Thread: (Ex) alcoholic priests and the Eucharist? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025753
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
A friend who is a (reformed) alcoholic is considering seeking (Anglican) ordination. Has anybody any practical experience or knowledge of how she then copes with the role of celebrant at an Anglican Eucharist?
Apologies if this topic has been fully discussed before, though I can't believe this is the first such situation to arise. All ideas/observations welcome!
[ 25. February 2013, 08:09: Message edited by: Oferyas ]
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
One person I know who took services on occasion got along with this fine.
They would intinct the wafer for them to receive.
After the distribution they would have a server or church warden (or other respected person) consume the wine. (this being done at times by that person receive last and draining the chalice).
Hope this helps. I think it is more a case of being honest about it, and being aware of the using and putting plans in place to get round them.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
A now-deceased RC priest I knew well, who had become a Friend of Bill after some vicissitudes, used the Vatican-approved practice of mustum, fermentation-suspended grape juice, viz., an extremely-low alcohol version of wine, and he told me it presented no problem to him. The problem was that the cupboard at his church contained the normal-strength wine, and he entrusted the key to the sacristan; extraordinary ministers worked the chalice at masses with communion in both species.Here's the US RC bishops' note on this.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Many clergy in the uk today, serve several churches. Which means that they can't consume the wine because of issues of drink driving.
As said above it is quite common practice to have authorised persons do it instead.
In our group it varies between server, eucharistic ministers and the churchwarden who is last recieve.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Many clergy in the uk today, serve several churches. Which means that they can't consume the wine because of issues of drink driving.
As said above it is quite common practice to have authorised persons do it instead.
In our group it varies between server, eucharistic ministers and the churchwarden who is last recieve.
This is what I do on multiple communion days. The stories of gardei lurking round road-corners waiting to catch priests soused on The Precious Blood abound still!
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
I know a few priests in recovery. 12-step spirituality and human formation dovetail beautifully, and (in my limited experience) lead to very fruitful pastoral ministry. Ritually, some are able to take a small amount of wine (making sure someone else is available to help consume whatever remains), others use mustum.
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
Thank you all for these postings, as well as for some pms.
The real issue is not so much the consuming of remains (which can be done by others), but of the actual partaking of Holy Communion as celebrant. As a life-long liturgy geek I am ashamed to say I had never heard of the term mustum, nor of this provision in an RC context. Something similar must be (informally?) allowable in an Anglican setting, or are we more Catholic than the RCs?
Anyway, many thanks - any further observations, anybody?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
Thank you all for these postings, as well as for some pms.
The real issue is not so much the consuming of remains (which can be done by others), but of the actual partaking of Holy Communion as celebrant. As a life-long liturgy geek I am ashamed to say I had never heard of the term mustum, nor of this provision in an RC context. Something similar must be (informally?) allowable in an Anglican setting, or are we more Catholic than the RCs?
Anyway, many thanks - any further observations, anybody?
When much younger, in my acolyte days, I served an older, quite grumpy but good-hearted (a chaplain in WWII, he had been held as a POW), cleric whom, I noticed, only raised the chalice to his lips for what I then thought was a sip. The other server and myself, both about 15, were required to finish off the chalice and I was asked to clean it at ablutions. I thought this curious at the time, but I learned some years afterward was that he was a Friend of Bill and had not taken wine while celebrating since he went dry.
Looking through the detailled RC provisions (signed off by then-Cardinal Ratzinger), I see that in certain cases, a priest could be exempted from taking the wine while celebrating. It seems that this elderly priest had a similar exemption, either from the bishop or himself. I recall that he ensured that the other server and I had breakfast with him, where he ensured that the tiddly teenagers had plenty of coffee and cholesterol and war stories before he let us stagger home.
The instruction ends with information as to where mustum can be ordered in the US.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
Thank you all for these postings, as well as for some pms.
The real issue is not so much the consuming of remains (which can be done by others), but of the actual partaking of Holy Communion as celebrant. As a life-long liturgy geek I am ashamed to say I had never heard of the term mustum, nor of this provision in an RC context. Something similar must be (informally?) allowable in an Anglican setting, or are we more Catholic than the RCs?
Anyway, many thanks - any further observations, anybody?
If your friend became a Methodist he wouldn't have this problem; we still use non-alcoholic wine at Communion (=Eucharist)! This is one of the reasons why. If your friend is fairly MOTR in terms of church practice and theology he'll find the two churches are quite similar theologically (although quite different sociallly and psychologically, I think). You have to become a lay preacher before before seeking ordination.
(I'm sorry if this is a tangent, but I'm sure there was a similar question to yours asked a while ago, and I found it odd that if the person concerned were so deeply involved in church life as to consider seeking ordination, they didn't just go and ask a priest that they knew for this information. The most obvious question is, how does this person take Communion now?? Surely, the priest and Communion assistants at church already know the man has this issue, because he's already arranged to be served non-alcoholic wine whenever it's time for Communion...? And if he doesn't feel spiritually able to take Communion now, why would he want a job where he has to provide it for other people?
I don't mean to be nosey, but it sounds a bit peculiar to me. I'm not an Anglican, so probably missing something really obvious! If it's too complicated or too personal, you don't have to respond.)
