Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Ecclesiantics 2018-23: That would be a liturgical matter - miscellaneous questions

1356738

Comments

  • Thanks for the various comments on gluten-free wafers and connected issues.

    The only gluten-free wafers I have managed to get around here are truly yucky, so the idea of moving EVERYONE to gluten-free is a non-starter. There would be a riot if we did that.

    No-one seems to have commented on the idea of using rice crackers. I have now purchased two different types and although they might (just MIGHT) be OK in an emergency, I wouldn't use them regularly for gluten-free people.

    I am very well aware of the serious nature of genuine coeliacs. I was rather fortunate that in my curacy we had someone who had a severe reaction to gluten. He very kindly spoke to me about it and what he needed. He had his own supply of acceptable wafers and his own pyx into which he would place one and then put it on the altar at the start of the service. All the clergy of the parish knew how to deal with him and to ensure that there was no possibility of cross-contamination.

    It is true that being "gluten-free" is for some people a bit of a fad, but I accept that there are people (not coeliacs) for whom gluten can cause a problem. For a while my daughter was recommended by her doctor to go onto a mainly gluten-free diet to deal with some health issues. She said that it did make a bit of a difference for her. But yes, there are people who just jump on the latest health bandwagon. C'est la vie!

    We don't permit intinction at all. The Diocesan view (forcefully expressed by the Bishop) is that intinction (especially by parishioners themselves) creates too many possibilities for spreading infections. Whether you agree with that or not is probably another debate on another thread.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Zacchaeus wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Zacchaeus wrote: »
    I'd rather take note of people who are there and make sure they feel safe recieving communion.
    Yes, and you can do that by using wafers that have been vetted by coeliac associations.

    Not all coeliacs agree with their association/society, they would disagree about the low gluten being safe for them
    Yes, and a lot of people disagree with their doctors, too. I don't see how that's relevant. We can't take every self-diagnosis into consideration.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    The problem with rice crackers is that that has always been deemed as invalid matter for the Eucharist. So it becomes a question of sacramental assurance.
  • They have been declared invalid as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned. The statement struck me as a deeply insensitive piece of fundamentalism, and I would be shocked to find it being taken into account by those not under obedience to Rome.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    They have been declared invalid as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.
    And about very other historic Church.
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    How many coeliacs do you know? How many supersenstive ones, in particular? How many people with a significant and painful wheat allergy? And don't come to me with transubstantiation.

    In any case, I find the Pope's position incomprehensible. In no other respect is the mass presented as a historical re-enactment; it's about making Christ present now, not pretending that the congregation is present at a first-century meal.
  • kmann wrote: »
    Zacchaeus wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Zacchaeus wrote: »
    I'd rather take note of people who are there and make sure they feel safe recieving communion.
    Yes, and you can do that by using wafers that have been vetted by coeliac associations.

    Not all coeliacs agree with their association/society, they would disagree about the low gluten being safe for them
    Yes, and a lot of people disagree with their doctors, too. I don't see how that's relevant. We can't take every self-diagnosis into consideration.
    The relevance is showing respect. If my doctor tells me that I cannot consume any gluten at all, and my clergyman tells me that oh no, these low gluten hosts are just fine, I'm trusting the one who actually has a medical degree. And I will likely feel that my concerns have been trivialized by the one who doesn’t.
    kmann wrote: »
    The problem with rice crackers is that that has always been deemed as invalid matter for the Eucharist. So it becomes a question of sacramental assurance.
    kmann wrote: »
    They have been declared invalid as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.
    And about very other historic Church.
    How are you defining “historic Church.” I’m aware that the Roman Catholic Church considers anything other than wheat bread “invalid matter.” While I wouldn’t be at all surprised that the Orthodox require the use of wheat bread as well, I've never heard anyone other than Roman and Anglo-Catholics use the term “invalid matter.” I’d be interested what other churches—“historic” or not—have formally declared that the use of non-wheat bread invalidates the sacrament.

    In my particular tribe, sacramental assurance has much more to do with the promise of Christ than the exact ingredients of the bread.
  • kmann wrote: »
    Zacchaeus wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Zacchaeus wrote: »
    I'd rather take note of people who are there and make sure they feel safe recieving communion.
    Yes, and you can do that by using wafers that have been vetted by coeliac associations.

