Thread: Two questions on communion 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=026529
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I'm wrestling with two questions at the moment and would appreciate hearing some different opinions/practices on these issues:
1) When distributing communion (either bread or wine) do you look the person in the eye or not? Why or why not? (i.e. do you make it personal or non-personal?)
On one hand I think it's not about the bearer of the chalice or the bearer of the patten, it's about the communion of the receiver with the risen Christ in the bread and wine so eye contact is best avoided. On the other hand, some people seem to expect it and perhaps its nicer to be more personal?
What do you do and why?
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
What is the theology behind your decision to dispose of it in such a way? (Assuming a doctrine of real presence)
Thanks. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm wrestling with two questions at the moment and would appreciate hearing some different opinions/practices on these issues:
1) When distributing communion (either bread or wine) do you look the person in the eye or not? Why or why not? (i.e. do you make it personal or non-personal?)
On one hand I think it's not about the bearer of the chalice or the bearer of the patten, it's about the communion of the receiver with the risen Christ in the bread and wine so eye contact is best avoided. On the other hand, some people seem to expect it and perhaps its nicer to be more personal?
What do you do and why?
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
What is the theology behind your decision to dispose of it in such a way? (Assuming a doctrine of real presence)
Thanks.
1. Make administration of the elements of Holy Communion as personal as possible. Look at the person whether eye contact is possible or not. That's because the action and words accompanying the the administration of bread or wine are personal, one to another. Not make the act sappy and sentimental, but direct and personal. On the other hand, don't make the acts distant or cold and without feeling.
2. If you are any kind of decently trained, Christian performing this ministry, you should know that the remaining elements of Holy Communion, after general administration, are eaten and drunk up at the time or after the service in the sacristy. They are sacred, and they should not be disposed of in any other way. If you must, reserve the elements in a safe place to be eaten and drunk at a later date. There doesn't need to be heavy duty theology of the real presence for the minister to treat the blessed elements of Holy Communion with respect in this way.
*
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
1) When distributing communion (either bread or wine) do you look the person in the eye or not? Why or why not? (i.e. do you make it personal or non-personal?)
I often administer the chalice; when I do, I mainly look at the person's mouth so I can see when they've taken a sip. I don't put the chalice rim against their mouth but try to guide it to a point where they'll use the base to tip the chalice just enough to sip. But I'm not looking them in the eyes. I'm being basically anonymous and just carrying out a role (server or subdeacon).
quote:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
Hasn't happened in my experience, but I believe we would pour it into the piscina either under the credence table or the one in the sacristy (locked sink). Or maybe recruit other licensed chalice-bearers/subdeacons to come and help reverently consume what remains, in the sacristy.
We believe in the Real Presence, but I don't see our practice as one of protecting that Presence...it's more of a "due diligence" to see that the Sacrament is reverently consumed or disposed of. Surely every molecular crumb of the hosts isn't accounted for, and every atom of the Precious Blood, but the traditional practices of ablutions and use of the piscina if needed are the acceptable ways of doing these things and preventing irreverence. The Lord won't be mad if something's missed, but like a formal dinner party, the details are worth taking pains with.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
The nonconformist Minister Martyn Lloyd-Jones mentions in one of his books a Deacon in his church who always looked him in the eye and said "thank you" when receiving the elements. ML-J thought this was wrong as the focus should be on Christ as the giver, not the Minister. But I don't really think it matters much!
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
I agree with Mr Rob - eye contact is good! Drawing lessons from the (probably - is this contested at all?) origin of communion as the 'agape' fellowship meal, I think it should be a communal commemoration of Christ's death and a celebration of his resurrection.
We commemorate and celebrate together as a gathered section of the body of Christ, so we should absolutely make eye contact and speak with one another as we give each other the bread and wine. IMO it's emphatically not just between the receiver and God.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Not sure about first. Don't deliberately seek or avoid eye-contact. Second I can't envisage. Why can no one consume it? Only reason I can think of is everyone is driving, but this seems unlikely as usually there would be couples who have come in the same car even if no-one is walking. Wouldn't happen with us as vergers consume and we all live in walking distance and in fact I'm the only one with a driving license & I don't own a car!
Carys
[missing n't added]
[ 29. September 2013, 08:36: Message edited by: Carys ]
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
Speaking as someone on the autistic spectrum, I have to tell you that for me and for many others eye contact is not just unnecessary but actually deeply uncomfortable, to the point of almost physical pain. Please don't insist on it: this only makes Communion even more difficult for some of us.
(On a related tangent, please would somebody find the person who started the practice of looking into each other's eyes while saying the Grace at the end of the service, and poke them in the eye from me? This practice too is uncomfortable, I feel bullied by the verbal insistence every time that 'this is what Christians so', and the sentimentality of it evokes a deep emotional response in me, but possibly not the one intended by the officiant ... ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
)
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
When I give them the Wine, I look at them, their eye, as I speak, and then hold the Wine as I give it to their mouth, which is where I'm looking then.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
On a related tangent, please would somebody find the person who started the practice of looking into each other's eyes while saying the Grace at the end of the service, and poke them in the eye from me? This practice too is uncomfortable, I feel bullied by the verbal insistence every time that 'this is what Christians so', and the sentimentality of it evokes a deep emotional response in me, but possibly not the one intended by the officiant ...
I get around that one by keeping my head firmly bowed and my eyes shut if I think it's the sort of church where there's any risk of eyeballing.
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
This is why having a server who doesn't drive is useful.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
1) When distributing communion (either bread or wine) do you look the person in the eye or not? Why or why not?
I take a cue from the communicants themselves. A lot of people in my congo look directly at me, even with big smiles, so I will look back at them with what I hope is a balance of pleasant/welcome without being overly grinny. But others come with eyes focused downward, clearly having a private or interior moment, and I want to respect that. So in those cases I look at them enough to see what I'm doing (obviously) without being too intense in my focus. I see people bringing all of themselves to the altar (and in some cases, a lot of pain). It's a very intimate moment and I always feel humbled to be part of it.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
1) When distributing communion (either bread or wine) do you look the person in the eye or not? Why or why not?
I take a cue from the communicants themselves. A lot of people in my congo look directly at me, even with big smiles, so I will look back at them with what I hope is a balance of pleasant/welcome without being overly grinny. But others come with eyes focused downward, clearly having a private or interior moment, and I want to respect that. So in those cases I look at them enough to see what I'm doing (obviously) without being too intense in my focus. I see people bringing all of themselves to the altar (and in some cases, a lot of pain). It's a very intimate moment and I always feel humbled to be part of it.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
As a communicant, I'm not looking at the face of the minister administering the Host and Chalice. I'm looking at their fingers which are grasping the Host to place it on my tongue or into my hands, or at the Chalice as it is moving toward my mouth so that I can use my right hand to guide it toward me. I would not like to look at the minister of the Sacrament during these extraordinarily personal moments.
Just saying.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I don't like eye-contact - I come from the time when anglo-catholic priests, deacons etc. always looked into the middle distance - the liturgy is objective.
Communion is between the communicant and Christ. The administrant is merely an administrant.
Also, as has already been said, many people find eye-contact difficult, even obtrusive.
However, fashions have changed and many look me in the eye so I look at them back as i hold up the host before putting it on their hand/tongue.
The chalice is a different matter. I look at their mouths to ensure nothing is spilled.
I am a stickler for the ablutions being take immediately after communion. It is a public statement about the real presence. If there is too much consecrated wine - well there shouldn't be and the priest should take care to put only sufficient wine into the chalice(s).
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
As a communicant (never a giver) I do not make eye contact - for one thing if you receive kneeling down as we tend to do in the Anglican church, you would get a crick in the neck trying to make eye contact, especially if the giver is particularly tall.
I do, however, like our parish priest's custom of giving the bread to us by name, as in "The body of Christ, Gwalchmai".
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
Many in our church stand up, not being down as they all used to be.
Children always are given "bread" as they come to the communion, not "wine". They get blessed too.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Children always are given "bread" as they come to the communion, not "wine". They get blessed too.
I assume from this that your church has a policy of admitting children to communion before confirmation. I have no problem with that, but if they are receiving communion, why are they also receiving a blessing? Seems pretty pointless to me as they receive God's blessing through the sacrament.
Posted by R.A.M. (# 7390) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Children always are given "bread" as they come to the communion, not "wine". They get blessed too.
I assume from this that your church has a policy of admitting children to communion before confirmation. I have no problem with that, but if they are receiving communion, why are they also receiving a blessing? Seems pretty pointless to me as they receive God's blessing through the sacrament.
Daisymay's experience was mine when I was a child, at a Yorkshire, Methodist outfit. (mother's pride, wee cups)
As a child it seemed entirely natural that the "wine" was for the grown ups, but as an adult, considering that the "wine" was in fact some non alcoholic alternative, this seems a bit odd. Does anyone know the logic behind this?
Receiving the blessing gave some continuity with the very young children who recieved that, but no bread. I don't know if there is a more advanced theological reason for this...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
pererin: This is why having a server who doesn't drive is useful.
I wonder, if the police officer asks you "have you had any alcohol?" and you reply "no" because you believe that it has been transsubstantiated into the blood of Christ, does it count as a lie?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
(1) No eye contact. The degree to which a communicant acknowledges my presence is the degree to which I've failed to be as transparent as a eucharistic president should be.
