Ship of Fools: Too much wine

Thread: Too much wine 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=030495

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

This may be a topic for ecclesiantics, since it asks a legitimate question about protocol. However, it is meant to be a fun thread and all answers are welcome.

Last week we had a visiting clergy person as our own reverend was on holiday. There was a major miscalculation of the amount of wine needed for the communion (mainly because many people there now intinct rather than drink). Therefore, there was about half a chalice left after the communion. As our visiting clergy was driving home, they declined to drink the excess. The two servers protested that they were also driving home, but since it was not far, they were persuaded to drink up. They admitted to feeling slightly tipsy afterwards, but I can confirm that they got home safely and without being arrested.

At another church I attend sometimes, there are two young boys who serve. Usually there is also an adult, but sometimes it is just the boys. Since they cannot drink up the remaining wine due to their age, what would happen if the clergy person could not drink the remaining wine because they had to drive home?

Could we, perhaps, offer seconds to the congregation? Suggestions, please.

Another thing I've been thinking about is this. The question of having left over wine is not addressed in the epistles, although the one about people not leaving enough is (Corinthians). If there was any wine left over, did they consume it in a leisurely fashion while discussing the spiritual question of the day, rather than downing it as fast as possible, as is today's practice?

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

Can't answer for the Corinthians, but in a former parish when there was a significant amount of left-over Second Species, one of the clergy would come back to the rail and summon 3 or 4 of the adult choristers, saying 'drink as much as you can.'

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Is it not OK to pour the consecrated wine out onto the earth? I.e., not down the drain into the sewage system.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

In many church sacristies there is a drain which goes directly to the ground. Leftover consecrated wine can be poured there.

Moo

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

When I was regularly an altar server, we were told that indeed you could pour in out into the earth. This isn't practical in Canadian winters. It would be into snow or onto frozen ground. A wine frozen puddle. So we would generally have to approach 4 or 5 people to come to the altar after and a prayer was available (there are prayers for every contingency), and the cup passed around.

Re intinction. This is banned in the diocese because a paper from the Diocese of Toronto summarised the data about disease and contamination about it, which convincingly said fingers and hands are much worse than a shared cup. Some parishes do fill a small extra cup for the intincters. I would not drink the remains of that I think.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

If you're having Communion in the context of a meal, as the Corinthians likely did, extra wine is no problem. Just linger over dinner a bit longer.

In church if we miscalculate we simply grab the nearest adult communicants before they head out the door and ask them to help us do the honors. Nobody wants to see their pastor driving with a buzz on!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

In the EOC a great deal of boiling water is added to the wine, so there's very little alcohol left by the time all is said and done.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
When I was regularly an altar server, we were told that indeed you could pour in out into the earth. This isn't practical in Canadian winters. It would be into snow or onto frozen ground. A wine frozen puddle.

A piscina solves that problem, especially if it leads into the ground, rather than just onto it.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yes, we have a piscina. Broken or unuseable wafers get put out for the birds; I am the one who cuts down larger linens into smaller items, and when the purificators are too worn to be rehemmed any more they are burned. What has stumped us is what to do with the broken cruet. It is glass, but had been consecrated.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, we have a piscina. Broken or unuseable wafers get put out for the birds; I am the one who cuts down larger linens into smaller items, and when the purificators are too worn to be rehemmed any more they are burned. What has stumped us is what to do with the broken cruet. It is glass, but had been consecrated.

It would have to be burial, wouldn't it?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In the EOC a great deal of boiling water is added to the wine, so there's very little alcohol left by the time all is said and done.

Why boilng water instead of room temperature water? And is it then consumed? By the priest?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm embarrassed to say I don't know why they use the hot water instead of just water. I've seen them use a thermos if it's out somewhere they can't boil, so the boiling part perhaps isn't as important as just being hot. (Although we're a very make-do-with-what-you-have lot.)

Probably if you asked someone, what you'd get would be an after-the-fact rationalization because nobody actually remembers anymore why they started doing it in the first place. We're that kind of lot too.

If there is wine left after the service, the deacon(s) consume it; in absence of deacon(s), the priest(s).

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Maybe hotter water mixes better?

Thanks.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

"Any consecrated bread and wine which is not required for purposes of communion is consumed at the end of the distribution or after the service."

From Common Worship. In the Church of England it is not permitted to throw excess communion elements away. I suppose if they were consumed after the service (not usual practice where I worship) more time could be taken over it.

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

Never heard of hot water. Wine comes from a special stash in a large bottle that is specially brewed up communion wine. Alcohol is tightly controlled here and sold in gov't stores only. Water is taken from the tap. cold. Two little pitchers are used to pour wine and water and mingle them by the priest before consecration. There's a fancy name for the pitchers.

The piscina is probably illegal to have here. No drain pipe other than rain water can be built or used for any other water or liquid disposal.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:

Could we, perhaps, offer seconds to the congregation? Suggestions, please.

I serve as an usher from time to time, which means amongst other things that I receive communion last. So I'll take a decent swig from the chalice to help out.

That being said, our lot are usually quite good at only decanting enough, so there's not usually much left in the chalices.

Re intinction: I imagine the plague vector element is reduced if the priest intincts the host and places it on the communicant's tongue, rather than allowing all and sundry to dip their grubby mitts in the chalice.

Without evidence, I'd guess that this was "better" than the common cup from that point of view. No prophet: does the Diocese of Toronto have an opinion on this?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
This may be a topic for ecclesiantics, since it asks a legitimate question about protocol.

Yes indeed.

quote:
However, it is meant to be a fun thread and all answers are welcome.

I think you should all have some fun in Ecclesiantics. Off you go.

/hosting

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

I did once hear of a Scottish bishop, whose explicit intention was to "consecrate what is on the altar, and nothing which is not on the altar", finding to his horror that some newbie had put a large flagon full of wine on the altar unbidden. I think that they reserved it and used it the next couple of Sundays, only consecrating a small chalice.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
The question of having left over wine is not addressed in the epistles, although the one about people not leaving enough is (Corinthians). If there was any wine left over, did they consume it in a leisurely fashion while discussing the spiritual question of the day, rather than downing it as fast as possible, as is today's practice?

Clearly the Ephesians had a tendency to consume a great deal of wine in less then leisurely fashion - that's why Paul had to tell them off!

(That wouldn't have worked in most Baptist circles. (a) We use wee cuppies, so it's fiddly to drink a lot; (b) the wine is non-alcoholic and yucky; (c) on the bottle it clearly states "NOT INTENDED FOR USE AS A BEVERAGE"!)

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

quote:
originally posted by georgiaboy:
Can't answer for the Corinthians, but in a former parish when there was a significant amount of left-over Second Species, one of the clergy would come back to the rail and summon 3 or 4 of the adult choristers, saying 'drink as much as you can.'

I've been know to ask the students in the congregation who are on foot.... (and/or adult choristers as above)

[ 18. August 2016, 07:50: Message edited by: kingsfold ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

They might not be on foot by the time they've finished drinking ... [Devil]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It may depend on how many you have in the sanctuary at the service. At our main one, there are usually 9, of whom at least 6 will be adults. That helps a lot if there are many who intinct (strict rules about just dipping the edge into the wine) or if somehow or other there's too much consecrated.