    Not all coeliacs agree with their association/society, they would disagree about the low gluten being safe for them
    Yes, and a lot of people disagree with their doctors, too. I don't see how that's relevant. We can't take every self-diagnosis into consideration.

    Somebody with coeliac is not self-diagnosing they have a serious autoimmune disorder

    The site brojames linked to says

    'The low-gluten wafers made by the Benedictine Sisters contain less than 100 parts per million. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently put a regulation in place that products can be labelled gluten-free if the gluten content is less than 20 parts per million'

    The low gluten wafers are above the recommended level to be labelled gluten free. Churches have a duty of care to make sure we are not making our congregation members ill when we give them communion. So if somebody who is coeliac says they don’t want to take low gluten wafers because they are not gluten free we have to respect that


  • TomMTomM Shipmate Posts: 15
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Zacchaeus wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    Zacchaeus wrote: »
    I'd rather take note of people who are there and make sure they feel safe recieving communion.
    Yes, and you can do that by using wafers that have been vetted by coeliac associations.

    Not all coeliacs agree with their association/society, they would disagree about the low gluten being safe for them
    Yes, and a lot of people disagree with their doctors, too. I don't see how that's relevant. We can't take every self-diagnosis into consideration.
    The relevance is showing respect. If my doctor tells me that I cannot consume any gluten at all, and my clergyman tells me that oh no, these low gluten hosts are just fine, I'm trusting the one who actually has a medical degree. And I will likely feel that my concerns have been trivialized by the one who doesn’t.
    kmann wrote: »
    The problem with rice crackers is that that has always been deemed as invalid matter for the Eucharist. So it becomes a question of sacramental assurance.
    kmann wrote: »
    They have been declared invalid as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.
    And about very other historic Church.
    How are you defining “historic Church.” I’m aware that the Roman Catholic Church considers anything other than wheat bread “invalid matter.” While I wouldn’t be at all surprised that the Orthodox require the use of wheat bread as well, I've never heard anyone other than Roman and Anglo-Catholics use the term “invalid matter.” I’d be interested what other churches—“historic” or not—have formally declared that the use of non-wheat bread invalidates the sacrament.

    In my particular tribe, sacramental assurance has much more to do with the promise of Christ than the exact ingredients of the bread.

    It doesn't use the phrase 'valid matter', but the foundational liturgical text for Anglicanism requires the use of the 'the best and purest Wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten', which I'd suggest implies something in the same territory, does it not?
  • It may well do, but it was written to serve the church of its time, long before the identification and proliferation of autoimmune disease, of which coeliac disease is a serious, potentially life-limiting sort, particularly if its sufferers are subjected to the consumption of gluten every week. The human body is not regulated by the Book of Common Prayer, and as far as I know, intolerance or other adverse reaction to wheat is not a sign of being improperly prepared to receive the sacramental elements.
  • It does indeed, yes. I couldn’t remember what requirement there might be in Anglicanism, but I do now recall that rubric. (FWIW, I note there doesn’t seem to be a similar rubric in the 1979 BCP of the Episcopal Church.)

    Is there a similar stipulation in Lutheranism? I am not aware of anything similar among the Reformed historically, though of course it might be there somewhere I’m not aware of. There’s nothing in the Westminster Directory. The current requirement for us is that “[t]he bread used for the Lord’s Supper should be common to the culture of the congregation.” But there’s no requirement that restricts the bread to wheat bread.
  • LeoLeo Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    The problem with rice crackers is that that has always been deemed as invalid matter for the Eucharist. So it becomes a question of sacramental assurance.

    They're not made of bread so how can they be valid?
  • ThunderBunkThunderBunk Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Because they are a reasonable substitute, made out of the fundamental grain of many people's diets across the world, which does not trigger the pathological response of some people's intestines to gluten. I see no reason why they should be any less suitable to convey the sustaining love of God, or indeed to be transformed by the eye of faith into the body of Christ. Certainly no less suitable than either the wafers customarily in use or plastic white sliced.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    I have not told people to ignore their doctors. In fact I have said the opposite. Please refrain from slandering me.