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
I knew a Roman Catholic priest who was a recovering alcoholic. At Mass he'd put the chalice to his lips, tip his head back as if he were drinking from it, then pass the cup to a eucharistic minister who'd polish it off.
One day he did this and his false teeth fell into the chalice.
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
To briefly answer the earlier points....
"(why) they didn't just go and ask a priest that they knew for this information." They did. Me. I didn't have a complete answer, so came on here to consult others.
"Surely, the priest and Communion assistants at church already know the man has this issue, because he's already arranged to be served non-alcoholic wine whenever it's time for Communion...?" Never seen this happen in an Anglican context. To provide a separate chalice for just one person would be a very public advertising of one person's personal issue. ATM she receives in one Kind.
"And if he doesn't feel spiritually able to take Communion now, why would he want a job where he has to provide it for other people?" It's not seen as a 'job that's wanted', but as a vocation that feels it needs to be answered.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
I have a priest friend who is alcoholic. He worked out how to deal with celebrating for himself, that is to say worked out what he in his personal situation could manage. This was receiving a tiny amount himself and others doing the ablutions.
I suspect anyone going forward to ordination needs to consider what they could cope with. They will find people kind and understanding. It is not an uncommon problem among the clergy.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
"Surely, the priest and Communion assistants at church already know the man has this issue, because he's already arranged to be served non-alcoholic wine whenever it's time for Communion...?" Never seen this happen in an Anglican context. To provide a separate chalice for just one person would be a very public advertising of one person's personal issue. ATM she receives in one Kind.
I've been to a city-centre CofE parish church where they had different options: alcoholic, non-alcoholic, and gluten-free wine. (These were in little cups.) Perhaps this is rare? Of course, it's not just ex-alcoholics who have issues with alcohol.
quote:
"And if he doesn't feel spiritually able to take Communion now, why would he want a job where he has to provide it for other people?" It's not seen as a 'job that's wanted', but as a vocation that feels it needs to be answered.
In my understanding of church life, the people who go forward for ordination have already given lots of time and effort to the church, and are certainly already taking Communion. If you're a regular, devout churchgoer who never takes Communion this is likely to raise questions, because Communion isn't supposed to be an optional extra for Christians. But it could be that Anglican churchgoers and clergy just mind their own business and don't pay much attention to what other people in the pews are doing or not doing!
If this man is still on the fringes of CofE life and doesn't have much of a connection with the other people in this congregation then he might as well go off and explore how other churches do things, because, as I say, the issue of alcoholic wine doesn't come up in certain other denominations.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
Perhaps, Svitlana, at present he chooses just to receive in one kind when receiving communion, a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Percy B
What do you mean?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Some people eat the bread but skip the wine.
There are plenty of reasons why they might want to do that, and we don't ever ask them why.
[ 26. February 2013, 13:26: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
And there are 'traditionalist' places (Anglican and Roman Catholic) where communicating in the one species only is the norm for the laity, never mind exceptional.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
Exactly, Ken, and more clearly put !
As to the point Svitlana mKes about people already doing lots already before going forward to ordination, I think that is sometimes, but not always true.
Sometimes I think good candidates are those who a not too churchy.
Not all are deeply involved in church life. Some younger people - university students, for example, feel a call but aren't on PCCs or singing in choirs or leading house groups.
I do not think it is held against people if they are not involved in the day to day stuff of running churches. That can come later.
What is more important I think is a clear sense of call and an appreciation of the breadth of forms of Christian discipleship.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
A few points in no order. I have in the past; not taken any of the wine (or held the cup), very slightly intincted and (as I have done for a while) kissed the cup. The first is fine and I (receiving in one kind) have fully received. The second was not right for me and I stopped. The last (kissing) fits me the best. I would not encourage any recovering alcoholic to intinct or taste the wine in anyway. It was not a mistake but it was not right for me.
At my home church (after so many years) they just do the ablutions. Elsewhere I always ask the servers to finish the wine and make things tidy again. I always explain why, I have never had a problem, everyone has been fine, calm and thoughtful. It has provoked many conversations over that other great sacrament, coffee.
I have a letter from my Bishop giving me permission to use grape juice (asked for by my congregation so “you can share with us”). In over ten years I have done so four times and always in less formal settings.
There are many things that my alcoholism stops me from partaking fully in (which is mostly a good thing) but the Eucharist is not one of them. I am not worthy to gather up the crumbs from His table. That I dare reach over the altar into heaven is more than I hoped for or deserved. To kiss the cup that holds Him is close enough in oh so many ways.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
*snip*
I've been to a city-centre CofE parish church where they had different options: alcoholic, non-alcoholic, and gluten-free wine. (These were in little cups.) Perhaps this is rare? Of course, it's not just ex-alcoholics who have issues with alcohol.
*more snip*
I would say that I have never heard of this in Anglican churches in Canada nor in the US, nor in the Irish Republic, all countries where I've had about 40 years of churchgoing. Perhaps it happens in parts of England???
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
That is a moving word, thank you Pyx-e.
At a church I attended where a priest was an alcoholic it was decided servers would always do the washing up, never the clergy. In that way he was not singled out.
Incidentally he would never use the term 'ex alcoholic' he always said he was an alcoholic, that was his 'state'. In similar vein he was angry when described as a 'reformed' alcoholic. He said that carried too much baggage in the terminology. I am not suggesting you will agree with these points, but I respected him for what he said.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
As to the point Svitlana mKes about people already doing lots already before going forward to ordination, I think that is sometimes, but not always true.