Of course if there's way too much, there's always the aumbry.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

It brings to mind a recent visit to a very conservative anglo-catholic church where they believed in "real presence" and consequently were rather pernickety about what to do with the leftover wine after communion.

The result was that the vicar ended up downing about a bottle's worth of wine with all the dignity of a university rugby team on a night out on the tiles. He was very tipsy thereafter, stumbling into parishioners and slurring his words.

It went someway to persuading me that the symbolic understanding of communion is not only more theologically correct, but is also more dignified at a practical level.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

In the RCC, throwing the Precious Blood of Our Lord down the sacrarium is not only forbidden, it is a serious offense under canon law. Any remaining Precious Blood must be consumed at the Mass.

http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/can-you-pour-out-the-precious-blood

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

As a 'non-conformist' friend of the Anglican church I am sitting on my hands trying hard not to respond.

But FGS, what's the worst that can happen if you throw the stuff away? And what's the worst that can happen if someone drives home under the influence? I wonder what Jesus would prefer?

I understand that some believe that 'in a mysterious way...this becomes to us the body and blood of Christ', but to regard it as undisposable seems to me to be mixing the Old Covenant (of Law and condemnation) with the New Covenant (of grace and freedom). Shock horror - didn't Jesus even endorse the instance where David and his merry men ate the showbread, without the permission of the priest, just because they were hungry?

I'll shut up again.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
They might not be on foot by the time they've finished drinking ...

My father used to joke that there's a reason it's called High Mass.

[ 18. August 2016, 12:31: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

@Felafool:

We're Baptists. Communion is little more than a "visual aid" - although I do believe that God's grace is given to us as we eat and drink.

If there is wine left in the any of the wee cuppies, it goes back into the bottle for next time (the non-alcoholic stuff is full of preservatives anyway).

If we did use real wine that won't keep (and I wish we did!) we would either pour it down the sink or give it to someone to take home and drink with their Sunday lunch.

The leftover cubes of bread (or torn loaves that can't be used in any other way) usually get fed to the birds or thrown into the bin.

quote:
And what's the worst that can happen if someone drives home under the influence?

Points on your licence, a stain on your reputation, accident and injury, the death of an innocent third party ...

[ 18. August 2016, 13:21: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:

But FGS, what's the worst that can happen if you throw the stuff away? And what's the worst that can happen if someone drives home under the influence? I wonder what Jesus would prefer?

The Anglo-Catholic/Roman Catholic/Orthodox(?) position is the contents of the chalice is truly the Blood of Christ. What does it say if one is literally pouring Christ down the drain?

Now that doesn't mean there should be vast amounts leftover - better planning would normally fix that. And there is no reason why as many as necessary shouldn't assist in consuming. Too often the reason not to comes down to clericalism - 'it's the priest/specially appointed extra special minister's job'.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

ah heck. Worse comes to worst, I'd be putting the extra wine in the parish refrigerator and making plans to drink a sensible amount at regular points during the next few days.

If that was absolutely impossible, I'd consider civil disobedience and tote the wine home in an opened container to drink there, on the grounds that it is more charitable to run the risk of a ticket for said offense than to drive impaired.

Failing all else, call a freaking taxi.

Posted by Kayarecee (# 17289) on :

I think were I the visiting clergyperson in that situation (since I have Strong Opinions about the consumption of the leftover elements; far Stronger Opinions than many others in my denomination), I'd be the one drinking the leftover wine, and I'd simply hang about the church building for an hour or so, reading or praying (or, if I'm honest, playing Plants vs. Zombies) or whatnot for an hour or so until I could safely and legally drive home.

[ 18. August 2016, 15:41: Message edited by: Kayarecee ]

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

On the hot water/Orthodox practice: I too have seen the holy thermos of steaming water. My understanding is that the usual practice is to mix the bread, cut into cubes, into the cup. The hot water dilutes but also helps soften the bread, and helps “represent” the true warm body and blood.

Distribution is by spoon: a little bread with a little wine. At one monastery I was invited to receive (my understanding is this is contrary to usual practice forbidding non-Orthodox to do so). The priest did a sort of overhand catapult action: he snagged some bread and some wine, thumb supporting the spoon’s handle. Then a quick snap of the spoon against the bent index finger and bread/wine gained entry to the communicant’s open mouth without the spoon actually entering. Thank God two servers were holding a rather large dark red housling cloth in front of each communicant!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

[Eek!]

My son would be so totally thrilled by this.

[Eek!]

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

quote:
Originally posted by Kayarecee:
... playing Plants vs. Zombies) or whatnot for an hour or so until I could safely and legally drive home.

Come now, isn't there an "appropriate" game for clergy to play. What game would Jesus play in such circumstances?

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

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

quote:
Originally posted by Kayarecee:
... playing Plants vs. Zombies) or whatnot for an hour or so until I could safely and legally drive home.
Come now, isn't there an "appropriate" game for clergy to play. What game would Jesus play in such circumstances?

"I will make you fishers of men, but before I let you loose on the human population, get some practice with Pokemon."

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

While waiting until he could safely and legally drive after finishing off a chalice of his own holy blood?

The recursion here is making my head spin.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... If that was absolutely impossible, I'd consider civil disobedience and tote the wine home in an opened container to drink there, on the grounds that it is more charitable to run the risk of a ticket for said offense than to drive impaired. ...

LC I think you may have to explain that. Query is it something to do with the law where you live? And anyway, wouldn't it safer to put a stopper in anything one is transporting a liquid in?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
It brings to mind a recent visit to a very conservative anglo-catholic church where they believed in "real presence" and consequently were rather pernickety about what to do with the leftover wine after communion.

As a far from conservative Catholic Anglican that comment set my blood pressure soaring. The doctrine of the 'real presence' is classic Anglican teaching (the 1662 Prayer Book, formerly beloved of 'low church' evangelicals, talks of God feeding us 'with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son'). Obviously it is not flesh and blood in a crudely literal sense, any more than Jesus's post-resurrection body was identical to his earthly body. But just as real.

That should mean that the sacramental elements should be treated with especial care. Pernicketiness and obsessive scrupulosity are one thing: treating the consecrated wine with disrespect is another.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
LC I think you may have to explain that. Query is it something to do with the law where you live? And anyway, wouldn't it safer to put a stopper in anything one is transporting a liquid in?

Many (most? all?) US states have "open container" laws meaning that it is illegal to drive with an unsealed container of any alcoholic drink accessible from the passenger cabin.

In the trunk of a sedan is OK - in the trunk of a hatchback might get you arrested. I have friends who were done for "open containers" because they had been clearing up after a party, and were driving several bin bags full of empty beer cans to the recycling depot. The cop (who wanted an excuse) stopped them, found dregs of beer in the bottom of some of the cans, and said "ahah!"

ETA: For clarity, "unsealed" means broken factory seal, not "cap off".

[ 18. August 2016, 17:21: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't it safer to put a stopper in anything one is transporting a liquid in?

