homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Queen Elizabeth and Communion (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Queen Elizabeth and Communion
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?

Nevertheless Vidi Aquam, as to how she receives the bread, the normal and long hallowed CofE way is that you hold out your hands with one placed over the other in the form of a cross. The priest places the bread or wafer in your hand. You then transfer it to your mouth. It is very unlikely that she receives any other way. I can't speak for elsewhere in the world, but in the UK, placing it on the tongue is an exclusively RC custom.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh yes. I would put money on it that when Princess Elizabeth (as she then was) was prepared for Confirmation (by ++Lang? can't remember) that was how she was taught to receive and that is how she has continued to receive.

--------------------
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
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Nevertheless Vidi Aquam, as to how she receives the bread, the normal and long hallowed CofE way is that you hold out your hands with one placed over the other in the form of a cross. The priest places the bread or wafer in your hand. You then transfer it to your mouth. It is very unlikely that she receives any other way. I can't speak for elsewhere in the world, but in the UK, placing it on the tongue is an exclusively RC custom.

At Anglo Catholic Episcopalian parishes in the USA, people receive on the tongue on in the hand. Some people feel that the laity touching the host with the hand is a denial of the Real Presence, and is to be avoided.
Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Spike

Mostly Harmless
# 36

 - Posted      Profile for Spike   Email Spike   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't speak for elsewhere in the world, but in the UK, placing it on the tongue is an exclusively RC custom.

Not so. I know plenty of Anglo Catholics who receive on the tongue.

--------------------
"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      Profile for american piskie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
If other kings and queens e.g.the Scandinavian
Lutherans, of Denmark,Norway and Sweden and the Catholics of Belgium and Spain,receive communion during public celebrations of the Eucharist then I am wondering why does the Britsh Monarch not do the same ?

I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.

What happened?

I know most Novus Ordo clerics dislike when the laity receive on the tongue and/or kneeling. Such reverence has no place in the spirit of Vatican II.

Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593

 - Posted      Profile for american piskie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.

What happened?

I know most Novus Ordo clerics dislike when the laity receive on the tongue and/or kneeling. Such reverence has no place in the spirit of Vatican II.

Her Majesty stood and received in the hand, disregarding the wishes of the Pope. Devout and respectful as always, but you can imagine the fuss the Krazies made.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.

What happened?

I know most Novus Ordo clerics dislike when the laity receive on the tongue and/or kneeling. Such reverence has no place in the spirit of Vatican II.

Her Majesty stood and received in the hand, disregarding the wishes of the Pope. Devout and respectful as always, but you can imagine the fuss the Krazies made.
Well, I didn't see that coming! I thought it was standard Novus Ordo procedure to stand and receive in the hand everywhere (since the iconoclasts destroyed the communion rails), and that Francis (or was it Benedict XVI?) would be for that 100%. Of course there are high church parishes (and also wherever the Latin Mass is said) where they always kneel and receive on the tongue, but these places are few and far between.
Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't speak for elsewhere in the world, but in the UK, placing it on the tongue is an exclusively RC custom.

Not so. I know plenty of Anglo Catholics who receive on the tongue.
Hello, did someone call? [Big Grin]

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I thought the Spanish King didn't. And his poor mother was pilloried by those who did not like the (absolutely standard Spanish) manner in which she received communion during a papal mass.

What happened?

I know most Novus Ordo clerics dislike when the laity receive on the tongue and/or kneeling. Such reverence has no place in the spirit of Vatican II.

Her Majesty stood and received in the hand, disregarding the wishes of the Pope. Devout and respectful as always, but you can imagine the fuss the Krazies made.
Well, I didn't see that coming! I thought it was standard Novus Ordo procedure to stand and receive in the hand everywhere (since the iconoclasts destroyed the communion rails), and that Francis (or was it Benedict XVI?) would be for that 100%. Of course there are high church parishes (and also wherever the Latin Mass is said) where they always kneel and receive on the tongue, but these places are few and far between.
I think this must be regional. I always received on the tongue as a kid because it was the simpler of the two methods I was taught. (The other was hands out, left on top, and pick up the host with the right). When I visited Poland, I screwed up all my courage to try what I assumed must be the more "formal" way - i.e. the more complicated way. I was quietly but firmly rebuffed, so I gather that the permission for in the hand does not exist in the Polish episcopal conference.