Sometimes I think good candidates are those who a not too churchy.
Not all are deeply involved in church life. Some younger people - university students, for example, feel a call but aren't on PCCs or singing in choirs or leading house groups.
I do not think it is held against people if they are not involved in the day to day stuff of running churches. That can come later.
What is more important I think is a clear sense of call and an appreciation of the breadth of forms of Christian discipleship.
Ah! I see. This is very different from the Methodist Church. Methodist candidates for the ministry always have to be local preachers first (although this can be fast-forwarded in some cases, I think). And before becoming a local preacher, an individual has often been involved in congregational life as someone who reads the lessons or the prayers of intercession, then perhaps a church steward or as a worship leader, etc.
The idea of someone becoming a priest who's never been very visible or available in their own local church isn't a concept I'm used to. Very interesting!
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I am not a member of the clergy, but as a Friend of Bill, I just take the bread not the wine because a thimble full is too much and a barrel full is never enough. My rector said as long as one of the species were taken, then the Eucharist was valid.
I can second the point about not being called a reformed or recovered alcoholic. You never are I'm afraid, I am in recovery or recovering. I will never not be an alcoholic, no matter how years of sobriety I attain.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
As to the point Svitlana mKes about people already doing lots already before going forward to ordination, I think that is sometimes, but not always true.
Sometimes I think good candidates are those who a not too churchy.
Not all are deeply involved in church life. Some younger people - university students, for example, feel a call but aren't on PCCs or singing in choirs or leading house groups.
I do not think it is held against people if they are not involved in the day to day stuff of running churches. That can come later.
What is more important I think is a clear sense of call and an appreciation of the breadth of forms of Christian discipleship.
Ah! I see. This is very different from the Methodist Church. Methodist candidates for the ministry always have to be local preachers first (although this can be fast-forwarded in some cases, I think). And before becoming a local preacher, an individual has often been involved in congregational life as someone who reads the lessons or the prayers of intercession, then perhaps a church steward or as a worship leader, etc.
The idea of someone becoming a priest who's never been very visible or available in their own local church isn't a concept I'm used to. Very interesting!
I can see the arguments both ways. To take a very different example, can you imagine how different school PE lessons would be if PE teachers were selected from non-sporty types who loathed the very sight of a football when they were at school ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I wonder if putting the wafer in to the chalice (as if to intinct) but not actually touch the wine would also be an alternative. I ask not because I have the same difficultly with wine as the reason for this thread, but because I don't actually like - and have a physical reaction to - the wine which is now used in my church. When suggesting that I therefore take in one kind only, this was met with concern, so I decided to intinct instead, but only slightly touch the surface of the wine with the host. If I was to not even put the wafer in that far, the only person who would know would be the chalice bearer, and then only if he or she was paying great attention during that split second.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
A few random responses to what has been said
TomM: I have never encountered an Anglo Catholic parish or other Anglican parish which positively discourages taking the chalice. I know we may be reluctant to name, but can anyone name a few such places? I suspect not.
Augustine: again, like you Augustine, I have never encountered Anglican churches which give alternative wines. (I must admit to thinking all wine was gluten free). I received many times in chur he's in the Church of England but never been aware of an alternative wine. Sometimes gluten free hosts are available.
And chorister - why not make a stand and just receive in one kind. It could help others to do the same, and may even encourage an alcoholic who is reticent about receiving because he or she may feel obliged to receive the chalice.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I'm prepared to make a stand over things I feel very strongly about, and have done so in the past. But this isn't one of them, not worth causing trouble over.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
Indeed I can see that, and of course it does not affect you directly. I would be inclined to do the same in your position.
However, I am a little uneasy that questions are asked of those communicants who decline to receive the chalice. What has that to do with anyone?
Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Augustine: again, like you Augustine, I have never encountered Anglican churches which give alternative wines. (I must admit to thinking all wine was gluten free). I received many times in chur he's in the Church of England but never been aware of an alternative wine. Sometimes gluten free hosts are available.
I'm assuming gluten free wine is might be a chalice of wine that has not been tainted by having a wheat wafer dipped in it. Those with coeliac disorder might react to even that small amount of gluten contamination.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
Ah! Silly me, never thought of that. I do understand just a slight contact can cause big problems.
On the matter of the C of E I thought it was required in Canon Law that the wine be the fermented juice of the grape, I.e. alcoholic. But then very few obey Canon Law to the letter!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I have never encountered an Anglo Catholic parish or other Anglican parish which positively discourages taking the chalice. I know we may be reluctant to name, but can anyone name a few such places? I suspect not.
I can name - All Souls' Blackman Lane, Leeds IN THE 1970s when Fr. Hum was PP and I was a student. Roman Rite.
If I stayed at the rail long enough after everyone else had got up and gone back to their seats, he's sigh deeply and return with the almost empty chalice.
(They now have a woman vicar!!!!)
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If this man is still on the fringes of CofE life .....
Sorry, but where have I given any impression that this lady is 'still on the fringes of C of E life'? This is far from the case!
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
Mind you I think the Church of England, and some other churches, perhaps, could benefit from calling to ministry some who are (in one sense at least) on the fringes of church life.