The law in Arizona and in most other states can be found here. Note:

quote:
"Open container" means any bottle, can, jar, container . . . or other receptacle that contains spirituous liquor and that has been opened, has had its seal broken or the contents of which have been partially removed.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Aha, another example of Kinder Egg territory. I've said before on these boards that every jurisdiction has them.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
On the hot water/Orthodox practice: I too have seen the holy thermos of steaming water. My understanding is that the usual practice is to mix the bread, cut into cubes, into the cup. The hot water dilutes but also helps soften the bread, and helps “represent” the true warm body and blood.

Distribution is by spoon: a little bread with a little wine. At one monastery I was invited to receive (my understanding is this is contrary to usual practice forbidding non-Orthodox to do so). The priest did a sort of overhand catapult action: he snagged some bread and some wine, thumb supporting the spoon’s handle. Then a quick snap of the spoon against the bent index finger and bread/wine gained entry to the communicant’s open mouth without the spoon actually entering. Thank God two servers were holding a rather large dark red housling cloth in front of each communicant!

The flippy thing is not universal. I think it's ridiculous. And it is definitely the fact that non-O's are not supposed to receive. That priest could get a stern talking-to from his bishop were this made known, up to and perhaps including defrockment, temporary or permanent, depending on how hard-assed the bishop was. (Bishops have a lot of autonomy. Some might say too much but now we're far afield from the Eucharist!)

I can't imagine softening the bread would be much of an issue, as (a) it's pretty soft bread to begin with, and (b) wine softens bread about as well as hot water, give or take. The key principle of bread softening being wetness more than heat.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Maybe hotter water mixes better?

Thanks.

Maybe it is just an extra measure against possible microscopic fauna.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I'm sure the northerly Orthodox brethren appreciate a little heat and it probably makes it a lot easier to create the 'mush' in the chalice.

Whoops, sorry just notice this had been suggested upthread. The Romanian breads with the stamps on them are like bricks and I think it is the same format that is used for the Eucharist itself but this gets cut into funny little triangles and arranged on the paten but it is still pretty firm.

[ 18. August 2016, 18:53: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Maybe hotter water mixes better?

Thanks.
Maybe it is just an extra measure against possible microscopic fauna.

That's one theory I've heard mooted. Although the discovery of the existence of microscopic fauna is considerably more recent than the practice of pouring hot water into the chalice. So I think that theory is an example of after-the-fact postsplaining rather than a bona fide historical account.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The Romanian breads with the stamps on them are like bricks and I think it is the same format that is used for the Eucharist itself but this gets cut into funny little triangles and arranged on the paten but it is still pretty firm.

Those guys need to loosen up and use more water in the baking. [Big Grin]

And yeah it does get cut up kinda funny.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't it safer to put a stopper in anything one is transporting a liquid in?
The law in Arizona and in most other states can be found here. Note:

quote:
"Open container" means any bottle, can, jar, container . . . or other receptacle that contains spirituous liquor and that has been opened, has had its seal broken or the contents of which have been partially removed.

That's fairly similar to here. I transport part bottles of wine all the time in the summer to and from our cabin, usually in a box with other foodstuffs. Because it is not in the open and it's obvious there's no intent to drink it, and the coppers wouldn't possibly even see it if I was stopped, the offence is not made out. So put your wine into a bag or bottle and tell the police you're on your way home from church. (I have been stopped once this year in this situation. The RCMP officer asked if I'd had anything to drink, what I had in the vehicle, where I was from-to, and off we went.)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

sacrilege

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Re intinction: I imagine the plague vector element is reduced if the priest intincts the host and places it on the communicant's tongue, rather than allowing all and sundry to dip their grubby mitts in the chalice.

Without evidence, I'd guess that this was "better" than the common cup from that point of view. No prophet: does the Diocese of Toronto have an opinion on this?

I've always laboured under the (mis?)apprehension that the whole point of using a silver chalice and a fortified wine is that there is a reaction between the silver and the wine that has some antiseptic/antibacterial effect, minimising risk of casual infection from the usual minor ailments.

Which is why I hate it when you go to some Evangelical shindig where they're all po-faced about alcohol so use squash or grape juice, but then decide to have a common cup because of the community aspect. Wee cuppies only chaps, if there's no booze, and silver only if there is!

Posted by Ascension-ite (# 1985) on :

As an Anglo-Catholic some of the posts here are giving me the vapors. I was an altar server for a few years and have eaten and drunk my fair share of left-over consecrated elements. The rector would line all the servers up at the alter rail if we had a lot left over and we'd finish what we had to.
The host can obviously be added to the reserved sacrament. Pouring wine into unconsecrated ground or throwing out for the birds is anathema to me.
Obviously other denominations have different views on the elements, but for Anglicans we should be treating the elements with utmost respect, at least I hope so.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
When I was regularly an altar server, we were told that indeed you could pour in out into the earth. This isn't practical in Canadian winters. It would be into snow or onto frozen ground. A wine frozen puddle.

A piscina solves that problem, especially if it leads into the ground, rather than just onto it.

I assure you: having piscinae does not solve that problem. The consecrated elements freeze in the pipe and back up.

In Canadian churches I know with piscinae (and I assure no prophet's flag is set so that these were legal installations) they have only been used in warmer weather, when the ground beneath is capable of absorbing the elements.

I should add that climate varies around Canada, and not all suffer the frozen pipe scenario.

[ 19. August 2016, 12:48: Message edited by: Leaf ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ascension-ite:
Pouring wine into unconsecrated ground or throwing out for the birds is anathema to me.
Obviously other denominations have different views on the elements, but for Anglicans we should be treating the elements with utmost respect, at least I hope so.

Noting as you do that other denominations (and, I would add, some other Anglicans) have different views on the elements, I think it's important to remember that they may also have different views on what is respectful. Those who, for example, feed leftover bread to the birds do so because they find it appropriate and respectful—perhaps more appropriate and respectful in their estimation than consuming all leftovers after the service.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

In most places I've been, the rule has been that you shouldn't really be administering a chalice if you can't finish what's left in it. If your chalices are so large that that's unreasonable, I'd say that's a decent reason to fill them less and have more of them. On the occasions where I have seen push come to shove, appropriate 'consuming helpers' have been found.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Alas, there are always difficulties in the calculation.How many in the congregation will take communion, how many will intinct, will a (rare) few not take the cup at all - these are only 3 matters which will vary the amount consumed. As a server for many years, I can still get it wrong.

As I said, there's always the aumbry. Of course, table wines will not remain usable for any length of time, but we use a good fortified wine and that easily keeps a couple of months once opened.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

As I said, there's always the aumbry. Of course, table wines will not remain usable for any length of time, but we use a good fortified wine and that easily keeps a couple of months once opened.

Yes indeed. We habitually consume what was decanted into the chalices, and reserve what remains in the cruet.

AIUI, our brethren in the RCC do not reserve the Blood (or consecrate in the cruet).

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alas, there are always difficulties in the calculation.How many in the congregation will take communion, how many will intinct, will a (rare) few not take the cup at all - these are only 3 matters which will vary the amount consumed. As a server for many years, I can still get it wrong.

This is especially difficult with weddings and funerals, where you have no idea of the make-up of the congregation.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
This is especially difficult with weddings and funerals, where you have no idea of the make-up of the congregation.

Quite a lot of hair gel, powder and lipstick I would have thought, especially at the former.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm embarrassed to say I don't know why they use the hot water instead of just water. I've seen them use a thermos if it's out somewhere they can't boil, so the boiling part perhaps isn't as important as just being hot. (Although we're a very make-do-with-what-you-have lot.)

