Rossweisse
RIP Rossweisse, HellHost and long-time Shipmate.
Please see the thread in All Saints remembering her.

Forbidding the Cup to the Laity violates Anglican Doctrine

So says one of my colleagues protesting the decision in some dioceses to no longer give the laity the communion wine out of concern over the COVID virus.

I am of mixed mind about this, Article XXX of the Thirty Nine articles is pretty clear, but that article didn't really foresee the situation regarding a possible pandemic affecting the Eucharist.
«1345

Comments

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    {Cross Pond. Not an Anglican, but I've spent a fair amount of time in Episcopalian and RC masses.}

    Does your colleague think communicants will be protected by God if they *do* take the cup?

    I heard the idea many years ago, possibly in reference to HIV/AIDS. Respectfully, I don't buy it. God seems not to protect people from other bad things that go on in church buildings, so ISTM unlikely that there would be special protection during the Eucharist.
  • GarasuGarasu Shipmate
    Again, not Anglican so just questions from a position of complete ignorance:

    Isn't there some provision for receiving in only one of the elements? Or does that only apply to having the wine and not the bread? If you do have to have the wine, that seems more problematic but doesn't Anglican discipline say you don't have to receive communion each time? In which case to suspend it for a particular period under particular circumstances would seem to be covered?
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Does your colleague think communicants will be protected by God if they *do* take the cup?

    I'm not sure God will, at least in any miraculous way, but I'm still willing to bet on cold silver, white cotton, and 14+% proof alcohol

  • Of course, you could do what many Nonconformists do and use wee cuppied, although that might involve significant financial outlay: https://www.kevinmayhew.com/circular-communion-tray.html
  • Zappa wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Does your colleague think communicants will be protected by God if they *do* take the cup?

    I'm not sure God will, at least in any miraculous way, but I'm still willing to bet on cold silver, white cotton, and 14+% proof alcohol

    Ask any infection control specialist: it doesn't work. Alcohol has to be at least 60% to do any good. If you do what you say it's playing Russian Roulette with your health and that of others.

    You could work around it by having one cup then decanting it into little cups rather like we start off with.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 7
    Of course, you could do what many Nonconformists do and use wee cuppied, although that might involve significant financial outlay: https://www.kevinmayhew.com/circular-communion-tray.html

    We are going to be having communion in one kind only tomorrow, but the other kind: wine/juice in wee cuppies (our longstanding practice), but not the bread, which is traditionally cut/broken into pieces that are passed round.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited March 7
    Zappa wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Does your colleague think communicants will be protected by God if they *do* take the cup?

    I'm not sure God will, at least in any miraculous way, but I'm still willing to bet on cold silver, white cotton, and 14+% proof alcohol

    @Zappa Alcohol proportion of any cleaning substance needs to be over 60% to kill corona virus (which would be 120 proof by the American system.). Ideally somewhat higher.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Zappa wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Does your colleague think communicants will be protected by God if they *do* take the cup?

    I'm not sure God will, at least in any miraculous way, but I'm still willing to bet on cold silver, white cotton, and 14+% proof alcohol

    ++ Glenn seems to think otherwise. He's just sent out an "advice" that covers all sorts of strange eucharistic practices which are apparently OK from a public health perspective but advises against the common cup.

    Exclamation Mark - does that take into account the efficacy of the silver?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited March 7
    A lot of misinformation About infection control is spreading online. Before you repeat *any* speculative advice you really should check it’s accurate. The WHO have a myth busters page.
  • Re abstaining completely from Communion - IIRC, confirmed members of the C of E are required to receive at least 3 times per year (one of which is to be Easter), so abstention is, in a sense, an option in line with the BCP.