It seems to me that some alcoholics are on the fringe. For some alcoholics are quite lonely and isolated figures. The priest friend I mentioned had a terrible battle against alcohol and lost nearly everything. His story and example are a strength to the church, a witness to the determination of the individual and the grace of God. He came in from the fringes, the church is stronger because of that.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If this man is still on the fringes of CofE life .....
Sorry, but where have I given any impression that this lady is 'still on the fringes of C of E life'? This is far from the case!
My apologies! As I said above, in my experience, people who play an active part in church life routinely take Communion. When you said that your friend didn't, it seemed to me that she must be on the fringes of the church. But now I realise that the CofE has fewer expectations of how regular attenders might behave than other denominations would.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
Mind you I think the Church of England, and some other churches, perhaps, could benefit from calling to ministry some who are (in one sense at least) on the fringes of church life.
It seems to me that some alcoholics are on the fringe. For some alcoholics are quite lonely and isolated figures. The priest friend I mentioned had a terrible battle against alcohol and lost nearly everything. His story and example are a strength to the church, a witness to the determination of the individual and the grace of God. He came in from the fringes, the church is stronger because of that.
I get what you're saying, yes. It's just that, in certain other denominations I think the individual on the fringe, alcoholic or otherwise, would normally be drawn into the routine of church life and then gradually acculturised long before any idea of ordination came up. In the faith tradition that I know it's through serving the church as a layperson that the individual realises s/he has a calling to the ministry. This is how the calling is tested, so to speak.
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
When you said that your friend didn't, it seemed to me that she must be on the fringes of the church. But now I realise that the CofE has fewer expectations of how regular attenders might behave than other denominations would.
I'm sorry, but I can't see anywhere where I suggested she doesn't take Communion. She does, regularly, receiving the bread only.
My question was about the problems caused by the priest celebrating the Eucharist being expected, by ancient and general practice, to partake of both bread and cup.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Again, it's not part of my experience that individuals take only the bread, not the wine, so when people refer to Communion/Eucharist, my assumption is (was) that both will be taken.
If the officiating priest is unconcerned about the laity taking only one, then I can't see why it would be such a problem if the clergy do the same - but others have given you their knowledgeable advice on this from inside the CofE. I said at the very beginning that I wasn't an Anglican. I was curious, and I've certainly learnt some new things on this thread.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
While I have been in several churches where people decline to receive from the chalice I have to say it would seem odd to me if the priest did not, at least, appear to do so.
I seem to remember that there was a rule somewhere that the priest had to receive before the people to make the Eucharist complete then all shared. Mind you that's not saying the priest had to receive the wine.
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
PercyB, that's always been my understanding as well, that the priest's communion (in both kinds, by universal tradition) 'completes' the Eucharistic action.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
A couple of notes from a lay assistant at the eucharist. First, if you follow the studies of bacteria in the chalice, intinction is not a good idea as fingers contaminate more than lips. The Diocese of Toronto has this information somewhere on their site if interested. Our parish has a separate small chalice, more like a sherry glass, for intinction. I'm not sure how common this is, but it was raised and implemented when the bishop forbade intinction during one of the 'flu scares. The separate intinction chalice was allowed.
The second thing to note is that it is very common for people to touch the cup with hands and never pull it to their mouth. Here, the kissing of the cup or touching lips to it is not at all common. It would seem the important thing to some is contact with the cup, not necessarily wine. The priest is another matter, and I have no idea how that would play. I suspect if this occurred in our parish, the lay assistants (we have 2 assistants and 2 readers assigned each Sunday) would simply accommodate, as the communion is not mediated by the priest who simply facilitates, but by the elements which symbolize the presence. I have no idea if I'm talking theologically correctly with this, but this has been the discussion within the lay assistant group for some time.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
If you intinct in the way I do it (only slight contact with the wine) there is no way my fingers - even accidentally - could touch the surface of the wine. They are a good couple of centimetres away. If someone is actually going to drown their host, ahd their fingers as well, they might as well go the whole hog, put the chalice to their lips, and take a gurt big gulp.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
But your hand/fingers and the priest's fingers have touched the bit that you place into the wine. That's an issue, especially multiplied by all the others who intinct into the same chalice.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
As a church, we looked at all this during the swine flu scare.
Although one's fingers might not touch the wine, in the time that elapses between having the host placed on one's palm to the time when the chalice bearer arrives, the whole host will be saturated with germs.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Our priest and chalice assistant use a sanitizer first and the vicar prefers it if anybody wants their wafer intincted that the chalice assistant do it on their behalf. Which cuts down on the number of fingers in the common cup..
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Our priest and chalice assistant use a sanitizer first and the vicar prefers it if anybody wants their wafer intincted that the chalice assistant do it on their behalf. Which cuts down on the number of fingers in the common cup..
Although presumably the host was still hanging around on germy hands for a while before that.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
If you're worried about germs, then look instead at the shaking of hands during the peace. People spend the first half of the service coughing into their recently washed hands, then shake hands with several people in their own, and surrounding, pews / rows. So the germs have been passed around the church way before any wafers get involved. I noticed with wry amusement that, during the swine flu scare, communion was taken in one kind only, but we still all shook hands at the peace!
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
We suspended the Peace(which I regard as an epidemic in itself... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
), but unfortunately people wanted it back afterwards.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
We suspended the Peace(which I regard as an epidemic in itself... ), but unfortunately people wanted it back afterwards.