Probably if you asked someone, what you'd get would be an after-the-fact rationalization because nobody actually remembers anymore why they started doing it in the first place. We're that kind of lot too.

quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
On the hot water/Orthodox practice: I too have seen the holy thermos of steaming water. My understanding is that the usual practice is to mix the bread, cut into cubes, into the cup. The hot water dilutes but also helps soften the bread, and helps “represent” the true warm body and blood.

This is the after-the-fact explanation that I've been given too.

Just as the use of leavened bread is understood to be because it is the risen, ascended, glorified Body of Christ that we receive, so the warmed wine is understood to be because it is the living and life-giving Blood of Christ that we receive. I'm guessing that symbolism was added later to what was simply the ancient custom of the Church.

As I understand it, the earliest Byzantine manuscripts make no reference to the hot water, and I suspect that it was introduced at a later time to reinforce the symbolism of the risen bread, perhaps during the azymite controversy.

quote:
Distribution is by spoon: a little bread with a little wine. At one monastery I was invited to receive (my understanding is this is contrary to usual practice forbidding non-Orthodox to do so). The priest did a sort of overhand catapult action: he snagged some bread and some wine, thumb supporting the spoon’s handle. Then a quick snap of the spoon against the bent index finger and bread/wine gained entry to the communicant’s open mouth without the spoon actually entering. Thank God two servers were holding a rather large dark red housling cloth in front of each communicant!

I have heard of this method of communion but never actually experienced it. I think it mainly exists in the Greek and Antiochian traditions, although it isn't universal even there. The more widespread practice, IME, is for the communicant's mouth to be closed firmly over the spoon, which is then withdrawn by the priest.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

I forgot to add that the hot water is not universal Orthodox practice but is uniquely Byzantine. The practice isn't followed in the Western Rites or in the Liturgy of St James (although Byzantine Rite churches that occasionally serve these Liturgies sometimes add hot water anyway, to avoid causing unrest among the people).

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

To add an anecdote, I had a friend whose father was a vicar. One Sunday he got caught by the police and breathalysed. On finding him over the limit, they asked where he had been that day. He replied that he had been taking a communion service (he was still wearing his dog collar). They warned him to be more careful in future and let him go. It obviously didn't do his career any harm, as he later became a bishop.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't it safer to put a stopper in anything one is transporting a liquid in?
The law in Arizona and in most other states can be found here. Note:

quote:
"Open container" means any bottle, can, jar, container . . . or other receptacle that contains spirituous liquor and that has been opened, has had its seal broken or the contents of which have been partially removed.

Coming back to these questions, in places with this odd law, how do clergy transport consecrated wine to the sick? The little bottle it goes in has a stopper, but is not sealed. Nor is the black box the elements travel in. Or is it all right if the box is in the boot (?trunk - is that the right word?) or in a locked glove compartment?

By the way, Leo, I like your linked blog about ablutions.

[ 22. August 2016, 08:29: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Coming back to these questions, in places with this odd law, how do clergy transport consecrated wine to the sick? The little bottle it goes in has a stopper, but is not sealed. Nor is the black box the elements travel in. Or is it all right if the box is in the boot (?trunk - is that the right word?) or in a locked glove compartment?

As a matter of interest, how many Anglican clergy who take the consecrated elements to the sick , administer (or reserve) in both kinds? I suspect strictly (at least in the C of E) we are supposed to do, but the practice of most of the churches where I have served is to reserve and administer in the form of bread only. One church used to have the custom of pre-intincting (and letting the wine dry on the host before reserving). But separate containers/ chalices of wine I have never encountered.

Posted by Jante (# 9163) on :

When I was in curacy I took reserved sacrament in both forms to the sick/housebound. We had a number of small cruets to use and at special festivals had them all consecrated ( we did have 10 churches to get around but only reserved in one).
Where I am now we don't reserve and I do a short communion service with those I visit.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

In all the places I've worked in communion to the sick and housebound has been taken in both kinds, with the wine in a cruet. I've never encountered wafer/bread only reservation, indeed on more that one occasion I have administered to people who can only receive the wine.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

For many years we were able to acquire (expensive) superthin wafers to administer to the sick. They were so thin that they essentially dissolve on the tongue. Alas, they seem to have quit making them and now the sick people have to deal with ordinary wafers.
The other wafer angle that we have been coping with is the demand for gluten-free wafers. These are also expensive, and fragile -- made of rice flour. They go onto the Holy Table in their own little wafer box, so that they don't get contaminated by the regular wafers, and you have to know to ask for them at the rail.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Coming back to these questions, in places with this odd law, how do clergy transport consecrated wine to the sick? The little bottle it goes in has a stopper, but is not sealed. Nor is the black box the elements travel in.

About half of the people I know who regularly take communion to those of the infirm who are unable to travel to church drive SUVs, Minivans, or other vehicles with no separate trunk.

But that doesn't matter, because everyone I have seen has had the kit safely tucked in the passenger compartment with them.

I would guess two things: First, cops are unlikely to try and charge someone under these circumstances, and second, I suspect that a first amendment challenge to such an action would be successful.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

The other wafer angle that we have been coping with is the demand for gluten-free wafers. These are also expensive, and fragile -- made of rice flour. They go onto the Holy Table in their own little wafer box, so that they don't get contaminated by the regular wafers, and you have to know to ask for them at the rail.

I recommend to you the practice of inviting the gluten-free brigade to present themselves for communion first. That way, potential cross-contamination can be more easily avoided.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

The other wafer angle that we have been coping with is the demand for gluten-free wafers. These are also expensive, and fragile -- made of rice flour. They go onto the Holy Table in their own little wafer box, so that they don't get contaminated by the regular wafers, and you have to know to ask for them at the rail.
I recommend to you the practice of inviting the gluten-free brigade to present themselves for communion first. That way, potential cross-contamination can be more easily avoided.

Alas, not possible -- we are a honking big church, perhaps 200 communicants per service.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

We have a separate wafer box and (obviously) a separate paten, as well as a separate chalice. We announce, immediately before the invitation, that gluten free is available, and ask those who require it to make their need known at the rail to those administering.

To avoid cross-contamination, they are presented with the paten and take their own wafer, as the president's fingers will have been in contact with the other wafers. They need also to ask for their own chalice (which has its own separate purificator). Apparently a contamination of 20 ppm is enough to adversely affect a person with coeliac disease.

When asked at the rail, the person administering takes the gluten free paten/chalice from the altar for that communicant, and then replaces it and picks up the 'normal' paten/chalice again. Some places, I believe, have separate eucharistic ministers for the gluten free elements, but we don't have the personnel (or really the sanctuary space) for that.

[ 22. August 2016, 15:07: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I've been in the 'opposite' situation of having to transport wine for a travelling Mass in a little (unsealed) vial in a travel kit.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

I would guess two things: First, cops are unlikely to try and charge someone under these circumstances, and second, I suspect that a first amendment challenge to such an action would be successful.

I suspect you're probably right on both counts. (though IANAL). Realistically, I very much that a cop would think to search the black leather zippy thing that looks more like a covered Bible than a bag in order to find the wine vial.