    What I have said is that it is the coeliacs associations themselves who OK these wafers. I have confidence that they actually know what they are talking about. And you get wheat wafers with gluten content less than 20 parts per million. Here, for example: "Cavanagh low gluten Communion hosts are made in a dedicated bakery from a recipe of wheat starch and water, approved by the United States Council of Catholic Bishops as valid matter for use in the Catholic Eucharist according to canonical requirements. Gluten content of this wafer is below 20 parts per million." http://www.celebratecommunion.com/low-gluten-communion-host-individually-wrapped

    If this is too high, one should just communicate under one kind, i.e the blood of Christ. You don't get any 'less Christ' if you can't communicate under both kinds.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    kmann wrote: »
    I have not told people to ignore their doctors. In fact I have said the opposite. Please refrain from slandering me.
    If I misunderstood you, I apologize. It did seem to me to be the logical conclusion of what you were saying.
    What I have said is that it is the coeliacs associations themselves who OK these wafers. I have confidence that they actually know what they are talking about.
    But you also seem to be saying that people who actually have experience with celiac don’t know what they’re talking about, that the assertions of an association should override what flesh and blood parishioners are saying about they’re own experience. Again, if I’m misunderstanding you, I do apologize. But that’s what you seem to me to be saying.
    If this is too high, one should just communicate under one kind, i.e the blood of Christ. You don't get any 'less Christ' if you can't communicate under both kinds.
    If “one” is a communicant in a tradition that requires wheat bread, then yes. But for those of us in a tradition where wheat bread is the traditional norm but is not non-negotiable, then other options may be available and may be more appropriate.
  • It may well do, but it was written to serve the church of its time, long before the identification and proliferation of autoimmune disease, of which coeliac disease is a serious, potentially life-limiting sort, particularly if its sufferers are subjected to the consumption of gluten every week. The human body is not regulated by the Book of Common Prayer, and as far as I know, intolerance or other adverse reaction to wheat is not a sign of being improperly prepared to receive the sacramental elements.
    FWIW, I did a little googling for if and where where that phrase might be in other BCPs. The full rubric was:
    “And to take away the superstition, which any person hath, or might have in the bread and wine, it shall suffice that the bread be such, as is usual to be eaten at the Table with other meals, but the best and purest wheat bread, that conveniently may be gotten.”
    It turns out that the top Google hits are to a nineteenth century court decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Ridsdale v. Clifton, which is a very long decision that deals with a variety of liturgical issues. What Google hits on is the part of the opinion that quotes the rubric and then says:
    “Their Lordships have no doubt that a wafer, in the sense in which the word is usually employed, that is, as denoting a composition of flour and water rolled very thin and unleavened, is not ‘bread such as is usual to be eaten,’ or ‘the best and purest wheat bread that conviently may be gotten.’”
    For this reason, wafers as described did not “suffice” under the rubric.

    FWIW.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    How many coeliacs do you know? How many supersenstive ones, in particular? How many people with a significant and painful wheat allergy? And don't come to me with transubstantiation.

    I'm not sure how transubstantiation would have any bearing on the matter.

    The issue seems to me to be to be one of how we can accommodate those with particular needs without compromising the integrity of the Mystery. Rice cakes simply wouldn't feature in the discussion in the Orthodox tradition - the suggestion a complete non-starter. We only barely find acceptable the azymite practice of our Armenian sisters and brothers, but at least they use bread. Rice? No chance.

    We owe no obedience to Rome so I'm sorry if that causes any shock, but there it is.

    I have known coeliacs who suffer with even a grain of ingested bread, and who have separate counters and meticulous surface wiping routines at home to avoid contamination, but who have no problem receiving the Holy Things. Still, this is a miracle for which we should be grateful and which cannot be expected in all cases. Therefore, a simple solution would seem to be the separation of a small quantity of the Holy Blood prior to the Commixture. In fact, the Fraction would seem the ideal time, liturgically speaking, to do this.

    Those affected by gluten could then be communicated from this portion.
  • The problem is that the levels Kmann is reporting are really equivalent to those levels in homoeopathic medication. Can we in a wheat eating society really get any food with lower levels?