    True, Cranmer envisaged Communion as always being received in both kinds, but, as has been said, he could not have foreseen a pandemic.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    Doesn’t Revalation literally foresee a pandemic ? I assumed that was pestilence.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    IIRC, confirmed members of the C of E are required to receive at least 3 times per year (one of which is to be Easter)

    I have to say that I find the idea of the Church requiring people to take communion, let alone at set times, utterly foreign to my way of thinking.
  • Perhaps that wasn't quite the right word - I don't have a copy of the BCP to hand, but it's certainly expected...
  • As part of its advice, the Church in Wales is saying: "It is, and has long been, Anglican teaching that to receive the sacrament in one kind only (i.e. just the bread) is to receive the sacrament in its entirety". Is that in fact true?
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    I imagine the laity's reception in both kinds is rooted in wishing to differentiate Anglicans from Roman Catholics. Back in the day, only the Catholic clergy received the cup not their lay people. Another "We aren't Papists" signifier.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    I've just read the Article in question. It doesn't seem to be a matter of doctrine, but good practice, to normally receive in both kinds. The doctrine is whether the whole Christ is received in one kind only, about which the Article doesn't speculate. As others have implied, exceptional circumstances call for exceptions.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    As an Episcopalian I’ve always been told that receiving communion in one kind is to receive it all.

    As far as article xxx goes, one could be legalistic and say that the cup isn’t being denied so much as temporarily withheld. Article xxx was written with an eye on old Roman Catholic practice, so I don’t think it’s applicable.
  • MrsBeakyMrsBeaky Shipmate
    Of course, you could do what many Nonconformists do and use wee cuppied, although that might involve significant financial outlay: https://www.kevinmayhew.com/circular-communion-tray.html

    That's what the Anglican Church in Kenya did when HIV hit. The presiding clergy have the chalice and the congregation the little cups They are still continuing the practice as far as I am aware.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited March 7
    I was once in a service in rural West Africa where they had only ONE wee cuppie, passed back down the row and refilled with non-alcoholic wine for each communicant (probably about 75 in total). The health implications were staggering - and the service lasted for ever!
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Of course, you could do what many Nonconformists do and use wee cuppied, although that might involve significant financial outlay: https://www.kevinmayhew.com/circular-communion-tray.html

    We are going to be having communion in one kind only tomorrow, but the other kind: wine/juice in wee cuppies (our longstanding practice), but not the bread, which is traditionally cut/broken into pieces that are passed round.

    My idea. We have cups anyway. I will wash/sanitise and cut the one loaf into small pieces. This will be put on 4 plates. The servers will publicly sanitise and then take the bread round placing a piece in the cupped hands of the people there. They can chose or not whether to take it
  • As part of its advice, the Church in Wales is saying: "It is, and has long been, Anglican teaching that to receive the sacrament in one kind only (i.e. just the bread) is to receive the sacrament in its entirety". Is that in fact true?

    No. Jesus said: this is my body … this is my blood … do this in remembrance of me.

    "This" not that. The CofW seems a high church accommodation to me
  • Jesus said: this is my body … this is my blood … do this in remembrance of me. "This" not that. The CofW seems a high church accommodation to me
    Or at least an Anglican one! BTW I like your idea re. the bread.

  • As part of its advice, the Church in Wales is saying: "It is, and has long been, Anglican teaching that to receive the sacrament in one kind only (i.e. just the bread) is to receive the sacrament in its entirety". Is that in fact true?

    No. Jesus said: this is my body … this is my blood … do this in remembrance of me.

    "This" not that. The CofW seems a high church accommodation to me

    An accommodation for alcoholics as much as anyone.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    {Cross Pond. Not an Anglican, but I've spent a fair amount of time in Episcopalian and RC masses.}

    Does your colleague think communicants will be protected by God if they *do* take the cup?

    I heard the idea many years ago, possibly in reference to HIV/AIDS. Respectfully, I don't buy it. God seems not to protect people from other bad things that go on in church buildings, so ISTM unlikely that there would be special protection during the Eucharist.

    One friend of mine with celiac disease was once told when she explained she could not take the wheat wafer, "Jesus won't make you sick."

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 7
    My idea. We have cups anyway. I will wash/sanitise and cut the one loaf into small pieces. This will be put on 4 plates.

    That was last week's adjustment here, i.e. the bread pieces were spread out on plates rather than being together in a basket. We've now ruled handing out the pieces for now: the idea of receiving the host bread in cupped hands seemed just too Catholic to contemplate, so we've decided to try the "one kind" measure.

    :confused:
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    The recommendation is that those administering communion should make appropriate use of hand sanitizer before administering. Properly done that ought to suffice.
    (from here).