I suppose, though, I've now just given any cop reading this PC to search black leather zippy things when they pull clerics over...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I wonder whether 'the police confiscated the sacred elements' might count as a 'just impediment' in terms of the rubric in the 1662 BCP Communion of the Sick? [Smile]

quote:
But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the Curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood: the Curate shall instruct him that if he do truly repent him of his sins, and stedfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed his Blood for his redemption, earnestly remembering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore; he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The travelling communion sets I am used to handling look something like this - a box with a handle. I used to fill them with either reserved sacrament from the aumbry or fresh stock from the vestry depending on who was taking the communion to the home. Readers or lay pastoral workers used reserved sacrament and the words for that, the rector usually took a full service with whoever he was seeing.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

The drink driving laws in Scotland have recently been made so strict that less than a glass of wine can put you over the limit, and the official advice is to drink nothing at all if driving. I wouldn't dare drain a chalice, and then drive. That's not a problem for us, as we pour the wine from the chalice into the foundations of the church (and the unused wee cuppies are returned to the bottle - we use a fortified wine, which lasts!). But I can see it being a big problem for Episcopal and Catholic colleagues.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Albertus -n what you just described would have been called by older Catholics ( and by some modern ones ) - a spiritual communion - when by reason of some impediment a person could not physically receive the Sacrament

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Albertus -n what you just described would have been called by older Catholics ( and by some modern ones ) - a spiritual communion - when by reason of some impediment a person could not physically receive the Sacrament

A few years ago I was having minor out-patient surgery (cataracts, possibly?) and could consume nothing the morning of the procedure, so I attended the weekday morning Eucharist without receiving.

(Oddly enough, I was the only one in attendance that morning who was a Eucharistic minister, so I wound up administering the Chalice, even though I was not receiving from it.)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

We also recycle the wine from the flagons, which each hold about a quart. The chalices are emptied down the piscina. Visitation wine is stored in a separate cruet, which is washed and refilled once a month by me, from the flagons after they have been consecrated. What makes me nervous is when I am not there to do it -- those poor shut-ins, drinking wine that is weeks and weeks old!

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

I'm rather shocked at the number of Church of England clergy I know - even those who are fairly catholic in their practice - who believe "returning the element to the earth" is permitted. I can't work out where it's come from.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

We have done this for as long as the church has been a building (the piscina sink is plumbed into tbe sacristy). This must make a practice at least eighty years old. Our older building, the chapel, doesn't have a piscina, so that gives you kind of a time line.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I'd never heard of it, and I'm C of E. Most of the comments about pouring the consecrated wine down the piscina seem to come from across the pond. I don't know what explains the difference in practice.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
The drink driving laws in Scotland have recently been made so strict that less than a glass of wine can put you over the limit, and the official advice is to drink nothing at all if driving. I wouldn't dare drain a chalice, and then drive. That's not a problem for us, as we pour the wine from the chalice into the foundations of the church (and the unused wee cuppies are returned to the bottle - we use a fortified wine, which lasts!). But I can see it being a big problem for Episcopal and Catholic colleagues.

Not a problem for RCs, surely? 'No, officer, there's not a drop of alcohol in me. It may have all the effects and external accidents of alcohol, but I assure you it's pure blood'.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Albertus -n what you just described would have been called by older Catholics ( and by some modern ones ) - a spiritual communion - when by reason of some impediment a person could not physically receive the Sacrament

Yes indeed. A valuable concept, I think.

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We have done this for as long as the church has been a building (the piscina sink is plumbed into tbe sacristy).

This doesn't settle it. Most RC churches have piscinae, but they're not for pouring the precious blood down; rather, they're for pouring out the water used to clean the vessels in case that water still has traces of the Blessed Sacrament in it.

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

[QUOTE} And it is definitely the fact that non-O's are not supposed to receive. That priest could get a stern talking-to from his bishop were this made known, up to and perhaps including defrockment, temporary or permanent, depending on how hard-assed the bishop was.[/Quote]

Heavens! Thank you, mousethief, I didn’t know the repercussions could be that strong. Hearing that I think it would have been much more appropriate for me to be thankful for the invitation, but also kind of my part to decline it. This event was over 25 years ago now. I do think they have since posted signs regarding the restrictions on receiving.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
Hearing that I think it would have been much more appropriate for me to be thankful for the invitation, but also kind of my part to decline it. This event was over 25 years ago now. I do think they have since posted signs regarding the restrictions on receiving.

Certainly not your fault, if you didn't know the rule and were invited to receive. When in Rome (or Constantinople) all one can do is follow the prompts offered by the natives.

Posted by Vidi Aquam (# 18433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other wafer angle that we have been coping with is the demand for gluten-free wafers. These are also expensive, and fragile -- made of rice flour.

Gluten-free wafers are forbidden at the Traditional Latin Mass. Those with Celiac disease would have to receive a small fragment of the Host, or make a spiritual Communion.

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

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:
Those with Celiac disease would have to receive a small fragment of the Host, or make a spiritual Communion.

Spiritual then. The least speck of gluten often causes illness severe enough to miss all of life for 4 or 5 days, common among those with celiac who properly observe a proper gluten free diet. My offspring with it don't trust a host not ever in contact with "the wheat-filthy talons of the consecrating raven or the squarking magpies distributing their poison to eager birds not of their nest". (The image developed after identifying the cause of this communion food poisoning : God hating Celiacs and all. Our magpies are nest parasites apparently under the control of the Trickster, an indigenous Cree image. Why does God wish me to make sick with Jesus daddy?)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

We have several parishioners at various levels of intolerance. For some, an ordinary wafer would cause no problems although a slice of bread or cake would. For others, the consequences would be much more severe.

The problem has been the subject of some discussion. To minimise risks, the first step of course is that there are separate "gluten free" wafers for those who need them. They come in individual cellophane wrappers and those serving estimate beforehand how many will be needed at a service. The wafers are removed from the wrapper without being touched and placed on their own paten. Instead of handing a wafer, the priest will offer the paten with the words of administration and the communicant takes one. Most who take gluten free intinct (we're used to just dipping one corner) as a way of minimising the risks even further. Those most at risk do not take the chalice itself.

I put gluten free in quotation marks, as the advice we have been given is that no 100% free product is available; that has been confirmed by parishioners. The amount of gluten is given on the box as being very, very low, somewhere well under 0.02% from memory. We're told by all concerned that this is acceptable.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other wafer angle that we have been coping with is the demand for gluten-free wafers. These are also expensive, and fragile -- made of rice flour.
Gluten-free wafers are forbidden at the Traditional Latin Mass. Those with Celiac disease would have to receive a small fragment of the Host, or make a spiritual Communion.

How would a priest thus affected cope? The former RC Archbishop of Liverpool (the late Derek Worlock) used special gluten free (or maybe simply low gluten) wafers.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Vidi Aquam:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other wafer angle that we have been coping with is the demand for gluten-free wafers. These are also expensive, and fragile -- made of rice flour.
Gluten-free wafers are forbidden at the Traditional Latin Mass. Those with Celiac disease would have to receive a small fragment of the Host, or make a spiritual Communion.
How would a priest thus affected cope? The former RC Archbishop of Liverpool (the late Derek Worlock) used special gluten free (or maybe simply low gluten) wafers.

