Ship of Fools: Double-consecration

Thread: Double-consecration 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=030374

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Does it matter if the elements of the Eucharist have been consecrated before?

Let me give a semi-hypothetical(!) example...

Let's say that on a Sunday morning, the priest discovers that there is no communion wine left, because the members of the altar guild forgot to re-order. Let us all imagine that there was, in the aumbry, a small quantity of previously consecrated wine (sufficient for the 8:00am BCP service).

Should the priest:

a) Just carry on with the full Eucharistic Prayer, even though the wine is already consecrated

b) Pause at the relevant place in the Eucharistic Prayer and make up something on the spot to acknowledge the pre-consecrated nature of the wine

c) Skip that part of the EP altogether and just move on swiftly

d) Give up, go home and have a stiff drink.....

Posted by Offeiriad (# 14031) on :

d is tempting, but I would do a.

I've always found it theologically odd that you can apparently consecrate one species without the other - I suppose if you run out during administration you could argue that the provided formula is an extension of the Eucharistic Prayer said a few minutes previously. Certainly a eucharist service requires a Eucharistic Prayer!

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

Maybe he could add some water to the wine and then say the eucharistic prayer over it conditionally (sotto voce "if this be not already . . .").

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

e) consecrate the bread and then just use the already consecrated wine?

(we had a huge number of consecrated wafers left over from Easter, so on low Sunday, we consecrated about ten and added them to the reserved wafers which used them up nicely)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

We have a large congregation, and I shudder to confide to you how much wine we suck through every week, and wafers too. After building and personnel salaries, this is surely the biggest item on our budget.
Therefore, to save money, we do recycle. The wine in the chalices does get poured into the earth sink. But the wine in the flagons (six big ones, OMG) gets poured back into bottles and saved for the next Eucharist. Wafers are also saved and re-run.
The only pickiness about the consecration is when I fill the little flagon that is set aside for the visitation ministry. Those ministers fill the little bottle in the visitation kits from this flagon, and I take care to refill it with wine that has definitely been consecrated.
Otherwise, our philosophy seems to be that additional consecrations piled up on top of the first one do no harm at all. (Mysteriously this not apply to baptisms or consecrations; you only get one each of those.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.

Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.

No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
e) consecrate the bread and then just use the already consecrated wine?

How about f) Pop home, or ask a congregant who lives nearby to pop home, and fetch a decent bottle.
It seems unlikely that you're in a situation where wine can't be acquired.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

As Lutherans, we have no strict thought-out analyzed theology of what exactly happens when at the Lord's Supper, bar the fact of the Real Presence itself. So we follow the practice of "better safe than sorry" [Eek!]

and we consecrate both bread and wine whenever we are having communion, regardless of whether one or both have been served in this way before. (For example, my son and I, due to various commitments, rarely make it to Vietnamese service on time to participate with the rest of the congregation; so when we come in at the tail end of the service (usually after the last Amen), Mr. Lamb will say the Words of Institution again, so we can hear them, and then give us the bread and wine. I doubt the Lord minds, and it is a help toward faith.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If we had to have brand-new wine, and wafers fresh from the packet, at every Eucharist, the costs would quintuple. We have 3 or 4 services every Sunday, always with a Eucharist. At Easter and on Christmas Eve we may do as many as 8 or 9. The consumption of wine has dropped, slightly, with intinction -- during an especially bad flu season a couple years ago the clergy urged it from the pulpit. But we still burn through an incredible quantity every week.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.

Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.

No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.

Agreed. But supposing you weren't sure whether some bread or wine had been consecrated, could you / should you 'conditionally' consecrate it?

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
. . . The consumption of wine has dropped, slightly, with intinction -- during an especially bad flu season a couple years ago the clergy urged it from the pulpit. . .

At the last scare (bird flu?) C of E clergy were told intinction was more dangerous / less hygienic than sharing the cup (as well as being illegal).

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
At the last scare (bird flu?) C of E clergy were told intinction was more dangerous / less hygienic than sharing the cup (as well as being illegal).

Indeed. We have in our diocese advice that intinction should be discouraged, including a leaflet that's left in the pews about it, and that hands are a vector of infection perhaps worse than the common cup. There was at one point a helpful page I thought from Diocese of Toronto, but I haven't located it just now.