On the other hand, at a Reformation Sunday service in a German-Canadian Lutheran church last year, I was surprised to see a parishioner receive on the tongue. (We were in a circle around the altar so he was quite visible to me).

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm an LCMS Lutheran and we always received on the tongue at my first church. No doctrinal reason, it was just the thing we did. Now it is more common to receive in the hand, but there are still those who prefer the old way, and IME they are accommodated.

--------------------
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
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm an LCMS Lutheran and we always received on the tongue at my first church. No doctrinal reason, it was just the thing we did. Now it is more common to receive in the hand, but there are still those who prefer the old way, and IME they are accommodated.

How was the Precious Blood received? Or did people only receive in one kind?

At the Old Catholic church I used to attend, the priest would intinct the Host into the Precious Blood and give communion to the congregation on the tongue. I think this is the best way, since the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.

Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From the chalice or wee cuppies, depending upon custom / preference / occasion and convenience. We do not make a big difference between pastor and people, holding that all are priestly by virtue of their baptism. Difference in function is primarily a matter of good order.

--------------------
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
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
... the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.

Why not? Sounds rather idolatrous (of the vessels) to me, but perhaps you can provide an explanation which will change my mind.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
... the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.

Why not? Sounds rather idolatrous (of the vessels) to me, but perhaps you can provide an explanation which will change my mind.
I'm with Albertus on this one. The sacred vessels cannot be more holy than the precious body and blood which they contain and which go into our mouths.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
... the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.

Why not? Sounds rather idolatrous (of the vessels) to me, but perhaps you can provide an explanation which will change my mind.
I'm with Albertus on this one. The sacred vessels cannot be more holy than the precious body and blood which they contain and which go into our mouths.
Of course the sacred vessels are not more holy than the Eucharist, but they are still holy.

From The Catechism of the Council of Trent issued by order of Pope Pius V circa 1556:

quote:
The Laity Prohibited To Touch The Sacred Vessels

To safeguard in every possible way the dignity of so august a Sacrament, not only is the power of its administration entrusted exclusively to priests, but the Church has also prohibited by law any but consecrated persons, unless some case of great necessity intervene, to dare handle or touch the sacred vessels, the linen, or other instruments necessary to its completion.

Priests themselves and the rest of the faithful may hence understand how great should be the piety and holiness of those who approach to consecrate, administer or receive the Eucharist.


Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nope, not convinced, except to say that I now think that it might be more about hyper-clericalism than idolatry. As Enoch says, I can eat and drink (and, I might add, therefore later excrete and urinate) what is in the communion vessels, but I must not touch the vessels themselves? Cobblers.
BTW does this mean that RC clergy are/ were supposed to do the laundry of the altar linen themselves?

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
... BTW does this mean that RC clergy are/ were supposed to do the laundry of the altar linen themselves?

I'm sure they don't/didn't. What are pious ladies for? [Devil]


Besides, two other things:-
First, is that rule still in force in the RCC? In many places in the RCC now, all receive under both kinds. It is impossible to receive from the cup without one's lips touching it. I believe normal RCC practice is to give the cup to the person receiving, who partakes and then gives it back. There was a discussion about this on the Ship a few months ago which suggested that cupbearer's gripping onto the cup and tipping it, rather than distributing the wine the normal way, is an exclusively Anglo-Catholic practice.

There are other rules in that source which don't still apply.

Second, it's clear from the source that it's a rule not a doctrine. Either way though, even if RC clergy and laity were still supposed to follow it, it's not relevant for other ecclesial communities.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Nope, not convinced, except to say that I now think that it might be more about hyper-clericalism than idolatry. As Enoch says, I can eat and drink (and, I might add, therefore later excrete and urinate) what is in the communion vessels, but I must not touch the vessels themselves? Cobblers.

Once the Holy Eucharist has been digested in our bodies, then it is no longer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
BTW does this mean that RC clergy are/ were supposed to do the laundry of the altar linen themselves?

Priests rinse off the altar linen in the piscina, the water goes down the sacrarium into the earth. Then the altar guild take it away to be laundered.
Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
....
Besides, two other things:-
First, is that rule still in force in the RCC? In many places in the RCC now, all receive under both kinds. It is impossible to receive from the cup without one's lips touching it. ...