I seem to recall reading that some nuns had developed a wafer with very low gluten content that still met church requirements and received approval, at least from some bishops.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

Not just the TLM, but gluten-free wafers are prohibited by the Catholic Church (no gluten, no bread).

Low-gluten wafers are permitted, of course.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

So does that mean that a gluten-intolerant priest would be prevented from ever saying Mass?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

I'd guess so, unless there were some provision for his receiving only in one kind.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'd never heard of it, and I'm C of E. Most of the comments about pouring the consecrated wine down the piscina seem to come from across the pond. I don't know what explains the difference in practice.

I once came across it in an MOTR parish (about 25 years ago), albeit I think the wine was poured directly into the consecrated ground. (I wasn't paying attention beyond the fact that my next port of call was lunch, which would include wine, and I didn't expect to have to neck a chalice of fortified wine in preparation when it was thrust under my nose by a desperate sacristan and was sufficiently relieved when the Vicar came to my rescue not to worry too much about the practicalities!)

Presumably, those who object to the pouring of the MPB into the consecrated earth also object to putting a half chewed wafer into a glass of water to disintegrate and then pouring the resulting concoction into the earth? Asking for a friend. [Biased]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Presumably, those who object to the pouring of the MPB into the consecrated earth also object to putting a half chewed wafer into a glass of water to disintegrate and then pouring the resulting concoction into the earth? Asking for a friend.

I would object to the former, but not the latter. My reasoning is that the chewed-and-regurgitated host is unfit for consumption, so dissolving and pouring down the piscina is the best you can do. Your half-empty chalice is fit for consumption, and so should be consumed.

This is more based on a sense of what feels right than on any rigorous theology, though.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Presumably, those who object to the pouring of the MPB into the consecrated earth also object to putting a half chewed wafer into a glass of water to disintegrate and then pouring the resulting concoction into the earth? Asking for a friend.
I would object to the former, but not the latter. My reasoning is that the chewed-and-regurgitated host is unfit for consumption, so dissolving and pouring down the piscina is the best you can do. Your half-empty chalice is fit for consumption, and so should be consumed.

This is more based on a sense of what feels right than on any rigorous theology, though.

If I did have to commit the wine to the earth, in theory, (I have never done so whilst it has been my call) I would pour it directly into the consecrated earth (ignoring the piscina) as a libation.

Would this be bad and wrong? If so, why?

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I know many Catholics who commonly use the phrase "gluten-free host" to mean "incredibly low gluten hosts." I know priests and laity both who regularly receive these. I don't know of anyone who's unable to receive these for medical reasons, including people with diagnosed celiac disease.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If I did have to commit the wine to the earth, in theory, (I have never done so whilst it has been my call) I would pour it directly into the consecrated earth (ignoring the piscina) as a libation.

Would this be bad and wrong? If so, why?

A libation is specifically an offering of wine to a god. It has nothing at all to do with Christianity.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

Presumably, those who object to the pouring of the MPB into the consecrated earth also object to putting a half chewed wafer into a glass of water to disintegrate and then pouring the resulting concoction into the earth? Asking for a friend.

Actually, such a wafer would no longer be the Blessed Sacrament anyway, so long as the accidents (the appearance of being bread) had been so altered. A wafer dissolved in a quantity of water so that it no longer bore the discernable appearance of bread would no more remain the Bl.Sac. than (what remained of) a wafer that had passed through the digestive tract.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We have done this for as long as the church has been a building (the piscina sink is plumbed into tbe sacristy). This must make a practice at least eighty years old. Our older building, the chapel, doesn't have a piscina, so that gives you kind of a time line.

I think the piscina sink is used for rinsing the sacred vessels of the few drops that might bee left, not disposing of drinkable quantities. It is also a place to dispose of baptismal water. When I was a LEM we (priest, deacon, lay ministers) used to pass around the chalice if there was an inordinate amount of wine remaining. Then the altar guild folks washed it and poured the wash water down the piscina.

And according to Wiki, the piscina became a popular fixture in English churches during the thirteenth century.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

For us, anything that has held the consecrated bread or wine - patens (1 each for plain and gluten free wafers), chalice, ciborium etc - is rinsed into a chalice with plain water and that water is drunk by a server. Then after the service, everything is again washed in hot soapy water etc. A nice question about that practice is that there's always a drop of wine in the bottom. An under-age server will therefore be expected to consume this tiny amount of alcohol.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

When one considers beef burgundy, cherries jubilee, chicken marsala, and so on, I think the servers are well familiar with a taste of wine.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

They may be familiar, but here is a church having under-age people consume alcohol.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
They may be familiar, but here is a church having under-age people consume alcohol.

What's the situation for under age communicants generally?

[ 23. September 2016, 12:32: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

(Nonconformists often use non-alcoholic wine anyway. It's revolting).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
(Nonconformists often use non-alcoholic wine anyway. It's revolting).

It's also an oxymoron.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Well, it's still "fruit of the grape" rather than Ribena or prune juice. In any case I really don't think that God is too fussed: it's the reflection, prayer and meditation on the Last Supper and the Passion which count, and the devotion of his worshippers.

[ 23. September 2016, 12:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I believe that for religious purposes you are out from under the underage-drinking laws. Similar to Native Americans using peyote in rituals. It's illegal for you and me tonight after dinner, but not them in their rites.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think in the UK children (at least over a certain age - 5 or 6?) are legally allowed to consume alcohol with their parents' supervision. 18 is the legal age for buying alcohol.

Quite apart from the religious aspect (how can the law forbid children from receiving the Lord's Body and Blood?), children who from an early age are given wine, in moderation, with meals are going to grow up with a much more sensible approach to drinking alcohol than those who see getting paralytic as a sign of maturity.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

According to "Drinkaware" (simplified):

It is against the law
•To sell alcohol to someone under 18 anywhere.
•For an adult to buy or attempt to buy alcohol on behalf of someone under 18 (but see below).
•For someone under 18 to buy alcohol, attempt to buy alcohol or to be sold alcohol.
•To give children alcohol if they are under five.

It is not illegal:
•For someone over 18 to buy a child over 16 beer, wine or cider if they are eating a table meal together in licensed premises.
•For a child aged five to 16 to drink alcohol at home or on other private premises.

[ 23. September 2016, 16:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

1. That may be the law in some places east of Greenwich. I don't think it's all that accurate in NSW, and can't speak of the other states/territories.

2. We want to encourage the understanding that the parish is vigilant about all aspects of child safety/safe ministry - be it improper behaviour towards a minor, supplying alcohol, anything.

3. Those under 18 intinct, so consumption is minimal. People here intinct by merely dipping the far side of the wafer into the wine, the thinnest dip, so fingers dont get wet.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe that for religious purposes you are out from under the underage-drinking laws. Similar to Native Americans using peyote in rituals. It's illegal for you and me tonight after dinner, but not them in their rites.

That most certainly is not the law here, even if it be so in some of the united states. Nothing I can quickly see about an exemption for religious purposes.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe that for religious purposes you are out from under the underage-drinking laws. Similar to Native Americans using peyote in rituals. It's illegal for you and me tonight after dinner, but not them in their rites.
That most certainly is not the law here, even if it be so in some of the united states.