(2) You make sure there is.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
The responses so far seem to assume that the issue has to do with drinking/driving. More common, I would think, are the special concerns of priests and servers who are recovering alcoholics.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
1) seems to depend on the clergy person
2) in the rubrics of Angligan Church of Canada both bread & wine can be either consumed after communion by clergy or reserved, for sick call etc.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
1) I look at the person when I'm addressing them, then at the host / cup as I'm directing it towards their hand / mouth. What the person looks at is up to them. I think (though act more on instinct here), that when receiving, I look at the person speaking to me when they're speaking, and then to whatever they're giving. I never overlap the naming and the giving.
2) I've never been in that position, so I don't know what I'd do. It's hard for me to really imagine it coming up, as in at a small Mass you can estimate how much wine is needed pretty easily and even if I get it wrong, that's at most a glass worth of stuff-with-accidents-of-wine to drink. At a large mass, I'd be surprised not to be able to find people that could help if I couldn't consume it all myself.
I can think of one large Mass I was at where I (and a few others) had to consume about the equivalent of two glasses of wine each. I don't think any of us had to drive (I know I didn't), but in retrospect, we should probably have pulled a few more people into consuming (and/or been more careful when pouring and not over-consecrated so much). That's the only time I've been involved in anything anywhere near as excessive as that, so, in my experience, it's pretty easily avoidable.
Posted by NatDogg (# 14347) on
:
In terms of 2, I could think of only one situation where this might be a problem -- I'm thinking Christmas or Easter at Grace Cathedral, St. John the Divine, the National Cathedral, or some similar situation. That would be A LOT of left overs.
[ 30. September 2013, 04:43: Message edited by: NatDogg ]
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
When I was in theological college, the parish to which I was attached in my first year had a priest who just could not accurately calculate the amount of wine needed for a service. One day (when we had to go to out-lying centres following the service) between us we had to consume a very large chalice full. Made for an interesting morning ...
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm wrestling with two questions at the moment and would appreciate hearing some different opinions/practices on these issues:
1) When distributing communion (either bread or wine) do you look the person in the eye or not? Why or why not? (i.e. do you make it personal or non-personal?)
On one hand I think it's not about the bearer of the chalice or the bearer of the patten, it's about the communion of the receiver with the risen Christ in the bread and wine so eye contact is best avoided. On the other hand, some people seem to expect it and perhaps its nicer to be more personal?
What do you do and why?
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
What is the theology behind your decision to dispose of it in such a way? (Assuming a doctrine of real presence)Thanks.
A UK Baptist POV
1. The bread and wine are passed around the congregation.People don't come forward to receive - they receive where they are.
I suppose some will look in the eyes of others, others wont. I usually go round the church to pray for any babies/children in the building.
I leave the church during distribution to go to the rooms next door where I pray for the children and teachers in their classes. Every so often they rejoin or stay with the adults. When they are all in, the children are all prayed for individually where they sit.
2. We drink/eat it up. It's no fermented wine so no problem as regards drink driving. Non fermented wine reflects the fact that we have a number of known recovering alcoholics and probably several unknowns as well.
The theology of it all? Well, we serve one another as we reckon that's how Jesus and his friends did it. We believe it emphasises the kind of service and community that Jesus taught.
The elements, bread and wine, are less important to us than the act of communion itself - we believe the "do this ..." of Jesus refers specifically to the act itself.
We affirm the real presence, though not in the bread and wine, nor in the specifics of communion. The real presence is the presence of Christ when we are gathered in His name: Christ is in the midst of us. Communion enables us to communicate with God (as per Calvin's understanding of the eucharist) and we are taken up to God as we receive and share together.
To a certain extent we're not fussed about the bread or the wine: the Passover was a festival meal but also an everyday meal. It's enough in our view to use everyday symbols to point to the deeper reality of Christ's presence, power and saving grace.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
What is the theology behind your decision to dispose of it in such a way? (Assuming a doctrine of real presence)
Thanks.
Nobody? In the entire congregation? Assuming that the answer to both those questions was in the affirmative I took you to mean that something horrible had happened to the wine - a communicant sneezed in it or something. ISTM that the more common problem of having consecrated too much can be dealt with by asking a handful of lay people to assist with the consumption. But what does one do if the problem is with the wine itself rather than merely the quantity?
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
The practice that I've witnessed (whilst dating the vicar's daughter - hence spending a lot of time around the vicarage) is that that in the anglican church, the wine is consumed by the vicar and his family. I would add, in moderation. There was no sloshing about after lunch on a Sunday afternoon.
In my years at a baptist church, we didn't use alcoholic wine on account of being sensitive to a number of former alcoholics in the church. Rather than segregate them by having alcoholic and non-alcoholic choices, the decision was made to go all for unfermented grape juice. Any left overs from this were stored in the fridge and consumed at various intervals throughout the week at various meetings & ministries that the church hosted.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Children always are given "bread" as they come to the communion, not "wine". They get blessed too.
I assume from this that your church has a policy of admitting children to communion before confirmation. I have no problem with that, but if they are receiving communion, why are they also receiving a blessing? Seems pretty pointless to me as they receive God's blessing through the sacrament.
It's very small children, who are baptised, and up to about 7 year olds. they are blessed and then given the little bread, smaller than adults are given. They usually are with their parents as the place for communion, and have been learning about God in the other part of the church and come in to the communion.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
pererin: This is why having a server who doesn't drive is useful.
I wonder, if the police officer asks you "have you had any alcohol?" and you reply "no" because you believe that it has been transsubstantiated into the blood of Christ, does it count as a lie?
The alcohol is a part of the accident of wine that remains, not the substance that is changed. Much like the gluten in bread. Nobody claims consecrated wine won't get you drunk or consecrated bread cause trouble for a celiac.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
If recipients kneel then eye contact is improbable. Standers often seek eye contact and I provide it, even though it's not my thing.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
The practice that I've witnessed (whilst dating the vicar's daughter - hence spending a lot of time around the vicarage) is that that in the anglican church, the wine is consumed by the vicar and his family. I would add, in moderation.
That I have never encountered, and would be livid if I did.
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
What is the theology behind your decision to dispose of it in such a way? (Assuming a doctrine of real presence)
Please. At our place, the celebrant not only drinks the MPB, but rinses the chalice in unconsecrated wine and drinks that. At low masses, he also washes his hands in a mixture of wine and water and the vessels (a second time), and drinks that as well. Nobody has ever toppled over drunk out of this simple act of piety. Perhaps clergymen in our area are simply more used to strong drink? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
What is the theology behind your decision to dispose of it in such a way? (Assuming a doctrine of real presence)
Please. At our place, the celebrant not only drinks the MPB, but rinses the chalice in unconsecrated wine and drinks that. At low masses, he also washes his hands in a mixture of wine and water and the vessels (a second time), and drinks that as well. Nobody has ever toppled over drunk out of this simple act of piety. Perhaps clergymen in our area are simply more used to strong drink?
Can you explain MPB?
I don't understand the procedure about low masses. What wine/water mixture are the hands washed in? Are the vessels (what are they?) washed in the mixture which the hands have been washed in?
Thanks for explaining
Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
What is the theology behind your decision to dispose of it in such a way? (Assuming a doctrine of real presence)
Please. At our place, the celebrant not only drinks the MPB, but rinses the chalice in unconsecrated wine and drinks that. At low masses, he also washes his hands in a mixture of wine and water and the vessels (a second time), and drinks that as well. Nobody has ever toppled over drunk out of this simple act of piety. Perhaps clergymen in our area are simply more used to strong drink?
Can you explain MPB?
I don't understand the procedure about low masses. What wine/water mixture are the hands washed in? Are the vessels (what are they?) washed in the mixture which the hands have been washed in?
Thanks for explaining
MPB = 'Most Precious Blood' = Normal term used by Anglophone Roman Catholics and High Anglicans for the contents of the chalice after the consecration.
The procedure at low mass is this: the celebrant holds out the chalice to the server, who puts in a small amount of wine, which the celebrant swirls around the chalice and then drinks; having done this, the celebrant places his fingers above the chalice, and the server pours over his fingers and into the chalice first wine and then water, the mixture of which the celebrant then also drinks. Finally, in the sacristy after mass, the chalice is washed for a third, this time only in water. The water used for this purpose is not drunk (although I suppose it could be), but is instead poured onto consecrated ground via a piscina or special drain (it is never poured down the normal drain).
Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
What is the theology behind your decision to dispose of it in such a way? (Assuming a doctrine of real presence)
Please. At our place, the celebrant not only drinks the MPB, but rinses the chalice in unconsecrated wine and drinks that. At low masses, he also washes his hands in a mixture of wine and water and the vessels (a second time), and drinks that as well. Nobody has ever toppled over drunk out of this simple act of piety. Perhaps clergymen in our area are simply more used to strong drink?
Can you explain MPB?
I don't understand the procedure about low masses. What wine/water mixture are the hands washed in? Are the vessels (what are they?) washed in the mixture which the hands have been washed in?
Thanks for explaining
MPB = 'Most Precious Blood' = Normal term used by Anglophone Roman Catholics and High Anglicans for the contents of the chalice after the consecration.