    What I find fascinating is what pushes whose theological buttons. I've discovered I really struggle with the idea of "administering" (not to say I've never done this or partaken this way, depending on the setting) because in our church the notion of "priesthood of all believers" is very important: we traditionally 'administer' communion to one another, or rather, simply pass the elements from one to the other, with no regard for who is doing the 'administering'. The problem is that this whole sharing ethos is also a great disease vector.
  • It's interesting to note that the current concerns have perhaps made us think more clearly about what we do, and why we do it...
    :wink:
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    All the high church ritual, receiving in one kind (no common cup), with veils for the bread and wine (cover the food), silverware (antibacterial), fortified wine (antibacterial), the lavabo (bowl), maniple (towel to dry your hands), chasuble (put on clean apron before food prep) - clearly evolved for infection control. (I believe the communion rail originally kept animals away from the altar.)

    Washing hands with soap and water then drying you hands, is better than using hand sanitiser - why not use the lavabo for this ? And perhaps the rituals should be updated to meet these purposes given current knowledge - rather than only being adjusted in an epidemic.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    The reactions do indicate a theological divide. If you tend to a memorialist view of the Eucharist, then the literal sharing of bread and wine must be important: it's the symbolic act that matters, not the actual 'sacrament' (if you would call it that anyway). If you have a more sacramental view of the 'real presence', that Christ is present in the elements, then it seems obvious that just as one receives the whole Christ in one tiny piece of bread as in a whole loaf, so one can't receive lessthan the whole Christ either, even by just receiving one kind.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Zappa wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Does your colleague think communicants will be protected by God if they *do* take the cup?

    I'm not sure God will, at least in any miraculous way, but I'm still willing to bet on cold silver, white cotton, and 14+% proof alcohol

    Ask any infection control specialist: it doesn't work. Alcohol has to be at least 60% to do any good. If you do what you say it's playing Russian Roulette with your health and that of others.

    You could work around it by having one cup then decanting it into little cups rather like we start off with.

    The infection control experts in my country disagree with you. As it happens in that diocese cited the bishop is a medical specialist and the registrar is a pubic health care professional by background.


    Communion – receiving the Common Cup: Any person distributing the sacrament from the common cup must be trained in appropriate etiquette and in the proper methods for wiping the vessel between communicants. In particular

    Fresh purificators need to be used for each service and for each communion cup;
    Purificators may need to be changed more frequently depending upon the size of the congregation;
    The purificator should be re-positioned so that a fresh spot is used each time it is used to wipe the common cup; and
    Purificators need to be washed in hot water and ironed with a hot steam iron.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Washing hands with soap and water then drying you hands, is better than using hand sanitiser - why not use the lavabo for this ?
    I don't think you'd get a thorough enough washing with a little lavabo bowl, room temperature water, and no soap. But I'd love to hear the Celebrant sing two verses of "Happy Birthday" while doing so. :wink: (There are certainly more liturgical pieces of music that could be substituted,)
  • The applicable part from Anglican tradition IMHO isn't Article 30, but the following from the Communion of the Sick:

    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.
    https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/communion-sick

    In line with the Reformed theology of classical Anglicanism, we receive the whole of Christ spiritually even if we do not physically receive both the bread and wine.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    The lavabo bowl and towels will need to be changed to large (eg footwashing size) bowls, and soap and water and clean towels provided. This should be come a ceremonial and well as practical action for all distributing. Architects should include running water in future sanctuaries (in the non-USA sense of the word, but USA sense too if necessary). Water should be replaced preferably for each user.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Of course, you could do what many Nonconformists do and use wee cuppied, although that might involve significant financial outlay: https://www.kevinmayhew.com/circular-communion-tray.html
    I just saw in our presbytery e-newsletter yesterday that one local church is offering its wee cuppies (and I assume trays) to any other congregation that would like them.

    Meanwhile, in congregations that aren’t opposed to wee cuppies and juice rather than wine, I can see a run on these.

  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    The Anglican Church in Canada commissioned a report on the use of the common cup some years ago (originally in the 1980s arising out of concerns about AIDS, but I believe it's been updated since). The main consequence of the report was that the Church banned intinction.

    The report's bottom line was that the risk appears to be low, but those who know they have communicable infection should receive in only one kind. Of course this is about the risk in general, not with respect to any specific virus. As of this coming Sunday Toronto diocese will be receiving on only one kind until further notice.