While it is explicitly provided for in the alcohol laws of my state, the First Amendment pretty much guarantees it throughout the US.

As for your teenaged acolytes, surely by the time water is added to the chalice, the remaining drops of wine are so diluted that the alcohol content is negligible.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I agree that the amount of alcohol is minimal. The principle remains important, that the parish know that those responsible (in this case the the Rector and Master Server) are aware of the issue, just as they are aware of all safe ministry issues. (You are probably unaware but Aust is in the throes of a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in institutions and that the churches generally are not coming out of it well. It's important to let everyone know that the parish takes its safe ministry seriously.)

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We have done this for as long as the church has been a building (the piscina sink is plumbed into tbe sacristy). This must make a practice at least eighty years old. Our older building, the chapel, doesn't have a piscina, so that gives you kind of a time line.
I think the piscina sink is used for rinsing the sacred vessels of the few drops that might bee left, not disposing of drinkable quantities. It is also a place to dispose of baptismal water. When I was a LEM we (priest, deacon, lay ministers) used to pass around the chalice if there was an inordinate amount of wine remaining. Then the altar guild folks washed it and poured the wash water down the piscina.

And according to Wiki, the piscina became a popular fixture in English churches during the thirteenth century.

The piscina is indeed a very old feature.

At my old place, it was used for consecrated wine that had been in chalices (the rest got reserved) as well as for the rinse water. We were also not supposed to ask, say, the choir (who were across the hall) for help. This was, I told, a rule that had been instituted after there were problems with people who shouldn't have been drinking but did.

If it was just a swig I might finish it off, but some LEMs really liked filling the chalices well and the amount could have easily gotten me buzzed enough to also be a problem (getting home).

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that when teenagers who happen to be below the age at which they can buy drinks, consume minuscule amounts of communion wine probably diluted with water, this is a form of child abuse or that not letting them do so is making an important statement of principle, has lost their sense of proportion.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
(Nonconformists often use non-alcoholic wine anyway. It's revolting).

I don't think it's revolting. I'm not a connoisseur of fine wine, though.

I admit to not understanding why alcoholic wine is non-negotiable in certain historical denominations. Many of the issues mentioned here would be resolved if they stuck to the non-alcoholic variety.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
(Nonconformists often use non-alcoholic wine anyway. It's revolting).
I don't think it's revolting. I'm not a connoisseur of fine wine, though.

Perhaps you use a different brand to us. Ours is marked, "Not intended for use as a beverage"!

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
(Nonconformists often use non-alcoholic wine anyway. It's revolting).
I don't think it's revolting. I'm not a connoisseur of fine wine, though.
Perhaps you use a different brand to us. Ours is marked, "Not intended for use as a beverage"!

What is the intended use? And why do you use it if it tastes so bad?

I'm in one of those denominations where the norm is grape juice, though wine is certainly permitted, and is found from time to time. I hope that one day wine will be the norm again. Wine speaks to celebration and transformation in a way that grape juice simply can't.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that when teenagers who happen to be below the age at which they can buy drinks, consume minuscule amounts of communion wine probably diluted with water, this is a form of child abuse or that not letting them do so is making an important statement of principle, has lost their sense of proportion.

I'd be surprised if anyone thought that. What we are doing is showing that as we're conscious of our obligations in these tiny details, we're also conscious of them in the substantial matters, such as sexual abuse.

BTW, it's not just buying drinks, it's having drinks bought for them as well.

[ 24. September 2016, 22:16: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

I'm in one of those denominations where the norm is grape juice, though wine is certainly permitted, and is found from time to time. I hope that one day wine will be the norm again. Wine speaks to celebration and transformation in a way that grape juice simply can't.

Some people can 'celebrate' without alcohol, though, and fermentation isn't what make Communion a transformatory act.

I'm not saying that alcohol is bad, but in complicated modern societies it's useful to have spaces where alcohol and fun aren't deemed to be inevitable companions. For example, in communities where there are recovering alcoholics and people with particular diseases, and where evangelism and interfaith work involve engagement with Muslims, a non-alcoholic Communion service is more inclusive.

I know of one city centre parish church that offers both alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine at Communion, as well as gluten-free wafers. I think this is a good solution for them, since it takes into account both their tradition and also the realities of their modern, urban setting.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

For example, in communities where there are recovering alcoholics and people with particular diseases, and where evangelism and interfaith work involve engagement with Muslims, a non-alcoholic Communion service is more inclusive.

You have interfaith services where you communicate Muslims with grape juice? [Ultra confused]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some people can 'celebrate' without alcohol . . .

Of course. I would hope most people can.

quote:
and fermentation isn't what make Communion a transformatory act.

Of course it isn't. But the transformation that occurs in wine can underscore the tranformatory nature of the sacrament.

quote:
I'm not saying that alcohol is bad, but in complicated modern societies it's useful to have spaces where alcohol and fun aren't deemed to be inevitable companions.

Once again, no argument on that, except I don't know that such concern is limited to "complicated modern societies."

But I don't mean celebratory in the sense of fun. I mean celebratory in the sense of the biblical images of a feast or a wedding banquet. Think of the wedding at Cana. There is a strong connection in Scripture between wine and religious ritual, celebratory feasts, hospitality and joy. Grape juice, which wasn't a realistic option until Mr. Welch came along in the late 1800s, is a pale imitation in comparison when it comes to conveying these biblical associations. (And it's not just a matter of alcohol. The flavor of grape juice is simply one dimensional—primarily sweet—compared to wine. Wine is a "richer" drink.)

I agree that there may be reasons to use non-alcoholic "wine" at times. But I think those groups for whom grape juice became the norm lost something significant by making that choice rather than letting grape juice be an alternative when pastoral or other considerations call for an alternative.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some people can 'celebrate' without alcohol, though, and fermentation isn't what make Communion a transformatory act.

I'm not saying that alcohol is bad, but in complicated modern societies it's useful to have spaces where alcohol and fun aren't deemed to be inevitable companions.

I wasn't aware that the Eucharist was supposed to be "fun."

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that when teenagers who happen to be below the age at which they can buy drinks, consume minuscule amounts of communion wine probably diluted with water, this is a form of child abuse or that not letting them do so is making an important statement of principle, has lost their sense of proportion.
I'd be surprised if anyone thought that. What we are doing is showing that as we're conscious of our obligations in these tiny details, we're also conscious of them in the substantial matters, such as sexual abuse.

BTW, it's not just buying drinks, it's having drinks bought for them as well.

The flip side of this is that putting any emphasis on the subject at all in certain settings causes the OCD people to flip the hell out. My son does so, because every freaking month he gets exposed to some damn thing on the subject of underage drinking, and comes home all stressed about whether holy Communion is actually a) legit and b) harmful-even-if-legit. Which is utter bull.

