Forbidding the Cup to the Laity violates Anglican Doctrine

135

Comments

  • Just so.

    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.

    In the Anglican Church of Canada, intinction was already outlawed in the Dioceses of Toronto and BC (Vancouver Island) for a decade before this year. In other dioceses, the view of intinction was more along the lines of 'Strongly discouraged, not banned" I suspect after this pandemic concludes, all the dioceses in Canada will ban intinction.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    O but you can.

    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.
    Ah, but would the sacerdotal zing pass through the latex gloves or would they operate rather like insulation?

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    The gloves themselves would have to be blessed before use, using a special short liturgy...

    ...but be of good cheer - a whole boxful (or even sacristyful) could be blessed at one service, thus saving time at each subsequent Mass.
  • I expect that the Blast Radius of consecration could cope with a couple of millimetres of latex or similar substances.

    I suspect that if most churches filled their sacristy with surgical gloves the local rag would have a field-day accusing them of stockpiling to the detriment of the NHS!
  • Well, yeah, but such people are going to snark no matter what, so who cares about their opinion?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    RC bishops in the UK have issued guidelines that includes no chalice, peace, holy water stoups at the door, hymnbooks etc.
    Seems a bit much.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Alan29 wrote: »
    RC bishops in the UK have issued guidelines that includes no chalice, peace, holy water stoups at the door, hymnbooks etc.
    Seems a bit much.

    Yes, I'm looking at local directions for Roman Catholic Masses in the Cape and they do seem quite extreme, given that seven cases have been confirmed in South Africa, no fatalities as yet. Erring on the side of caution?

    1. Holy Water will not be available in the church fonts
    2. We will no longer have the exchange of the sign of peace by shaking hands or holding hands at any point in the Liturgy.
    3. You are requested to receive Communion on your hand
    4. Instructions will be given for those, who for any reason cannot receive in the hand.
    5. Communion will be distributed under 1 species only to prevent sharing the chalice.
    6. Posters are displayed in the Church showing how to cough into your arm/elbow rather than into your hand.
    7. No longer put hosts in the patten (wooden bowl) for the offertory.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    RC bishops in the UK have issued guidelines that includes no chalice, peace, holy water stoups at the door, hymnbooks etc.
    Seems a bit much.

    As MaryLouise said, we've noticed that the Catholic church here has stopped shaking hands at the Peace - it's just the nastame type acknowledgement, but that seems a pretty common practice in normal circumstances. No more distributing the chalice, it is entirely consumed by the priest. Empty stoups of course.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    RC bishops in the UK have issued guidelines that includes no chalice, peace, holy water stoups at the door, hymnbooks etc.
    Seems a bit much.

    One of my contacts works as a supervising nurse at a nursing home with a predominantly-RC (franco-ontarian) population and told me that she and her colleagues welcomed the Archdiocese's restrictions (I haven't been able to find a link). She told me that the nursing home likely would have made their wishes quite quite clear to the chaplain if the instruction had not come through from the Archbishop's curia.
  • I've suggest to FatherInCharge that Our Place could also empty the holy water stoups pro tem (we're C of E, and such things are not found that often in C of E fanes, at least still in use).

    This would not, of course, preclude the Faithful from crossing themselves piously as they enter the church.

    I've also suggested doing away with Coffee Hour after Mass - very few people stay, but everyone who wishes could be encouraged to stay and chat for a while, in the Church, after Mass. Many do this, anyway, before leaving for home/family/work/transport commitments, so it would hardly be missed, and would save work for the one or two who prepare the Hall...
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Coffee is far more important ;) (I sometimes think our coffee urn will eventually achieve the status of the former Ark of the Covenant).

    Last Sunday, in addition to in-one-kind in wee cuppies, we changed our practice from self-service at the urn to picking up a pre-poured coffee. I'm reluctant to eliminate all social interaction and unlike communion, people have more freedom to opt out of coffee without stigma than at Communion. I think our fellowship meal scheduled in a couple of weeks is out though.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    I've suggest to FatherInCharge that Our Place could also empty the holy water stoups pro tem (we're C of E, and such things are not found that often in C of E fanes, at least still in use).