As for conditionally consecrating, when I was a lay assistant, this is precisely the solution that was tendered three bishops ago.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

How is intinction more contagious than sipping? I am assuming that the dippers are not dunking the wafer in to the first knuckle, but only bobbing it in half way.

Posted by Peter Owen (# 134) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
How is intinction more contagious than sipping? I am assuming that the dippers are not dunking the wafer in to the first knuckle, but only bobbing it in half way.

You've obviously never administered the chalice in a church where some people intinct.

Posted by Corvo (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
How is intinction more contagious than sipping? I am assuming that the dippers are not dunking the wafer in to the first knuckle, but only bobbing it in half way.

There are apparently more active germs on the hand (especially after sharing the Peace). Dippers always shake the host (and therefore their hands) over the wine.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Intinction is also bad news for coeliacs wanting to receive only the wine, as it contaminates the chalice (and yes, contamination makes coeliacs genuinely ill).

I remember my church swapping to intinction when swine flu was around though, so some wires must have got crossed somewhere.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Intinction is also bad news for coeliacs wanting to receive only the wine, as it contaminates the chalice (and yes, contamination makes coeliacs genuinely ill).

Which is why gluten-free bread, if permitted by a church's discipline, and the chalice for those who need to be gluten-free must always be kept separate from other patens and chalices, especially if intinction is added to the mix.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
e) consecrate the bread and then just use the already consecrated wine?
How about f) Pop home, or ask a congregant who lives nearby to pop home, and fetch a decent bottle.
It seems unlikely that you're in a situation where wine can't be acquired.

Ummm....

Let us imagine (purely hypothetically of course) that neither the priest nor the server noticed that the altar guild hadn't prepared the wine (although everything else was set up) until half way through the service.....
[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:
At the last scare (bird flu?) C of E clergy were told intinction was more dangerous / less hygienic than sharing the cup (as well as being illegal).
Indeed. We have in our diocese advice that intinction should be discouraged, including a leaflet that's left in the pews about it, and that hands are a vector of infection perhaps worse than the common cup. There was at one point a helpful page I thought from Diocese of Toronto, but I haven't located it just now.

This is a tangent, but I HAVE an electronic version of the Toronto advice. What puzzles me is that I can find NO research that actually backs up their assertions. At one point, intinction was being recommended as an alternative to sharing the common cup. Then - and seemingly without any solid evidence to justify it - intinction was discouraged. And we have now reached the point where it seems to be taken for granted among church hierarchy that this matter is resolved and intinction is to be strongly discouraged.

Seriously - if someone could point me in the direction of good research into this issue, I would be very appreciative. I am often asked why the bishop has so clearly discouraged a practice that many members of the congregation had become accustomed to.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.

Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.

No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.

Other than your own cast-iron certainties, on what do you base this sweeping claim?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yes, I find it difficult to believe that lips are less germy than hands. And, if the alcohol in the wine is germ-killing, this ought to hold for intinction as well.

The logical solution to this is the Lutheran practice of stacks of little pre-poured cups.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Which is why gluten-free bread, if permitted by a church's discipline, and the chalice for those who need to be gluten-free

Our shack does gluten-free folks first, so there's no possibility of human error involving the wrong chalice.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Other than your own cast-iron certainties, on what do you base this sweeping claim?

Our RC brethren, who have a canon for every occasion, no doubt have some explicit canonical statement somewhere saying just that.

In Anglican-land, I have encountered no form of authorized service anywhere which admits the possibility of a Eucharist without wine. There is a provision to consecrate extra of just one species, but that is very much set within a context of a mass containing the initial consecration of both species.

That the Most Precious Blood cannot be re-consecrated is, I think, self-evident to anyone with a "high" sacramental view. For a memorialist (and I have heard stories here of left-over wine being poured back into the bottle for re-use next week - although not, I think, from Anglicans) perhaps it's not important.

Here's a solution g):

If you have consecrated wine in the aumbry, it is probable that you also have consecrated bread. It would therefore seem open to you to have communion from the reserved sacrament at your small 8am service, and nip out for a bottle afterwards.

