they'd just have a Table at the centre.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
We have a wide and fairly uncluttered sanctuary, and last Maundy Thursday we did indeed gather around the altar (well, not quite a circle - more of a horseshoe!) for the whole of the Eucharistic Prayer. Communion was distributed by Father and I simply working our way around the horseshoe. Given the small numbers involved (20 or so) it went well, and meant that everyone was in place for the start of the procession to the Altar of Repose. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
I've only experienced the passing around of the Sacrament in an informal setting (a local meeting of Readers IIRC), and it was so long ago that we were using ASB Rite A hot off the press!
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jengie John:
quote:
Indeed the putting out of white cloths along the pews to represent the table is still the practice in some URCs (well up to 1990s).
We (Church of Scotland congregation) still have the white cloths, though we don't use them for every Communion. They're fixed onto the pews with silver clips; our church owns dozens of these clips. They're the sort of object I can imagine future archaeologists puzzling over.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
We were recently at a Eucharist in a circular church. The altar was in the centre, with 2 rings of seats, about 60 in all, broken enough to comfortably allow a procession to the altar. The rings were set far enough apart easily to allow the priest and deacon to distribute while we remained seated/standing in our place. It worked quite well.
That's not far from a typical "Plymouth Brethren" pattern - tho' they'd just have a Table at the centre.
The church in question is in Newcastle diocese, one quite high on the candle. I have never been to any Plymouth Brethren service, of either the Open or Exclusive orders, and have tucked this away as a little bit learned.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We (Church of Scotland congregation) still have the white cloths, though we don't use them for every Communion. They're fixed onto the pews with silver clips; our church owns dozens of these clips. They're the sort of object I can imagine future archaeologists puzzling over.
Like Communion Cards or Tokens - do you still have them?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
We stopped using Communion cards about 5 years ago, and there was protest - elders now give out a postcard with the date of communion on it, but people aren't supposed to bring them to church.
I don't think anyone still uses the tokens, but some churches still have proper Communion cards.
Something else which is dying out as our older members die off is the black suit, black shoes and black tie for Communion. For a while you could spot the every week attenders, who were dressed smartly, but not that formally, from the only-come-four-times-a year-for-Communion attenders, who were far more formally dressed.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Now that truly is an interesting observation!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liturgylover
Shipmate
# 15711
|
Posted
The two Church of Scotland congregations in London maintain the practice of the white cloths at Holy Communion, and I remember when I visited St Columba on a quarterly Communion Sunday I was handed a Communion card. In both the elements were brought to the congregation. The circular style reception was used at ST Giles Edinburgh. Austere, and earnest yet warm and communal, I found it very moving.
Posts: 452 | From: North London | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
A friend who is recently familiar with the church of my childhood tells me that there the use of white cloths on the pews on Communion Sundays ceased only fairly recently. He thought that the reason was that the lady who had for many years been responsible for laundering (and starching) the things simply gave up - possibly because of age and infirmity, or having had enough of doing it, or perhaps a combination of the two.
A generation or so back in Oxford the elders wore dark suits, white shirts and white bow ties on Communion Sundays - subfusc without gown or hood, in effect. Communion cards were distributed, though not collected (I still use mine as bible bookmarks, which seems fitting in a way). There were also services of preparation on the Friday eveining before, and of thanksgiving on the Sunday evening - a relic of the 'Communion Season', I suppose.
[ 26. February 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: Metapelagius ]
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
[...]
A generation or so back in Oxford [t]here were also services of preparation on the Friday eveining before, and of thanksgiving on the Sunday evening - a relic of the 'Communion Season', I suppose.
There were indeed: and that was where I was one Friday in 1963 when the news of the assassination of JFK broke.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Communion Cards still given out here as far as I know. I once tried to get this done ecumenically! This was Anglicans and Methodists. Well they kept insisting they wanted it according to the tradition of the host church and as we were hosting and we distributed communion cards I thought that they should do the same then.
We printed cards to be distributed (not our normal ones) with a note on to bring it to the service and suggested they handed them out the Sunday before. I then put out the usual bowl at the entrance explaining why.
Actually now thinking about it we should have staged a Friday pre-communion service with a preach off (three sermons one from somebody representing each of the traditions given a single text) and distributed them at that.
White cloths elsewhere in the URC up to just over a decade ago to my knowledge.
Jengie
[ 28. February 2015, 10:54: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