    This would not, of course, preclude the Faithful from crossing themselves piously as they enter the church.

    We too have emptied the stoups and instead placed a card suggesting suitable prayers for entering the church. It could actually make sense as a Lenten discipline anyway; maybe we need to install a living water fountain for Easter.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Coffee is far more important ;) (I sometimes think our coffee urn will eventually achieve the status of the former Ark of the Covenant).

    :lol:

    Possibly, but Coffee (or Tea) seems relatively unwanted at Our Place these days, hence my suggestion that we do away with it for the time being, but without in any way hustling people out of the door after Mass!
    angloid wrote: »
    I've suggest to FatherInCharge that Our Place could also empty the holy water stoups pro tem (we're C of E, and such things are not found that often in C of E fanes, at least still in use).

    This would not, of course, preclude the Faithful from crossing themselves piously as they enter the church.

    We too have emptied the stoups and instead placed a card suggesting suitable prayers for entering the church. It could actually make sense as a Lenten discipline anyway; maybe we need to install a living water fountain for Easter.

    Indeed - the Renewal of Baptismal Vows (or whatever) at Easter would become perhaps rather more noticeable/relevant...
  • angloid wrote: »
    We too have emptied the stoups and instead placed a card suggesting suitable prayers for entering the church. It could actually make sense as a Lenten discipline anyway; maybe we need to install a living water fountain for Easter.

    Removing holy water stoups makes sense as a method of preventing virus transmission, but to my mind makes no sense at all as Lenten discipline.

    You could probably build a no-touch holy water dispenser (shove your hand under the spout, and it squirts a small quantity of water on you) which would remove most of the possibility for virus transfer. Whether or not that would be a suitable "Gadget for God" is left as an exercise for the reader.
  • It will be interesting to see if any of these Lenten customs by necessity become Lenten customs by choice - that's how many practices have evolved in the past.

    The holy water stoops are emptied in the RCC on Maundy Thursday and replenished when the font is blessed at the Easter Vigil: emptying them on Ash Wednesday and waiting through Lent might have a pastoral benefit as noted by angloid

    The kiss of peace was traditionally omitted on Maundy Thursday, but I can't see any good reason to extend that to the whole of Lent
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I've suggest to FatherInCharge that Our Place could also empty the holy water stoups pro tem (we're C of E, and such things are not found that often in C of E fanes, at least still in use). ...
    Would an Anglo-Catholic church that was Anglo-Papalist rather than Sarum use feel obliged to follow a directive from the RC hierarchy simply because that was the Roman way, and that therefore this is temporarily marked as the correct western use?


  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    <snip Zappa-palaver>

    Where's the projectile vomit emoji when you need it?
    :grimace:

    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 don't find this satisfactory. Please note for future reference that it is obligatory that, after burning the church, the remaining ashes should be reverently consumed.
  • O bother. Can't we just cast the ashes onto clean earth? A special short liturgy would be required, of course...
    Enoch wrote: »
    I've suggest to FatherInCharge that Our Place could also empty the holy water stoups pro tem (we're C of E, and such things are not found that often in C of E fanes, at least still in use). ...
    Would an Anglo-Catholic church that was Anglo-Papalist rather than Sarum use feel obliged to follow a directive from the RC hierarchy simply because that was the Roman way, and that therefore this is temporarily marked as the correct western use?


    No, I don't think so.
    :wink:

    Believe it or not, most Anglo-Catholic churches don't ask 'how high?' when the Pope says 'Jump!'...

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    O bother. Can't we just cast the ashes onto clean earth? A special short liturgy would be required, of course...
    Enoch wrote: »
    I've suggest to FatherInCharge that Our Place could also empty the holy water stoups pro tem (we're C of E, and such things are not found that often in C of E fanes, at least still in use). ...
    Would an Anglo-Catholic church that was Anglo-Papalist rather than Sarum use feel obliged to follow a directive from the RC hierarchy simply because that was the Roman way, and that therefore this is temporarily marked as the correct western use?


    No, I don't think so.
    :wink:

    Believe it or not, most Anglo-Catholic churches don't ask 'how high?' when the Pope says 'Jump!'...