[ 25. May 2015, 23:20: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

e. Go to the store and buy some wine.
f. Do MP.
g. Use the reserve sacrament as in if doing a season's mass.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The church I attend is Anglican. The Altar Guild essentially does whatever the clergy wants. Change comes from them, not us. (Fixing, now fixing comes from us. I spend all my time twitching stoles so that they hang symmetrically and even.)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

Therefore, to save money, we do recycle. The wine in the chalices does get poured into the earth sink. But the wine in the flagons (six big ones, OMG) gets poured back into bottles and saved for the next Eucharist. Wafers are also saved and re-run.

I don't understand why this is a bigger problem because of your large congregation. If you routinely have enough left-over wine that it makes a significant financial difference to pour it back into bottles at the end of the service, you are consecrating too much.

Use less.

Horrific abuse aside, if you're aiming to save money, reduce is better than reuse.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Using wee cuppies is not exclusively Lutheran--in fact, we tend to prefer the common cup, though you'll usually find it offered both ways at a service. As for re-consecration excluding a high view of the Real Presence--well, you aren't going to get higher than what we believe, it's just that we don't think God sweats the small stuff in cases of necessity and/or human error. The same Christ who allowed his body and blood to be horribly treated and splashed about with abandon on Calvary is unlikely to have a hissy fit if a pastor or priest inadvertently mistakes the best way of dealing with a Eucharistic shortage, IMHO.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

We very rarely reserve the precious blood anyway, so I don't see this arising, but in this situation, you could not have a Roman Catholic Mass. Consecrated 'wine' isn't wine. A Mass needs bread and wine. You don't have wine, ergo no Mass.

If I was in the situation of having no wine, but having reserved precious blood, then you could indeed do as someone suggested and have what we call a Communion Service (ie. Liturgy of the Word plus administration of reserved sacrament). I'm finding it hard to imagine a situation in which you have this, but you can't purloin some wine from somewhere, even if it means a slight delay.

Curiously, I would have thought a Lutheran would have no cause for compunction about 'reconsecrating.' If you're a consubstantiationalist, then consecrated wine really is wine (as well as being the precious blood), so it's valid matter for consecration.

[ 26. May 2015, 02:42: Message edited by: Adam. ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The same Christ who allowed his body and blood to be horribly treated and splashed about with abandon on Calvary is unlikely to have a hissy fit if a pastor or priest inadvertently mistakes the best way of dealing with a Eucharistic shortage, IMHO.

Sure - but we should offer Him the best we can, which IMO includes trying to do our best with the small stuff.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

[tangent]

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
This is a tangent, but I HAVE an electronic version of the Toronto advice. What puzzles me is that I can find NO research that actually backs up their assertions.

With searching I found a link on this page, which may be what you have? It lacks the actual reference to bacterial counts, dead and alive that the original much longer document had. This also from the Anglican Church of Canada website also lacks some of the data I recall, but I see in the footnotes some references that may represent the info.

[/tangent]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, I find it difficult to believe that lips are less germy than hands.

Think about it. Our hands come into far more contact with unclean surfaces than our lips do. Unclean surfaces can be as mundane as door handles or computer keyboards. Even if your hands are clean, you may have shaken hands with someone who is less hygienic. 80% of germs are transmitted by our hands.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.

Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.

No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.

Ahem. This argument works if you are an RC but not if you are CofE- Article XXVIII: Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

I think one can agree with leo's argument without the "real presence" clause. Well, I can: I don't see how there could a second consecration without overthrowing the meaning of consecration.

And I can't get my head round the idea that in an anglican church wine is a major expense: just looked at the last couple of years accounts of our 15-masses-a-week operation and see that Bread and Wine cost approx 700 pounds out of a total expenditure of about 90,000 pounds.

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If we had to have brand-new wine, and wafers fresh from the packet, at every Eucharist, the costs would quintuple. We have 3 or 4 services every Sunday, always with a Eucharist. At Easter and on Christmas Eve we may do as many as 8 or 9. The consumption of wine has dropped, slightly, with intinction -- during an especially bad flu season a couple years ago the clergy urged it from the pulpit. But we still burn through an incredible quantity every week.

I agree with the consensus here. According to how the Episcopal Church understands Communion, your parish isn't really celebrating the Eucharist if there isn't fresh bread and fresh wine. If you regularly consecrate so much more than you need for a service, why not reserve it till the next service, and at that service only consecrate a token amount of bread and wine, maybe a priest's host and a sip of wine for her or him. Then you could communicate everybody else from the reserved sacrament that was consecrated at the previous service. I would think this is how most churches would handle the problem you lay out. It happens all the time, and I've never heard of a church "reconsecrating" anything.