    Jengie
  • The UN codex alimentarius sets a level of 20mg per kg, so it must be possible. That's 5 times less than the standard mentioned above.
  • As is often the case, my greatest vehemence is not in my own cause. Someone in my mother's position would never be healthy as a result of receiving a wafer of that kind once a week. It takes her up to two weeks to recover from any ingestion of gluten that is above the minute trace level, as set out in the original codex alimentarius. A coeliac small intestine that is never healthy is a risk for other diseases, including stomach cancer.

    For my part, I have some other form of enteropathy, of the sort airily dismissed above. The relief at starting to use the lower-gluten wafers and not having my IBS notably set off every time I receive communion is enormous.
  • Not all coeliacs are diagnosed. To be diagnosed someone has to eat wheat to prove the presence of the reaction. Which when that causes a couple of weeks of severe pain may mean that getting a diagnosis isn't a viable option.
  • At the end of the day, if someone says that they cannot take other than gluten-free bread or wafers, just accept their word, and make provision accordingly.

    No argument - that' s not the church's business. The church's business is gently and unobtrusively to accommodate that person, however that may best be achieved.

    This is not rocket science!

    IJ
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    The UN codex alimentarius sets a level of 20mg per kg, so it must be possible. That's 5 times less than the standard mentioned above.
    Except that the producer I cited do produce wafers with less than 20 parts per million.
    No argument - that' s not the church's business. The church's business is gently and unobtrusively to accommodate that person, however that may best be achieved.
    Yes, and we can accomodate them by using wafers that doctors and coeliacs associations tell us are harmless, i.e. the ones I pointed to above.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Here’s the advice from Coeliac UK
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    At the end of the day, if someone says that they cannot take other than gluten-free bread or wafers, just accept their word, and make provision accordingly.

    No argument - that' s not the church's business. The church's business is gently and unobtrusively to accommodate that person, however that may best be achieved.

    This is not rocket science!

    IJ

    Exactly. AFAIK, none of our congregation is a patient of another - and we have a fair few medicos in the parish. I would never give an off-the-cuff analysis of anyone's legal issues and I would not expect a doctor to do the equivalent. Even more so when the relationship is via electronic transmission.

    The wafers we use have an incredibly low amount of gluten in them, not sure off the top of my head if it's 20 parts per hundred thousand or per million. We've given full details to tgose who ask for gluten-free and suggested that they may wish to ask their doctor. All have said it's ok. The message is that both need to be open with the other; te parish needs to accept unquestioningly if someone says gluten-free is needed, and that person needs to accept that the wafers we use still have the miniscule portion of gluten and that they need to check that's ok for them.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Here’s the advice from Coeliac UK
    And they support my point; that you can use wheat wafers that contain 20 parts per million (ppm) or less, and that they can even be labeled 'gluten free.' And that is what is contained in the wafers I have pointed too.
  • (I am somewhat surprised that this discussion has lasted as long as it has. If I had thought that it was going to do this, I would have opened a completely new thread.)

    I have now had the opportunity to do some serious research into sources of gluten-free (or low gluten) wafers available in the area. It took me some time but I have now come up with four different sources. The only problem is that it is difficult to compare prices because they sell in different quantities and charge differing amounts for delivery. In fact, one supplier (who shall not be named) won't even give me a figure for delivery until AFTER I have placed an order. Needless to say, they won't be getting any of my business.

    I have placed an order for some gluten-free wafers with a supplier that is reasonably cheap and seems reliable. it will be interesting to see how long it takes for them to arrive.
  • Lily Pad wrote: »
    The gluten free wafers I have had are almost exactly the same as the regular ones in terms of taste and texture. Years ago, there was a big difference though. A separate cup is necessary if you have people with true celiac disease.

