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.
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.
Comments
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.
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?
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.
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.
@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.
++ 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?
True, Cranmer envisaged Communion as always being received in both kinds, but, as has been said, he could not have foreseen a pandemic.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Meanwhile, in congregations that aren’t opposed to wee cuppies and juice rather than wine, I can see a run on these.
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.
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?
I believe they did make an appearance on Gadgets for God a number of years ago.
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 ?
Times change. @Doublethink makes a good point. How often do we "sacralise" things that were once seen as intrusive and unspiritual?
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.)
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.
[ETA or a Monty Python film...]
I wonder if it takes 20 seconds to recite ?
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)'.
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.
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.
Not sure where Lutherans fall on this one, or whether “sanctuary” is used to refer to the whole room by, say, Presbyterians in Scotland.
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!)