I always hated that too.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
And there are 'traditionalist' places (Anglican and Roman Catholic) where communicating in the one species only is the norm for the laity, never mind exceptional.
That must be very dispiriting for a member of the laity who wishes to partake in one kind only - the one that is withheld.
The phrase 'A Friend of Bill' is new to me - amazing what you can learn aboard the Ship.
The whole question of hand-hygiene when dispensing and taking communion has vexed me for a long time. As Chorister explained, the sequence whereby people in the congregation shake hands to ‘share the peace’ and then handle a piece of bread or wafer and eat it is an excellent way of distributing an infectious agent such as a virus around the congregation. Even worse, as I have encountered in some non-conformist churches, is when the bread is in the form of a large chunk, which is passed on a plate along the row of people, where each person holds the chunk with one hand while tearing off a piece with the other. If you are on the end of a row, or at the back, the bread has had a couple of dozen grubby hands all over it. Sorry, but no thanks.
Drinking from a common chalice is far less of a problem, because people’s lips have far fewer infectious agents on them than their hands do. This is because people stick their hands in places that they don’t usually kiss... (such as door handles ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). Maybe there is more wisdom in the biblical injunction to ‘Greet one another with a holy kiss’ than we realise.
Angus
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
That must be very dispiriting for a member of the laity who wishes to partake in one kind only - the one that is withheld.
I've never really understood communion in one kind full stop. The fullness of the sign is in both kinds. Anything less is not the sign Christ instituted.
[fixed code]
[ 27. February 2013, 21:05: Message edited by: seasick ]
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Bread and fishes?
Posted by Stranger in a strange land (# 11922) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
That must be very dispiriting for a member of the laity who wishes to partake in one kind only - the one that is withheld.
I've never really understood communion in one kind full stop. The fullness of the sign is in both kinds. Anything less is not the sign Christ instituted.
[fixed code]
Yes, but the Priest must always communicate in both kinds so the 'sign' is completed and proclaimed. The presence of Christ is complete in either element so the faithful receiving in one kind receive the full benefit of the Sacramental 'sign' (and indeed those who do not communicate also share in the grace).
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Ad Orientem,
Welcome to Ship of Fools and to Ecclesiantics! If you haven't done so already, it's good to acquaint yourself with the 10 Commandments and with the guidelines of each board (linked in the description at the top of the board). I hope that you find this community interesting and engaging.
May I suggest that you may find it helpful to explain your points of view? Simply asserting it doesn't help the discussion to develop.
Happy sailing!
seasick, Eccles host
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
In the diocese of British Columbia (ACC)
intintion was banned because peoples fingers were getting in to the wine .
This was at the time of the H1N1 flu scare. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
I'll explain further. Whether Christ is or is not fully present under either kind is ultimately irrellevant, communion under one kind is not what Christ commanded. The fully present under one kind argument is merely a scholsatic rationalism designed to justify what is an abuse.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
I'll explain further. Whether Christ is or is not fully present under either kind is ultimately irrellevant, communion under one kind is not what Christ commanded. The fully present under one kind argument is merely a scholsatic rationalism designed to justify what is an abuse.
Could be, but my abuse could be someone else's pastoral application of economia. I tend to be shy of suggesting what OLJC might have wanted, but I do not think that gluten or alcohol poisoning was in mind-- and that is what is involved for some people. The general application of communion in one kind might be argued to be an abuse, but that is not what we are speaking of on this thread.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If you intinct in the way I do it (only slight contact with the wine) there is no way my fingers - even accidentally - could touch the surface of the wine. They are a good couple of centimetres away. If someone is actually going to drown their host, ahd their fingers as well, they might as well go the whole hog, put the chalice to their lips, and take a gurt big gulp.
I agree completely, but many are not so adept as you. I realize that this aspect is tangential to the aim of the topic, but I felt my prior post missed some information about the web link to info on intinction. I hope it okay to add this information.
It turns out that fingers are a greater source of infection than fingers (links inline below). It is cleaner to use the common cup properly than to ever intinct. We actually don't have the intinction option if there is no additional smaller intinction cup available per diocesan directive.
The issue came to fore in our parish, as I noted during the flu scares, and in the lay assistants, honourary clergy and rector meetings about it, and the discussion further turned to 'incidents' with the cup, including people with bandages (bandaids) on fingers that were also dipped, people whose hands were dirty or stained. It was suggested that the alcohol in the wine does service as germ killer but apparently it actually doesn't do very well at all. We'd have to use scotch or something equally powerful in alcohol content to kill germs.
We studied the Diocese of Toronto info. The document they had posted on their website has moved or been deleted, but I found this directive on their website, and then via further search a webpage on the Anglican Church of Canada website which seems to contain the relevant information as I recall it. There is a good discussion if you scroll down to the "intinction" heading.
It is also suggested that hand sanitizer would remedy the risk of infection from hands, but it is not usually used properly. It must be of the right formulation (60% or greater alcohol) applied in sufficient quantity onto non-moist or sweaty hands, and let dry for at least a minute to do the job.