    We communicate the gluten free folks first, to avoid the chance of cross-contamination.
  • Has anyone ever heard of a real (not hypothetical case) - sorry if it's been already mentioned - of someone who has a real medical diagnosis of not being able to have any gluten whatsoever in their host AND also for real medical reasons - alcoholism or some severe physical intolerance of alcohol - cannot have any wine whatsoever, even dealcoholised wine/mustum?
  • Mmm, my daughter, which may be a lot of the reason she's not rushing to confirmation. Not sure about the mustum, but wine isn't an option. She is very, very allergic and I can't drink wine around her, plus I have to be really careful not to cross contaminate gluten.
  • Mmm, my daughter, which may be a lot of the reason she's not rushing to confirmation. Not sure about the mustum, but wine isn't an option. She is very, very allergic and I can't drink wine around her, plus I have to be really careful not to cross contaminate gluten.

    What denomination would your daughter be confirmed in? What have clergy said to you about accommodating her medical needs?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Regards the rice cake. Officially our denomination (ELCA) takes no position on this. You could argue that rice is a grain, just like wheat or rye or barley. It comes from an aquatic grass. But, personally, I prefer finding other gluten free breads.
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Has anyone ever heard of a real (not hypothetical case) - sorry if it's been already mentioned - of someone who has a real medical diagnosis of not being able to have any gluten whatsoever in their host AND also for real medical reasons - alcoholism or some severe physical intolerance of alcohol - cannot have any wine whatsoever, even dealcoholised wine/mustum?

    Make a spiritual communion. For the CofE, the rubric in the BCP Communion of the Sick would seem to cover the case:

    "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." (emphasis added)

    Probably not envisaged to be used every time, but nothing there to say it shouldn't be.

    And,as I think of it now, I suppose you could do this during an ordinary service without making a big thing of it, if the priest knows about it: off the top of my head, person comes to the rail with the others, priest says the words of administration but does not physically administer anything; everything, in short, as it is for everyone else, except that no bread or wine is consumed.
  • Several years ago I went to a weekday Eucharist before heading off for an outpatient surgery. I couldn't eat anything that morning (and my priest was aware of the circumstances), so I went up for a blessing at Communion time. I considered it a spiritual Communion.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Several years ago I was extremely ill and they had to do emergency surgery to save me. Fortunately, my Bishop got to me before they wheeled me into the operating room--I was in the prep area. He was able to give me full communion. Wafer and Wine. The amounts given are so small, they should not prevent you from having a surgery. What the doctors are concerns about is if you have a full meal. A sip of wine and a wafer are not that much.
  • Yes but in certain illnesses, the ability to eat and swallow goes before the end. So it is not a medical prohibition but a fact of the illness. Dementia is one of these. This is why the provision is made.

    Jengie
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 2018
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    There are recipes out there for gluten free breads. Our congregation makes a loaf which we share with everyone. Personally, speaking, we have used loafs for such a long time whenever I go to a congregation that has the regular wafers, I often find them cardboardy and dry too.

    Our local newsagent used to sell the ones with sherbet in. Much better on that front.


  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Cyprian wrote: »
    I want to buy an alb. This looks good but is very inexpensive compared to the other ecclesiatical suppliers' wares and I'm wondering whether that might be a reflection of the quality. Does anybody have any experience of this alb from Vanpoulles?

    I've got one- bought about 10 years ago (not heavily used since) It's fine.

    I think I forgot to thank you properly for this, Rosa Gallica. The alb has arrived and is, as you say, just fine. It is of good quality and hangs well. I was a little concerned that the intervals between sizes are quite significant due to the fact that they are in inches rather than real measurements. However, I have been fortunate enough that there is a length available that has turned out to be just right for me.

    I would certainly recommend this, Bishop's Finger, if you are considering purchasing a new alb. You will, of course, require an amice to go with it, and they sell these too. There are amices available less expensively from elsewhere but with the separate shipping cost that this would incur I found it cheaper to buy everything from the same place.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    They have been declared invalid as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.

    And the Ukrainain Greek Catholic Church, and the Maronite Catholic Church, and the Russian Catholic Church, and the Armenian Catholic Church, and the Ruthenian Catholic Church, and the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, and the Alexandrian Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and the Orthodox Church in America, and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, and the Orthodox Church of Sinai, and the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Church, and the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Indian Orthodox Church, and the French Orthodox Church, and the Celtic Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church of the Gauls, and many other churches that find their roots in apostolic times with unbroken succession of faith and sacramental practice.