    In general, yes, but what about Anglo-Papalists?
  • Gee D wrote: »
    O bother. Can't we just cast the ashes onto clean earth? A special short liturgy would be required, of course...
    Enoch wrote: »
    I've suggest to FatherInCharge that Our Place could also empty the holy water stoups pro tem (we're C of E, and such things are not found that often in C of E fanes, at least still in use). ...
    Would an Anglo-Catholic church that was Anglo-Papalist rather than Sarum use feel obliged to follow a directive from the RC hierarchy simply because that was the Roman way, and that therefore this is temporarily marked as the correct western use?


    No, I don't think so.
    :wink:

    Believe it or not, most Anglo-Catholic churches don't ask 'how high?' when the Pope says 'Jump!'...

    In general, yes, but what about Anglo-Papalists?

    Are there any left outside the ordinariate? By which I mean, aren't those who were willing to follow orders from Rome the ones who left, while those remain rather like the freedom of being able to ignore their Bishop at will.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Are there any left outside the ordinariate? By which I mean, aren't those who were willing to follow orders from Rome the ones who left, while those remain rather like the freedom of being able to ignore their Bishop at will.
    There was a Mystery Worshipper only in the last few days about a CofE church in Leeds that uses the RC missal in stead of either 1662 or Common Worship.

  • It's not unknown for some Anglican churches to use the Roman Missal, but that doesn't automatically mean that they wish to be under the orders of the Roman Pontiff.

    As @Arethosemyfeet says, the real Anglo-Papalists are in the Ordinariate.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I recognise that it may not 'automatically' so mean, but it is an implicit statement that a person believes the Roman form of mass is more 'the real one' than anything in Common Worship. I don't see how one can reach that conclusion without believing at the same time that the authority of + Francis or his local episcopal representative to prescribe the canon prevails over that of + Justin and his.

    It's also, of course, a pretty blatant breach of the commitment each ordained person in the CofE has to make that he or she will only use the authorised or allowed forms of services. Again, therefore, use of the Roman form of mass is a statement that a man (and I'm saying 'man' here deliberately) regards the authority of + Francis as prevailing over the authority of his own bishop.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    I recognise that it may not 'automatically' so mean, but it is an implicit statement that a person believes the Roman form of mass is more 'the real one' than anything in Common Worship. I don't see how one can reach that conclusion without believing at the same time that the authority of + Francis or his local episcopal representative to prescribe the canon prevails over that of + Justin and his.

    It's also, of course, a pretty blatant breach of the commitment each ordained person in the CofE has to make that he or she will only use the authorised or allowed forms of services. Again, therefore, use of the Roman form of mass is a statement that a man (and I'm saying 'man' here deliberately) regards the authority of + Francis as prevailing over the authority of his own bishop.

    Unless he is a member of the Society, as I understand it. What that says I will leave to your discretion.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    I recognise that it may not 'automatically' so mean, but it is an implicit statement that a person believes the Roman form of mass is more 'the real one' than anything in Common Worship. I don't see how one can reach that conclusion without believing at the same time that the authority of + Francis or his local episcopal representative to prescribe the canon prevails over that of + Justin and his.

    It's also, of course, a pretty blatant breach of the commitment each ordained person in the CofE has to make that he or she will only use the authorised or allowed forms of services. Again, therefore, use of the Roman form of mass is a statement that a man (and I'm saying 'man' here deliberately) regards the authority of + Francis as prevailing over the authority of his own bishop.

    Depends.

    If one uses an authorised C of E Eucharistic Prayer (as we do, at every Mass), one can get away with using other RCC bits and pieces. For 'Fresh Expressions' of church, our Diocesan insists on the use of an official Eucharistic Prayer, anyway, whatever else might be changed!

    FYI, we use the authorised C of E collect, readings, and post-Communion prayer each Sunday, along with the C of E versions of the sung parts of the Mass (Kyries/Gloria/Sanctus/Benedictus/Agnus Dei).

    The result is rather a Mish-Mash Mass, I concede, but I hope that in due course we may be able to get back to using the authorised Anglican Confession and Nicene Creed. The Mish-Mash Mass was the 'brainchild' of our former priest-in-charge, Father Fu*kwit, who, I'm afraid, is one of those who does ask 'how high must I jump, O Holy Father?'