The procedure at low mass is this: the celebrant holds out the chalice to the server, who puts in a small amount of wine, which the celebrant swirls around the chalice and then drinks; having done this, the celebrant places his fingers above the chalice, and the server pours over his fingers and into the chalice first wine and then water, the mixture of which the celebrant then also drinks. Finally, in the sacristy after mass, the chalice is washed for a third, this time only in water. The water used for this purpose is not drunk (although I suppose it could be), but is instead poured onto consecrated ground via a piscina or special drain (it is never poured down the normal drain).
Thanks SB.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
1) When distributing communion (either bread or wine) do you look the person in the eye or not? Why or why not?
...
2) If there is unconsumed wine after the service and nobody can drink it, what do you do with it?
1) I usually bear the chalice. I keep a steady eye on what I'm doing, concentrating on the lip of the cup and the lips of the communicant, with due respect to what the communicant proposes to do with his hands.
2) You drink It. You've been drinking It during the service; so surely, there is someone around who can finish It off. Otherwise, It gets poured down the piscina.
Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on
:
On the receiving end, I always look diectly at the chalice (just as my focus is always on the Host) so there is no liklihood of eye contact.
I'm wondering why people would be looking elsewhere. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, but I do wonder why this happens especially since the words of administration would seem to call for focus on the Host and chalice.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I'm wondering why people would be looking elsewhere. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, but I do wonder why this happens especially since the words of administration would seem to call for focus on the Host and chalice.
Well, not all churches use a chalice. Some use individual small cups, so each communicant has their own vessel; other churches use a cup or glass that people take for themselves or pass from one to another; and still other churches probably have other methods.
Also, some churches don't have people going up and kneeling at a rail. At my church, for example, communion usually happens one of two ways; either there are two or three servers who will hand people the bread (on a plate) and cup, or we are invited to take a cup and a large piece of bread to pass around in small groups. I think with either of these arrangements, eye contact is both easy and natural (noting that some people find eye contact difficult, of course).
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
And in the Kirk I was in, (from being a child), we had sitting as we were given bread which we broke, and small cups for each person. And we sat as we had all this. We only had this about twice a year, and also at the time we remembered Jesus killed and died, we had another communion. We could also have it outside in the biggish place belonging to the Kirk where there was green and flowers and trees there and where people were berried. that was where seats were put for us.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
The procedure at low mass is this: the celebrant holds out the chalice to the server, who puts in a small amount of wine, which the celebrant swirls around the chalice and then drinks;
Pre-Vatican2.
The norm is NOT to use more wine but to do the ablutions with water only.
Since adding a small amount of wine to wine that is already consecrated makes it consecrated as well, there is no point in doing so.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I took you to mean that something horrible had happened to the wine - a communicant sneezed in it or something.
If that was the case, the procedure is to pour the consecrated wine into a bucket and dilute heavily with waster until it ceases to be wine and then pour it on to clean earth/consecrated ground.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
(On a related tangent, please would somebody find the person who started the practice of looking into each other's eyes while saying the Grace at the end of the service, and poke them in the eye from me? This practice too is uncomfortable, I feel bullied by the verbal insistence every time that 'this is what Christians so', and the sentimentality of it evokes a deep emotional response in me, but possibly not the one intended by the officiant ... )
I'm too busy making the sign of the cross during the Grace to creep-eye my fellow Christians. And on the rare occasions when I'm present at RC parishes for Mass, I don't hold hands during the Our Father either.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I took you to mean that something horrible had happened to the wine - a communicant sneezed in it or something.
If that was the case, the procedure is to pour the consecrated wine into a bucket and dilute heavily with waster until it ceases to be wine and then pour it on to clean earth/consecrated ground.
This must fill any homeopathists involved in such practices with horror!
/Irreverent tangent
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
And in the Wesley Churches, we are given not alcohol, but still with the Bread and the "Wine". I like that, special different taste.
Posted by Lynnk (# 16132) on
:
In churches I have frequented the bread was bread sometimes bought at the local shop on the way to church and the wine was wine dispensed out of the bottle it was purchased in just before the service.
After all didn't Jesus say to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of him?
And do we think the attendees of the gathering took left over bread and wine and ate and drank it all themselves?Or that the left over bread and wine was disposed of in a special sacred place?
It seems to me that the bread and wine were symbols Jesus used to help us remember his eternal life saving work.
Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on
:
I saw an altar guild member making use of the informal piscina: open the door and a quick flick onto the grass outside. Very simple and effective.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I'm Episcopalian with Catholic/Anglo-Catholic sensibilities about a lot of things.
1) Sharing Communion is a communal act. It's not just between the communicant and Christ. When we share the elements with each other, I think it's best done naturally. When I'm serving chalice, I look in the person's eyes as I say, "The Blood of Christ, the cup of salvation," and then I watch what I'm doing as I serve it. I try to be clear that I'm helping them guide and drink the chalice, not dispensing the Blood of Christ to them. "Freely you have received; freely give" seems like a good way to look at it, IMO. Within the bounds of reverence, just act natural.
2) In my tradition, which does believe in Real Presence, extra consecrated elements may be reverently consumed, or disposed of in consecrated ground (e.g., a garden on the church property), or, in the case of wine, poured into the piscina, which goes straight into the ground. For me, theologically, it's because those elements have been consecrated "to be for [God's] people the Body and Blood of Christ." It's about intent - gratitude and respect - rather than worrying that a crumb or drop of wine might hit the floor. (On earth, Jesus' blood certainly hit the ground, and the wood of the Cross; and all his life, he left skin cells & hair and what not all over the place as we all do.) Christ is meek and humble of heart, after all. BUT, from our standpoint, we want to be respectful, reverent, and grateful for such a great gift. Tossing it where it might be trampled underfoot, or into the trash, or into the sewer system, is contrary those attitudes.
If possible, consecrated Bread and Wine can be reserved; but home-baked bread won't keep, and the wine in the chalices you don't really want to pour back into a flagon to store. I've heard of people putting extra consecrated elements back in with unconsecrated, to use again later. That may not be the worst thing in the world, but it also seems theologically wrong. Like a friend of mine once put it, "With God there are no takesy-backsies." Once those elements have been consecrated, there is no need to re-consecrate them. Why would you present them to God again and ask for them to be re-consecrated? Seems rude at the very least. For those who believe in transubstantiation as an explanation for the Real Presence, doing so might even be blasphemous. Certainly putting the Body or Blood of Christ back in with the regular bread or wine would be insulting from that perspective!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I've heard of people putting extra consecrated elements back in with unconsecrated, to use again later. That may not be the worst thing in the world, but it also seems theologically wrong. Like a friend of mine once put it, "With God there are no takesy-backsies." Once those elements have been consecrated, there is no need to re-consecrate them. Why would you present them to God again and ask for them to be re-consecrated? Seems rude at the very least. For those who believe in transubstantiation as an explanation for the Real Presence, doing so might even be blasphemous. Certainly putting the Body or Blood of Christ back in with the regular bread or wine would be insulting from that perspective!
More than rude - if you have a mass where the wine has already been consecrated, then it is invalid because both bread and wine have to be consecrated in any one mass.
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
As a communicant (never a giver) I do not make eye contact - for one thing if you receive kneeling down as we tend to do in the Anglican church, you would get a crick in the neck trying to make eye contact, especially if the giver is particularly tall.
I do, however, like our parish priest's custom of giving the bread to us by name, as in "The body of Christ, Gwalchmai".
Hmm. If I'm honest, I struggle with this. It seems to turn it into a personal exchange between the priest/administrator and communicant, when really it ought to be between the communicant and God only, with the priest performing a necessary, but not personal, function. Like confession.
There's also the difficulty of not knowing everyone's names - if it's a small service and you've been there long enough you're probably all right, but if you don't know everyone, I rather feel you shouldn't call anyone by name. Otherwise it's 'Bob, Sue, Joan, (nothing), Fred...' which is awkward for the person whose name was forgotten or not known at all. It's liable to be a distraction from what's going on.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Our vicar does the naming-the-recipient thing. Mrs A, who very rarely comes to church, says that she finds this very powerful and intense- but often too intense. It doesn't bother me much but I'd prefer that it wasn't done, for the reasons stated above
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Please don't deliberately make eye contact with me during Communion (accidental eye contact is ok) as it makes me feel very uncomfortable. I guess I'm a very reserved person who doesn't appreciate close contact with aquaintances who are not close friends ( just as I dislike passing the peace cuddles).
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thanks all for your replies. Very helpful.
Seems the eye contact thing is quite personal and depends on whether you think the moment is between the person and God or it's more a communal act.
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
2) In my tradition, which does believe in Real Presence, extra consecrated elements may be reverently consumed, or disposed of in consecrated ground (e.g., a garden on the church property), or, in the case of wine, poured into the piscina, which goes straight into the ground.
A few of you have mentioned piscinas and I was curious about leo's description of diluting the wine in a bucket then pouring it out. I've never heard of a piscina before. Perhaps because Australian churches are not very old.
Is pouring the wine directly onto consecrated ground acceptable or not? Seems to be the same thing as a piscina in the end.
There is another angle I've heard: "If Jesus can get into it then he can get out of it". Makes sense. What do youse think?
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A few of you have mentioned piscinas and I was curious about leo's description of diluting the wine in a bucket then pouring it out. I've never heard of a piscina before. Perhaps because Australian churches are not very old.
Is pouring the wine directly onto consecrated ground acceptable or not? Seems to be the same thing as a piscina in the end.
