Forbidding the Cup to the Laity violates Anglican Doctrine

124

Comments

  • Inctintion is of the devil anyway. Anyone with a gluten intolerance is thereby excluded from receiving from the chalice.
  • Intinction should be ok (barring the gluten issue, and that level of severity is really rare) if the recipient doesn't handle anything and the dipping is done by the server.
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    Intinction should be ok (barring the gluten issue, and that level of severity is really rare) if the recipient doesn't handle anything and the dipping is done by the server.

    I have never seen a practice other than: one person places the wafer in the recipient's hand, and the chalice follows, handled by a different person. Which means that I can't picture how the choreography to which you allude would work.

    More importantly though, there is no need for (or benefit in) intinction, so there is no reason to expose anyone to any level of risk at all - due to a gluten allergy or anything else.
  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    Thank you, @Cyprian for your link. I will enjoy reading and praying through, especially if I have to self isolate.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    Intinction should be ok (barring the gluten issue, and that level of severity is really rare) if the recipient doesn't handle anything and the dipping is done by the server.

    But what is the point anyway? Our Lord said 'drink this', not 'dunk this'.
  • angloid wrote: »
    Intinction should be ok (barring the gluten issue, and that level of severity is really rare) if the recipient doesn't handle anything and the dipping is done by the server.

    But what is the point anyway? Our Lord said 'drink this', not 'dunk this'.

    *shrug* I agree, but some people seem to think intinction is valuable. I prefer to try to accommodate people's foibles if possible rather than dismiss them.
  • Cameron wrote: »
    Intinction should be ok (barring the gluten issue, and that level of severity is really rare) if the recipient doesn't handle anything and the dipping is done by the server.

    I have never seen a practice other than: one person places the wafer in the recipient's hand, and the chalice follows, handled by a different person. Which means that I can't picture how the choreography to which you allude would work.
    In my tribe (not Anglican), wafers are rarely used. Rather, bread is cut into pieces, which are then placed on a plate or in a basket. One elder holds the plate/basket, and each communicant takes a piece of bread (presumably without touching other pieces). Another elder is immediately to the side of the first elder, holding the chalice. So, if all is going correctly, the communicant is able to take a piece of bread and, without shifting it is his or her hands at all, immediately intinct. The bread, of course, needs to be cut into adequately sized pieces.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    angloid wrote: »
    Intinction should be ok (barring the gluten issue, and that level of severity is really rare) if the recipient doesn't handle anything and the dipping is done by the server.

    But what is the point anyway? Our Lord said 'drink this', not 'dunk this'.

    Yes, and if you intinct, He will cry, and so will His Blessed Mother.
    :grimace:

    And Daemons will possibly come, to bear you off to Hell...
    :warning:

  • You might be better ,NT,to use wafer bread for the moment. There are hardly any crumbs.
    My worry is about the various Eastern rites, where the consecrated leavened bread is put into the chalice and then the priest (skilfully) drops a piece into the mouth of the communicant.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    You might be better ,NT,to use wafer bread for the moment. There are hardly any crumbs.
    Not an issue for us at the moment, as services are suspended for at least the next two Sundays.

    But fwiw, there are kinds of bread that can be used that don’t crumb much, at least in my experience administering the chalice. Pita, for example, tends not to crumb when dipped, and it can easily be cut into appropriate sized pieces.


    I’m curious, though. Has anyone encountered the suggestion that communicants use hand sanitizer before communing? I don’t think I have, and I’m wondering if and how that might play out.

  • Forthview wrote: »
    You might be better ,NT,to use wafer bread for the moment. There are hardly any crumbs.
    My worry is about the various Eastern rites, where the consecrated leavened bread is put into the chalice and then the priest (skilfully) drops a piece into the mouth of the communicant.

    The Orthodox I know appear to be adopting this practice and claiming they have both faith and science on their side.

    The spoon doesn't touch the communicants' mouths or lips apparently - if it is done skilfully.
  • CyprianCyprian Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Forthview wrote: »
    You might be better ,NT,to use wafer bread for the moment. There are hardly any crumbs.
    My worry is about the various Eastern rites, where the consecrated leavened bread is put into the chalice and then the priest (skilfully) drops a piece into the mouth of the communicant.

    The Orthodox I know appear to be adopting this practice and claiming they have both faith and science on their side.