  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    Just forgo use of the Novus Ordo and its lookalikes and use this. :open_mouth: :wink: :naughty:
  • The Ordinariate are no longer Anglo-papalists as far as I can see.
  • The result is rather a Mish-Mash Mass.
    Try saying that with your mouth full!

  • AngusAngus Shipmate Posts: 34
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Just forgo use of the Novus Ordo and its lookalikes and use this. :open_mouth: :wink: :naughty:

    I’m with you on that Cyprian !

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The Ordinariate in Oz generally, not just Sydney, was not a flop - it did not get above the ground to start with.
  • The bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina have suspended all in-person worship and non-worship gatherings in the diocese for the next two weeks, at least. The two United Methodist bishops in North Carolina have recommended that the churches in their annual conferences suspend worship for two weeks. This follows the governor’s advice/request that gatherings of more than 100 people not be held for the time being.

    To my knowledge, nothing similar has come from our presbytery yet, but I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t. I think the plan at our place will be to suspend gathering for services for two weeks, and to have a “skeleton crew” at the church to stream services.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    I recognise that it may not 'automatically' so mean, but it is an implicit statement that a person believes the Roman form of mass is more 'the real one' than anything in Common Worship. I don't see how one can reach that conclusion without believing at the same time that the authority of + Francis or his local episcopal representative to prescribe the canon prevails over that of + Justin and his.

    It's also, of course, a pretty blatant breach of the commitment each ordained person in the CofE has to make that he or she will only use the authorised or allowed forms of services. Again, therefore, use of the Roman form of mass is a statement that a man (and I'm saying 'man' here deliberately) regards the authority of + Francis as prevailing over the authority of his own bishop.
    Technically they promise to use forms of service 'authorised by Canon', but it doesn't specify which Canons. :wink: Even in the Society one can find a range of opinions on how Romanised things should be.

    Despite the slightly clunky language of the current translation, the Roman mass is somewhat better suited to the way we do things than several of the Common Worship options. We change the wording of the references to Pope Francis slightly to reflect the fact St Quack's is still this side of the Tiber. I believe some members of the Ordinariate were not too happy about being expected to use their special forms of service rather than the straight Roman Rite. 1662 takes a lot of gymnastics to pull off whilst venerating the Real Presence, particularly around the breaking of bread.



  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Just forgo use of the Novus Ordo and its lookalikes and use this. :open_mouth: :wink: :naughty:

    What a beautiful liturgy.
  • cgichardcgichard Shipmate
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Just forgo use of the Novus Ordo and its lookalikes and use this. :open_mouth: :wink: :naughty:

    What a beautiful liturgy.

    And a beautiful website too. Do you find it impossible to locate premises that will allow a differing church to hold services on a Sunday morning?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    If "they" set the ban at over 100 people, many/most churches will slip under that bar.
    If a RC can comment on communities from other churches using our liturgical texts ... I find it impossible to imagine a situation where a RC priest would use an Anglican liturgy rather than their own, so again I find myself flummoxed.
    Strange old world, innit.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    If "they" set the ban at over 100 people, many/most churches will slip under that bar
    That's the kind of logic that saw concert venues here sell 999 tickets to sidestep the 1000 ban.

    If one is going to obey the rules, one might as well abide by the logic underpinning them. Failing that, simpler to ignore them entirely.

  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    cgichard wrote: »
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Just forgo use of the Novus Ordo and its lookalikes and use this. :open_mouth: :wink: :naughty:

    What a beautiful liturgy.

    And a beautiful website too. Do you find it impossible to locate premises that will allow a differing church to hold services on a Sunday morning?

    @cgichard, I'm assuming your question is addressed to Cyprian?
  • Our Diocese has not so far recommended cessation of worship/social gatherings, but we are being kept informed/updated on a daily basis.

    At the moment, it's business as usual, with the various precautions mentioned earlier in this thread, but I expect our little flock will be even smaller than usual on Sunday!

    Never mind, as long as peeps keep safe and well...

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Pendragon wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    Technically they promise to use forms of service 'authorised by Canon', but it doesn't specify which Canons. :wink:
    To misquote Ebenezer Scrooge, Bah, Pilpul.
    Even in the Society one can find a range of opinions on how Romanised things should be.