Due to some lovely Victorian reordering the piscinas in our church have been covered over making them completely unuseable (although I know where they are, and one day may just take an axe to the rubble).
I'm not sure on what authority, but pouring onto consecrated ground seems to be common practice in those situations where there is no Piscina for use, as long as it is an area which is not open to becoming profane (beyond all reasonable ability of course).
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is another angle I've heard: "If Jesus can get into it then he can get out of it". Makes sense. What do youse think?
That it answers the wrong question. Of course Jesus *can* (he is God, after all). But if he lovingly self-empties himself into being sacramentally present to us, putting God to the test by asking what he *can* do to leave us, seems to have rather missed the point.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Our vicar does the naming-the-recipient thing. Mrs A, who very rarely comes to church, says that she finds this very powerful and intense- but often too intense. It doesn't bother me much but I'd prefer that it wasn't done, for the reasons stated above
This is standard operating procedure in the Orthodox Church. "The servant/handmaiden of God NN. receives the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ unto remission of sins and life everlasting" (or slight variants in word order). Every communicant, every time.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
E]A few of you have mentioned piscinas and I was curious about leo's description of diluting the wine in a bucket then pouring it out. I've never heard of a piscina before. of it". Makes sense. What do youse think?
The diluting comes from the generL Instruction on the Roman missal.
Piscinas were in medieval churches for holy water. NOT for consecrated wine. That is an American practice and horrifies me.
Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on
:
1. In my view, it's all about the words.
Words such as "The blood of Christ keep you in eternal life" or the long version from 1662 etc are prayers over the recipient, and in my opinion it's therefore in order to look at the person you are praying over and indeed to have eye contact.
Using "The blood of Christ [given for you]" is an address to the recipient and again can be delivered in the same way.
2. Isn't the requirement that unreserved elements are consumed reverently by whomever the president might call forward?
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
On the question of looking in the eyes on distribution, I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the words of distribution. The C of E authorized words do seem addressed to the receiver, often using an explicit 'you'. It seems normal to look at someone when talking directly to that person. So, I do.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Lutherans, of course, have a slightly different take con the elements after communion. We hold that they are the body and blood of Jesus in, with and under the bread and wine in the act of communion. Once communion is over, the sacredness of the elements are no more.
That said, any bread that is left over should be consumed; and, if there is too much wine to consume, it should be poured directly onto the ground.
As far as looking into the eye of a person while communing them, as a communicant, I would find that somewhat unnerving. Look at them, yes; but looking into everyone's eyes? I think I would take my que from the communicant, if they look up at me, I have no problem looking back. If they are looking at the elements as they are distributed, it is best to move on.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Lutherans, of course, have a slightly different take con the elements after communion. We hold that they are the body and blood of Jesus in, with and under the bread and wine in the act of communion. Once communion is over, the sacredness of the elements are no more.
Indeed, Gramps. A Lutheran understanding is more focused on the event of Eucharist rather than the substances. This can create some awkward moments ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
in Anglican-Lutheran joint Eucharistic services. However, such awkwardness can be avoided with a little discussion and planning.
For example: Need more bread in the middle of distribution? For Lutherans, you can get more from the credence table, the sacristy, or even run out to your car and get it if you need to, and continue distributing. All such bread distributed as the Body of Christ is considered to have been covered by the initial consecration and is part of the event of Holy Communion. By contrast, Anglicans have a kind of "blast zone" understanding of consecration: if the bread wasn't on the altar, it isn't considered to be consecrated.
Oh, the fun we had ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
when a Lutheran bishop distributed bread from the credence table!
In a (greatly simplified) version of Lutheran Eucharistic understanding: once the event is over, the elements return to bread and wine. If you can wrap a substance-based mindset into an event-based mindset, you can see that it would not be scandalous to pour wine back into bottles or wafers back into boxes to await the next event. The substances are no longer considered sacred out of the context of the Eucharist.
Having said that, it is just easier to defer to Anglican scruples than try to keep explaining this to their horror. Lutherans have moved toward consuming/reverently disposing of the consecrated elements.
Posted by R.A.M. (# 7390) on
:
Gramps, Leaf, I never knew that about lutheran understanding of the real presence. (Despite having briefly known a Swedish Lutheran chaplain at university.)
Do Lutherans have a tradition of administering the elements to the sick at home? I understand that in the Anglican (and RC?) traditions this can be done by an authorised lay person, because the elements are reserved, and still maintain the real presence, however that is understood. Does this not really happen, or does it happen but have to be performed by a priest on each occasion, with the full rite?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
And is there any difference between Swedish Lutherans, whom I understand to be generally 'higher' than most, and the rest when it comes to theology and practice. Is reservation of the MBS practised in Sweden or anywhere else in Lutheranism?
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
On the question of looking in the eyes on distribution, I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the words of distribution. The C of E authorized words do seem addressed to the receiver, often using an explicit 'you'. It seems normal to look at someone when talking directly to that person. So, I do.
Really? I'm not so sure about that. I don't look directly at people when I talk, not even my closest friends, and I'd be very disturbed if someone sought to do so. That's just not me!
I don't think it has anything to do with how 'personal' the act is, or even - pace Evensong further up the thread - whether one values a sense of community. I just don't look people in the eye as a matter of personal preference, and I would be dubious about any attempt to read a theological interpretation into this...
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I don't think it has anything to do with how 'personal' the act is, or even - pace Evensong further up the thread - whether one values a sense of community. I just don't look people in the eye as a matter of personal preference, and I would be dubious about any attempt to read a theological interpretation into this...
And it's a bit difficult to look people in the eye when one is standing and administering the chalice to people who are kneeling (and some of whom have hats on). They're not looking up to catch my gaze; I'm not looking to connect with them via eye contact, just let them receive the Precious Blood with no spills or other glitches.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Not sure about the differences in Swedish Lutheran understanding of the real presence.
Now as to the issue of distributing to the sick: we can actually go both ways on this since we would say their communion is an extension of the congregational communion event, or we can consecrate the elements to be used in the presence of the sick person. Myself, I prefer the latter. If we used lay persons to distribute the communion to the sick, they have to be licensed to do so--and there are various ways to do that: by the pastor, with the approval of the church council or by request of the church council to the bishop (depending on which Lutheran Synod you are in). Usually though, unless you it is a large congregation, it is expected that the pastor will commune the sick--it forces the pastor to get out and visit the sick.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Leaf, that's not actually true for the Lutherans I live among; we have no clear "blast radius" for the Eucharist either in time or space, and we'd rather eat lutefisk than venture a guess--
But in practice, if the bread or wine was not on the altar at the Words of Institution, someone will quietly say them again before distributing "oops" supplies; and once the celebration is ended (even five minutes ended!) my church will reconsecrate in the hearing of latecoming communicants. But equally we will not treat as common any once-consecrated element, no matter how long ago. So I guess you could call it a belt-and-suspenders approach.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
As a communicant (never a giver) I do not make eye contact ...
Hmm. If I'm honest, I struggle with this. It seems to turn it into a personal exchange between the priest/administrator and communicant, when really it ought to be between the communicant and God only,
I have a lot of difficulty with this.
I try to imagine any doctrine, any tradition, of Communion at the last supper itself. Does the idea fit with people reclined around a table?
The idea of no communication with each other, never mind not looking at the priest, does not seem to fit.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
At the last supper, people would have looked at Jesus; at Communion I look at Jesus, in the most Holy Sacrament.
Carys
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Christ is present at the Eucharist in the Blessed Sacrament itself, and also in his Body the Church gathered for worship. So although obviously the primary focus at the moment of communion is the sacramental elements, it's not really a distraction to acknowledge one's fellow-Christians.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
At the last supper, people would have looked at Jesus...
Yes, but... If we're going to draw direct parallels to the Last Supper (which I'd certainly like to) then we should all be eating a proper meal together, not merely sharing bread and wine. Jesus took the Passover meal and added new meaning to it; he didn't just gather his followers together to share a loaf of bread and some wine.
I realise we all, whatever our tradition, copy some elements of the Last Supper, adapt others, and ignore still others. But ISTM it would be a significant loss to remove the communal, sharing element of the meal as Jesus instituted it (and as it seems to have been practised at least among the Corinthian Christians - as per 1 Cor 11:20-34).
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
Words such as "The blood of Christ keep you in eternal life" or the long version from 1662
It's a shame that virtually no-one uses the 1662 version any more. It's not as if most churches have a couple of hundred communicants every week, where longish words would actually make much difference.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Yes, but... If we're going to draw direct parallels to the Last Supper (which I'd certainly like to) then we should all be eating a proper meal together, not merely sharing bread and wine.
It certainly raises questions about the widespread practice of fasting communion.
And if we're really going to mention parallels, there's also that other strand, represented by John, the Didache, and Addai and Mari, where the Last Supper connection is absent.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
At the last supper, people would have looked at Jesus; at Communion I look at Jesus, in the most Holy Sacrament.
Carys
Quite right.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Christ is present at the Eucharist in the Blessed Sacrament itself, and also in his Body the Church gathered for worship. So although obviously the primary focus at the moment of communion is the sacramental elements, it's not really a distraction to acknowledge one's fellow-Christians.
Quite right.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
And to maintain the congregationalism that infects North American Lutheranism, yet another Lutheran experience:
The ELCA's worship book provides a prayer for the sending off of eucharistic visitors to the shut-ins. The holy sacrament is then transported and not consecrated again when administered to those in need. This is how we do it at my church. The distribution sometimes happens throughout the week.