Perhaps that's why the porron was invented [Smile]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[qb] Nope, not convinced, except to say that I now think that it might be more about hyper-clericalism than idolatry. As Enoch says, I can eat and drink (and, I might add, therefore later excrete and urinate) what is in the communion vessels, but I must not touch the vessels themselves? Cobblers.

Once the Holy Eucharist has been digested in our bodies, then it is no longer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

/QB]

Are you quite sure about that? I mean, if it becomes in reality the body and blood of Christ, outward appearances to the contrary, then surely any remnants that are expelled from the body after digestion continue to be the blood and body of Christ. Or is there some process of reverse transubstantiation somewhere in the digestive tract?

--------------------
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
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As Max. once memorably said to me, "Jesus does not come out in poo; he just keeps piling up."
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
[qb] Nope, not convinced, except to say that I now think that it might be more about hyper-clericalism than idolatry. As Enoch says, I can eat and drink (and, I might add, therefore later excrete and urinate) what is in the communion vessels, but I must not touch the vessels themselves? Cobblers.

Once the Holy Eucharist has been digested in our bodies, then it is no longer the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

/QB]

Are you quite sure about that? I mean, if it becomes in reality the body and blood of Christ, outward appearances to the contrary, then surely any remnants that are expelled from the body after digestion continue to be the blood and body of Christ. Or is there some process of reverse transubstantiation somewhere in the digestive tract?
The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Once that appearance has ceased, so does the True Presence.
Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Besides, two other things:-
First, is that rule still in force in the RCC? In many places in the RCC now, all receive under both kinds. It is impossible to receive from the cup without one's lips touching it. I believe normal RCC practice is to give the cup to the person receiving, who partakes and then gives it back. There was a discussion about this on the Ship a few months ago which suggested that cupbearer's gripping onto the cup and tipping it, rather than distributing the wine the normal way, is an exclusively Anglo-Catholic practice.

There are other rules in that source which don't still apply.

All rules still apply and have never been abrogated. I don't consider anything the Vatican II Church says or does to have any affect on the RCC whatsoever.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second, it's clear from the source that it's a rule not a doctrine. Either way though, even if RC clergy and laity were still supposed to follow it, it's not relevant for other ecclesial communities.

Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.
Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second, it's clear from the source that it's a rule not a doctrine. Either way though, even if RC clergy and laity were still supposed to follow it, it's not relevant for other ecclesial communities.

Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.
[Killing me]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
The Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. Once that appearance has ceased, so does the True Presence.

So the reality is dependent on the external accidents? [Confused]
Of course I can see that if you do believe in transubstantiation then you need some sort of get out so that you're not considering yourself to be depositing particles of TMBBABOOLJS into the sewers. Still, seems a bit odd.

--------------------
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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
All rules still apply and have never been abrogated. I don't consider anything the Vatican II Church says or does to have any affect on the RCC whatsoever.

If one is an RC, that is untenable. None of the Holy Fathers since Vatican II would agree with you.
quote:
Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.
Why?

Furthermore, that is untenable for anyone who is not an RC. If they really were to believe that, there would be no option but to go and be received immediately.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.

Hardly. At best such things are things we should be aware of, if only to know why we think they're wrong.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
All rules still apply and have never been abrogated. I don't consider anything the Vatican II Church says or does to have any affect on the RCC whatsoever.

If one is an RC, that is untenable. None of the Holy Fathers since Vatican II would agree with you.
That's because there have been no Holy Fathers since Vatican II. There has been an interregnum since Pope Pius XII died in 1958.

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
Still, it should be the ideal, or at least a guide for all ecclesiastical communities.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why?

2000 years of tradition is a good reason.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Furthermore, that is untenable for anyone who is not an RC. If they really were to believe that, there would be no option but to go and be received immediately.

Not everyone believes in the totality of what the RCC teaches.
Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Now I'm mystified. The present Pope is called Francis. He is the sixth since Pius XII.

The Council of Trent isn't 2,000 years of tradition. It's a snapshot taken in the C16. It made a number of major changes. There have been other changes since. Vatican II made a lot too.