All this being said, however, as you say, it's up to the clergy, and you have little say in it.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yeah, I assure you that nobody asks me.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
I think one can agree with leo's argument without the "real presence" clause. Well, I can: I don't see how there could a second consecration without overthrowing the meaning of consecration.

And I can't get my head round the idea that in an anglican church wine is a major expense: just looked at the last couple of years accounts of our 15-masses-a-week operation and see that Bread and Wine cost approx 700 pounds out of a total expenditure of about 90,000 pounds.

I figure that a C$20 bottle of generic quality wine or even port at C$20, with a bottle each Sunday, would add up to about C$1,100. Even doubling that would be C$2,000 which is not a huge amount out of a typical mid-range parish budget of C$150K-C$250K. BulldogChristian's summation of the consensus looks pretty sound to me.

I do not want to open this tangent (there have been threads on this in the past) but transubstantion is but one explanation of the Real Presence-- there are others around. And (also referencing other threads in the past), the XXXIX articles have no juridicial authority in many Anglican churches and this particular article has been superseded by canons and liturgies in several Anglican churches.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, I find it difficult to believe that lips are less germy than hands.
Think about it. Our hands come into far more contact with unclean surfaces than our lips do. Unclean surfaces can be as mundane as door handles or computer keyboards. Even if your hands are clean, you may have shaken hands with someone who is less hygienic. 80% of germs are transmitted by our hands.

During the swine flu episode we were advised to intinct BUT the advice was that only the person administering the chalice was to do it – not to have everybody’s hand in the cup.

I am constantly reading that our computer keyboards hold more germs than pour toilet seats and these germs come from our hands. – and knowing the hygiene levels of some of our congregation I don’t want to think about their germs being shed into the cup…

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

FFS people, stop being so namby pamby. Where are the verified cases of significant incidence of illness, not during pandemics, acquired by sharing tne common cup?

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
During the swine flu episode we were advised to intinct BUT the advice was that only the person administering the chalice was to do it – not to have everybody’s hand in the cup.

In our diocese we were told to only receive in one kind and that only the celebrant would drink from the cup. Those administering the host were to apply hand sanitiser before the administration.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
During the swine flu episode we were advised to intinct BUT the advice was that only the person administering the chalice was to do it – not to have everybody’s hand in the cup.

In our diocese we were told to only receive in one kind and that only the celebrant would drink from the cup. Those administering the host were to apply hand sanitiser before the administration.

Ditto for our diocese. Although there were huge numbers of people (some with extensive medical experience) who really didn't like that.

Part of the problem was that so much attention was being placed on something which was relatively "low risk". As a retired nurse pointed out to me, if we're that bothered about the risks of catching swine flu, we shouldn't be coming outside anyway. We certainly shouldn't be greeting our friends or sharing the peace or almost anything. Of all the things you do in church, sharing the chalice by no means carries the highest risks of catching a disease.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.

Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.

No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Ahem. This argument works if you are an RC but not if you are CofE- Article XXVIII: Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

That being so, Calvin. Luther and the C of E believe(d0 in the 'real presence', however defined (or not defines).

That is why the (1662 and all subsequent) rubrics insist that leftover consecrated elements should be 'reverently consumed.'

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
During the swine flu episode we were advised to intinct BUT the advice was that only the person administering the chalice was to do it – not to have everybody’s hand in the cup.

In our diocese we were told to only receive in one kind and that only the celebrant would drink from the cup. Those administering the host were to apply hand sanitiser before the administration.

Yes too to the hand santitizer - though people still insisted on sharing the peace which rather defeated the object

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Corvo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.

Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.

No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Agreed. But supposing you weren't sure whether some bread or wine had been consecrated, could you / should you 'conditionally' consecrate it?

I guess so - in fact i have witnessed that, albeit pover 30 years ago but it sticks in my mind. We had some Latvian Lutherans use our church for some special service. Hardly any of them communicated so there were 3 full chalices left on the altar.

Being anglo-catholic and sceptical of protestant, non-episcopally ordained ministers, the vicar took the chalices to the vestry. For the next three Sundays, he put one of the chalices on the corporal and consecrated another, very small, chalice of fresh wine.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.

Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.