    All of which makes your following statement seem outrageously disingenuous.
    The statement struck me as a deeply insensitive piece of fundamentalism, and I would be shocked to find it being taken into account by those not under obedience to Rome.

    Surely you cannot expect anyone to take this seriously.
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    I don't know whether it affects the rest of your argument, but those last three churches you mention are basically Episcopi Vagantes set-ups, aren't they? I wouldn't take anything they said too seriously. The Greek Orthodox etc are another kettle of fish.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    Albertus wrote: »
    I don't know whether it affects the rest of your argument, but those last three churches you mention are basically Episcopi Vagantes set-ups, aren't they? I wouldn't take anything they said too seriously.

    It's true that we're not officially recognised by the current standards of canonicity of the Eastern Orthodox churches (the Oriental Orthodox churches are more open to us in the Western Orthodox communion), but to describe us as episcopi vagantes seems to be stretching those definitions a lot. I would be interested to know the reasoning behind this claim.
  • Generally when I google a church and the first thing I come across is extensive details of when and how its Bishops were consecrated I start to wonder whether it is themselves or anyone else they're trying to convince. I would also be concerned that churches that keep splitting, merging, renaming et al in the space of a few decades lack a coherent identity and tradition. It smacks more of protestantism than catholicity.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    I can certainly see that, although I suppose there are often reasons for these developments. As for whether they justify the outcome, I wouldn't want to say from a position of not having been around at the time or had to face the trials of those who took decisions in the past.

    I suppose when I hear of episcopi vagantes, I tend to think of primarily dressing-up affairs, with grand titles, plenty of vestments, no real congregations or missionary outreach, and websites demonstrating an almost desperate attempt at incardinating clergy.

    I suppose my back arched a little when I read Albertus's post, as I didn't recognise my church in the description. I apologise if my response came across as terse.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    I use the word "suppose" far too often.
  • Those French outfits look intriguing, but they don't appear to be recognised by either the Eastern Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox. Is that a problem?
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Those French outfits look intriguing, but they don't appear to be recognised by either the Eastern Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox. Is that a problem?

    We don't see it as ideal but it doesn't negate who we are. We're a communion of churches in our own right, fully recognising the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

    The official non-reciprocal recognition doesn't prevent good relations in many cases and even occasional concelebrations.
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    My apologies for delay in replying, Cyprian- been away from the machine with my log-in details on it and couldn't remember them.
    I'm sorry for any offence I caused. But am I not right in thinking that you are in the tradition of Willmott Newman (Mar Georgius) and people like that, who were very much part of that strange mid-C20 world of complex networks of consecrations and excommunications and grand titles and ecumenical councils held in rather prosaic suburbs? I'd call those episcopi vagantes and a lot of other people would too.
    But of course that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about where you are now, does it. Authentic Christian communities, and the means of God's grace to their members (some of whom perhaps have found they don't fit so well into more established bodies)? From what I can see, undoubtedly, and thank God for that. Bodies whose views on things like the canonical validity of rice flour hosts carry weight to people who are not their members? Not really, any more than the views of the independent evangelical church up the road would be. Or, you might say, those of the Church in Wales (to which I belong) and I'd find it hard to persuade you otherwise.
    But important thing in this post is my apology for my dismissive tone.
  • I have one or two books on the subject of Episcopi Vagantes, (written about 60 years ago) from a C of E perspective. An interesting, if somewhat esoteric, subject.

    The impression given is indeed of rather eccentric men, consecrating one another on a wet Sunday afternoon in a converted domestic garage, and duly excommunicating each other the following weekend.

    I don't doubt that more could be told....though maybe that's for a separate thread?

    IJ
  • AlbertusAlbertus Shipmate
    Brandreth and Anson, I imagine? But yes, that seems to be pretty much it, at least as the scene was then.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Albertus wrote: »
    My apologies for delay in replying, Cyprian- been away from the machine with my log-in details on it and couldn't remember them.
    I'm sorry for any offence I caused.

    Please, you have no reason to apologise, and I'm sorry that I made you feel that you did.