If one believes that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is authoritative, then that has to be because it takes its authority from being issued by the Pope. One cannot go on from there to pick and choose according to one's own private judgement which Papal rulings are binding. It is saying 'I accept the Catechism of the Council of Trent not because it has the papal imprimatur, but because I agree with it'. That's logically fine if one is a Protestant, though it isn't a document most Protestants would rate. But it isn't if one is a Catholic. It is setting oneself up in judgement over the church.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Now I'm mystified. The present Pope is called Francis. He is the sixth since Pius XII.

But sedevacantists would hold that Vatican II was formally heretical, and therefore anyone who accepts it cannot be Pope, whatever rites of inauguration (or coronation) he might have undergone.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whenever I see little groups like this claiming that they and they alone are the true Church, I'm reminded of the lovely Robb Wilton monologue about the Home Guard:
quote:
She said,"What are you supposed to do?"
I said, "I'm supposed to stop Hitler's army landing."
She said, "What! – you?"
I said, "No – there's Charlie Evans, Dick Roberts...I said, "There's seven or eight of us, altogether."



[ 07. July 2015, 17:22: Message edited by: Albertus ]

--------------------
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
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
since the laity are never supposed to touch the sacred vessels when receiving in both kinds.

The Book of Common Prayer seems to disagree with you.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah ... Protestant heresy!

--------------------
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
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239

 - Posted      Profile for BulldogSacristan   Email BulldogSacristan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have to say, I go to a fairly self-consciously Anglo-Catholic parish where very many people receive on the tongue, me included. Those same people, however, usually guide the base of the chalice and help tip the wine into their mouths. This isn't so much a gross, mishandling of the vessels as just a natural necessity of drinking from a cup.

Also, it's very difficult to pour the wine into somebody's mouth when he or she isn't helping guide the chalice at all. This greatly increases the chances of spillage, which is a much greater concern to a Catholic than light contact with the chalice.

One might counter and say, "aha! That's precisely why you should receive in one kind only!" My response would be, okay, sure, but the people's reception of the chalice is really a cornerstone of Anglicanism, and we aren't so ultramontane as to do away with it.

Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Vidi Aquam
Apprentice
# 18433

 - Posted      Profile for Vidi Aquam   Email Vidi Aquam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
I have to say, I go to a fairly self-consciously Anglo-Catholic parish where very many people receive on the tongue, me included. Those same people, however, usually guide the base of the chalice and help tip the wine into their mouths. This isn't so much a gross, mishandling of the vessels as just a natural necessity of drinking from a cup.

Also, it's very difficult to pour the wine into somebody's mouth when he or she isn't helping guide the chalice at all. This greatly increases the chances of spillage, which is a much greater concern to a Catholic than light contact with the chalice.

One might counter and say, "aha! That's precisely why you should receive in one kind only!" My response would be, okay, sure, but the people's reception of the chalice is really a cornerstone of Anglicanism, and we aren't so ultramontane as to do away with it.

I totally agree with everything you said, having communicated the same way at Anglo Catholic parishes in the 80s and 90s. I have only received at traditional Roman Catholic chapels since 2000, where the chalice is never offered to the laity.

I like how the Old Catholics do it, the priest intincting the Host into the Precious Blood and then placing it on the tongue of the communicant.

At any rate, I will be abstaining from receiving Communion for the time being as I visit various AC/RC/Old Catholic chapels in my area.

Posts: 33 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Jun 2015  |  IP: Logged
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869

 - Posted      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
HMQ is at all times highly conscious of the sacred nature of her office and seems keen to avoid any instance where her own personal habits/preference might become "the issue".

--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"

Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285

 - Posted      Profile for Utrecht Catholic   Email Utrecht Catholic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well I am afraid that I do not share this view on the Queen of the U.K.
I have to conclude that the Queen is quite Low Church.
And as I already said before, I find her attitude unwilling to accept the tradition of the church or cathedral she visiting,during her trips abroad rather arrogant.
She could have learned a lot from the deceased Monarch of Belgium, King Boudewijn/Baudouin. Like her also a member of the House of Saxen Coburg.
He was a devout Catholic,and for him there was only one liturgy on Sunday,the Holy Eucharist.
If this King received communion,wherever he was,why should the British Queen as a devout Anglican not do the same. ?
After all for the Anglicans the Eucharist is also the main service on Sunday,and not Morning Prayer or Choral Mattins.