No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Ahem. This argument works if you are an RC but not if you are CofE- Article XXVIII: Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

Fair enough. However, based on the theology of the 39 Articles reserving the leftover wine in the first place is problematic. I also don't understand the people who have a problem with Benediction but not keeping watch in front of an altar of repose from Maundy Thursday until Good Friday. If Jesus is really present on that altar, then what's wrong with benediction. If Jesus is not really present on that altar, why are you awake in the wee hours of the morning sitting in front of tasteless bread and cheap wine?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, AIUI Real Presence does not necessarily imply transubstantiation. If you believe in some kind of consubstantiation then you believe that the wine is both Blood and wine.

[ 26. May 2015, 20:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

... and for what it's worth, Lutherans are not technically consubstantiationalists, as we decline to make any statement about what's going on beyond the bare text "this is my body" etc. and also the bits that refer to it as wine and bread. So one may theorize the Lutheran position is similar to consubstantiationalism, but not get any confirmation of it--because this is an area where we prefer to keep our lips (and logic) zipped.

That attitude explains why we don't fuss about whether there is consecratable matter still existing after a first consecration. We figure that as human beings we really don't know much at all of what God is doing during the Eucharist, only the bare promise we've been given--so we try to cling to that like little children and not give in the temptation to theorize beyond our knowledge.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, I find it difficult to believe that lips are less germy than hands.
Think about it. Our hands come into far more contact with unclean surfaces than our lips do. Unclean surfaces can be as mundane as door handles or computer keyboards. Even if your hands are clean, you may have shaken hands with someone who is less hygienic. 80% of germs are transmitted by our hands.

And saliva is anti-bacterial. There is a reason animals lick their wounds.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Seriously - if someone could point me in the direction of good research into this issue, I would be very appreciative. I am often asked why the bishop has so clearly discouraged a practice that many members of the congregation had become accustomed to.

The Holy Spirit moved in a wise but mysterious way.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.

No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.

In Roman Catholic theology, this statement is not quite correct.

As far as the (Roman) Catholic Church is concerned, it would be correct to say that there would be no Mass in such a case - as the Sacrifice requires both species to be consecrated, notwithstanding the doctrine of concomitance - but not correct to say that there would be no vaild consecration of the host.

Having said that, it is considered amongst the most heinous of priestly delicts deliberately to consecrate one species only (until recently, punishable by excommunication).

[ 27. May 2015, 19:58: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
FFS people, stop being so namby pamby. Where are the verified cases of significant incidence of illness, not during pandemics, acquired by sharing tne common cup?

Yes but some of us are choosy who we share our bodily fluids with. A few of us are very choosy indeed.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

The earth is the Lord's and everything in it.

Does that mean that all things are consecrated already and don't therefore need a specific act?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
FFS people, stop being so namby pamby. Where are the verified cases of significant incidence of illness, not during pandemics, acquired by sharing tne common cup?
Yes but some of us are choosy who we share our bodily fluids with. A few of us are very choosy indeed.

Well of course, I can see that if you do have some infectious and loathsome condition, EM, it is only right to be choosy who you share your bodily fluids with. Very public-spirited of you. But whatever it is that you are suffering from, I hope that it clears up soon. [Biased]

(Actually this reminded me of that lovely line in Clueless where the heroine explains why she is, to her friend's surprise, still a virgin : 'But of course. You know how choosy I am about shoes, and they only go on my feet'.

[ 03. June 2015, 20:41: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
FFS people, stop being so namby pamby. Where are the verified cases of significant incidence of illness, not during pandemics, acquired by sharing tne common cup?
Yes but some of us are choosy who we share our bodily fluids with. A few of us are very choosy indeed.
Well of course, I can see that if you do have some infectious and loathsome condition, EM, it is only right to be choosy who you share your bodily fluids with. Very public-spirited of you. But whatever it is that you are suffering from, I hope that it clears up soon.

(Actually this reminded me of that lovely line in Clueless where the heroine explains why she is, to her friend's surprise, still a virgin : 'But of course. You know how choosy I am about shoes, and they only go on my feet'.

Significant bits of me are loathsome - so I wouldn't want to inflict them on others. Little hope of it clearing up (at least in this life), I'm afraid to say.

When it comes to the bodily fluids of others, that's when the yuk sets in ..... let alone the lipstcik et al on the cup!

Suffice to say that Mrs M and the 3 Misses M (now Mrs B, Mrs B and Mrs A), will never share a common cup with anyone else in a church service. Perhaps the fact that they are all employed in the NHS gives them a kind of gnostic understanding of the dangers.

Certainly Mrs B (the middle ex Miss EM) would wipe all surfaces used by more than one person if she could - and that includes the pavement. I'm sure her employers, a major UK hospital trust, values her work as an Infection Control Specialist Nurse overseeing ITU, CC, ITC etc.. I'm sure she knows stuff I don't about cross infection.

[ 04. June 2015, 11:47: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Actually, teasing aside, am I right in thinking that anyway it's your tradition to use 'wee cuppies'? Don't know much about Baptist communion practices, I'm afraid.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

The vast majority of Baptist churches do, indeed, use the little cups. They can be made of glass, occasionally metal or even clear plastic (these are intended to be disposal; however they might be washed and reused!)

I have occasionally come across chalices, usually in more informal worship settings and often made of pottery rather than metal. These would often accompany a "real loaf of bread" from which people tear chunks, rather than the antiseptic little cubes of Wonderloaf which are often used. (Wafers are very rare).

[ 04. June 2015, 15:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

May I ask a dumb question? How in the world do they manage to create those little cubes of Wonder bread anyway? Is there some special bread slicing machine or something? I ask because in my experience bread (even pseudo-bread) crumbles/mushes horribly when you try to slice it that small.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
May I ask a dumb question? How in the world do they manage to create those little cubes of Wonder bread anyway? Is there some special bread slicing machine or something? I ask because in my experience bread (even pseudo-bread) crumbles/mushes horribly when you try to slice it that small.

Take a loaf of sliced bread. Take one sharp knife (carving knife size)

Put slice of bread on bread board - knife on bread, press down hard. Repeat with cross cuts to get small cubes. Easy.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

When I was young, I sometimes used to worship in a "Brethren" assembly. This always centred around the Lord's Table. At a crucial moment, an Elder would come to the Table, pick up the (whole) loaf of bread and break it into two halves to place on two plates which would then be circulated. It always amazed me how he could do this - until I discovered that the loaf was pre-cut, three-quarters of the way through, before the service!

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
When I was young, I sometimes used to worship in a "Brethren" assembly. This always centred around the Lord's Table. At a crucial moment, an Elder would come to the Table, pick up the (whole) loaf of bread and break it into two halves to place on two plates which would then be circulated. It always amazed me how he could do this - until I discovered that the loaf was pre-cut, three-quarters of the way through, before the service!

Good grief - first Matisse-gate, now this. How can you trust anyone in this world?!

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
When I was young, I sometimes used to worship in a "Brethren" assembly. This always centred around the Lord's Table. At a crucial moment, an Elder would come to the Table, pick up the (whole) loaf of bread and break it into two halves to place on two plates which would then be circulated. It always amazed me how he could do this - until I discovered that the loaf was pre-cut, three-quarters of the way through, before the service!

Aaaah he's not been shown how to do it! Try holding the loaf with the 1st two fingers of each hand underneath it. At the moment of consecration/thanksgiving stab the fingers into the base of the loaf and pull apart.

Two halves! Simples - can be repeated as necessary.

[Mind you I have now moved on to a) wrenching flower pots apart b) bending 6 inch nails.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The mass is not valid unless you consecrate bread and wine.

Since the real presence is for ever, you cannot 're'consecrate.

No fresh wine, no consecration, no mass.
Ahem. This argument works if you are an RC but not if you are CofE- Article XXVIII: Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
Fair enough. However, based on the theology of the 39 Articles reserving the leftover wine in the first place is problematic. I also don't understand the people who have a problem with Benediction but not keeping watch in front of an altar of repose from Maundy Thursday until Good Friday. If Jesus is really present on that altar, then what's wrong with benediction. If Jesus is not really present on that altar, why are you awake in the wee hours of the morning sitting in front of tasteless bread and cheap wine?

Thanks for the reminder of the Articles Albertus. I had another look.

The Article states we partake in the body and blood of Christ in an "heavenly and spiritual manner". How does that equate with "Real Presence".?

And something else I'd forgotten: " The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up or worshipped". Fascinating! We've always had reserve sacrament at all the Anglican parishes I've been in. How does that work? Indeed technically the OP's question about re-consecration would be invalid because technically we're not suppose to reserve.

Ya wha........?

Or is this simply a case of the 39 Articles being "guiders" rather than strict rules?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

And you have the Black Rubric to contend with as well:

quote:
Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling; (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved: It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.

[ 07. June 2015, 12:00: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The Article states we partake in the body and blood of Christ in an "heavenly and spiritual manner". How does that equate with "Real Presence".?

This shows the Reformed influence on the 39 Articles, as this is the classic Reformed understanding. A spiritual presence is no less "real" than a physical one.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

I think that it is getting time to revise the 39 Articles, since they do not reflect the current understanding of the Eucharist in the Anglican Communion.
Reservation,Elevation are normal liturgical practises with the Anglicans.
Even Benediction and Procession of the Blessed Sacrament are not unusual,I have witnessed them in several C.of.E.Cathedrals.
Not to forget the cathedrals outside the U.K.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Given that the 39 Articles no longer have any authority anywhere within the Anglican Communion AFAIK, I'm not sure it matters! The most that can be said is that they represent an opinion that was present in the Church of England in the sixteenth century which the authorities at the time wanted to enforce. There is no problem with taking them into account as part of one's heritage, but they are certainly not binding.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
I think that it is getting time to revise the 39 Articles, since they do not reflect the current understanding of the Eucharist in the Anglican Communion.
Reservation,Elevation are normal liturgical practises with the Anglicans.
Even Benediction and Procession of the Blessed Sacrament are not unusual,I have witnessed them in several C.of.E.Cathedrals.
Not to forget the cathedrals outside the U.K.

As with many things, this can vary. Reservation (often done very quietly, without tabernacles and perhaps even in the sacristy) is found among some Episcopal churches in these parts, but not in all. Benediction and a Procession of the Blessed Sacrament would very unusual around here—not normal at all.

As for Eucharistic understandings, a variety of viewpoints are found among Episcopalians around here. Some are very much in line with the 39 Articles, others are very Oxford Movement, and others are in between or even somewhat memorialist.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

The Eucharistic Prayers of the 1979 BCP are more in line with the Oxford Movement than with the 39 articles.
My American friends have told me that the 39 Aricles are regarded as an historical document,not relevant any more.
It could be that they are relevant for the Anglican Church in North America.
The US E.P.s do not reflect any memorialist view just the opposite Real Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The Eucharistic Prayers of the 1979 BCP are more in line with the Oxford Movement than with the 39 articles. . . .
The US E.P.s do not reflect any memorialist view just the opposite Real Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice.

True up to a point, though there is still language, particularly in Rite I, that reflects an understanding closer to the 39 Articles. As with many things Anglican, there is some balance and compromise.

But in any event, I was talking about the variety of viewpoints that can be found, or at least that I have encountered, among Episcopalians, not the teachings reflected in the BCP.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The Eucharistic Prayers of the 1979 BCP are more in line with the Oxford Movement than with the 39 articles.
My American friends have told me that the 39 Aricles are regarded as an historical document,not relevant any more.
It could be that they are relevant for the Anglican Church in North America.
The US E.P.s do not reflect any memorialist view just the opposite Real Presence and Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Just to be clear (and this is a tangent) neither the Anglican CHurch of Canada nor the Anglican church in Mexico, nor for that matter the ANglican churches in Bermuda and the province of the West Indies -- all of which are part of the Anglican CHurch in North America -- are in any way affected by what the Episcopal CHurch of the US has in its Prayer Book or by its attitude to the 39 Articles.

As it happens, they are widely considered in the ACC to be simply historical artifacts, but they continue to be printed in the official BCP (not altered since 1959), and I don't know if there is in fact any formal statement about them since 1959.

Canadians and other non-US North Americans tend to be a little touchy about these things.

John

[ 08. June 2015, 01:11: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Lutherans take a different approach. The elements are consecrated for just the one service alone. If wine is left over from a previous service it is no more consecrated than the wine just poured from the bottle. (I agree the wine in the chalice should be totally consumed or poured out on the ground--I am talking about wine left over in the flagon).

Now, when it comes to communing shut ins we fudge a little. We take the elements of the previous service to share with the sick and shut in with the understanding they are still paricipating in that mass. Still, I will say the words of consecreation, just to assure my people they are partaking of the body and blod

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0