He's only a teenager, which must stand as his excuse; but I'd be so very, very glad if the subject was never mentioned in his presence again. I'd rather have some authority figure (other than Mom, who as we all know, doesn't count) say that fussing over such a tiny amount is absurd, especially given the intention. A good solid rolling-of-eyes would go a long way toward giving my son and those like him the reassurance their overly-conscientious brains need.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I was allowed to have small amounts of wine at home when I was a teenager. I never became an alcoholic. I never went to parties where kids got smashed. I never really started drinking socially until I was in my 20s. I'm not sure it's a universal evil for kids under their parents' supervision to have small amounts of alcohol. Maybe other kids might have went the same way. To me it took the shine off it. "Ooh, let's drink beer because our parents don't want us to." Meh.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I know of one city centre parish church that offers both alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine at Communion, as well as gluten-free wafers. I think this is a good solution for them, since it takes into account both their tradition and also the realities of their modern, urban setting.

That doesn't solve the problem: simply being in a place where there is wine will tempt some who are recovering. Surely church is about holiness - ie not putting temptation in people's way?

There is a choice after all and, as BT says, I don't think God is bothered if we use unfermented wine so long as we are transformed by participating and feasting on all God has to offer..

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wasn't aware that the Eucharist was supposed to be "fun."

Nick Tamen used the word 'celebration', and I used the word 'fun'. To me the words are closely related, but apparently not in a religious sense; after all, the Eucharist is usually a very sober affair. It's a celebration in a theological rather than an everyday sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You have interfaith services where you communicate Muslims with grape juice?

The church I was referring to often seems to have some Muslims in attendance when I go there. (I haven't spoken to them, but they look and dress like Muslims.) And I know of an inner city church that often attracts Muslims to its services.

British Methodist ministers routinely invite the approach of anyone who 'loves Jesus' to share in the bread and wine. In theory, this could appeal to Muslims, and in my city there are many Muslims. Strict Muslims don't drink alcohol.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Simply being in a place where there is wine will tempt some who are recovering. Surely church is about holiness - ie not putting temptation in people's way?

There is a choice after all and, as BT says, I don't think God is bothered if we use unfermented wine so long as we are transformed by participating and feasting on all God has to offer..

I see your point, but as this thread shows, many churches insist on alcoholic wine. I would rather they didn't, but if they must, it's good if they also provide a (palatable) non-alcoholic option.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

It is a legal requirement for the Church of England that the wine for communion should be

quote:
the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome

In the Anglican Communion (and probably in others too) communion is regarded as complete even where a person is able to receive only one element - the bread or the wine - so those for whom alcohol is a problem can simply refrain from the wine. There are some others who do that anyway for a variety of reasons, so it wouldn't be a 'pointer' to a person's alcoholism.

[ 25. September 2016, 16:45: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I know people who don't drink alcohol (some doubtless alcoholics, others not... it's irrelevant) who will take the chalice into their hands and/or kiss it, without drinking from it. A more powerful gesture than simply walking away after receiving the host.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
It is a legal requirement for the Church of England that the wine for communion should be
quote:
the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome
In the Anglican Communion (and probably in others too) communion is regarded as complete even where a person is able to receive only one element - the bread or the wine - so those for whom alcohol is a problem can simply refrain from the wine. There are some others who do that anyway for a variety of reasons, so it wouldn't be a 'pointer' to a person's alcoholism.

Yes but non-alcoholic wine is fermented (the alcohol is then driven off) and given the looseness which the strictures on the bread are observed really the argument from "wholesome" is straining at a gnat.

Jengie

[ 25. September 2016, 19:48: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wasn't aware that the Eucharist was supposed to be "fun."
Nick Tamen used the word 'celebration', and I used the word 'fun'. To me the words are closely related, but apparently not in a religious sense; after all, the Eucharist is usually a very sober affair. It's a celebration in a theological rather than an everyday sense.

No, it's a celebration in the sense of the ordinary definition of "celebration": to observe (a day) or commemorate (an event) with ceremonies or festivities. A celebration might be fun, but that is not intrinsic to the meaning of the word. Closer might be festive (pertaining to or suitable for a feast or festival; joyous; merry), and that is apropos of the examples I gave—a feast or wedding banquet.

As for the Eucharist all too often being a sober [ha!] affair, that has historically certainly been all too true, at least in my tribe. And that despite what we say in the liturgy, that it is "the joyful feast of the people of God," to which they will come from north, south, east and west. But fortunately, there has been a noticeable shift in recent decades, and the somber Communion services have become much less common among us.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, let's say that if I were using the word 'celebration' with my friends they'd expect me to be referring to something livelier than what normally happens in Communion!

If we're talking primarily about remembering then 'commemoration' is a more neutral word than 'celebration'. The former might be used for an event that reflects on the Transatlantic slave trade, for example; the latter would be inappropriate.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, let's say that if I were using the word 'celebration' with my friends they'd expect me to be referring to something livelier than what normally happens in Communion!

Which might suggest something is amiss about the way Communion is celebrated.

But again, "livelier" (full of life) is not the same thing as fun (something that provides mirth or amusement; enjoyment or playfulness). I'd wager that mirth, amusement or playfulness might form a part of what most people think about when they talk about celebrating, say, a holiday or a birthday, but I'd also wager 'fun' is not the main thing people think of, unless they're children or it's a purely fun holiday, like Halloween. To perhaps relate it to the Eucharist, in the US when people talk about about celebrating Thanksgiving, they mean a big dinner with traditional foods and giving some thought to what they are thankful for.

Well, and football. [Big Grin]

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

As a data point, I've always seen LEMs check in at the rail with parents of young children about the chalice. The teens and young adults (drinking age is 21) who would be offered the chalice without parental consultation would not be served alcohol at a social function.

Both places I'm semi-regular at now have a non-alcoholic chalice either off to the side or as part of the "line".

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
It is a legal requirement for the Church of England that the wine for communion should be
quote:
the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome
In the Anglican Communion (and probably in others too) communion is regarded as complete even where a person is able to receive only one element - the bread or the wine - so those for whom alcohol is a problem can simply refrain from the wine. There are some others who do that anyway for a variety of reasons, so it wouldn't be a 'pointer' to a person's alcoholism.

All well and good but there is still clearly discrimination by retaining fermented wine which is alcoholic and which will cause an issue with some of it is ingested. If fermented but non alcoholic wine is wholesome (the Canons do not discriminate here), then why not use it? If the Canon is silent then there's no problem surely?

If it's a matter of only fermented/alcoholic wine being safe in a shared chalice then that's an incorrect assumption. No container can insure against some kins of shared infection esp the more likely viruses of norovirus, colds and herpes. Bacterial things like e coli wont be stopped either.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, let's say that if I were using the word 'celebration' with my friends they'd expect me to be referring to something livelier than what normally happens in Communion!
Which might suggest something is amiss about the way Communion is celebrated.

But again, "livelier" (full of life) is not the same thing as fun (something that provides mirth or amusement; enjoyment or playfulness). I'd wager that mirth, amusement or playfulness might form a part of what most people think about when they talk about celebrating, say, a holiday or a birthday, but I'd also wager 'fun' is not the main thing people think of, unless they're children or it's a purely fun holiday, like Halloween. To perhaps relate it to the Eucharist, in the US when people talk about about celebrating Thanksgiving, they mean a big dinner with traditional foods and giving some thought to what they are thankful for.

Well, and football.

In many versions of the Old Hundredth, the second line is
"Him serve with mirth, his praise forth tell", though many others have us serving him with "fear".

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Indeed, Enoch. I much prefer the mirthful version—enjoying God forever and all.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0