It rather amazed (and continues to amaze) me that such a simply thing such as intinction versus drinking from the common cup could be such a complicated topic.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
I'll explain further. Whether Christ is or is not fully present under either kind is ultimately irrellevant, communion under one kind is not what Christ commanded. The fully present under one kind argument is merely a scholsatic rationalism designed to justify what is an abuse.
Could be, but my abuse could be someone else's pastoral application of economia. I tend to be shy of suggesting what OLJC might have wanted, but I do not think that gluten or alcohol poisoning was in mind-- and that is what is involved for some people. The general application of communion in one kind might be argued to be an abuse, but that is not what we are speaking of on this thread.
Fair enough, but that brings me on to another point. Now I guess the following depends upon how one views the Eucharist but if we believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of our Lord things like gluten or alcohol poisoning are surely non-issues? I'm not trying to be difficult but in all the time I've attended the Divine Liturgy it's never been an issue.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Fair enough, but that brings me on to another point. Now I guess the following depends upon how one views the Eucharist but if we believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of our Lord things like gluten or alcohol poisoning are surely non-issues? I'm not trying to be difficult but in all the time I've attended the Divine Liturgy it's never been an issue.
I don't think anyone in history has ever claimed that alcohol molecules are turned into red blood cells, or that gluten turns into muscle. Even the most fanatic transubstatiationists wouldn't go to that extreme.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
What I mean is this, as far as I'm aware there is no provision for such things in Orthodoxy yet people still receive holy communion under both kinds.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
With certain alcoholics it is not the physical reality but the association in their minds that is the trigger. Therefore they avoid wine gums. There is no alcohol in wine gums, never has been, instead the name was coined as a reference to them being an alternative to wine.
None provision does not imply non issue. Just as the non-provision of large type hymn books in many churches until recently did not imply no-one needed them to read the hymns.
Jengie
[ 28. February 2013, 09:41: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What I mean is this, as far as I'm aware there is no provision for such things in Orthodoxy yet people still receive holy communion under both kinds.
A message from a ROCOR friend informs me that an alcoholic cousin was communicated by bread alone, after discussion with his priest and the bishop's blessing. This the only instance I know of, but there may be others.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
That must be very dispiriting for a member of the laity who wishes to partake in one kind only - the one that is withheld.
I've never really understood communion in one kind full stop. The fullness of the sign is in both kinds. Anything less is not the sign Christ instituted. [fixed code]
Do you realise how rude that could be seen as (in this thread in particular)?
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
That must be very dispiriting for a member of the laity who wishes to partake in one kind only - the one that is withheld.
I've never really understood communion in one kind full stop. The fullness of the sign is in both kinds. Anything less is not the sign Christ instituted. [fixed code]
Do you realise how rude that could be seen as (in this thread in particular)?
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
It's not meant to be rude. It's a valid point unless you want to get into scholastic gobbledegook, something I avoid like the plague.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
1. General rule: Section 8 of the Sacrament Act 1547 is still in force and is mandatory. This states:
“ ... the said most blessed Sacrament be hereafter ... commonly delivered and ministered unto the people within the Church of England ... under both kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine except necessity otherwise require ... ” (spelling modernised: emphasis supplied)
(Here the word ‘commonly’ is used to mean ‘in a way common to all’ or ‘universally’, as is shown by its context: see the Oxford English Dictionary.)
All I can do is pray for the grace of my necessity. I am pretty sure He is ok with it, but thanks for reminding me what a thin line I tread.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
In case anyone is worried that I might turn up at their church and infect their wine, I'd just like to reassure that it is a response to a particular situation at my own church, properly authorised and common to many communicants there. I'm sensitive to differing traditions in other churches and do not intinct there (I've never come across anywhere else yet where it has been necessary).
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Fair enough, but that brings me on to another point. Now I guess the following depends upon how one views the Eucharist but if we believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of our Lord things like gluten or alcohol poisoning are surely non-issues? I'm not trying to be difficult but in all the time I've attended the Divine Liturgy it's never been an issue.
I don't think anyone in history has ever claimed that alcohol molecules are turned into red blood cells, or that gluten turns into muscle. Even the most fanatic transubstatiationists wouldn't go to that extreme.
Ad Orientem, transubstantiation means that the substance of the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, but that the accidents or physical properties remain those of bread and wine. There's no conflict here. No theologian has ever claimed that drinking a huge amount of consecrated wine will not get you drunk, because drunkenness is an effect of the interaction between the physical accidents of the wine and, well, you.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That I would consider a scholastic rationalism.
I'll explain further. Whether Christ is or is not fully present under either kind is ultimately irrellevant, communion under one kind is not what Christ commanded. The fully present under one kind argument is merely a scholsatic rationalism designed to justify what is an abuse.
I've never been to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and I don't mean to be insulting; please let me know if I am. But it's my impression that communion is usually served to the people from a spoon, with the bread and wine mixed together. Do you believe that's "what Christ commanded"?
Welcome to the Ship, by the way! As others have said.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
To carry the intincting tangent further, during the swine flu scare,our diocese was told to withhold wine or intinct. Intinction being done by the priest before the wafer was given to the communicant, so there was not danger of many hands in the cup.
The sanitzer is to help reduce the effects of the peace
We have a lot of people who won't come and take when they have a cold so as to not spread the germs. Our vicar usually tells them to just take the bread, as to take in one kind is better than to not take at all.