Yes, we haven't really figured out who we are, yet. It certainly makes it hard to represent Lutheranism to others!
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
Scruples about the consecrated elements vary across the Lutheran spectrum, it is true.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Olaf's congregational practices are on the assumption that communion of the shut ins are an extension of the congregational communion.
However, I found when I visited shut ins, they appreciated hearing the words of institution as part of the individual communion rite. This is also in the ELCA's Occasional Services book.
Different strokes, for different folks.
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Olaf's congregational practices are on the assumption that communion of the shut ins are an extension of the congregational communion.
However, I found when I visited shut ins, they appreciated hearing the words of institution as part of the individual communion rite. This is also in the ELCA's Occasional Services book.
Different strokes, for different folks.
That's quite true, the Words of Institution are said, but they are prefaced with something like:
"Gathered for worship, our congregation heard that 'in the night in which he was betrayed...' ". They are most definitely not a repetition. Our shut-ins seem to relish in their reception being a part of the regular Sunday assembly, rather than a private affair.
That said, at the same moment that many of our shut-ins are receiving the sacrament by extension, the altar guild is busily emptying unused wee cuppies back into the wine bottle by funnel.
This makes for sloppy and ambiguous eucharistic theology. Much better to just follow the directions of The Use of the Means of Grace, and consume what remains.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Olaf's congregational practices are on the assumption that communion of the shut ins are an extension of the congregational communion.
However, I found when I visited shut ins, they appreciated hearing the words of institution as part of the individual communion rite. This is also in the ELCA's Occasional Services book.
Different strokes, for different folks.
That's quite true, the Words of Institution are said, but they are prefaced with something like:
"Gathered for worship, our congregation heard that 'in the night in which he was betrayed...' ". They are most definitely not a repetition. Our shut-ins seem to relish in their reception being a part of the regular Sunday assembly, rather than a private affair.
This is essentially the PC(USA) practice as well. At least 2 elders and/or deacons must be the ones to take communion to the homebound, though others may accompany them or be present. There is an expectation that the delivery will take place the same day or, if necessary, the following day.
That's what wife is doing right now.
As for wee cuppies, we rarely use them anymore.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Since this has got onto a discussion of communion for the sick and housebound there are two different ways that it might be practiced within the URC.
There are those who do communion by extension which is what is described.
However,a few ministers will also hold communion services at the house or bedside of someone who is unable to receive at home. This is more common I suspect where the practice of regular pastoral visits by the minister is kept up rather than places where a visit after communion. In such cases the minister will normally visit with someone else to represent this being part of the wider congregation and not separate from it. Often this person is an individuals elder but it may be just a close friend who is also a member.
Jengie
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
However,a few ministers will also hold communion services at the house or bedside of someone who is unable to receive at home. This is more common I suspect where the practice of regular pastoral visits by the minister is kept up rather than places where a visit after communion. In such cases the minister will normally visit with someone else to represent this being part of the wider congregation and not separate from it. Often this person is an individuals elder but it may be just a close friend who is also a member.
Until 10 or 15 years ago, this was the only permissible way of providing communion to the homebound in the PC(USA). The presence of an elder as well as the minister was required, and still is if this option is used.
[ 06. October 2013, 21:33: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
When I help serve, I try to look individuals in the eye, at least if they will let me (Lutherans being a shy people).
As far as leftover wine -- we try not to have any, but if we do it is discreetly spilled into our garden after the service. (Much to the consternation of a couple of the older church ladies, who at one point, before the church had regular training for helpers, tried pouring it back into the bottle before being discovered and corrected. One of them didn't like that a bit, and I suspect that on her watch at least some of the leftovers got poured back into the bottle anyway. Oy gevult.)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Do people actually pour wine from a chalice, that has been drunk from and slobbered into, back into a bottle? Apart from the irreverence/sacrilege (depending on your view of the sacrament) it is surely extremely icky.
If they simply pour unconsecrated wine back from the cruet, what's the problem?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Some time ago I was asked to take a weekday Holy Communion at a large church (CofE, open Evangelical) in the West Midlands. At the ablutions, I consumed what remained in the chalice. The LLM who was serving said to me afterwards, 'I can't believe you drank all that wine!' 'What do you usually do?' I asked. 'X [the Vicar, now something considerably more elevated] puts it back in the bottle with a funnel,' she said.
I felt pretty queasy, and not entirely for reasons of sacramental theology.
X, IIRC, trained at Wycliffe in the late '70s: I bet he's not the only clergyman to recycle TPBOOLJC.
[ 07. October 2013, 16:13: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Do people actually pour wine from a chalice, that has been drunk from and slobbered into, back into a bottle? Apart from the irreverence/sacrilege (depending on your view of the sacrament) it is surely extremely icky.
Afraid they do. Some of us have moved mountains to stop it.
It would help if the clergy took the abutions during the service instead of doing all the handshaking and then going back to the altar only to be told that 'Mrs. X has dealt with it.'
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Some time ago I was asked to take a weekday Holy Communion at a large church (CofE, open Evangelical) in the West Midlands.
IME it's the open evangelicals who are most neglectful of Prayer Book rubrics. The more conservative sort (or at least the old-fashioned conservatives) tend to be more careful.
Though nothing like that happens in our archetypally open-evangelical parish church.
[ 07. October 2013, 16:53: Message edited by: Angloid ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Do people actually pour wine from a chalice, that has been drunk from and slobbered into, back into a bottle? Apart from the irreverence/sacrilege (depending on your view of the sacrament) it is surely extremely icky.
Afraid they do. Some of us have moved mountains to stop it.
We Baptists recycle the wine. But (a) we don't have the same understanding of what "happens" to it (indeed we don't "consecrate" as such); (b) we usually use those wee cuppies, so the liquid will not have been slobbered into!
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
...Anglicans have a kind of "blast zone" understanding of consecration: if the bread wasn't on the altar, it isn't considered to be consecrated.
...
Just wanted to say what an excellent mental picture that creates!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
If you want to have an even better mental picture - I once saw a slow-motion, enlarged, video clip of the host being broken at the angus Dei - miniature crumbs/particles shattering out to about a 3 feet radius.
Have never been quite so worried about crumbs in the corporal since then.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I don't know what current practice is at Southwark Cathedral, but some years ago at big diocesan eucharists, assistant priests would stand in front of the altar each holding a chalice or ciborium to be consecrated along with those on the altar itself. The 'blast zone' was obviously understood to include everything in the bishop's line of sight.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Questions of slobber aside, what would be wrong with mingling consecrated and unconsecrated wine in the bottle if- big if- the wine in the bottle were only ever used for sacramental purposes (that is, would be consecrated at some point)? After all, if the consecrated wine is unalterably the Blood of Christ, it's not going to be harmed by having the Prayer of Consecration said over it again, is it?
Posted by Caedmon (# 17482) on
:
Communion is all kinda pagan anyway.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caedmon:
Communion is all kinda pagan anyway.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Only in the same sense that all religion is.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Are we gonna play the Mithras or the Osiris connection?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Piscinas were in medieval churches for holy water. NOT for consecrated wine. That is an American practice and horrifies me.
I think you're confusing piscinas with stoups. And what's the swipe at our Americans cousins for?
Here's how the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia defines piscina: quote:
(Lat. from piscis, a fish, fish-pond, pool or basin, called also sacrarium, thalassicon, or fenestella)
The name was used to denote a baptismal font or the cistern into which the water flowed from the head of the person baptized; or an excavation, some two or three feet deep and about one foot wide, covered with a stone slab, to receive the water from the washing of the priest's hands, the water used for washing the palls, purifiers, and corporals, the bread crumbs, cotton, etc. used after sacred unctions, and for the ashes of sacred things no longer fit for use. It was constructed near the altar, at the south wall of the sanctuary, in the sacristy, or some other suitable place.
Therefore, they are properly used to dispose of the (preferably heavily diluted) remnants of the Precious Body and Blood which will inevitable adhere to priests' fingers and altar vessels & linens.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caedmon:
Communion is all kinda pagan anyway.
Hello Caedmon and welcome to the Ship.
Although we encourage robust discussion of many topics on the Boards, please note that we prefer threads to keep on topic, in this case as laid out quite clearly in Evensong's opening post. If you want to discuss the relationship between Holy Communion and 'pagan' practices, it would be better to start a separate thread in which to do so.
It might also be worthwhile giving a bit more detail on your thinking than a ingle line assertion, assuming that you interested in serious debate!
Thanks,
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know what current practice is at Southwark Cathedral, but some years ago at big diocesan eucharists, assistant priests would stand in front of the altar each holding a chalice or ciborium to be consecrated along with those on the altar itself. The 'blast zone' was obviously understood to include everything in the bishop's line of sight.
Likewise, I don't know the current practice, but I think the justification there is those assisting priests are concelebrants, each with their own small blast zone. Whether the bishop's range was that broad was never clarified in my hearing...
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know what current practice is at Southwark Cathedral, but some years ago at big diocesan eucharists, assistant priests would stand in front of the altar each holding a chalice or ciborium to be consecrated along with those on the altar itself. The 'blast zone' was obviously understood to include everything in the bishop's line of sight.