    I think that my response was because I am accustomed to Eastern Orthodox referring to us as "uncanonical" (which is a term whose usage has changed drastically within Eastern Orthodoxy over the last century so that today it is used to mean "people who do not submit to our authority" - the Old Calendarists, as well as Fr Alexander Schmemann have written on this not being the authentic Orthodox understanding of the term). What was new to me was being grouped in the episcopi vagantes category, which I had not previously experienced, and I'm sorry for my response.
    But am I not right in thinking that you are in the tradition of Willmott Newman (Mar Georgius) and people like that, who were very much part of that strange mid-C20 world of complex networks of consecrations and excommunications and grand titles and ecumenical councils held in rather prosaic suburbs? I'd call those episcopi vagantes and a lot of other people would too.

    This is certainly part of the history of the Celtic Orthodox Church. They are part of our communion and I must confess the part with which I occasionally experience a little unease, partly for the reasons you mention, although in origin they were founded as the British mission of the Syriac Orthodox Church and today display none of the sort of strangeness that was present in parts of the 20th century.

    The French Orthodox Church was simply the French Diocese of the Old Calendar Church of Greece, so has its roots directly in the Greek Orthodox Church.

    My own church is the Orthodox Church of the Gauls. Our origins are in the 1930s, when a group of Old Catholic parishes were received by the Russian Orthodox Church and permitted to continue using the Western Rite. This is the church that was renamed in the 1950s as the Orthodox-Catholic Church of France (Eglise Orthodoxe-Catholique de France, or ECOF), at the direction of St John the Wonderworker. They were part of Eastern Orthodoxy from 1936 right through until 1993, when the Romanian Orthodox Church, of which it was then part, succumbed to pressure to do away with the Western Rite, (reflecting an anti-western sentiment often experienced by Western Rite Orthodox throughout the 20th and present centuries), and removed its authority for them to continue. Parishes that wanted to remain in the Romanian church had to adopt Byzantine services, eastern music, and essentially forgo what they had seen as core to their western missionary calling.

    Needless to say, most parishes and communities stayed in ECOF, hoping that the situation would be resolved, and it might well have been had it not been for the scandal that later came about around the person of ECOF's bishop. After that came to light, some ECOF parishes left and went to various Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions and were forced to become Byzantine Rite. Those who wished to retain the Western Rite and their western missionary purpose eventually became the Orthodox Church of the Gauls.

    The above three churches essentially saw that they had the same Orthodox Faith and much in common in terms of their missionary purpose, so came together in 2007 and have operated as the Western Orthodox Communion ever since.
    But of course that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about where you are now, does it.

    These are precisely my own thoughts regarding the Celtic Orthodox Church. Certainly there was period of irregularity that characterised them during the 20th century, but that all happened before I was born, and nothing like that is in evidence today. They were founded as Orthodox, have preserved their succession, and their teachings and praxis seem to me to be both Orthodox and stable. So I think of that when I need to allay any concerns that I might have, and I'm happy to embrace them as family.
    Authentic Christian communities, and the means of God's grace to their members (some of whom perhaps have found they don't fit so well into more established bodies)? From what I can see, undoubtedly, and thank God for that.

    That's incredibly kind and generous of you, Albertus. I have certainly found love here, which was just what I needed at a time when the welcome was perhaps not quite so warm in the Eastern Orthodox Church, of which I had been part for ten years, (clergy in minor orders for five of them). It has shown me a side to Orthodox Christianity that a life in a very conservative jurisdiction had not allowed me to see. A more objective view of Orthodox history and interactions has made me aware of our own problems and a better sense of perspective on our relations with other churches too. Apart from anything else, the OCG has given me an Orthodox home again, with our worship, teachings, and importantly, the sacraments.

    One of our deacons runs channels on Youtube and Dailymotion (which I always think sounds like a brand of laxative, but there we are).
    Bodies whose views on things like the canonical validity of rice flour hosts carry weight to people who are not their members? Not really, any more than the views of the independent evangelical church up the road would be.

    Quite so, and I would certainly not expect our understanding about what constitutes the necessities of the Eucharist to be adhered to by people who do not belong to us. I was merely responding to Thunderbunk's suggestion that only churches under obedience to Rome would object to rice.

    Thank you, again, for your post.

Sign In or Register to comment.