In fact I have been told somewhere but can't remember where, that taking one of the elements covers you for both, if you see what I mean. Can anyone enlighten me on that?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
The sanitzer is to help reduce the effects of the peace
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
In fact I have been told somewhere but can't remember where, that taking one of the elements covers you for both, if you see what I mean. Can anyone enlighten me on that?
It is the doctrine of concomitance. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, deals with it in the Summa.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
1. General rule: Section 8 of the Sacrament Act 1547 is still in force and is mandatory. This states:
“ ... the said most blessed Sacrament be hereafter ... commonly delivered and ministered unto the people within the Church of England ... under both kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine except necessity otherwise require ... ” (spelling modernised: emphasis supplied)
(Here the word ‘commonly’ is used to mean ‘in a way common to all’ or ‘universally’, as is shown by its context: see the Oxford English Dictionary.)
All I can do is pray for the grace of my necessity. I am pretty sure He is ok with it, but thanks for reminding me what a thin line I tread.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
You're treading it well.
The legalism of some posts by other above verges on the superstitious. if the magic isn't performed in exactly the right way, the universe will explode.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
1. General rule: Section 8 of the Sacrament Act 1547 is still in force and is mandatory. This states:
“ ... the said most blessed Sacrament be hereafter ... commonly delivered and ministered unto the people within the Church of England ... under both kinds, that is to say, of bread and wine except necessity otherwise require ... ” (spelling modernised: emphasis supplied)
(Here the word ‘commonly’ is used to mean ‘in a way common to all’ or ‘universally’, as is shown by its context: see the Oxford English Dictionary.)
All I can do is pray for the grace of my necessity. I am pretty sure He is ok with it, but thanks for reminding me what a thin line I tread.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
You're treading it well.
The legalism of some posts by other above verges on the superstitious. if the magic isn't performed in exactly the right way, the universe will explode.
I'm not sure what is legalistic in following the direct instruction of our Lord. It is enough to believe that what we receive in holy communion is truely the body and blood of our Lord and if there is anything to be avoided it's all the philosophical waffle which surrounds it, but then I have no love for the scholastics and their jargon for it is in them where the true legalism lies. It's this simple faith in the real presence which surely leads us to no longer consider what we receive to be bread and wine.
Posted by LostinChelsea (# 5305) on
:
Well, Ad Orientam, you may not understand it, but others do.
From the USCCB document linked to by Augustine the Aleut above: "As a final note, it is important to recall that through the doctrine of concomitance the Church teaches that under either species of bread or wine, the whole of Christ is received."
Thinking theologically, it's hard to argue that it takes both to be valid. Receiving both may be preferable, but that's not the issue at hand.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
Well, Ad Orientam, you may not understand it, but others do.
From the USCCB document linked to by Augustine the Aleut above: "As a final note, it is important to recall that through the doctrine of concomitance the Church teaches that under either species of bread or wine, the whole of Christ is received."
Thinking theologically, it's hard to argue that it takes both to be valid. Receiving both may be preferable, but that's not the issue at hand.
I try not to talk in terms of "validity". It's not the Orthodox way. It's the Holy Spirit which ultimately makes a sacrament a sacrament. "Concomitance" is just another one of those scholastic pieces of jargon I try my best to shy away from because ultimately it's irrelevant. My point was not one of validity, rather that the sign of the sacrament Christ instituted is realised under both forms. I'm sure the early Christians never worried about such things.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Speaking as someone who is high non-conformist. I would stress different things about the action. I would put a lot more emphasis on it being a shared meal. I would say that normally bread and wine should be consumed by those present, without implying that every participant should have bread and wine. I would also stress that to use the Aquinas terminology, the accidents should not put at risk the health or well being of participants and that where such risk is known*, provision for a "safe" participation by individuals should be made as part of it being a shared meal. This is part of being a community and expressing care for the body of Christ.
Jengie
*I have taken communion when there was real risk involved to my health. That was my decision and I only realised the risk in the service. I had basically not remembered the wine would be alcoholic and I was on medication where alcohol was prohibited, I had no idea of what quantity of alcohol the medicine reacted to as this was normally a non issue as my home congregation used non-alcoholic wine. I decided it was a small risk but not negible and I took it. That was my decision and nobody at that service but me has responsibility for that. If I had been aware before hand, I would have been under duty to discuss and work through what to do with others.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Hosting
Dudes ... just sayin' ... keep the interactions edificatory and beneficiacatory, 'kay?
Avoid slaps, putdowns blah blah blah. Engage. Discuss. Share the lurve. Seek the truth. All that.
Or I - or someone - will insert a Rape-aXe in the ideological ciborium
/Hosting
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
Apropos of wine gums etc above.
My friend says it is not just alcohol of wine in communion which is an issue for him as an alcoholic.
Brasso fumes are a problem for him also.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by LostinChelsea:
Well, Ad Orientam, you may not understand it, but others do.
From the USCCB document linked to by Augustine the Aleut above: "As a final note, it is important to recall that through the doctrine of concomitance the Church teaches that under either species of bread or wine, the whole of Christ is received."
Thinking theologically, it's hard to argue that it takes both to be valid. Receiving both may be preferable, but that's not the issue at hand.
