Ship of Fools: Just wee cuppies and bread cubes

Thread: Just wee cuppies and bread cubes 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=025796

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I am going to ask this within the tradition but I am wondering if anyone has any insight into this.

I am Reformed, my congregation tend towards Calvin's spiritual presence rather than memorialism. However ritual has a habit of being like topsy.

We have ended up in the situation where though a chalice is provided and a roll of bread is broken, nobody partakes of this. That is everyone has wine (alcoholic by default) and pre-cut bread cubes.

My feeling is that at least the table party should drink from the chalice and that the broken bread roll should be put on the plates of cubes so others may take from it. If we do not do this we should stop using the chalice and the roll as they have become purely symbolic.

Anybody got any thoughts that can broaden my understanding.

Jengie

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

I have trained 5/6 of my chapels to provide a roll instead of the diced slice, and in the other I serve from the crust free slice provided for 'breaking' before I get to the cubes.

We don't have any symbolic chalice though and I would find holding an empty cup (as does happen) too weird. So at relevant point in retelling the institution I lift the tray of cups rather than a single one - since it is offering the wine (non-alcholic ) to all!!

I know the theological views on both options but my default is to serve myself last, but I always inculde myself in the 'sitting' at the rail rather than separately.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The chalice isn't empty just not drunk from.

Jengie

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

At our Maundy Thursday service our minister was charitable enough to come around with the tray of wee cuppies and the chalice to allow those of us from different traditions to receive as we were used to.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
We have ended up in the situation where though a chalice is provided and a roll of bread is broken, nobody partakes of this. That is everyone has wine (alcoholic by default) and pre-cut bread cubes.

Hi Jengie - quite common in my experience. And the "silliness" of only having a cup and loaf to look at was pointed out to me some years ago. What we do is this:

- four plates are pre-prepared with cubed bread; another plate in the middle of the table with small loaf, half-cut into quarters. At the Words of Institution I break said bread and place one piece on each plate. These are then served and some folk break off a piece of bread while others take a cube.

I have suggested not bothering with the cubes but this goes down like a lead balloon even though the symbolism of "one loaf" would be stronger (admittedly that is already spoiled as the few folk in the gallery have a eparate plate anyway). More seriously some older folk find that tearing off a piece of bread is fiddly. We also make sure there are one or two gluten-free wafers on each plate. On Maundy Thursday we use Matzo rather than bread.

- wine: the usual wee cuppies, however we do use a chalice as well which I elevate during the Prayer of Institution. We wait till all are served and drink together, I using the chalice.

As a general rule I ask people to "eat the bread as you receive", so indicating their own personal faith; but to drink together "to show our unity and solidarity with the whole Church of Christ".

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I am wondering about getting the roll broken into four and put onto the four plates that serve the main body, there would be cubes but people could then take from the roll if they wish.

In some way the cup is already sorted although we need to brief the celebrant as it is supposed to be shared by the celebrant and table elders*.

Warning: I got yelled at on Sunday for putting the gluten free bread on the same plate as the roll. We have one severe ceoliac and the possible contamination caused one of the elders concern. In actual fact it was in a separate bowl on the platter covered with cling film but she could not tell with the napkin over it.

Jengie

*table elder - my congregation has both table and serving elders of communion Sunday. Table are far more organisational (prepare elements, make sure roles are covered, sort out who serves what and serve elders) while serving simply serve the congregation. If a Presbyterian knows why the duties are distributed in this way I would be pleased to be informed.

[ 01. April 2013, 14:35: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

We are Church of Scotland.

We use a common cup (silver plated chalice) with wine. If our non-alcoholic Elder comes he and anyone else who feels like it can have grape juice in another little pottery chalice.
The bread is cubed but there is a "big bit" which is ceremonially raised and fractioned. A visitor took one of the 2 big bits last week which is the first time I have ever seen that happen ! Chomp, chomp, chomp, gulp!

But we are small enough to stand around the Table.

How does your Minister consecrate and gesture? I mean is it sort of clear that "everything" is included by all the words and gestures used?

What you described does sound absurd but I imagine that a lot of people don't even notice. Especially as you said things grew like Topsy.

Liturgy Queens of all genders, orientations and denominations are rare birds. But those "little" things do so disturb our equilibrium. That is why we should bring these things up.
Good on you and best of luck.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Curiosity: when you say you've ended up in the current position, is there any particular reason why, and a particular route that got you there?

For what it's worth (probably not much, in context) at our Baptist shack, which tends towards memorialist AFAICT but in practice covers a range of sensitivities and views, we have wee cuppies with 'wine' and an empty chalice for the symbolic/liturgical words bit, but a common loaf which is broken, split into four chunks and passed throughout the congregation. The allergic have wafers that are in separate pots on the same plate.

That's normal practice. However, from time to time for reasons various we'll also do a common cup (although never with alcoholic wine, owing to denominational wossname). Because of it not being fortified wine in silver that causes a few practical issues on hygiene, but that's a whole other punch-up!

