Smoke Room
Seoirse
Shipmate Posts: 8
All right, folks. Tell me I'm not going mad. I'm messaging a friend abroad (fellow Episcopalian) about subdeaconing. I mentioned the 'smoke room' (in the context of the thurifer fetching a glass of water) and they had no idea what I was on about. Is this just what my church calls the sacristy?
Do you have such a thing in your church? If not, what would you call a small room/cupboard where various candles/candlesticks, monstrances, bells and other large silverware are kept, which contains a safe for the sterling silver vessels and which is plumbed into the ground for disposal of consecrated elements?
Do you have such a thing in your church? If not, what would you call a small room/cupboard where various candles/candlesticks, monstrances, bells and other large silverware are kept, which contains a safe for the sterling silver vessels and which is plumbed into the ground for disposal of consecrated elements?
Comments
FWIW when my (then) parish built a new church in the late 20th century a sink that runs to earth was included.
My current church has a kitchen sink that runs to earth, but that's a matter of logistics - it was enough effort running a water pipe the whole length of the church, no-one thought it worthwhile to run a waste pipe just as far to the septic tank.
Candlesticks and candles are kept in the same place as is used by flower arrangers/cleaners/handyman etc. we only really use incense at requiems, so the thurible hangs on its stand in a convenient corner somewhere.
Candles are kept next door in what was once the choir Vestry (no choir now) along with our large collection of vestments - some in a chest, others on hangers - and a small cupboard for the incense, with a worktop where Madam Sacristan prepares the thurible.
So they were in the Very Low Church Of My Youth, and the Sunday Communion service (8am - 1662 Book of Common Prayer ) was always conducted in a reverent and seemly manner, including the setting-up and putting-away.
That's how Our Place's Madam Sacristan uses the erstwhile choir Vestry, space in the Sacristy proper being very limited, but I'm afraid Madam S is not the tidiest person in the world, when it comes to the carving of candles and/or the spreading about of incense and ash...
The thuribles (we have three!) hang up near the Sacristy door.
As @Baptist Trainfan pertinently remarks, these are not issues faced by every church.
I thought most churches that use candles regularly had one of those poles with a snuffer on one side and a slot for a taper on the other. Something like this (though the examples I recall were a little more basic in appearance): https://www.fadumont.co.uk/products/36-high-candlelighter-with-bell-snuffer
(To chip in on the above, there's yet to be a fire while I've been there but a chorister's heavily-hairsprayed hair went up one Pascha...)
I take it this sink is in the sacristy. The special sink in the sacristy, known as a sacrarium (or sometimes a piscina), is designed to drain directly into the earth rather than into the sewer system. This is done to ensure the reverent disposal of sacred substances, such as water used to cleanse liturgical vessels, linens, or even remnants of the Eucharist.
For example, if a consecrated host falls and must be dissolved in water before disposal, that water is poured into the sacrarium so that it returns to the earth in a dignified manner. Similarly, water used to rinse purificators or corporals—cloths used in the Eucharist—is also disposed of this way. The sacrarium prevents these sacred elements from mingling with sewage, maintaining their sanctity
Holy shit!
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Neither church has a sacristy - the sink in the former was actually in a store cupboard, I think so it was out of the way and wouldn't see much other use but was close to the mains water which didn't run to the side of the building with a vestry and choir vestry.
People get dressed in robes which are kept in the Vestry, hence the word - it is where you vest.
It might make some of us wince a little, but then, there are no doubt memorialists who think that we are completely insane. I suspect the Lord is more concerned about how we treat one another in spite of our different views than he is of our actual practices.
That's largely what the Kirk does. I have settled on the position that, in so far as I am responsible, I will treat the sacrament with due reverence. And, in so far as I am not, I will leave it up to Him whose body and blood it is.
Yes, but our Sacristy is also the place where the priest vests. The server/thurifer robes in the Vestry, where the thurible and incense are kept! As I said earlier, the Sacristy itself is a very small room, and even just two people vesting therein would get in each other's way...
No need to apologise - it's a perfectly reasonable POV.
The Church Of My Youth followed the rubrics of the 1662 BCP very carefully, so any consecrated bread and/or wine left over was reverently consumed by the Vicar and whoever was assisting (the Curate, myself, or sometimes the Verger). I don't think we ever threw anything out for the birds, though IMHO that's not an irreverent option, as @Forthview says.
In my experience, the most common thing to do with the bread is to feed it to the birds, which I see as a reverent act of care for part of God’s creation. If substantial parts of a loaf are remaining, they may be sent home with someone; often at least some effort is made for that someone to be someone who might need or appreciate that sign of hospitality and care. Or they might be saved for a gathering happening at church soon after.