    The text of the report is here:

    https://www.anglican.ca/faith/worship/pir/euc-practice-infection/

    It's interesting, though not as substantial as I thought it would be to be honest.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 7
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Meanwhile, in congregations that aren’t opposed to wee cuppies and juice rather than wine, I can see a run on these.

    This would appeal to me, except that the mass-produced angle turns me right off. It leans too much towards the Gadgets for God end of the spectrum. For now. Complicated, isn't it?
  • Did I hear the words "single-use plastics"?
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    This would appeal to me, except that the mass-produced angle turns me right off. It leans too much towards the Gadgets for God end of the spectrum.

    I believe they did make an appearance on Gadgets for God a number of years ago.


  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    Zappa wrote: »
    Zappa wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Does your colleague think communicants will be protected by God if they *do* take the cup?

    I'm not sure God will, at least in any miraculous way, but I'm still willing to bet on cold silver, white cotton, and 14+% proof alcohol

    Ask any infection control specialist: it doesn't work. Alcohol has to be at least 60% to do any good. If you do what you say it's playing Russian Roulette with your health and that of others.

    You could work around it by having one cup then decanting it into little cups rather like we start off with.

    The infection control experts in my country disagree with you. As it happens in that diocese cited the bishop is a medical specialist and the registrar is a pubic health care professional by background.


    Communion – receiving the Common Cup: Any person distributing the sacrament from the common cup must be trained in appropriate etiquette and in the proper methods for wiping the vessel between communicants. In particular

    Fresh purificators need to be used for each service and for each communion cup;
    Purificators may need to be changed more frequently depending upon the size of the congregation;
    The purificator should be re-positioned so that a fresh spot is used each time it is used to wipe the common cup; and
    Purificators need to be washed in hot water and ironed with a hot steam iron.

    Your page doesn't specify percentage alochol for the sanitizers, but that information - 60% - is part of long term WHO advice. I note it said common cup is better than intinction - it also says that it is same as the risks of "everyday life" - but isn't the point that as part of the response to the pandemic we are starting to change social practices because the risks of "everyday life" are becoming too high - at least in terms of spead of spread of the disease ?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    This would appeal to me, except that the mass-produced angle turns me right off. It leans too much towards the Gadgets for God end of the spectrum.

    I believe they did make an appearance on Gadgets for God a number of years ago.


    Times change. @Doublethink makes a good point. How often do we "sacralise" things that were once seen as intrusive and unspiritual?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited March 7
    Zappa wrote: »
    The lavabo bowl and towels will need to be changed to large (eg footwashing size) bowls, and soap and water and clean towels provided. This should be come a ceremonial and well as practical action for all distributing. Architects should include running water in future sanctuaries (in the non-USA sense of the word, but USA sense too if necessary). Water should be replaced preferably for each user.

    Presumably, if only a few people distribute - they would be the ones who need to wash their hands. What you really need is for them to not have to get themselves and the elements breathed on by the people they are distributing to.

    Seems like tongs might help, there is some liturgical precedent - the lavis spoon of the Orthodox is apparently symbolic of the tongs used by by an angel, instead of symbolic tongs, there could be actual tongs.

    (I was also impressed that there is a thingy to hold the protective veil off the elements.)
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited March 7
    You could have a pile of boil washed cotton napkins at the altar rail, communicants pick one up as they arrive and wrap round their hand to receive the host, so servers hands/tongs don't touch theirs.

    One could have the chalice in which the wine is consecrated be a jug, then each communicant takes a clean glass/small silver cup as they come up and the wine is poured into it as the blessing is recited. Glassess/cups then go in a dishwasher after the service. (Thereby definitely cleaned properly but also not disposable waste.)

    You could colonise this with sacred meaning and symbolism in about five minutes flat. You make a pure throne for the host before you lift the body of Christ to your lips. Christ's blood is spilt / poured for you. It is both one shared transubstantiation in the jug (or pitcher if that feels more kjv) and a gift to each individual child of God. Etc etc.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited March 7
    This is beginning to sound like an Ursula Le Guin short story.

    [ETA or a Monty Python film...]
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited March 7
    I have just discovered that there is literally a prayer of washing hands in the orthodox liturgy of preparation and it is this bit of psalm 26:
    6 I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O Lord:

    7 That I may publish with the voice of thanksgiving, and tell of all thy wondrous works.

    8 Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth.

    9 Gather not my soul with sinners, nor my life with bloody men:

    10 In whose hands is mischief, and their right hand is full of bribes.

    11 But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity: redeem me, and be merciful unto me.

    12 My foot standeth in an even place: in the congregations will I bless the Lord.

    I wonder if it takes 20 seconds to recite ?
  • Fawkes CatFawkes Cat Shipmate
    Zappa wrote: »
    . Architects should include running water in future sanctuaries (in the non-USA sense of the word, but USA sense too if necessary). Water should be replaced preferably for each user.

    Sorry to start a tangent, but what do you mean by the ‘USA’ and 'non-USA' senses of 'running water'? From a UK background I only know of it meaning 'water supplied through a pipe to a tap (faucet)'.
  • angloid wrote: »
    The reactions do indicate a theological divide. If you tend to a memorialist view of the Eucharist, then the literal sharing of bread and wine must be important: it's the symbolic act that matters, not the actual 'sacrament' (if you would call it that anyway). If you have a more sacramental view of the 'real presence', that Christ is present in the elements, then it seems obvious that just as one receives the whole Christ in one tiny piece of bread as in a whole loaf, so one can't receive lessthan the whole Christ either, even by just receiving one kind.

    Forgive me, but you've got me curious. If memorialism denies the real presence, why does it matter whether one remembers Christ in literal sharing of physical bread and wine or not? I mean, I suppose one could use an icon, or read the Bible, or... I don't quite get why "the symbolic act ... matters" if the sacramental aspect is removed. Is it simply obedience--Jesus told us to do this thing, so we do it, and nothing more than that? Kind of like (forgive me) a shibboleth?

    I've wondered about this position ever since I learned that non-sacramental types seem to be far more uptight about the proper way to baptise (age? sprinkling/washing/immersion? one dip or three? and etc.) than the sacramental ones are, who seem to throw the water about with gay abandon. I would have expected the concern with details to go much the other way.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    I don't quite get why "the symbolic act ... matters" if the sacramental aspect is removed. Is it simply obedience--Jesus told us to do this thing, so we do it, and nothing more than that? Kind of like (forgive me) a shibboleth?
    I thought quite a bit about this at the time of the Church of Fools online experiment (in fact I think some discussion I had about it may have contributed to it...).

    I think it's important to our faith that the Word became flesh, and left us a physical, tangible way of remembering him that engages all our senses.

    One doesn't have to believe in transubstantiation to see Communion as as a real-life demonstration of what incarnation actually means and involves.

  • Yes indeed. But the point I was after was, why would non-sacramentalists be so bothered about temporarily remembering Christ in some other way during the coronavirus outbreak? The sacramentalists I can understand...
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited March 7
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Zappa wrote: »
    . Architects should include running water in future sanctuaries (in the non-USA sense of the word, but USA sense too if necessary). Water should be replaced preferably for each user.

    Sorry to start a tangent, but what do you mean by the ‘USA’ and 'non-USA' senses of 'running water'? From a UK background I only know of it meaning 'water supplied through a pipe to a tap (faucet)'.
    I think @Zappa was referring to the word “sanctuary,” but I’d posit it’s a misnomer to refer to the two senses as “the USA sense” and “the non-USA sense.” It’s a denominational difference as much as a regional one. In American Catholic and Episcopal churches in the US, “sanctuary” means the area around the altar. In American Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and some other denominations, “sanctuary” means the entire worship space—where the pews are as well as where the altar/table is.

    Not sure where Lutherans fall on this one, or whether “sanctuary” is used to refer to the whole room by, say, Presbyterians in Scotland.

  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Zappa wrote: »
    . Architects should include running water in future sanctuaries (in the non-USA sense of the word, but USA sense too if necessary). Water should be replaced preferably for each user.

    Sorry to start a tangent, but what do you mean by the ‘USA’ and 'non-USA' senses of 'running water'? From a UK background I only know of it meaning 'water supplied through a pipe to a tap (faucet)'.

    I assumed be meant the different meaning of "sanctuary" not of "running water." Many Americans (mostly the less liturgically-centered ones) refer to the whole church building as the "sanctuary," rather than just the area inside the Altar Rail. (This American cringes when she hears it used to refer to the whole building!)
Sign In or Register to comment.