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I think I can answer some not all of the question how did we get here.

I am hearing a rumour that we were quite a late change to wee cuppies. Not sure but I would put it back about fifty years at least. The style is amalgam.

There are bits from the older Presbyterian Scots ceremonial, e.g. we still have a grand entrance. We are on the root from large to small. When I last served a decade ago it took twelve or more elders to serve properly, a decade before that it must have been around twenty elder to serve. We are down to eight.

The theology is partly from four ministers ago, as does quite a lot of the high church ceremony. The roll comes from the last but one minister (if not earlier), the provision of non-alcoholic wine was also in her time when we discovered we had tee-total members in the congregation. The sharing of the cup comes from our last minister but she also forgot to use it.

The roll by tradition was carried by table elder 1 in the procession on a separate plate, the minister carried the chalice. The roll on a separate plate I think stopped the dividing between the other plates.

Jengie

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

In my United Church of Canada congregation, The Minister has a big loaf which he symbolically breaks and eats from and he drinks from the chalice. The rest have wee cuppies and bread cubes. As per United Church tradition, we all partake at the same time.

The Elements placed on the Lord's Table in the traditional plates, four for grape juice and four for bread cubes. The Lord's Table is draped in an exquisitely clean white tablecloth for Communion.

We don't use Elders for preparation or serving as we moved to a different structure authorized by the Manual; actually not many congregations in the United Church of Canada insist on Elders serving anymore. The Elements are prepared by the same ladies who have have always prepared them. The servers (four) are whomever I can get to volunteer on Communion Sundays, though I prefer Members. I often don't arrange servers it till a half hour before the service because I can't rely on people being there.

The United Church of Canada's official doctrine is Spiritual Presence and that's where most people end up. My congregation did Communion on Easter and used one of the formal liturgies from the Service Book. It includes a lengthy Great Thanksgiving, epiclesis and sung responses from the Hymn Book. We even had a sung Lord's Prayer. It was a Big Festive Lord's Supper for a Big Festive Day and I liked it.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Forgive an intrusion from outside this tradition, but I have never understood the notion of those trays with glasses. What is wring with drinking from a common cup? Is it a health issue?

Similarly, within my own tradtion it is equally (I suppose) silly to have those little separate wafers, which equally destroy the more biblical and passover notion of one bread and one cup.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Forgive an intrusion from outside this tradition.

We are delighted to have it.

quote:
I have never understood the notion of those trays with glasses. What is wrong with drinking from a common cup? Is it a health issue?

I don't know. Certainly the "health issue" aspect has been flagged up as a reason, linked to the use of non-alcoholic wine, itself a remnant of Nonconformism's strong history of teetotalism.

This quote suggests that the wee cuppies came into American Baptist churches around 1900 as a health issue. Also Alan Betteridge's history of Baptists in the English West Midlands is quite specific about that and gives dates (between about 1904-14) when several churches "made the change".

Of course that says nothing about Methodists or the Church of Scotland. My suspicion is that the tradition may be older - a deliberate turning away from Catholic practice, perhaps?

[ 02. April 2013, 08:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

This is also interesting.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Forgive an intrusion from outside this tradition, but I have never understood the notion of those trays with glasses. What is wring with drinking from a common cup? Is it a health issue?

Similarly, within my own tradtion it is equally (I suppose) silly to have those little separate wafers, which equally destroy the more biblical and passover notion of one bread and one cup.

Sebby, in the Kirk at least, originally it was a purely practical solution to the problem of a huge congregation.

Back at the Reformation, the emphasis of Communion was changed from the sacrificial notion of the Mass. The doctrine was still very high - spiritual presence, and not just a commemoration - but the form was that Communion should be taken in the midst of the people, as all sit around the table, as the disciples did at the Last Supper. That is why in Scottish post-Reformation churches, the communion table moved down from a 'high altar' position to being as central to the kirk as possible. In fact, in old Knoxy's time, these were often trestle tables, which were brought out at Communion time and placed among the congregation. You were meant to sit at this table, so benches were needed too. Over time, this became less ad hoc, and more fixed into church architecture. Although architectural fashions shifted over time, the typical post-Reformation church is designed with a sense of sitting in the round, as shown here.

So we have the sense of everyone sitting down to a meal together, rather than people coming up to the front to receive. But this movement of the congregation is quite tricky to manage - there are usually more than can sit round a table all at once! So elders would issue people with 'Communion tokens', which were small coins with a number stamped on the back. The number referred to your 'sitting'. That is, if your token said 'No. 4', then you were in the fourth group to come out and sit around the table.

This worked fine for smaller congregations, but you can see how the logistics would get more and more difficult with larger congregations. And it would take for ever! Scroll forward to the great urban expansion of the industrial revolution, and now you have massive 19th century city congregations - even more so after the 1843 Disruption, when the Free Church broke away and established big evangelical congregations.

I believe - though I am open to correction - that the Free churchman, Thomas Chalmers, was the first to introduce wee cuppies. He had a massive congregation of 2000, so to communicate them all would have taken all day. So instead of the people coming out to sit round the table, he reversed the flow, so that the elements were taken to the people where they were sitting. I'm not sure, but it was probably at this time that the custom of covering the backs of the pews with white linen also began, as the pews became in effect, the table. (This custom is vanishingly rare now, but survives in some very traditional places. And it is a lovely thing to see too.)

To communicate 2000 in their pews would have taken an uncommon amount of common cups anyway! So Chalmers introduced the wee cuppies for purely logistical reasons. Only, once an innovation takes hold, it becomes tradition, and is very hard to shift. Also, with the rise of the temperance movement, the wee cuppies were a practical solution to the hygiene problems of grape juice. And so now they are much favoured, by congregations far more than by ministers, even when wine is used.

I much prefer the common cup myself, (and abhor the little cubes of bread), and will post further down to answer Jengie's question. But the wee cuppies did come into their own in the recent swine flu epidemic! Everyone still got to communicate in both kinds, no problem at all here! [Biased]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It is difficult in a church with a good number of people to have all sitting down together at the one table. Certainly the Catholic church from the time of the Second Vatican Council has tried to introduce this idea of having the table in the middle of the worshippers,much as shown in the photo provided by Cottontail.
I have only once participated at a eucharist held in the priest's house where about 10 participants sat around the dining table and I can't remember how the elements were passed around.
Even if people cannot physically sit at the one table I like the idea practiced in St Giles' church of Scotland in Edinburgh where the communicants come up and stand in a circle round the altar and pass the bread and wine to one another,which is a very common practice in Lutheran churches in Germany.
Though the important thing is that Communion should be 'offered' and 'received' and this is why there is the short dialogue between minister and communicant at a Catholic eucharist (The Body of Christ - Amen) it seems to me that the long lines of communicants waiting to receive the Host and Chalice is not as reverent as it used to be when people knelt at the communion rail.The communion rail was however at the time of communion covered with a white cloth (the houseling cloth) which represented the table cloth and people would traditionally hold this cloth when they received Communion. As Cottontailalso mentions I was delighted to see the little white cloths occasionally on the book rests in front of pews in the Church of Scotland,though I've only seen it once or twice.
As you probably know 'wee cuppies and bread cubes' are unknown in the Catholic church.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

The passing around the circle becomes a problem when there is an unfamiliar visitor in the circle ... "what's your name, sorry ... the body of Christ ..."

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

Another 'outsider' to this tradition checking in...

It seems to me that the use of individual cups and cubed bread is an area where 'high candle' and 'low candle' (invented terms, to avoid asserting what is Catholic and what isn't) practices appear to be far apart but perhaps are not as much so as might as first seem. Or at least, they aren't necessarily far apart.

In very large gatherings, places that normally have a single cup will often use more than one cup, for reasons of practicality. More than one paten of bread may also be used. All these are consecrated. If two cups can be used, why not twenty, or two hundred? Admittedly the 'common cup' element is lost, but the principle of having one cup seems optional where practicality dictates multiple cups (although someone better versed in liturgical matters will probably come along and explain why I am wrong).

At the time of the reformation, when the Church of England moved from usually only the priest communicating in both kinds to all communicants taking wine as well as bread, the small chalices were replaced by larger cups (odd that we now tend to think of chalices as big cups, when originally they were small cups). As parishes couldn't necessarily afford to buy a big communion cup, the practice of having a flagon of wine consecrated at communion came into being (BCP1662 refers to the Priest laying his hand on any cup or flagon of wine to be consecrated). Presumably the cup would be refilled from the flagon as necessary. Again, having more than one vessel was not seen as a problem.

Similarly with the bread, the high-candle practice of using wafers means the the bread is, on a literal level, no more 'one loaf' than cubes of sliced white (at least the latter were once 'one loaf'; wafers never were, except for the large wafer broken at the appropriate moment, but most people don't eat from this unless the gathering is quite small).

BCP1662 also required the Priest to stand at the north side of the table, which would have been set up lengthwise in either the nave or chancel, and the instruction given at the appropriate time was for those intending to take communion (usually only a minority, as communion was seen as a serious business, only to be undertaken infrequently) was to "draw near", i.e. to gather around the table.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
The passing around the circle becomes a problem when there is an unfamiliar visitor in the circle ... "what's your name, sorry ... the body of Christ ..."

I find it no trouble to whisper to my neighbour on either side "I'm Galilit, what's your name?" in the milling about making a circle.
I make a point of doing so.
Then I can say "Bruce/Sheila, the body of Christ broken for us", etc.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
The passing around the circle becomes a problem when there is an unfamiliar visitor in the circle ... "what's your name, sorry ... the body of Christ ..."
I find it no trouble to whisper to my neighbour on either side "I'm Galilit, what's your name?" in the milling about making a circle.
I make a point of doing so.
Then I can say "Bruce/Sheila, the body of Christ broken for us", etc.

I'd hate doing that.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

K:LB, your response really saddens me. Aren't our [EDIT: 'our' is a bad word to use here, sorry - you're not part of a church community, are you?) church gatherings supposed to be a community of people meeting together, people who we at least know by name if not much better than that? And if there are people who we don't know, then IMO it's an excellent (and necessary) expression of Christian community when we get to know those people a little bit.

I think it's a real loss that many Christian traditions have departed so far from the original Communion 'love feast' shared meal, to a formalised, ritualised ceremony within which people don't even want to find out each other's names.

[ 02. April 2013, 11:52: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
K:LB, your response really saddens me. Aren't our [EDIT: 'our' is a bad word to use here, sorry - you're not part of a church community, are you?) church gatherings supposed to be a community of people meeting together, people who we at least know by name if not much better than that? And if there are people who we don't know, then IMO it's an excellent (and necessary) expression of Christian community when we get to know those people a little bit.

I am a member of a church community. However, I'm at my most uncomfortable introducing myself to people I don't know and this is the last point at which I'd want to be doing it. Getting to know people is indeed important, but asking someone their name in the middle of the distribution of the Eucharist is about the worst place I can imagine having to do it. It'd come a close second to "sharing the peace" in the "things that make me want to run screaming from the church" stakes.

quote:
I think it's a real loss that many Christian traditions have departed so far from the original Communion 'love feast' shared meal, to a formalised, ritualised ceremony within which people don't even want to find out each other's names.

We generally all have lunch together after the Eucharist. It's become as much part of What We Do as the service itself. That's where we get to know new people.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Okay, thanks for the reply (which was rather more measured than my post, sorry!). I'm drawing too heavily on my own experience, I think - I'm pretty introverted but introducing myself at the point of speaking with strangers I'm sitting next to is normally something I'm fine with. But why should that be everyone's experience? Apologies again, K:LB.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

South Coast Kevin ... I think these things work differently in different contexts. You can certainly find more sacramental churches where this is a highly ritualised approach to the eucharist where there is very little sense of community. Equally, you can find churches of that stripe with a highly developed sense of community.

The idea of a close-knit, love-feast type celebration is appealing, but it wouldn't suit everyone.

One of the arguments for a more sacramental or ritualised approach, of course, is that people can dip in or out of it and engage with it to the extent that they feel most comfortable. It respects human freedom in that respect.

I attended our local RC Easter Vigil on Good Friday this year. I was struck that some communicants came in for the vigil and received communion and then dashed straight off before the final benediction and closing prayers/announcements. Yet others seemed to know one another very well and were welcoming to friend and stranger alike. There was also quite a touching announcement and affirmation for a couple who were celebrating their 49th wedding anniversary that day and many people congratulated them afterwards.

So it varies.

It is certainly possible to find a 'petrol-filling station' ('gas station' to our US Shipmates) approach to the eucharist in more sacramental/Catholic circles - but in some evangelical/charismatic circles the closeness of the fellowship can run to the opposite extreme and people become trapped in highly claustrophobic fellowships where they have little interaction with anyone else. I've seen that happen.

There are ranges and nuances and incremental variations along the continuum between both extremes.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I like the idea practiced in St Giles' church of Scotland in Edinburgh where the communicants come up and stand in a circle round the altar and pass the bread and wine to one another,which is a very common practice in Lutheran churches in Germany.

Common in (British) Methodism too, I believe.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
We generally all have lunch together after the Eucharist. It's become as much part of What We Do as the service itself.

We have an Easter Breakfast with Eucharist around the tables. I've at last succeeded in stopping folk making sure every last thing is tidied up first! It is a meaningful "family" meal, admittedly a much smaller group than our main services. But I like the idea of having Communion at a Real Meal.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

You are doing well if you can persuade them of that. The URC seems at times almost to have OCD about tidying up after events.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

We're an LEP - perhaps it's the Baptists who are relaxed enough to leave things on the tables, and the URC folk who insist on stacking the dishwasher.

But we digress ...

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

We have a common cup and whole slice of bread for the minister and those serving and wee cuppies and cubes for those in the pews. Our usual congregation of approx 80-100 doubles for communion and the logistics of a common cup circulating round the pews would be tricky. We usually have 6 serving the platters of cubes and 6 serving the wee cuppies (2 for the balcony, 2 for the central pews, 1 each for the side pews) so I would imagine we'd need seven common cups (i.e. those 6, plus one for the servers at the front) or the service would take significantly longer.

Is there a name for the tiered holder which carries the wee cuppies? We have trays about 6 inches across which hold 6 wee cups each, and then eight of these trays slot onto the holder, four on each side?

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I am going to ask this within the tradition but I am wondering if anyone has any insight into this.

I am Reformed, my congregation tend towards Calvin's spiritual presence rather than memorialism. However ritual has a habit of being like topsy.

We have ended up in the situation where though a chalice is provided and a roll of bread is broken, nobody partakes of this. That is everyone has wine (alcoholic by default) and pre-cut bread cubes.

My feeling is that at least the table party should drink from the chalice and that the broken bread roll should be put on the plates of cubes so others may take from it. If we do not do this we should stop using the chalice and the roll as they have become purely symbolic.

Anybody got any thoughts that can broaden my understanding.

Jengie

Well obviously you should re-connect the chalice and loaf with the communion of the "table party" and then out to wider participation. How you do that depends on the local circumstances which you know best.

*

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
We're an LEP - perhaps it's the Baptists who are relaxed enough to leave things on the tables, and the URC folk who insist on stacking the dishwasher.

Makes sense to me. We had foot washing and communion followed by stripping of the [strikethrough]altar[/strikethrough] communion table, and when I was half way through stripping the table I realised the rest of the congregation was busy putting all the chairs back rather than quietly contemplating the disciples' abandonment of Christ in the garden! The trials of being an Anglican among Presbyterians... [Smile]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Gamaliel it is highly unlikely that an RC church would hold its Easter Vigil on Good Friday.If some of the Catholic posters who have been worried about the pope washing the feet of a Muslim woman heard about this they would have an apoplectic fit. The good Friday service is simpley called the commemoration of the Lord's passion and death. It is a long service as indeed the Easter vigil on the evening of Holy Saturday,so it's not too surprising that people come in and also go away at different times.
Okay if you want to call it a petrol filling station,but those ,who call in, are indeed 'filling up' on grace and offering some of their time to our Divine Lord.
The idea of 'community' is somehow different in Catholic ,and I think also in Orthodox churches, - people are aware that they are engaged in the same pursuit which is the worship of almighty God.To me there is always a powerful and palpable sense of community whether or not people greet one another.And I think that is the case for many Catholics.It's just a different way of looking at things.

Further to the discussion about the one Bread and one Cup,it's something I've never thought about before.In a large church there are usually a number of ciboria used (containers for the Blessed Sacrament) and now that the Precious Blood is usually offered there are several chalices,but all that notwithstanding there is only One Body and one Blood.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

To answer Jengie's original question, the way we do a formal communion in a fairly small church is as follows:

There is a single cup of wine on the table, plus two trays of wee cuppies. There are also two plates of bread cubes, and a larger piece of bread on one of the plates for breaking.

During the Communion hymn, the minister and four elders bring in the elements, and then remain seated at the table. The minister conducts the rite, raising and breaking the larger piece of bread, and raising the cup. The minister partakes herself, then passes the broken pieces of bread and the common cup among the serving elders. Then the elders are sent out to the congregation with the wee cubies and the wee cuppies.

So the common cup is used by the elders, retaining at least that much symbolism. I would like to see us move to a common loaf for everyone. As we don't have to worry about consuming the the remainder at the end, it is quite hygienic to pass along the bread by its crust, and for people to remove a piece of bread from the centre. Alternatively, the bread can be wrapped at one end by a linen cloth, and passed along that way.

For smaller, more 'informal' communions, we stand around the table and pass the common cup along. But two elders also move around the circle with the wee cuppies so that people can choose one of these if they prefer.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

I remember Dad recounting the practice at his (UK) Methodist church. People came forward for communion, but they would gather (kneel?) one 'table' at a time. The bread would be distributed along the rail and all would eat together, then the wee cuppies would be distributed; all would drink together and leave the cup in one of the many holes for that purpose in the communion rail.

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:

quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
The passing around the circle becomes a problem when there is an unfamiliar visitor in the circle ... "what's your name, sorry ... the body of Christ ..."
I find it no trouble to whisper to my neighbour on either side "I'm Galilit, what's your name?" in the milling about making a circle.
I make a point of doing so.
Then I can say "Bruce/Sheila, the body of Christ broken for us", etc.
I'd hate doing that.

Me too - I've taken part in Communions like this a few times and they always really upset me. I get awful 'stage fright' about it and worry I'll forget the person's name, even if I know thenm very well. And then when I've said their name I panic I got it wrong, or muddled up the words.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Why do you need a name at all? You could just say, "Friend, the Body of Christ ..." or even "Sister ..." although I agree that they do both sound a bit contrived.

Anyway, we're straying from the point.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The proposal I am going to put is that the roll is broken and put on the plates with the little cubes and thus taken out to the congregation who may then choose to have a bit from the roll or a cube. The chalice will be shared with the table elders. This is not ideal but I think it is perhaps the best solution for the present. There are snags, for instance I would rather simplify procedures than complicate them.

Actually someone else when posed with the situation suggested that as well.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Basically that's what we do, though our table elders use cuppies not the chalice. They are served after the congregation but (obviously) before we all drink, as is normal in Baptist practice.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Oh we eat and drink immediately, holding it feels disrespectful to some in the congregation.

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

As I said upthread, we eat the bread as we each receive, so indicating our own personal faith; but we drink together to declare our unity and also our solidarity with the whole Church of Christ.

Again, not uncommon.

[ 03. April 2013, 20:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Interesting hermeneutic, although Hippolytus tended to see the bread as 'many grains which have been gathered together to make one bread', and as an eschatological foretaste of 'your Church [which will] be gathered from the ends of the earth into your Kingdom'. I'm not sure if either wee cubes of white or nicely dissolving disks of flat symbolize that terribly well.

[Edit: do not attempt to type "hermeneutic" before coffee]

[ 03. April 2013, 21:29: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:
I get awful 'stage fright' about it and worry I'll forget the person's name, even if I know thenm very well. And then when I've said their name I panic I got it wrong, or muddled up the words.

We meet for a early morning Diocesan clergy Eucharist each week - there's only about ten of us - and I don't administer by name in the circly thingy even then for precisely those reasons! I can't even remember Kuruman's name (which of course isn't "Kuruman") - or my own - at those events before coffee ...

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Another 'outsider' to this tradition checking in...

It seems to me that the use of individual cups and cubed bread is an area where 'high candle' and 'low candle' (invented terms, to avoid asserting what is Catholic and what isn't) practices appear to be far apart but perhaps are not as much so as might as first seem. Or at least, they aren't necessarily far apart.

In very large gatherings, places that normally have a single cup will often use more than one cup, for reasons of practicality. More than one paten of bread may also be used. All these are consecrated. If two cups can be used, why not twenty, or two hundred?

Chapelhead - From the catholic viewpoint, this is kind of true but a logistical nightmare. At the epiclisis* or institution narrative (depends slightly on practice, generally the later) the president would at least touch or slightly raise each vessel holding bread or wine. Half a dozen chalices or flagons is possible, twenty would be pushing it, two hundred would be problematic. Perhaps by a mass (sic) concelebration....

3F

*calling of the Holy Spirit to consecrate the elements. e.g. ".. grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit these gifts of bread and wine...

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 3rdFooter:
... epiclesis* ... *calling of the Holy Spirit to consecrate the elements. e.g. ".. grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit these gifts of bread and wine...

(spelling corrected [Snigger]

) depending of course on whether this is a congregational or elemental epiclesis [Biased]

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

D'oh. Assumed spellcheck was being ignorant.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Most Nonconformists wouldn't know what an Epiclesis was if it hit them in the face.

More to the point, although all will use some form of the Words of Institution, many are memorialists who would not wish to "consecrate" the elements or call God's blessing upon them, at least in any way recognisable to those further up the candle.

[ 03. April 2013, 22:26: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

[Snigger]

The United Church of Canada's service book has six of them for general use.

Whether they are used generally or not of course is an entirely different matter.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

We're not nonconformist, but in the Kirk, Communion is not Communion without the epiclesis. If there is a single most essential part of the liturgy, that is it.

3rdFooter: I understand what you are saying about the number of chalices, etc. Out of sheer curiosity, can I ask how it works when, for example, the Pope celebrated Mass for 70,000 in Glasgow in 2010?

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

This would put the Kirk in line with the Orthodox who ,I understand, consider the epiclesis to be the moment of consecration. The western tradition puts it at the institution narrative.

I think the RC do the super sized masses by having concelebration but perhaps someone knows for sure.

[ 04. April 2013, 00:08: Message edited by: 3rdFooter ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The Mass celebrated by the pope in Glasgow was a concelebrated Mass with a few other concelebrants on the altar (standard for a big papal Mass).
As far as communion is concerned there would not have been any general Communion from the chalice.
There would have been many priests standing close to the altar with a ciborium (container for the Blessed Sacrament,communion wafers) which would have been consecrated at the same time as the condecration on the altar.The priests would then move through the crowd distributing the Host.They are often,when outside,accompanied by someone with an umbrella,usually in the papal yellow and white colours. This helps to indentify to the faithful where the priest who is distributing Communion is.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

Thanks, Forthview. So have I got this right: at a huge outdoor Mass, the people partake of one kind only? No wine, only bread?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

No problem with the Epiclesis or Narrative we just do not use the same actions. We are more thorough about the Narrative than you high church lot so stop worrying about that please. it is the only essential part of liturgy in the tradition. We use simply use syndoche approach where the chalice and the roll stands for all the elements, if clerics feel the need for symbolic action. However the straight reading as a "Warrant" is also done.

I am afraid Baptist Trainfan, most of our congregations do notice the epiclesis. It is when you get a long communion prayer.

Jengie

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Cottontail you are probably aware that it is only fairly recently that the Latin rite Catholic church has offered Communion from the chalice to the faithful. In certain countries it has become fairly common.
On very big occasions it is simply not practical to attempt to administer the chalice to thousands.Again as you probably know Catholic teaching is that the Body,Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is present in both,as well as each individual element.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Slight out of tradition digression here, but so 'ye Olde Anglican' places that have a horse shoe shaped communicants pew around the Communion Table. When I have run into that arrangement and it has still been in use, I have found it works very well, but it is difficult to do with large congregations.

Before Victorianisation both churches in my home town had three sided rails and communicants' pews on three sides of the altar. Bread cubes and port in a common cup would have been the order of the day back then.

I am probably most influenced on Communion doctrine by the old High Churchmen who were spiritual presence folks. You can only get about two cigarette papers between Waterland and Van Mildert and Calvin when it comes to Eucharistic doctrine.

PD

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Cottontail you are probably aware that it is only fairly recently that the Latin rite Catholic church has offered Communion from the chalice to the faithful. In certain countries it has become fairly common.
On very big occasions it is simply not practical to attempt to administer the chalice to thousands.Again as you probably know Catholic teaching is that the Body,Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is present in both,as well as each individual element.

No, I quite see. It wasn't a criticism. I was just trying to get the procedure straight in my own head. Thanks for explaining.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I am afraid Baptist Trainfan, most of our congregations do notice the epiclesis. It is when you get a long communion prayer.

It was the actual word that I meant would not be recognised.

But in memorialist Baptist contexts I am still not convinced it is an epiclesis in the truest sense of the word.

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Forgive an intrusion from outside this tradition.

We are delighted to have it.

quote:
I have never understood the notion of those trays with glasses. What is wrong with drinking from a common cup? Is it a health issue?
I don't know. Certainly the "health issue" aspect has been flagged up as a reason, linked to the use of non-alcoholic wine, itself a remnant of Nonconformism's strong history of teetotalism.

This quote suggests that the wee cuppies came into American Baptist churches around 1900 as a health issue. Also Alan Betteridge's history of Baptists in the English West Midlands is quite specific about that and gives dates (between about 1904-14) when several churches "made the change".

Of course that says nothing about Methodists or the Church of Scotland. My suspicion is that the tradition may be older - a deliberate turning away from Catholic practice, perhaps?

The question has been raised before on this board. My recollection is that the discovery c. 1870 by Thomas Welch, an American Methodist, of a process to pasteurise grape juice so that it would keep reasonably well came at a time when abstinence in Methodist (and presumably also Baptist) circles was gaining favour, and a substitute for wine at communion was required by its advocates. The non-alcoholic liquid would have none of the antiseptic qulity of fortified wine, so wee cuppies were resorted to for reasons of hygiene. As far as Scotland is concerned, Burnet comments thus in 'The Holy Communion in the Reformed Church of Scotland'.

quote:
Early in this century [Burnet was writing in 1950] an innovation from America began to disturb the Churches. The individual cup had arrived.

By 1907 about twenty parishes were using individual cups; an overture from the Presbytery of Glasgow came before the General Assembly of 1907 asking for a ruling on their use. Assembly took a while to come to a conclusion. Burnet again:

quote:
The report was given in 1909 by Dr McClymont, the Convener. The Assembly in its deliverance viewed the innovation with unmistakable disfavour, but in view of all the circumstances and various professional opinions, it did not feel justified in actually prohibiting it. But the Assembly did enjoin all ministers to see that the harmony of any congregation was not disturbed by the introduction of individual cups and that in every case where it was decided to introduce them, those who desired the old method of partaking should be conveniently provided for as formerly ........... The objection to individual cups was based primarily on the plea that they destroyed the sense of koinonia, and secondly on the distracting noise made by the tinkling of the glasses and the re-stacking of the trays on the Table..... Where individual cups are used the position is sometimes made worse by having no large cup on the Table at all for the minister's use in the celebration, or by the simultaneous drinking of the wine by all at a given signal.... In this a definite element of spiritual fellowship is lost, and the whole thing smacks too crudely of a toast.

The dates fit with Betteridges's dating of the adoption of wee cuppies by West Midland Baptists.

Mention has also been made of the white cloths on pew backs on Sacrament Sundays - I remember those from the church of my childhood - sad to say, I haven't come across them since.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Mention has also been made of the white cloths on pew backs on Sacrament Sundays - I remember those from the church of my childhood - sad to say, I haven't come across them since.

And I bet you haven't seen Communion Cards or Tokens recently - although my own (Baptist) church in London had them at least into the 1970s. Absence for six months "without due reason" meant you lost your right to vote at Church Meetings!

Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Mention has also been made of the white cloths on pew backs on Sacrament Sundays - I remember those from the church of my childhood - sad to say, I haven't come across them since.
And I bet you haven't seen Communion Cards or Tokens recently - although my own (Baptist) church in London had them at least into the 1970s. Absence for six months "without due reason" meant you lost your right to vote at Church Meetings!

No - not since the early 1970's. Neither do I recall what sanction there might have been been for extended absences - certainly not the one you mention, church meetings being a shibboleth for those adhering to a congregationalist ecclesiology.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I've seen communion cards recently. Indeed I might have some I have not given out in a draw at home. The last time was February communion, the next time will be July communion (Easter communion is open).

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Indeed I might have some I have not given out in a draw ...

Is there a prize for the winning number, then?

Seriously, I didn't know anyone still used them. What is your modus operandi? And can you explain specifically their use in "open" and "closed" Communion? Baptist churches are one or the other but can't be both (it's usually contained in their Constitutions).

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Right at the elders meeting prior to the communion (three to five weeks before hand) communion cards are handed to the elder responsible for those members. The elder then has a duty to visit members and deliver cards (cards are basically a way of insuring regular pastoral visits by elders, the fact that many always sign in and that elders have been known to put cards in for the flock is neither here nor there).

The members who come to communion are expected to bring the cards and place them in wooden dish placed by the entrance of the church. Those who do not have a card with them may sign themselves in.

The big difference from the elders position is that at a closed communion we record a number of communicants (it should be done by both cards and cups: another reason for wee cuppies), at an open one we do not. Way back, the closed communion attendance actually counted towards you being a member in good standing and was required once a year at least unless reason was known (e.g. housebound). Hence the fuss over cards and signing in. The open one without this record therefore could not count.

Jengie

[ 08. April 2013, 15:29: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Please don't think this is a cynical question: I can understand the reason for all this in a church of 2000 souls where it is easy for someone to "drop through the net". But is it so necessary in today's more straitened times (congregationally speaking), or has it just gained the mantle of tradition? Can't each elder just look out for their individual flocklets?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by Metapelagius:

quote:
Mention has also been made of the white cloths on pew backs on Sacrament Sundays - I remember those from the church of my childhood - sad to say, I haven't come across them since.

At a formal Communion we have long strips of starched very white cloth along the shelves in front of each pew. They are clipped onto the shelf with special silver clips.

I'm on the tea rota / the welcome rota / the Sunday School rota etc etc, but live in fear of being asked to go on the laundering and starching of these very long strips rota.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I sometimes wonder what aspect of communion today would most astonish those who were present at the Last Supper. And I suspect the manufacturing of special silver clips to clip starched white cloth onto pew shelves might be up there, along with the invention and manufacture of a multi-spouted jug to fill several wee cuppies simultaneously.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Double posting to add - we stopped Communion cards within the last ten years, but this proved unpopular, so we now distribute printed cards with the date of the next communion. Unlike Communion cards, people don't hand them in when they attend communion. I suspect these might be phased out soon, though.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Please don't think this is a cynical question: I can understand the reason for all this in a church of 2000 souls where it is easy for someone to "drop through the net". But is it so necessary in today's more straitened times (congregationally speaking), or has it just gained the mantle of tradition? Can't each elder just look out for their individual flocklets?

I'm more cynical still, oddly enough the reminder is still important to elders, without it they tend not to do it. I have dealt with congregations who have dropped it and it has led to a decline in elders visiting.

I tell you what, next elders meeting you ask them when last they visited for pastoral reasons other than an emergency (e.g. sickness or death) a member of their flock. I suspect you will get silence.

Jengie

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I've just accepted a call to Eldership in my current church, I don't yet know what the arrangements are for visiting. At my previous church, the Elders were responsible for ensuring that pastoral visits happened, but the visiting itself was delegated to a group of members with the particular gifts needed for pastoral visits (some of whom were Elders). The gifts for Eldership and pastoral visiting may not coincide in the same individuals.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yes, our Pastoral Visitors are not co-extensive with our Eldership/Diaconate (note the confusion there, caused by being an LEP!)

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
Mention has also been made of the white cloths on pew backs on Sacrament Sundays - I remember those from the church of my childhood - sad to say, I haven't come across them since.
And I bet you haven't seen Communion Cards or Tokens recently - although my own (Baptist) church in London had them at least into the 1970s. Absence for six months "without due reason" meant you lost your right to vote at Church Meetings!

I went to a formal communion last June at St Colomba's Church of Scotland in London. They had the white cloths on the pews and when I arrived I was asked if I wished to take communion and was given a communion card. I must say the service was beautifully conducted - only the common cup brought to the pews by the elders.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Yes but to what extent does the everyday visiting go on. I do not mean "Mrs Smith is in hospital ward 3G" or even "John Brown has not been in church for six months I wonder why" sort of visit, much as they are part of congregational life.

I mean the very mundane, I am just dropping round to see how you are getting on sort. Chance for both sides to talk about the church and other things that are going on. A chance to pick up on the things that are not brought to worship on a Sunday.

Communion cards give a reason to do that, which is unthreatening. A basic card just saying remember it is communion in a couple of weeks, we hope to see you there. They are not perfect but they do nudge even elders as bad as me, into making the effort to try and make contact sometimes.

Jengie

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0