Likewise, I don't know the current practice, but I think the justification there is those assisting priests are concelebrants, each with their own small blast zone. Whether the bishop's range was that broad was never clarified in my hearing...
Hmmm.
Name: Consecrate Mass Elements
Components: S, M, V
Range: Line of sight
Area of Effect: All intended elements within range
That's from the classic Players' Handbook; might have changed with 2nd Ed. of course.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know what current practice is at Southwark Cathedral, but some years ago at big diocesan eucharists, assistant priests would stand in front of the altar each holding a chalice or ciborium to be consecrated along with those on the altar itself. The 'blast zone' was obviously understood to include everything in the bishop's line of sight.
Likewise, I don't know the current practice, but I think the justification there is those assisting priests are concelebrants, each with their own small blast zone. Whether the bishop's range was that broad was never clarified in my hearing...
I'm pretty certain they're not concelebrating as I've seen this done at large diocesan events with lay people holding the chalices as well
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Are we gonna play the Mithras or the Osiris connection?
I don't think we need play either. As my previous jokey post indicated, it's not hard for magical thinking to creep into the theory and practice of the Eucharist.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Hmm, yeah - bread becomes actual flesh but doesn't change in appearance, taste or any other physical way. Likewise, wine becomes blood. I can understand why people unfamiliar with the theology would think that rather weird...
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Sure, and you can say the same thing about Jesus being fully God and fully human.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know what current practice is at Southwark Cathedral, but some years ago at big diocesan eucharists, assistant priests would stand in front of the altar each holding a chalice or ciborium to be consecrated along with those on the altar itself. The 'blast zone' was obviously understood to include everything in the bishop's line of sight.
Likewise, I don't know the current practice, but I think the justification there is those assisting priests are concelebrants, each with their own small blast zone. Whether the bishop's range was that broad was never clarified in my hearing...
I'm pretty certain they're not concelebrating as I've seen this done at large diocesan events with lay people holding the chalices as well
Our cathedral has a blast zone of at least 10x10 - lay or ordained.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Questions of slobber aside, what would be wrong with mingling consecrated and unconsecrated wine in the bottle if- big if- the wine in the bottle were only ever used for sacramental purposes (that is, would be consecrated at some point)? After all, if the consecrated wine is unalterably the Blood of Christ, it's not going to be harmed by having the Prayer of Consecration said over it again, is it?
Not 'harmed' - but the eucharist would be invalid because there has to be consecration of BOTH elements at every eucharist.
So if wine is not consecrated, because of its already being consecrated, that the eucharist is null and void.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Piscinas were in medieval churches for holy water. NOT for consecrated wine. That is an American practice and horrifies me.
I think you're confusing piscinas with stoups. And what's the swipe at our Americans cousins for?
Neither confusing or sniping. Simple stating what happens, according to an Anglican priest from England who did a two year stint in TEC and explained that it was common practice NOT to do the ablutions but simply to pour the remnants of consecrated wine from the chalice down the piscina (it being in the sanctuary; the stoup being at the entrance.)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Questions of slobber aside, what would be wrong with mingling consecrated and unconsecrated wine in the bottle if- big if- the wine in the bottle were only ever used for sacramental purposes (that is, would be consecrated at some point)? After all, if the consecrated wine is unalterably the Blood of Christ, it's not going to be harmed by having the Prayer of Consecration said over it again, is it?
Not 'harmed' - but the eucharist would be invalid because there has to be consecration of BOTH elements at every eucharist.
So if wine is not consecrated, because of its already being consecrated, that the eucharist is null and void.
Ok, I see that. In this case there would be some wine that was newly consecrated and other wine that had been previously consecrated but it would not be possible to distinguish the two because they would have mingled in the bottle.
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I don't know what current practice is at Southwark Cathedral, but some years ago at big diocesan eucharists, assistant priests would stand in front of the altar each holding a chalice or ciborium to be consecrated along with those on the altar itself. The 'blast zone' was obviously understood to include everything in the bishop's line of sight.
I thought that all properly brought up priests formed a permanent intention to consecrate everything on the altar and nothing not on the altar.
I seem to recollect that a certain Scottish bishop consecrated an enormous flagon of wine left on the corner of the altar by a careless server; the ablutions took weeks.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Piscinas were in medieval churches for holy water. NOT for consecrated wine. That is an American practice and horrifies me.
I think you're confusing piscinas with stoups. And what's the swipe at our Americans cousins for?
Neither confusing or sniping. Simple stating what happens, according to an Anglican priest from England who did a two year stint in TEC and explained that it was common practice NOT to do the ablutions but simply to pour the remnants of consecrated wine from the chalice down the piscina (it being in the sanctuary; the stoup being at the entrance.)
You stated above that piscinas were for holy water and not for the Precious Blood. What do you mean they are "for holy water"? What holy water? It's this statement that made me think you were confusing stoups with piscinas.
We agree that the pouring of the PB undiluted down the piscina is sub-optimal - I'd add that it should never be necessary. But the whole point of the piscina up by the altar - with a drain straight down to the consecrated ground of the church - is to dispose reverently of abluted matter which may contain particles of the Sacrament or sacred substances (chrism, etc.).
[And I still think you're being unduly sniffy to the Yanks, as if they were the originators and/or principal malefactors in this field - without anything other than anecdote to back this up. I believe there are occasional US readers on this site...]
[ 08. October 2013, 18:15: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You stated above that piscinas were for holy water and not for the Precious Blood. What do you mean they are "for holy water"? What holy water? It's this statement that made me think you were confusing stoups with piscinas.
We use our piscina, which is built into the credence table near the high altar, to pour the water from the lavabo bowl just after the celebrant's fingers are cleansed.
One side of the double sink in the sacristy is also a piscina, with a lockable cover on it, and I think that's where excess Precious Blood would be poured if it had to be. But we normally opt to consume it rather than pour it. I think both the credence-table piscina and the lockable sink have pipes that go to the same place, but I could be wrong.
Posted by christianbuddhist (# 17579) on
:
Regarding the question about wine, is it really reasonable to expect the vicar of a multi parish benefice to consume the remaining wine in six different churches before attempting to drive home? Theological purity needs to be tempered with discretion. It's hard to imagine Jesus having been overly concerned with whether all the wine was consumed at the Last Supper, after all.
Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on
:
I personally dislike Communion being all about the minister and the communicant. Looking the person in the eye, saying their name, squeezing their hand and you saying "the body/blood of Christ" and they say "thank you" to me shows neither one understands what is going on, or to be fair, their understanding is quite different from mine.
Some people try to catch my eye. I usually cross the Body over the paten before giving it into their hand or mouth, which I where I look rather than their eyes. I feel is should be as inconspicuous as possible, as unobtrusive as a telegram delivery boy. It's not about the communicant and me, I am not deigning to give them anything. They are communing with the risen Christ and all his glory, and all his body throughout time and space and beyond.
The whole point of liturgy is to find yourself in Christ Jesus by losing yourself in him. That's why the sacred ministers don't wear their own clothes, what makes the Mass a cosmic event as well as oh-so-local.
If there happens to be too much remaining of the MPB, goodness, call up some communicants to help you finish the chalice. I've never heard of it being poured down a piscine. I suppose if for some weird one in a million chance no one can finish the chalice at that moment, one can put It into the tabernacle and call somebody to come and finish It. Once, when there was too much left over after a serious miscalculation, the next day the priest did a mass of the pre-sanctified and gave everybody there three or four hosts and reminded them all to take a big swig from the chalice. Problem solved.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
Regarding the question about wine, is it really reasonable to expect the vicar of a multi parish benefice to consume the remaining wine in six different churches before attempting to drive home? Theological purity needs to be tempered with discretion. It's hard to imagine Jesus having been overly concerned with whether all the wine was consumed at the Last Supper, after all.
It happens all the time. Intelligent clergy learn how much wine to consecrate so that there is not too much left to be consumed at the ablutions. Actually, what's tougher is doing a big choral mass in a collegiate chapel and discovering that only a few of the musicians come up to receive.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
Regarding the question about wine, is it really reasonable to expect the vicar of a multi parish benefice to consume the remaining wine in six different churches before attempting to drive home? Theological purity needs to be tempered with discretion. It's hard to imagine Jesus having been overly concerned with whether all the wine was consumed at the Last Supper, after all.
Who says anything about the 'vicar' consuming it all? Any of the communicants present could help to finish off the contents of the chalice. Though unless the six hypothetical churches all had wildly fluctuating numbers of communicants, any priest with any nous would be able to estimate the quantity of wine needed and never normally over-consecrate.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
As someone who from time to time prepares the chalices, it's not always that easy Amos. Some weeks, everyone will take the cup; on others, quite a few will intinct. All non-predictably. Then there are the older children, some of whom will not take the cup, but others who will. It's a bit hard to remember just who's who. The best a poor server can do is aim over a bit, and then help with any leftover which is not being reserved.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
What Mama Thomas said.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
For what it's worth, some of us have the automatic "thank you" beat into us so thoroughly in childhood that we say it any time someone hands us something, even if it's a dirty diaper or a parking ticket. It's a reflex, not personal. ( yes, i've said this at the communion rail) ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
It's very similar to the reflex which makes us apologise to the person who barges into us in the checkout queue ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[You stated above that piscinas were for holy water and not for the Precious Blood. What do you mean they are "for holy water"? What holy water? It's this statement that made me think you were confusing stoups with piscinas.