    Despite the slightly clunky language of the current translation, the Roman mass is somewhat better suited to the way we do things than several of the Common Worship options. We change the wording of the references to Pope Francis slightly to reflect the fact St Quack's is still this side of the Tiber. I believe some members of the Ordinariate were not too happy about being expected to use their special forms of service rather than the straight Roman Rite. 1662 takes a lot of gymnastics to pull off whilst venerating the Real Presence, particularly around the breaking of bread.
    I'd accept that there may be 'several' of the options in Common Worship that don't suit your incumbent's preferred way of doing things, but that applies to almost everybody. It's just that it's different options for different shacks. I suspect there's no parish in the country that uses all of them.

    Unless he's incredibly fussy or opinionated (and I'm assuming 'he'), I find it very hard to believe that there really is no permutation of Common Worship that would enable him to celebrate lawfully, in accordance with his declaration and the disciplines of the ecclesiastical household that pays his salary.

    I can't help assuming that the reason for both using the Roman form and following the change when it was switched to more clunky words, including the notorious 'chalice' in stead of 'cup', has to be founded somehow in a belief that what makes the Roman form special isn't it's special liturgical merit so much as its being the one endorsed by the Holy Father. Otherwise, it would have made more sense to have stuck with the 'cup' that everybody else uses and is a better translation of poterion. If so, though, is your incumbent really entitled to change to Roman form at all, or to use to to commemorate a different bishop?
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    If "they" set the ban at over 100 people, many/most churches will slip under that bar.
    Not most churches here. Our place is medium-sized compared to other places nearby, and we average 130 or so a week. (Ditto the small-town church I grew up in.) There are other congregations nearby that probably average 200-300, or maybe more, in any given service.

    And those are the Protestant (including Episcopal) places. Catholic churches may average more given their size. One nearby parish is around 10,000 people; my guess from visits there is that they probably easily manage an average of 400 at some masses.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Alas, the C of E average Sunday congregation is now about 30, so I am told by my Spy in Head Office...

    Of course, that varies widely (wildly?), with some urban char-evo shacks bringing in many 100s, and lots of rural churches lucky if they reach double figures.

    Round here, even the char-evo parish (one of the largest in the Deanery) only gets 200+ over two Sunday services, whilst all the rest of the Anglican churches are usually well below 100 (or even 50) for their main and, in most cases, only, service.

    There are, I'm happy to say, some well (or better) attended Baptist, Methodist etc. churches, but there aren't that many of them, following closures/consolidation in recent years. The same applies to the RCC, where there are fewer churches - but even they have closed a number of smaller churches, or reduced the Mass schedule due to the acute shortage of priests.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    O bother. Can't we just cast the ashes onto clean earth? A special short liturgy would be required, of course...
    Enoch wrote: »
    I've suggest to FatherInCharge that Our Place could also empty the holy water stoups pro tem (we're C of E, and such things are not found that often in C of E fanes, at least still in use). ...
    Would an Anglo-Catholic church that was Anglo-Papalist rather than Sarum use feel obliged to follow a directive from the RC hierarchy simply because that was the Roman way, and that therefore this is temporarily marked as the correct western use?


    No, I don't think so.
    :wink:

    Believe it or not, most Anglo-Catholic churches don't ask 'how high?' when the Pope says 'Jump!'...

    There are some who believe, of course, that Rome has sold its soul to Geneva, and that they Anglo Catholic purists are the Remnant Truc Church
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Sadly, this is actually True™.

    Our former churchwarden is One Of Them.
    :grimace:
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    I'm so sorry. I made a throwaway comment which has sparked responses. I didn't mean to cause a distraction from the topic at hand, which I'm enjoying reading.

    I'll just reply to all with a single post. I'm happy to respond privately to anyone else, though.
    Angus wrote: »
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Just forgo use of the Novus Ordo and its lookalikes and use this. :open_mouth: :wink: :naughty:

    I’m with you on that Cyprian !

    &
    MaryLouise wrote: »
    Cyprian wrote: »
    Just forgo use of the Novus Ordo and its lookalikes and use this. :open_mouth: :wink: :naughty:

    What a beautiful liturgy.