Also in my experience, leftover wine or juice will be drunk or poured on the ground in an appropriate spot outside the church.
So we have a set of wide, shallow drawers that nobody can remember what they contain because they have become stuck shut.
No copes?? Is outrage! What does the priest wear for weddings?
Chasuble if its a Mass. Alb and stole otherwise. We get few weddings maybe one every three or four years. Young folk go away to Uni etc, meet someone, set up home and get married there.
NB, if there is such a thing as high/low church in RC circles, we are definitely of the no incense (unless it's explicitly demanded) and no fuss variety. There is a Tridentine Mass place in town for folks who like that sort of thing.
Yes, although I hope that having to dispose of consecrated hosts in this way wouldn't occur often.
(Good to see you back @Pomona !)
Older prayers might have had something like
Whether any of those equate to “consecration” in terms recognizable by other traditions is for people in those traditions to say.
We Lutherans have a particular view that the body and blood of Jesus is in, with and under the bread and the wine in the act of communion--in the taking and eating. After the rite of the Eucharist, though, it becomes an open question. I say open in that some theologians will argue for the continued sacredness of the elements while others do not think it is important.
Calvin's understandings is classical lawyers response, it has so much room for interpretation that you can get real presence and memorialism out of it.
Here are some other understandings that can be taken as Reformed stances
Christ is present in the sharing of bread and wine. It is not that Christ is becomes present in the bread and wine but within the action. The focus is thus on meal as a communal action.
That in communion Christ is re-membered, that is we are made into the body of Christ through participation in communion. This works on a strong understanding of Amanuensis
That we participate in the heavenly banquent when we participate in communion. This may be a mystical banquet which is going on in heaven while we are sharing bread and wine on earth. This is probably the theology I was taught first.
An alternative to this is that while a person recieves bread and wine through the Holy Spirit they receive the body and blood of Christ. This is the mystical presence understanding of Calvin's teaching.
That we enter into the Kyrios-moment, that uniquely encompasses all the crucial moments of salvific history. So there is only one communion, one covenant meal and one sacrifice in which we participate at every communion. This would span from at least from the flight from Egypt to the Apocalypse and probably back to the fall.
That the Eucharist is a covenantal meal and as such binds together God and Christians through God's act of self giving. Our eating and drinking is a sign of of participation in this covenant and thus God and Christians are bound together.
There will be more. Most will subscribe to several different aspects of the Reformed understanding. It will tend to steer clear of being too precise about exactly how we receive Christ's body and blood and instead focuses on the implications of participation in the meal. As should be apparent from the listing above, though the logicalism of memorialism is an option, much of the stuff is highly mystical in nature.
I wasn't actually thinking of Presbyterians as memorialist, more putting a dividing line between memorialists (of whatever denomination) and Everyone Else - from what I know of most Presbyterians in the UK at least in Scotland, I would be surprised if there was a particular common stance. I'm aware of Calvin believing in the Real Presence.
This can only be personal (as I’m lay rather than representing any authority than my own beliefs) but I’d be mostly on board with the first one because it’s the most explicit in terms of saying what I believe myself.
The second feels like bet hedging and the third a bit all things to all people.
Ie, is it consecrated (to a broadly high Anglican understanding)?
Potentially/No/No
(IMO)
When the PC(USA)’s Book of Order refers to “the Reformed understanding of the Sacrament,” I suspect we are to assume Reformed understandings that are reflected in our confessions. Memorialism is not considered consistent with the confessional documents of the PC(USA), at least not in my experience. Certainly in our ecumenical discussions, we convey that while our understanding of the Real Presence may differ from the Catholic and Lutheran understandings, as well as the understanding of many Episcopalians, we do affirm the Real (or True) Presence.
I would say that the second, rather than trying to be all things to all people, is an attempt to accurately reflect the understanding maintained by the PC(USA)—that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood, but that they are signs that are sacramentally united with the body and blood, such that receiving them is inextricably tied to communion in Christ’s body and blood.
I have a Lutheran friend who has speculated that the exact words used here reflect specific traditions’ understandings: “be the body and blood” vs “be for us the body and blood” vs “be the communion of the body and blood.”
I’d add that from our perspective, wondering which of these words effects consecration is a misplaced question. Consecration is effected purely and only through the promise of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. Beyond the verba (which proclaim the promise of Christ), the words we use matter not because the wrong words fail to consecrate, but because the wrong words fail to express our understanding of what’s going on.
And all of that, of course, is aside from questions of consecration related to the priesthood and apostolic succession.
But I fear we’ve left the realm of smoke rooms. Sorry.