--------------------
Robert Kennedy

Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For very many Church of England Anglicans of her generation, that is simply not true. The regular main Sunday service would have been choral martins, with communion probably once month.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I repeat my previous question,
quote:
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?
That's so for those who are both her subjects and members of the Churches of England, Wales and of Ireland resident in the six counties.

It's unwarrantably intrusive for those who are not her subjects or are not members of those churches. It is doubly so for those who meet neither of those tests.

Is it any of my business whether, when or how, President Obama or Vladimir Putin takes Communion?

[ 16. July 2015, 21:54: Message edited by: Enoch ]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Utrecht Catholic --

To give this a bit more detail. EII is in her late 80s. She is reportedly somewhat conservative in her approach to things (though not, I believe on social issues, which is a different matter). Her mother and sister were certainly on the AC end of the CofE, and I expect she is towards that end if not as extreme as they were (they having the luxury of not always being on show, except on official business, unlike HM).

When she was being raised, most of the CofE did not take communion weekly. Even (and especially) the most Anglo-Catholic Anglicans did not normally communicate at the "main service of the day", but at early said services. The "main service of the day" was usually Morning Prayer -- either simple or very elaborate depending on the resources of the place. In a very few places it might be a very elaborate high mass, at which only the sacred minsters communicated. (and in this, was very like traditional PC practice up to Vatican II).

If she has chosen to continue the practice of her upbringing and make her weekly SUnday communion at an early, said, service, what's that to you? If you are going to criticize an 80+ year old woman for not going against her upbringing and for not changing the habits of a lifetime (shared to this day by many in the CofE, though probably not most), then I'd suggest you undertake a little historical research first, to find out what you're talking about.

John

[ 16. July 2015, 21:55: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a private chapel in Buckingham Palace and may well be at other of the residences. AIUI, HM does in fact attend a Eucharist at the Palace chapel on Sundays when she's in London, and also through the week. John Holding's suspicion as to her place on the candle is correct also. Not at the heights of All Saints Margaret St or some others, but certainly not Holy Trinity Brompton either. However, taking her duty as she sees it, she attends whatever church is on the itinerary - the Cathedral here in Sydney for example.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?

Yes. She is the head of the Church of England and, as such, sets an example to the members of said church. We know how Justin takes it - so why not Elizabeth Windsor?

Restricting herself to private communion removes her from the "communion of saints" gathered at or around the table. If there's no actual choice then fine - commune privately: but, at the last count, there were/are lots of churches where anyone can partake without recourse to privacy.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But she is also a full member of the CofS.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?

Yes. She is the head of the Church of England and, as such, sets an example to the members of said church. We know how Justin takes it - so why not Elizabeth Windsor?

Restricting herself to private communion removes her from the "communion of saints" gathered at or around the table. If there's no actual choice then fine - commune privately: but, at the last count, there were/are lots of churches where anyone can partake without recourse to privacy.

Restricting herself to non-public-access communion does not at all remove herself from the communion of saints. The saints are there whether or not anyone else happens to be at the rail (and I gather that they normally are, just without cameras on them).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869

 - Posted      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quite right, that's absolute rubbish

--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"

Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I repeat my previous question,
quote:
Is it anyone else's business when or how HMQ receives Holy Communion?
That's so for those who are both her subjects and members of the Churches of England, Wales and of Ireland resident in the six counties.

It's unwarrantably intrusive for those who are not her subjects or are not members of those churches. It is doubly so for those who meet neither of those tests.

Why should members of the Church in Wales or the Church of Ireland care any more than those of the Anglican Church in Canada?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869

 - Posted      Profile for Vaticanchic   Email Vaticanchic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They shouldn't, because they'll all disestablished.

--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"

Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
HM is not alone when she does take communion in the private chapel. There are often members of her family there, along with guests. Through the week, Palace staff attend. And as has been noted, there is the communion of saints from times past as well.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Uncle Pete

Loyaute me lie
# 10422

 - Posted      Profile for Uncle Pete     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Without wishing to make any direct comparison to the Bishop of Rome, I would point out that, while he communicates in public when he is on duty, so to speak, he also has a private chapel to which he has recourse during such times as he is not on public display, and celebrates Mass daily as he is mandated to do.

HM has no such mandated duty and her private devotions are just that - private.

--------------------
Even more so than I was before

Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools