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...
If you're a literalist, it's because the Bible says bread and wine, period. How often is another matter, but one concern here is whether temporary might become permanent...
I can't speak for them, but I wouldn't have thought 'non-sacramentalists' would be too upset about temporarily forgoing communion. Sacramentalists on the other hand would make every effort to celebrate the sacrament despite restrictions.
. 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,”
I may be reading this wrongly, but it seems to me that the word sacramentalist is being used as synonymous for transubstantiationalist (and it is easier to type or get your tongue around). But my tradition sees communion as a sacrament without believing in any kind of transubstantiation. Yet we are not “memorialist” either, which sounds slightly derogatory. There is a wide spectrum of understanding of how the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood. Probably none is “correct” though most or even all can be helpful.
Funnily enough I was at a coffee morning today held in the church hall of the congregation of a Free Church of Scotland. A lady I was speaking to told me about the general uses of the church hall as well as the various uses for the 'sanctuary' upstairs - it is used for worship and also for the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland. Now you can't really get anything more traditionally Scots Presbyterian than the 'Wee Frees'.
I may be reading this wrongly, but it seems to me that the word sacramentalist is being used as synonymous for transubstantiationalist (and it is easier to type or get your tongue around). But my tradition sees communion as a sacrament without believing in any kind of transubstantiation. Yet we are not “memorialist” either, which sounds slightly derogatory. There is a wide spectrum of understanding of how the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood. Probably none is “correct” though most or even all can be helpful.
I was using it to include all the positions which acknowledge a "Real Presence" and / or supernatural component (beyond what you get in every act of Christian obedience). So, trans-sub, con-sub, the Lutheran position (which is neither), and ????
I do wish the discussion hadn't gone down the rabbit hole of "Sacramentalists are the only people who really CARE." That's bullshit, and not my intent. But I'm not sure I can go any further with what I was asking without feeding into it.
I may be reading this wrongly, but it seems to me that the word sacramentalist is being used as synonymous for transubstantiationalist (and it is easier to type or get your tongue around). But my tradition sees communion as a sacrament without believing in any kind of transubstantiation. Yet we are not “memorialist” either, which sounds slightly derogatory. There is a wide spectrum of understanding of how the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood. Probably none is “correct” though most or even all can be helpful.
I was using it to include all the positions which acknowledge a "Real Presence" and / or supernatural component (beyond what you get in every act of Christian obedience). So, trans-sub, con-sub, the Lutheran position (which is neither), and ????
???? would include the Reformed/Calvinist position, which is sometimes called spiritual or pneumatic presence, and which I’ve also heard referred to as “True Presence” (rather than “Real Presence.”)
I didn't say that. I said it would be wrong to think that only sacramentalists think (or have a valid reason to think) it's important to celebrate the Lord's Supper regularly, and I fail to see how saying that is an oxymoron.
I have refused to use the common cup for some years after seeing the person before me spit and dribble into the cup. It looks like I'll be unable to receive the wine in future as our intinction option using tiny bowls of wine is to be banned. I've found this good as the bowl is shallow enough so the fingers don't enter the wine at all.
Just back from church where the option not to receive the wine was offered and explained to be valid to receive in one kind only. I chose to receive in both kinds, but the Reader not only used his handkerchief shortly before administering, did not use sanitiser afterwards, and kept using the same bit of the purificator. Fortunately I was third to receive, so I went ahead, but will not do so again under those conditions for the time being. (There are no outbreaks of Coronavirus in my area.)
I have to say this level of concern and my watchfulness rather distracts my attention and therefore detracts from the sacrament, for me.
Funnily enough I was at a coffee morning today held in the church hall of the congregation of a Free Church of Scotland. A lady I was speaking to told me about the general uses of the church hall as well as the various uses for the 'sanctuary' upstairs - it is used for worship and also for the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland. Now you can't really get anything more traditionally Scots Presbyterian than the 'Wee Frees'.
I suspect both the Kirk and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (the wee wee frees) would argue your last point.
To come back to the OP ... a friend of mine was at in CinW service which followed the rules they'd been given, communicated in one kind and refrained from shaking hands during the Peace. At the end of the service it was hugs and handshakes all round as per usual!
This morning just before waking up I actually dreamt I was in church celebrating communion, and offering only the bread. But somehow the instructions hadn't sunk home and some folks were trying to reach over the rail to get at the table and dunk their wafer in the wine! And it was chaos, and I was trying to be nice and pastoral and keep control, and failing 'cos folks were grumpy and getting aggressive, and I wasn't sure if I had washed my hands properly...…!
I was so relieved to wake up and find out it hadn't happened!
As it turned out everyone was as good as gold this morning, perfectly good-humoured about the restrictions though I'm sure some of us were a bit scornful. We kind of reflected briefly on it being almost a forced Lenten fasting thing; seeing our usual having access to the cup and easy contact with our fellow human beings, as perhaps more of a privilege and less of an entitlement, which we too easily take for granted.
Interestingly, a few folks really enjoyed sharing the Peace just looking around to smile and nod, saying that they acknowledged more folk that way than the usual handshaking routine. And we had more stay behind for tea than I've seen in ages!
A lightsome thought in the midst of all our anxiety….(oh, having just read up thread, I realize other Shippees have had the thought before me…… so this can be just for laughs……)
This morning husband and I were discussing the challenges of what he’s been calling “Communion in the Plague Year”. The advisories call for offering communion in one kind only, via the usual communion wafers. Husband, ever protective of me, noted that distributing in one kind still meant that freshly sanitized priestly fingers still come close to or actually touch communicant’s outstretched hands, which may or may not have been recently sanitized. Virus bits could migrate, communicant to priest, or communicant to communicant via those priestly hands.
Husband’s first suggestion was modeled on the frisbee, but that met with the rather stern frown he knows all too well.
His second suggestion is a variation on wee cuppies: prior to the service someone with freshly sanitized hands pops one wafer into each wee paper cuppie. (No sneezing allowed) The cuppies are placed on a tray, which is moved to the altar prior to the service. Priest consecrates the usual large communion wafer which meets expectations of ‘the elevation’ and hovers holy hands over the wafers in the wee cuppies at the words of institution and at the epiclesis. Priest also places a small amount of wine (and water) in the usual communion cup, and consecrates it. At communion priest consumes the large wafer and the contents of the cup. Then priest (or assistant) offers the tray to each communicant, who, in turn, picks up one wee cuppie (again, no sneezing allowed!) and consumes its contents. Wee cuppies can be discarded as seems appropriate, with care exercised about transfer of virus. (For the High-up-the-candle crowd -- and that includes me -- the wee cuppies can be placed by the communicant in a paper bag, sitting near the place of distribution, for appropriate burning.)
Well yes, priest could snap on a fresh pair of surgical gloves just before distributing, but it would not be as much fun. (unless, of course, we could get gloves in the proper liturgical colors…..)
When I was with an NHS Ambulance Trust, we had gloves in a beautiful shade of Lenten purple, though I can't recall if these were the latex-free gloves required by one or two people with allergic to latex.
Other gloves (perhaps the bog-standard ones) were a lovely shade of Marian blue.
Mr Go Ogle, if you ask him about coloured surgical gloves, will show you adverts for others in orange (for joyful Festivals), sea-green (for Ordinary Time), and perhaps yet more...
OTOH, Mr @BabyWombat's second suggestion does indeed sound more fun, as it involves Setting Fire To Things (which us High-Church people love to do).
A suitable short liturgy for the Burning Of The Wee Paper Cuppies, would, of course, be required, along with a Decent Bason or other vessel in which to accommodate the fire.
Mr Go Ogle, if you ask him about coloured surgical gloves, will show you adverts for others in orange (for joyful Festivals), sea-green (for Ordinary Time), and perhaps yet more...
To come back to the OP ... a friend of mine was at in CinW service which followed the rules they'd been given, communicated in one kind and refrained from shaking hands during the Peace. At the end of the service it was hugs and handshakes all round as per usual!
One of the other challenges in all this, in all seriousness, is that the ministry of the Church is called on to include the terminally stupid.
. 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)'.
Er ... that would indeed be the "‘USA’ and 'non-USA' senses of " the word "sanctuaries" (i.e. the word immediately before the parenthesis).
I have refused to use the common cup for some years after seeing the person before me spit and dribble into the cup. It looks like I'll be unable to receive the wine in future as our intinction option using tiny bowls of wine is to be banned. I've found this good as the bowl is shallow enough so the fingers don't enter the wine at all.
I've had to reverently consume backwash for 30+ years now - particularly offensive when I find some tight- oops, abstemious chalice assistant had imposed the last drip of backwash on the last twenty or so people .
I haven't picked up any virus but have been known on one or two occasions to add a splash or ten more port as I perform the ablutions not I hope because I am an alcoholic but because I prefer my backwash (now turned into the Most Blessed etc* ...) at a reduced spit and dribble content level ...
Communion at St Quacks proceeded as normal this morning. I don't think 'in one kind only' would be the end of the world with our lot, but any measures that are being taken at St Quacks are VERY discrete.
. 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)'.
Er ... that would indeed be the "‘USA’ and 'non-USA' senses of " the word "sanctuaries" (i.e. the word immediately before the parenthesis).
Again, though, it’s more a denominational difference than a USA/non-USA difference.
I have refused to use the common cup for some years after seeing the person before me spit and dribble into the cup. It looks like I'll be unable to receive the wine in future as our intinction option using tiny bowls of wine is to be banned. I've found this good as the bowl is shallow enough so the fingers don't enter the wine at all.
I've had to reverently consume backwash for 30+ years now - particularly offensive when I find some tight- oops, abstemious chalice assistant had imposed the last drip of backwash on the last twenty or so people .
I haven't picked up any virus but have been known on one or two occasions to add a splash or ten more port as I perform the ablutions not I hope because I am an alcoholic but because I prefer my backwash (now turned into the Most Blessed etc* ...) at a reduced spit and dribble content level ...
* this itself being a-potential-nother tangent
Where's the projectile vomit emoji when you need it?
TBH, I'm finding the current precautions quite unfazing. No intinction, no fumbling to hold, or to receive, the chalice (whilom fearful that the Most Blessed Blood might be spilt onto the floor, necessitating the burning of the church), no silly handshakes at The Peace...what's not to like?
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!)
I hear it more and more among Episcopalians. It seems to be the equivalent of "worship space." I hang on to "church," as in "Now that the renovation is complete, services will again be held in the church instead of the crypt chapel."
Yes, I do the post-Communion clean-up, and had to point out to Mr. Lamb that if we continue common cup, the fact that there is only one communicant who chooses to receive that way is NOT going to be protective. At least, for me. If I catch it, we'll have a pretty clear idea who gave it to me...
Much better without all the tedious hand shaking. I can’t see what’s wrong with just acknowledging ones neighbour. The ‘peace’ is one thing I could do without.....
Much better without all the tedious hand shaking. I can’t see what’s wrong with just acknowledging ones neighbour. The ‘peace’ is one thing I could do without.....
This morning we had Mattins, so not an issue today, but this morning a letter from the bishop was read at all services in all churches of the diocese, suspending the common chalice. As one who sort-of-adheres to the Real Presence, I actually see no problem with this. I trust neither our bad sherry nor the properties of silver to be sufficiently anti-viral, and I'm sure that our Lord and Saviour will give us a science-based pass.
On a related topic, a member of the congregation asked that if HIV is no longer an issue, why is Covid-19. She seemed mystified when I explained that viruses are not created equal, and different ones survive for different periods outside the body.
I didn't say that. I said it would be wrong to think that only sacramentalists think (or have a valid reason to think) it's important to celebrate the Lord's Supper regularly, and I fail to see how saying that is an oxymoron.
Because I would gloss sacramentalist as somebody who thinks it's important to celebrate the Lord's Supper regularly. If you think that, in what way aren't you a sacramentalist?
Oy, now it's getting confusing. I can totally imagine a strict "symbol- only" type who nevertheless thought it extremely important to celebrate the Lord's Supper regularly, on the grounds of simple obedience and nothing else. That was in fact what I was angling after--trying to find out if that was the motive behind the non-sacramentalist er, fussiness about details. (If so, it's a wholly admirable motive, and deserves all respect.)
Because I would gloss sacramentalist as somebody who thinks it's important to celebrate the Lord's Supper regularly. If you think that, in what way aren't you a sacramentalist?
Google gives this definition of sacramentalism:
belief in or use of sacramental rites, acts, or objects specifically : belief that the sacraments are inherently efficacious and necessary for salvation.
I don't believe either of those last two things. I'm not a hardcore memorialist either (my position is somewhat akin to the one @Nick Tamen describes above); I do believe that communion is a "means of grace" which it's good to be able to avail oneself of, and one that Jesus instructs expects us to celebrate "often" (see 1 Cor 11:25 et al). Plus what @Lamb Chopped said (with the exclusion of fussiness over details).
We had no chalices, no communion on the tongue, an extra lavabo just before communion and the handshake was replaced by a variety of thumbs-up, fist-bumping and elbow brushing.
FWIW: A purely memorialist communion ("do this in memory of Me") can definitely mean a lot to the participants. It's still about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection; and Jesus' request/mandate is still being followed. God is believed to be there, just not embodied in the breadstuff and juice. (Or whatever substances a group uses.)
It's important even if the group only has communion a few times a year---possibly even more important then. Where I went, it was four times a year--and that day would also include a potluck and a quarterly business meeting. That all went on until late afternoon. Then people went home, and possibly came back for Sunday night Bible study.
In that sort of church, communion is often considered THE sacrament. (Marriage is one, too, but of a different kind.)
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?
Nope, though Anglo-Catholics would not have a problem with that idea, traditional Evangelicals would go ballistic , and I suspect that Central churchmen would be suspicious of the idea, which strikes me as a mediaevalism. I am not surprised at the Church in Wales saying that as Anglicanism in the Principality has tended to lean to the 'Igh side for years probably as a reaction to all those Chapels.
If Covid-19 really takes off, and the mortality rate does prove to be significantly higher than flu, then I might consider abstaining from celebrating communion until it all dies down a bit rather than rat on the reformation, and withdraw the Cup. I am unconvinced that intinction is any safer than the common cup, but that in both cases, the chance of infection is extremely small.
I may be reading this wrongly, but it seems to me that the word sacramentalist is being used as synonymous for transubstantiationalist (and it is easier to type or get your tongue around). But my tradition sees communion as a sacrament without believing in any kind of transubstantiation. Yet we are not “memorialist” either, which sounds slightly derogatory. There is a wide spectrum of understanding of how the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood. Probably none is “correct” though most or even all can be helpful.
I was using it to include all the positions which acknowledge a "Real Presence" and / or supernatural component (beyond what you get in every act of Christian obedience). So, trans-sub, con-sub, the Lutheran position (which is neither), and ????
???? would include the Reformed/Calvinist position, which is sometimes called spiritual or pneumatic presence, and which I’ve also heard referred to as “True Presence” (rather than “Real Presence.”)
The 'True Presence' is what Cranmer called it, but then, he was big buddies with Bucer.
Intinction is worse and is already deprecated within the CofE. Mind you that suggests that after church coffee should go as well if we are being consistent.
I've had to reverently consume backwash for 30+ years now - particularly offensive when I find some tight- oops, abstemious chalice assistant had imposed the last drip of backwash on the last twenty or so people
Yup..... Many TEC churches (and I'd assume many CofE also) have what's usually called a sacrarium -- a wee sink with pipe exiting into a small underground chamber, often lined in stone. Excess consecrated wine, and/or or the dregs in the cup, are usually poured down this drain. When I've served in churches without such a nifty little sink, I take the cup for a stroll in the garden or churchyard and pour out the leftovers under some unsuspecting plant where no one will step. Yes, is some ways it is indeed overly pious, falling under the category "just who is taking care of whom" but it does remove that need to slurp down the leftovers and backwash
Our Place has a sacrarium (is it sometimes called a piscina?) in the sacristy, which Madam Sacristan does indeed use when rinsing out the vessels after Mass, but there's also one in the Lady Chapel, and another in the Chancel itself. They are close to the priest's seat (sedile?)
At present, only the priest consumes the consecrated wine, so there is no danger of backwash (!), but, now I come to think of it, I've never seen the sacraria/piscinae in Chapel and Chancel actually being used...
A few years ago, I assisted at a funeral in a nearby village church, which, though of mediaeval origin, no longer had such useful facilities. Holy Water (and Incense) were used during the funeral, and I duly cast the excess Holy Water - only a few drops - onto the Clean Consecrated Soil of the churchyard.
(BTW, this was probably the first time Holy Water and Incense had been used in that church since the Reformation...but the Deceased used to come to Our Place occasionally for some 'proper religion' - his words! and requested such papist stuff to be provided at his funeral).
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?
Nope, though Anglo-Catholics would not have a problem with that idea, traditional Evangelicals would go ballistic , and I suspect that Central churchmen would be suspicious of the idea, which strikes me as a mediaevalism. I am not surprised at the Church in Wales saying that as Anglicanism in the Principality has tended to lean to the 'Igh side for years probably as a reaction to all those Chapels.
If Covid-19 really takes off, and the mortality rate does prove to be significantly higher than flu, then I might consider abstaining from celebrating communion until it all dies down a bit rather than rat on the reformation, and withdraw the Cup. I am unconvinced that intinction is any safer than the common cup, but that in both cases, the chance of infection is extremely small.
The Reformation, being an historical construct, won't mind the ratting.
Given the need to take sensible hygiene precautions, I hardly think that how the Reformers might, or might not, react actually matters...
Withdrawing the Cup (pro tem) is one of those sensible precautions, and will not bring the sky down on us, or result in an extra million years in Purgatory for the priest responsible.
Given the need to take sensible hygiene precautions, I hardly think that how the Reformers might, or might not, react actually matters...
Withdrawing the Cup (pro tem) is one of those sensible precautions, and will not bring the sky down on us, or result in an extra million years in Purgatory for the priest responsible.
I think we are to keep in mind the reasoning behind the Reformers returning the cup to the laity. The reason for the medieval church's denying the cup to the laity was based on a high clericalism which saw the clergy as higher or better than the laity. As well, there were concerns about spillage and clean up.
The current withholding of the cup temporarily in certain places is motivated by a concern for public health and not motivated by an excessive clericalism on the part of the church. As such I think we are in the spirit of Our Lord's ministry of healing and seeking care for others.
To use another example, we are asking people who are sick to not attend Sunday worship. An eon ago, it might have been argued that nothing should keep one from attending Mass, "Why worry about physical illness if you will lose your soul because you missed the Holy Eucharist?" Certainly the people who stay at home sick will physically not receive the bread and wine, but it's a direction for the sake of public health.
I wonder if any of the temporary procedures will become permanent, once the scare is over? I can see (for example) intinction being outlawed, at least in this country.
An eon ago, it might have been argued that nothing should keep one from attending Mass, "Why worry about physical illness if you will lose your soul because you missed the Holy Eucharist?"
But are there still people who think like that? If so, withdrawing the Cup is a real biggie for them ... and forbidding the Eucharist altogether (as may happen) would be even worse.
An eon ago, it might have been argued that nothing should keep one from attending Mass, "Why worry about physical illness if you will lose your soul because you missed the Holy Eucharist?"
But are there still people who think like that? If so, withdrawing the Cup is a real biggie for them ... and forbidding the Eucharist altogether (as may happen) would be even worse.
Probably very few people, I think nowadays, most people understand (eucharistic theological differences aside) that even if one cannot receive the bread and/or wine, that doesn't mean that they do not receive God's love in Christ.
Comments
If you're a literalist, it's because the Bible says bread and wine, period. How often is another matter, but one concern here is whether temporary might become permanent...
So he was. As you were.
This seems a flat-out oxymoron.
I was using it to include all the positions which acknowledge a "Real Presence" and / or supernatural component (beyond what you get in every act of Christian obedience). So, trans-sub, con-sub, the Lutheran position (which is neither), and ????
I do wish the discussion hadn't gone down the rabbit hole of "Sacramentalists are the only people who really CARE." That's bullshit, and not my intent. But I'm not sure I can go any further with what I was asking without feeding into it.
It would be polite to explain why it seems that way to you.
I understood it to pick up on your importance of celebrating the Lord's Supper regularly, and saying that that is a sacramentalist's approach.
I have to say this level of concern and my watchfulness rather distracts my attention and therefore detracts from the sacrament, for me.
I suspect both the Kirk and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (the wee wee frees) would argue your last point.
I was so relieved to wake up and find out it hadn't happened!
As it turned out everyone was as good as gold this morning, perfectly good-humoured about the restrictions though I'm sure some of us were a bit scornful. We kind of reflected briefly on it being almost a forced Lenten fasting thing; seeing our usual having access to the cup and easy contact with our fellow human beings, as perhaps more of a privilege and less of an entitlement, which we too easily take for granted.
Interestingly, a few folks really enjoyed sharing the Peace just looking around to smile and nod, saying that they acknowledged more folk that way than the usual handshaking routine. And we had more stay behind for tea than I've seen in ages!
This morning husband and I were discussing the challenges of what he’s been calling “Communion in the Plague Year”. The advisories call for offering communion in one kind only, via the usual communion wafers. Husband, ever protective of me, noted that distributing in one kind still meant that freshly sanitized priestly fingers still come close to or actually touch communicant’s outstretched hands, which may or may not have been recently sanitized. Virus bits could migrate, communicant to priest, or communicant to communicant via those priestly hands.
Husband’s first suggestion was modeled on the frisbee, but that met with the rather stern frown he knows all too well.
His second suggestion is a variation on wee cuppies: prior to the service someone with freshly sanitized hands pops one wafer into each wee paper cuppie. (No sneezing allowed) The cuppies are placed on a tray, which is moved to the altar prior to the service. Priest consecrates the usual large communion wafer which meets expectations of ‘the elevation’ and hovers holy hands over the wafers in the wee cuppies at the words of institution and at the epiclesis. Priest also places a small amount of wine (and water) in the usual communion cup, and consecrates it. At communion priest consumes the large wafer and the contents of the cup. Then priest (or assistant) offers the tray to each communicant, who, in turn, picks up one wee cuppie (again, no sneezing allowed!) and consumes its contents. Wee cuppies can be discarded as seems appropriate, with care exercised about transfer of virus. (For the High-up-the-candle crowd -- and that includes me -- the wee cuppies can be placed by the communicant in a paper bag, sitting near the place of distribution, for appropriate burning.)
Well yes, priest could snap on a fresh pair of surgical gloves just before distributing, but it would not be as much fun. (unless, of course, we could get gloves in the proper liturgical colors…..)
When I was with an NHS Ambulance Trust, we had gloves in a beautiful shade of Lenten purple, though I can't recall if these were the latex-free gloves required by one or two people with allergic to latex.
Other gloves (perhaps the bog-standard ones) were a lovely shade of Marian blue.
Mr Go Ogle, if you ask him about coloured surgical gloves, will show you adverts for others in orange (for joyful Festivals), sea-green (for Ordinary Time), and perhaps yet more...
OTOH, Mr @BabyWombat's second suggestion does indeed sound more fun, as it involves Setting Fire To Things (which us High-Church people love to do).
A suitable short liturgy for the Burning Of The Wee Paper Cuppies, would, of course, be required, along with a Decent Bason or other vessel in which to accommodate the fire.
One of the other challenges in all this, in all seriousness, is that the ministry of the Church is called on to include the terminally stupid.
Er ... that would indeed be the "‘USA’ and 'non-USA' senses of " the word "sanctuaries" (i.e. the word immediately before the parenthesis).
I've had to reverently consume backwash for 30+ years now - particularly offensive when I find some tight- oops, abstemious chalice assistant had imposed the last drip of backwash on the last twenty or so people
I haven't picked up any virus but have been known on one or two occasions to add a splash or ten more port as I perform the ablutions not I hope because I am an alcoholic but because I prefer my backwash (now turned into the Most Blessed etc* ...) at a reduced spit and dribble content level ...
* this itself being a-potential-nother tangent
Where's the projectile vomit emoji when you need it?
TBH, I'm finding the current precautions quite unfazing. No intinction, no fumbling to hold, or to receive, the chalice (whilom fearful that the Most Blessed Blood might be spilt onto the floor, necessitating the burning of the church), no silly handshakes at The Peace...what's not to like?
I hear it more and more among Episcopalians. It seems to be the equivalent of "worship space." I hang on to "church," as in "Now that the renovation is complete, services will again be held in the church instead of the crypt chapel."
We're going all wee cuppies for a while.
A case of Timo Pacem?
On a related topic, a member of the congregation asked that if HIV is no longer an issue, why is Covid-19. She seemed mystified when I explained that viruses are not created equal, and different ones survive for different periods outside the body.
Because I would gloss sacramentalist as somebody who thinks it's important to celebrate the Lord's Supper regularly. If you think that, in what way aren't you a sacramentalist?
None of which is, I think, oxymoronic.
It's important even if the group only has communion a few times a year---possibly even more important then. Where I went, it was four times a year--and that day would also include a potluck and a quarterly business meeting. That all went on until late afternoon. Then people went home, and possibly came back for Sunday night Bible study.
In that sort of church, communion is often considered THE sacrament. (Marriage is one, too, but of a different kind.)
Nope, though Anglo-Catholics would not have a problem with that idea, traditional Evangelicals would go ballistic , and I suspect that Central churchmen would be suspicious of the idea, which strikes me as a mediaevalism. I am not surprised at the Church in Wales saying that as Anglicanism in the Principality has tended to lean to the 'Igh side for years probably as a reaction to all those Chapels.
If Covid-19 really takes off, and the mortality rate does prove to be significantly higher than flu, then I might consider abstaining from celebrating communion until it all dies down a bit rather than rat on the reformation, and withdraw the Cup. I am unconvinced that intinction is any safer than the common cup, but that in both cases, the chance of infection is extremely small.
The 'True Presence' is what Cranmer called it, but then, he was big buddies with Bucer.
Yup..... Many TEC churches (and I'd assume many CofE also) have what's usually called a sacrarium -- a wee sink with pipe exiting into a small underground chamber, often lined in stone. Excess consecrated wine, and/or or the dregs in the cup, are usually poured down this drain. When I've served in churches without such a nifty little sink, I take the cup for a stroll in the garden or churchyard and pour out the leftovers under some unsuspecting plant where no one will step. Yes, is some ways it is indeed overly pious, falling under the category "just who is taking care of whom" but it does remove that need to slurp down the leftovers and backwash
At present, only the priest consumes the consecrated wine, so there is no danger of backwash (!), but, now I come to think of it, I've never seen the sacraria/piscinae in Chapel and Chancel actually being used...
A few years ago, I assisted at a funeral in a nearby village church, which, though of mediaeval origin, no longer had such useful facilities. Holy Water (and Incense) were used during the funeral, and I duly cast the excess Holy Water - only a few drops - onto the Clean Consecrated Soil of the churchyard.
(BTW, this was probably the first time Holy Water and Incense had been used in that church since the Reformation...but the Deceased used to come to Our Place occasionally for some 'proper religion' - his words!
The Reformation, being an historical construct, won't mind the ratting.
Given the need to take sensible hygiene precautions, I hardly think that how the Reformers might, or might not, react actually matters...
Withdrawing the Cup (pro tem) is one of those sensible precautions, and will not bring the sky down on us, or result in an extra million years in Purgatory for the priest responsible.
https://livingchurch.org/2020/03/09/bishops-withhold-common-cup-in-response-to-coronavirus/
Maybe we are in The Last Days™, but at least Our Lord won't find us being careless...
I think we are to keep in mind the reasoning behind the Reformers returning the cup to the laity. The reason for the medieval church's denying the cup to the laity was based on a high clericalism which saw the clergy as higher or better than the laity. As well, there were concerns about spillage and clean up.
The current withholding of the cup temporarily in certain places is motivated by a concern for public health and not motivated by an excessive clericalism on the part of the church. As such I think we are in the spirit of Our Lord's ministry of healing and seeking care for others.
To use another example, we are asking people who are sick to not attend Sunday worship. An eon ago, it might have been argued that nothing should keep one from attending Mass, "Why worry about physical illness if you will lose your soul because you missed the Holy Eucharist?" Certainly the people who stay at home sick will physically not receive the bread and wine, but it's a direction for the sake of public health.
Sensible precautions, as I said.
I wonder if any of the temporary procedures will become permanent, once the scare is over? I can see (for example) intinction being outlawed, at least in this country.
Probably very few people, I think nowadays, most people understand (eucharistic theological differences aside) that even if one cannot receive the bread and/or wine, that doesn't mean that they do not receive God's love in Christ.