I try not to talk in terms of "validity". It's not the Orthodox way. It's the Holy Spirit which ultimately makes a sacrament a sacrament. "Concomitance" is just another one of those scholastic pieces of jargon I try my best to shy away from because ultimately it's irrelevant. My point was not one of validity, rather that the sign of the sacrament Christ instituted is realised under both forms. I'm sure the early Christians never worried about such things.
Indeed, so-- their concern was not being hauled in front of the prefect and then sent off to the lions. Jargon, of course, is often just a term for different language, sometimes articulating a different perspective. For the Orthodox, their more pneumatic (or Spirit) approach has its own way of providing for human frailty through economia. A tradition of counsel through spiritual fathers has provided direction in this and many other areas. In the west, for historical reasons, a more structured approach has been in play, careful to explain itself, careful to structure a strong logic, and careful to anticipate problems.
In this particular area of the human condition, both provide us with useful pointers and, in the case of the RCs and their instruction, some great practical tips. The rest of us should be grateful that we are being give a chance to support our fellows who live with these issues.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Jengie - to set your mind at rest, to cause an adverse reaction with medication you'd need to drain the chalice.
As a moderate drinker (rarely more than a couple of pints) I've never actually observed the "avoid alcohol" warnings on any meds and have yet to notice any effect from doing so. May just be the meds I have, and I'm not advocating ignoring the warnings, but they don't apply to minuscule amounts.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Let's just remember that the Ship isn't the place for giving or receiving medical advice and you should always consult your doctor, read the instructions on any medication etc. etc.
We now return to your regularly scheduled discussion regarding alcoholic priests and the Eucharist.
seasick, Eccles host
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jengie - to set your mind at rest, to cause an adverse reaction with medication you'd need to drain the chalice.
Not all medication, and it was probably not the medication you are thinking of. IRC it was an epileptic drug taken to control migraine, pre current era. I have not taken it for years. It was one of those when the Doctors tell you "NOT TO DRINK".
Jengie
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jengie - to set your mind at rest, to cause an adverse reaction with medication you'd need to drain the chalice.
Not all medication, and it was probably not the medication you are thinking of. IRC it was an epileptic drug taken to control migraine, pre current era. I have not taken it for years. It was one of those when the Doctors tell you "NOT TO DRINK".
Jengie
Yeah, Mrs KLB was on several of those. She found a couple of pints made no difference.
I don't think a sip of communion wine counts as "drinking" pharmacologically, that's all.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
To carry the intincting tangent further, during the swine flu scare,our diocese was told to withhold wine or intinct. Intinction being done by the priest before the wafer was given to the communicant, so there was not danger of many hands in the cup.
Our (ECUSA) shack acquired an "intinction cup" rather like this a year or so ago. The priest brings the hosts on the plate, with some of the blood in the central cup. For those wishing to intinct, the priest will take the host, dip it in the cup and place it on the tongue, so there's no concern about contact with the grubby hands of the congregation. For those who prefer not to intinct (the majority), the common chalice follows as usual.
Our service sheet carries instructions for what to do if you want to intinct, receive in one kind only, or not receive at all but come to the altar rail for a blessing. On occasions when we have lots of visitors (such as Baptisms), the priest will give some verbal guidance as well.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Do many people like having the host placed on their tongue? I'm really quite squeamish about this and, if it was compulsory, would rather have a blessing. But I'd be interested to know if this is a minority view.
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
May I return to the OP and title, and raise a question arising from an earlier post....
Do mainstream churches such as RC, Anglican, Greek Orthodox allow wine of Communion to be non alcoholic? - or permit a little for non alcoholics?
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
quote:
Do many people like having the host placed on their tongue?
I've never received any other way. It was mainly a personal choice for myself. I suppose most people who have reservations about it feel that way because the priest's fingers could potentially touch the communicant's tongue. In 22 years of receiving communion this way, it has happened to me only a handful of times (although, to be fair, the number of times I receive as a man-in-the-pew has dropped considerably since I've been in ministry). If you do it right (open up wide enough, stick out your tongue far enough, and the person distributing knows what they are doing) the chance of finger-to-tongue contact is very, very small.
Currently, about a quarter of my parishioners receive in that manner.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Interesting again. About the cup, as a lay assistant, I have connected the cup with teeth of those who do not place a hand on mine when taking from it. It has helped immeasurably to hesitate in front of those who will not assist in their communion. I think some have a 'touching the cup phobia', which may extend to the chalice bearer's hand?
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
May I return to the OP and title, and raise a question arising from an earlier post....
Do mainstream churches such as RC, Anglican, Greek Orthodox allow wine of Communion to be non alcoholic? - or permit a little for non alcoholics?
Some do. I don't. But I'm a bastard like that.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
May I return to the OP and title, and raise a question arising from an earlier post....
Do mainstream churches such as RC, Anglican, Greek Orthodox allow wine of Communion to be non alcoholic? - or permit a little for non alcoholics?
Basically no. For individuals who cannot consume alcohol, the RCs allow the use of mustum, unpasteurized grape juice where the fermentation has not begun or is infintesimal. Some Anglican churches--only in England and a part of Australia AFAIK --break church law by offering grape juice. Anglicans and RCs believe that one can communicate effectively through either the bread or wine alone.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Do many people like having the host placed on their tongue?
I used to always communicate that way until i suddenly mused that I was acting like a sort of pillar box - post the host.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
It's the done thing in RC churches here in Poland.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0