    It's very lovely, and, my frivolous comment above aside, I do consider it a privilege to be able to worship in this way and as part of this heritage.

    There's a little more about it here, and my bishop has written this scholarly work on it. There's also a set of books by St John of Saint-Denis (Eugraph Kovalevsky) detailing his sources and methodology in reconstructing what is essentially the Gallican Mass. They are all exclusively in French, sadly, as this Liturgy is mainly used in the Francophone world. There's a video here.
    cgichard wrote: »
    And a beautiful website too. Do you find it impossible to locate premises that will allow a differing church to hold services on a Sunday morning?

    Thank you for your kind words about the website. I can only claim credit for the text but not the design, which is an off-the-shelf template from our web service provider.

    By and large, churches are busy with their own services on Sunday mornings, and often Sunday afternoons and evenings as well. The majority of the churches that are free on Sundays are certain Catholic churches that share a priest, meaning that the only Sunday Mass in some of them is actually on Saturday evening. We did explore that possibility but the only ones around here are too far from central Manchester.

    In the space of 18 months, we communicated with nearly 30 churches, colleges, university chaplancies, administrators of private chapels, and other institutions, asking for the use of space on Saturday evenings or Sundays. Some replied but politely declined, while some really wanted to help us but logistics made it impossible. Others even initiated contact with us and made generous offers but were in poorly accessible locations, while yet others simply didn't reply to us. We used a couple of places for a while but the locations were wrong.

    Through all of that, we've found friends in unexpected places, and we've learnt that we need to be in a central location if we seriously expect those enthusiastic online and telephone enquirers actually to materialise. This is a city with excellent public transport provision, which is good in its way. However, it also cultivates the mindset that somewhere not easily accessible by bus or tram is not somewhere worth going to. Our current location is ideal in that regard.

    God has been good to us. Let's see what the future brings.

    Please pray for us.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    O if only you could all relocate to the bottom right-hand corner of Our Lady's Dowry!

    We have a great big church, already steeped in Incense, which is virtually unused on Sunday afternoons/evenings (except for the 2 or 3 who meet for Evening Prayer). Depending on how many of you there are, I'm sure we could make an aisle, at least, available to you...

    We were asked, a few years ago, if we could accommodate a Sunday afternoon Mar Thoma parish. Alas, parking difficulties (they're a gathered congregation, as you might suppose) meant that they had to find somewhere else...

    /sorry - end of tangent/
  • One of the other local AC churches, which has quite an early Sunday service was also used for a while by a Romanian Orthodox church until they bought their own building.

    Fr Duck is definitely in the hoping to reunite English Catholics one day camp, but other than saying we do pray for our Diocesan and PEV rather than the local RC bishop, I don't want to say too much more as it could get rather outing.
  • Who are the 'English Catholics' whom Father Duck is hoping to reunite ?
    Who are the 'English Catholics' who have moved out of communion with Father Duck ?
  • I enjoyed reading your liturgy too, Cyprian. The list of Saints was almost like a who's who Celtic miscellany - and I did wonder at why some names were included. I've never heard Germanus of Auxerre cited in a liturgy before but have always thought he was pretty cool.

    On the main theme ... intinction (intincture?) was mentioned up thread as something the CofE isn't countenancing. I've not been to a communion service for a while - Sunday mornings are currently quite difficult for family and others reasons - but from what I'm told one of the parishes here is intincturing ...
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Intinction apparently runs the real risk of fingers getting into the wine. Although those at St Sanity usually only just dip one side barely into the wine, you hear stories that it's just a minimal strip that does not get intincted.
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    Trouble is, people have been grasping the wafer in their hand before they intinct, so it’s covered in everything that’s on their hands - which, following the (usual times) peace, contains a good range of what’s on everyone’s hands. For that reason it is a problem no matter how much (or little) actually makes contact with the wine. On some occasions I have actually seen an oily film spread out on the wine from the edge of an intincted wafer, when I have been on chalice duty.

    Please don’t do this (if we ever get back to normal times) and don’t let others do it if you are presiding.
Sign In or Register to comment.