Now I understand - just looked back to a previous post of mine.
I meant that piscinas can be used for water that has been used in the ablutions. Certainly not for consecrated wine.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
I would not want to expose the sick and housebound to wine that was previously in a chalice which people had dribbled into.
We reserve wine in small screw-top containers that are place on the corporal at the offertory and are then put straight into the tabernacle.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[You stated above that piscinas were for holy water and not for the Precious Blood. What do you mean they are "for holy water"? What holy water? It's this statement that made me think you were confusing stoups with piscinas.
Now I understand - just looked back to a previous post of mine.
I meant that piscinas can be used for water that has been used in the ablutions. Certainly not for consecrated wine.
Great. Thanks for the clarification, leo.
And to be clear myself, in the RCC throwing away the Sacred Species is a very serious delict, and just pouring It down the plughole - even onto consecrated ground - would normally be seen as just that. Gives me the collywobbles just thinking about it.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
I would not want to expose the sick and housebound to wine that was previously in a chalice which people had dribbled into.
We reserve wine in small screw-top containers that are place on the corporal at the offertory and are then put straight into the tabernacle.
Yes yes, but slobbering and dribbling aside, woulkd the mingling of the consecrated and unconsecrated elements make it improper to use it?
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
AIUI there wouldn't be any unconsecrated elements. The wine in the cruets would be consecrated along with the chalice, and then reserved. (Though I have never reserved both kinds separately like this: either - at one incumbent's insistence - the hosts were pre-intincted; or, more usually, we reserved in one kind only. I wonder what the general practice is, in the C of E and elsewhere? I know the RC custom is to reserve in one kind only.)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
In our local hospital the recommended practice is to pre-intinct the wafers, and then consecrate them. The reason AIUI is infection control. Apart from those administered in the chapel, assistants then take consecrated wafers to those on the wards who have requested. There is never much difficulty about numbers with that service, i.e. we always know fairly accurately how many people will be there.
The chalice is filled with only a small quantity of wine, for the president to consume, and a priest's host to be broken, (ditto). Everyone received an intincted wafer.
There is also the reserved sacrament, although I have never had occasion to use it.
[ 09. October 2013, 12:24: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
AIUI there wouldn't be any unconsecrated elements. The wine in the cruets would be consecrated along with the chalice, and then reserved. (Though I have never reserved both kinds separately like this: either - at one incumbent's insistence - the hosts were pre-intincted; or, more usually, we reserved in one kind only. I wonder what the general practice is, in the C of E and elsewhere? I know the RC custom is to reserve in one kind only.)
No, I was thinking of the eventuality that i supposed above: that is, consecrated wine pured into the bottle which already contains some unconsecrated wine, so that the consecrated and the unconsecrated mingle.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In our local hospital the recommended practice is to pre-intinct the wafers, and then consecrate them.
Recommended by whom? No-one with any knowledge of liturgy I hope. Surely both kinds must be consecrated separately. By 'pre-intincted' I mean the practice of dobbing a tiny drop of consecrated wine on each consecrated host and letting them dry.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In our local hospital the recommended practice is to pre-intinct the wafers, and then consecrate them.
Recommended by whom? No-one with any knowledge of liturgy I hope. Surely both kinds must be consecrated separately. By 'pre-intincted' I mean the practice of dobbing a tiny drop of consecrated wine on each consecrated host and letting them dry.
... Which is what we do at the hospital where I work, following discussion with our infection control nurse. The elements are consecrated while still physically separate; those intended for reservation are intincted and set aside; then members of the congreation each intinct their own host in the small amount of the Precious Blood in the chalice (so small that it avoids what often happens with a fuller chalice, with people dipping their fingers as well as the host). On rare occasions, a small amount of wine is consecrated and reserved, for instance if we anticipate being asked to give communion to a patient who can't swallow solids, in which case they're given the Blood.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Recommended by whom? No-one with any knowledge of liturgy I hope. Surely both kinds must be consecrated separately. By 'pre-intincted' I mean the practice of dobbing a tiny drop of consecrated wine on each consecrated host and letting them dry.
Recommended by the hospital chaplaincy team, and you're right about pre-intincted.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Oops! Read in haste, and then too late to edit. Unconsecrated wine is place on unconsecrated wafer, before the service.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Oops! Read in haste, and then too late to edit. Unconsecrated wine is place on unconsecrated wafer, before the service.
To be clear, this liturgical abhorrence was, in fact, on the table during our discussion with the infection control nurse. We'd have done it if we'd been made to do it, though I made it clear we didn't want to do it. My sense of liturgical propriety is slightly outweighed by my desire not to be remembered as the chaplain who killed a patient.
In the event, the infection control nurse was slightly bemused that we were asking her advice at all. The assessment of any risk has to involve asking the question "How often has this happened before?" If the answer is "never" then you should be open to the possibility you're making a fuss over next to nothing.
(Rather like the advice a hospital chaplain was given when their fire officer was getting worried about having candles in chapel - "Ask your fire officer how many burning churches he drives past on his way to work every Monday morning.")
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(Rather like the advice a hospital chaplain was given when their fire officer was getting worried about having candles in chapel - "Ask your fire officer how many burning churches he drives past on his way to work every Monday morning.")
Tangent, but a certain retreat house well-known to me has a draconian policy re (not) lighting candles. So much so that the altar 'candles' are in fact battery operated substitutes.
Last time I was there I lit a big paschal candle as a devotional focus and nothing happened (I mean no alarms went off; I trust some spiritual growth occurred).
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Yes. I'm pondering why it was done that way. I can see obvious risks with a common cup and a quantity of people immunologically vulnerable. Ideally, then one would go for consecration of separate elements and intinction by the president. That would be OK in the chapel, except for the fairly high proportion who wish/expect to receive in the hand.
It wouldn't work for the elements taken round the wards. Where, even if it was reasonable for the president to intinct them, there wouldn't be time for them to dry, so they'd get irretrievably stuck together. I guess somebody thought that receiving in both kinds trumped separate consecration.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(Rather like the advice a hospital chaplain was given when their fire officer was getting worried about having candles in chapel - "Ask your fire officer how many burning churches he drives past on his way to work every Monday morning.")
Tangent, but a certain retreat house well-known to me has a draconian policy re (not) lighting candles. So much so that the altar 'candles' are in fact battery operated substitutes.
Last time I was there I lit a big paschal candle as a devotional focus and nothing happened (I mean no alarms went off; I trust some spiritual growth occurred).
Ah, but remember the Lisbon earthquake: hit on All Saints Day 1755 when all the churches had all their candles lit, and the city went up in flames. You wouldn't want that to happen again, would you?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
I would not want to expose the sick and housebound to wine that was previously in a chalice which people had dribbled into.
We reserve wine in small screw-top containers that are place on the corporal at the offertory and are then put straight into the tabernacle.
Yes yes, but slobbering and dribbling aside, woulkd the mingling of the consecrated and unconsecrated elements make it improper to use it?
Not just improper, invalid, since there would be no consecration of wine at the next euchasrist, it already have been consecrated.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
AIUI there wouldn't be any unconsecrated elements. The wine in the cruets would be consecrated along with the chalice, and then reserved. (Though I have never reserved both kinds separately like this: either - at one incumbent's insistence - the hosts were pre-intincted; or, more usually, we reserved in one kind only. I wonder what the general practice is, in the C of E and elsewhere? I know the RC custom is to reserve in one kind only.)
I read somewhere that official C of E rules (do't know where they come from) demand reservation in both kinds. I wish they didn't as I find it inconvenient.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And to be clear myself, in the RCC throwing away the Sacred Species is a very serious delict, and just pouring It down the plughole - even onto consecrated ground - would normally be seen as just that. Gives me the collywobbles just thinking about it.
Me too - it happens mainly in evangelical churches - but it certainly didn't back in the days when the Prayer Book was followed - there having been rubric after rubric insisting upon 'reverent consumption' after the 1552 version dropped it. Insistence on the ablutions came about as part of the Elizabethan settlement - a compromise to keep catholically-minded on board.
Sadly, it is becoming more widespread and many Anglicans seem not to think it important. I went seriously ballistic when that happened in my church, during a vacancy, after a visiting celebrant left the consecrated elements on the credence table (where they shouldn't have been in the first place). A churchwarden's response was that 'Leo has some odd views about this sort of thing.'
Should this practice become even more widespread, i shall cross the Tiber instead of merely fantasising about it.
[ 10. October 2013, 15:46: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
I watch the person and if they look at me I will look back.
If there is left over bread and wine, and no one is around to help consume it, I soak any bit of bread in the wine and pour both down the Piscina. If no Piscina is available I have gone outside and poured it down into the ground. This is rare, perhaps on Christmas or at a large funeral when you are not sure how many people will be coming forward to receive.
Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Ah, but remember the Lisbon earthquake: hit on All Saints Day 1755 when all the churches had all their candles lit, and the city went up in flames. You wouldn't want that to happen again, would you?
Correlation =/= causation.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And the mingled consecrated and unconsecrated wine could not be reserved for e.g. sick communion for the same reason- the mingling. Correct?
I would not want to expose the sick and housebound to wine that was previously in a chalice which people had dribbled into.
We reserve wine in small screw-top containers that are place on the corporal at the offertory and are then put straight into the tabernacle.
Yes yes, but slobbering and dribbling aside, woulkd the mingling of the consecrated and unconsecrated elements make it improper to use it?
Not just improper, invalid, since there would be no consecration of wine at the next euchasrist, it already have been consecrated.
Sorry, still not making myself clear. Never mind- just idle curiosity.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And to be clear myself, in the RCC throwing away the Sacred Species is a very serious delict, and just pouring It down the plughole - even onto consecrated ground - would normally be seen as just that. Gives me the collywobbles just thinking about it.
Me too - it happens mainly in evangelical churches - but it certainly didn't back in the days when the Prayer Book was followed - there having been rubric after rubric insisting upon 'reverent consumption' after the 1552 version dropped it. Insistence on the ablutions came about as part of the Elizabethan settlement - a compromise to keep catholically-minded on board.
Sadly, it is becoming more widespread and many Anglicans seem not to think it important. I went seriously ballistic when that happened in my church, during a vacancy, after a visiting celebrant left the consecrated elements on the credence table (where they shouldn't have been in the first place). A churchwarden's response was that 'Leo has some odd views about this sort of thing.'
Should this practice become even more widespread, i shall cross the Tiber instead of merely fantasising about it.
IIRC the 1662 Prayer Book makes no comment about ablutions, merely about consumption of remaining elements. It has two things to say about consecrated elements which are not used in the service quote:
When all have communicated, the Minister shall return to the Lord's Table, and reverently place upon it what remaineth of the consecrated Elements, covering the same with a fair linen cloth.
and quote:
And if any of the Bread and Wine remain<snip> of that which was consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the Church, but the Priest, and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him, shall, immediately after the Blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.
If anything the impression given is that ablutions will not take place until after the end of the service.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
The 'ablutions' are just a reverent way of ensuring that all that remains is consumed. Be that as it may, the BCP certainly doesn't envisage leaving the Blessed Sacrament lying around on credence tables or poured down sinks.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
AIUI there wouldn't be any unconsecrated elements. The wine in the cruets would be consecrated along with the chalice, and then reserved. (Though I have never reserved both kinds separately like this: either - at one incumbent's insistence - the hosts were pre-intincted; or, more usually, we reserved in one kind only. I wonder what the general practice is, in the C of E and elsewhere? I know the RC custom is to reserve in one kind only.)
I read somewhere that official C of E rules (do't know where they come from) demand reservation in both kinds. I wish they didn't as I find it inconvenient.
There are no CofE rules on reservation - other than the ones that arguably ban it. The rule you are talking about is the one that says that communion must be in both kinds except in cases of necessity. And inconvenience is not necessity.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The 'rules' I was thinking about are in our diocesan handbook - since it is up to each diocesan bishop.
The inconvenience is that it is easy to carry a pyx in my pocket to use during calls where needed during a day.
With consecrated wine, it necessitates a small chalice, carried around with the cruet and pyx in a little case and returned to the tabernacle at the end of each day - lots of extra journeys.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The 'rules' I was thinking about are in our diocesan handbook - since it is up to each diocesan bishop.
The inconvenience is that it is easy to carry a pyx in my pocket to use during calls where needed during a day.
With consecrated wine, it necessitates a small chalice, carried around with the cruet and pyx in a little case and returned to the tabernacle at the end of each day - lots of extra journeys.
If it's up to each diocesan bishop, then I don't see how there can be quote:
official C of E rules
s.8 of the Sacrament Act, 1547 (the only un-repealed section) states that quote:
that the saide moste blessed sacrament be hereafter commenlie delivered and ministred unto the people, within this Churche of Englande and Irelande and other the Kings Dominions, under bothe the Kyndes, that is to saie of breade and wyne, excepte necessitie otherwise require
So basically "wot ken said"
Presumably the diocesan handbook's rules are merely to ensure that the law is observed.
Indeed the only necessity I have ever encountered which has compelled me to administer the sacrament in one kind, is an inability to swallow even a small morsel of wafer. Then I have given wine only - a tiny drop.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
But presumably the Sacrament Act was referring to celebrations of the Holy Communion, not the taking of the reserved sacrament to the sick and housebound.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
It's the same thing. Servers are distributing communion to the congregation. It's just some of them are further away than others so it takes longer to get there.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
[QUOTE]...
Indeed the only necessity I have ever encountered which has compelled me to administer the sacrament in one kind, is an inability to swallow even a small morsel of wafer. Then I have given wine only - a tiny drop.
You managed to avoid all that sodding about with bread only during the swine flu flap a few years ago, then?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It's the same thing. Servers are distributing communion to the congregation. It's just some of them are further away than others so it takes longer to get there.
Servers at St Sanity prepare the chalices and so forth. Assistants prepare the altar and distribute.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It's the same thing. Servers are distributing communion to the congregation. It's just some of them are further away than others so it takes longer to get there.
And there is the danger of spilling the wine on the journey. I don't think intinction is a substitute: either you 'drink this' or you don't.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But presumably the Sacrament Act was referring to celebrations of the Holy Communion, not the taking of the reserved sacrament to the sick and housebound.
I linked to the full text of the Act. It doesn't say it is restricted to the time of celebration. The 1662 BCP is, of course, rather later, but its only provision is for a celebration in the presence of the sick.
Pastorally, I find the housebound tend to prefer something as near to a 'service' as can be managed. Laying out a corporal, chalice, paten and purificator and handling the elements with, I hope evident, respect is one way of enabling their sickbed or living room to become for them a "thin place", and of showing my seriousness and commitment to sharing the sacrament with them. It also gives some tiny symbolic substance to the idea that what we are doing in someone's private room is part of their participation in the worshipping life of the congregation they belong to and indeed of the whole Church.
By the same token I always receive when I take communion to someone, and if there are family or friends present, then I invite them if they wish to be part of the service.
The outstandingly memorable occasions of doing this have been at the bedside of a person apparently in extremis, and not at all 'with it', with close family alongside and all of us becoming aware that the person we thought was completely out of it was joining in the prayers. In those circumstances administering bread was not practicable, a drop of wine on the lips was OK.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
[QUOTE]...
Indeed the only necessity I have ever encountered which has compelled me to administer the sacrament in one kind, is an inability to swallow even a small morsel of wafer. Then I have given wine only - a tiny drop.
You managed to avoid all that sodding about with bread only during the swine flu flap a few years ago, then?
Yup. The PCC discussed it. We introduced alcohol gel sanitizer for the president and administrants. We encouraged people to avoid the chalice if they were concerned that they might have an infection, were immunologically compromised, or felt concerned that they might acquire an infection. We warned against self-intinction. A small number avoided the chalice. People were sensible about the risk their own health might pose to others, and we were in a low risk area anyway.
We recognised that the Peace represented a higher risk to people, but that in a situation where people might be handing books to each other, touching pews in the same place etc. etc. the real solution was for individuals to pay attention to their own personal hygiene. But again we expressly gave liberty to people not to share the Peace if they had a concern, and to not feel bad about it in consequence.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But presumably the Sacrament Act was referring to celebrations of the Holy Communion, not the taking of the reserved sacrament to the sick and housebound.
I linked to the full text of the Act. It doesn't say it is restricted to the time of celebration. The 1662 BCP is, of course, rather later, but its only provision is for a celebration in the presence of the sick.
Pastorally, I find the housebound tend to prefer something as near to a 'service' as can be managed. Laying out a corporal, chalice, paten and purificator and handling the elements with, I hope evident, respect is one way of enabling their sickbed or living room to become for them a "thin place", and of showing my seriousness and commitment to sharing the sacrament with them. It also gives some tiny symbolic substance to the idea that what we are doing in someone's private room is part of their participation in the worshipping life of the congregation they belong to and indeed of the whole Church.
By the same token I always receive when I take communion to someone, and if there are family or friends present, then I invite them if they wish to be part of the service.
The outstandingly memorable occasions of doing this have been at the bedside of a person apparently in extremis, and not at all 'with it', with close family alongside and all of us becoming aware that the person we thought was completely out of it was joining in the prayers. In those circumstances administering bread was not practicable, a drop of wine on the lips was OK.
I agree with you about the setting up and also receiving with the person.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
[QUOTE]...
Indeed the only necessity I have ever encountered which has compelled me to administer the sacrament in one kind, is an inability to swallow even a small morsel of wafer. Then I have given wine only - a tiny drop.
You managed to avoid all that sodding about with bread only during the swine flu flap a few years ago, then?
Yup. The PCC discussed it. We introduced alcohol gel sanitizer for the president and administrants. We encouraged people to avoid the chalice if they were concerned that they might have an infection, were immunologically compromised, or felt concerned that they might acquire an infection. We warned against self-intinction. A small number avoided the chalice. People were sensible about the risk their own health might pose to others, and we were in a low risk area anyway.
We recognised that the Peace represented a higher risk to people, but that in a situation where people might be handing books to each other, touching pews in the same place etc. etc. the real solution was for individuals to pay attention to their own personal hygiene. But again we expressly gave liberty to people not to share the Peace if they had a concern, and to not feel bad about it in consequence.
Good on you.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
So. To summarize.
If I pour out consecrated wine onto consecrated ground I'm an Evangelical Anglican?
And If I don't look people in the eye distributing communion I'm a catholic Anglican?
I guess that makes me nicely Anglican.
[ 13. October 2013, 12:48: Message edited by: Evensong ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0