    The spoon doesn't touch the communicants' mouths or lips apparently - if it is done skilfully.

    There are variant practices here. I have only received in the Indian Orthodox Church once, where the priest did exactly as you describe, which was a skilful flick of the spoon, depositing the Holy Gifts into the communicants' open mouths, with no physical contact between spoon and communicant. I have also seen this done in some Greek and Antiochian churches, (though by no means all).

    In the Russian church, however, and possibly other Slavic churches as well, the established custom is for the communicants to close their mouths firmly over the spoon so that the priest may withdraw it with no chance of spillage. Something so deeply entrenched will be difficult to unlearn. I'd be interested to learn how that would be handled. And I suppose in countries such as ours where an Orthodox parish is likely to contain people from various backgrounds, it is not at all unlikely that, whatever the priest's intentions, the congregation will be made up of people accustomed to different practices. (Incidentally, my old parish once acquired a poorly-designed communion spoon that was far too deep. It created a sort of suction vaccum, which made it almost impossible to withdraw it from the people's mouths without much awkwardness and embarrassment. It was soon retired from service.)

    In my jurisdiction, various methods of communion are permitted, but intinction seems most common. In parishes where there is a deacon, he will hold the chalice and stand next to the priest. The priest will dip the edge of a portion of the Holy Body into the Holy Blood, and then place it into the communicant's open mouth. In parishes where intinction is the norm but there is no deacon to assist, each portion is pre-intincted just after the communion of the clergy.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    That would probably be ok, provided the deacon used tweezers or some other tiny tongs to intinct. Not sure how to go from there.

    Normally, we'd be dead against wee cuppies - indeed someone I know they may very well be contrary to the 39 - but at the moment, we're perfectly happy to take them (disposable of course) and tapping them against the chalice when it's offered to us.
  • The use of wee cuppies is, our Bishop tells us, not lawful in the C of E, but no chapter or verse was given!

    Re Orthodox practice - would it perhaps be preferable, for the time being, for the Faithful to simply abstain from Communion, with just the priest/clergy receiving?

    NB - I don't mean that they should absent themselves from the Liturgy...
  • Could one not use the spoon but dip it in rubbing alcohol between communicants ?
  • Could one not use the spoon but dip it in rubbing alcohol between communicants ?

    And keep it there long enough to sing 'happy birthday'? Might detract from the solemnity of the liturgy somewhat. :p

    I'd be considering having an acolyte wearing gloves and carrying a stack of spoons and just swapping after each communicant. Possibly with a second acolyte to take the used ones and do a run to a sink and scrub them with hot soapy water if they need reusing before the distribution is finished.
  • angloid wrote: »
    Intinction should be ok (barring the gluten issue, and that level of severity is really rare) if the recipient doesn't handle anything and the dipping is done by the server.

    But what is the point anyway? Our Lord said 'drink this', not 'dunk this'.

    I know of one CofE secondary school - which had a yearly Eucharist for its communicating pupils - that used to instruct all their kids to intinct because it was quicker. It was the bane of those of us who had these children in our congregations because we would teach them to drink from the cup, only to watch them dip the wafer; and growing up to be a generation who would do so for ever.

    Sometimes parents get young children to dip the wafer, rather than take the cup. I've noticed someone in my congregation does this, contrary to what I taught the child at their First Communion lessons. If the parent doesn't think it appropriate for their child to put the cup to their lips (they don't even have to sip) fair enough, but this surprised and annoyed me. I have said that they can avoid the cup altogether if they wish - though I think the child is old enough to receive; even that intincting is not good practice. We'll see what happens when normal service resumes!

    I know, too, of some adults who because of 'problems' with alcohol - or a dislike for the taste - wish to intinct. They don't like to be deprived of both kinds.
  • LatchKeyKidLatchKeyKid Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Inctintion is of the devil anyway. Anyone with a gluten intolerance is thereby excluded from receiving from the chalice.

    We have a second chalice for the gluten intolerant to intinct.

    But today we accepted that those who would have taken communion but refused for Covid-19 reasons, still participated in communion anyway.

    Interestingly, today's Samaritan woman reading has Jesus saying that true worshippers are those who worship in spirit and in truth, rather than according to a tradition/doctrine of a faith tradition.
  • yohan300yohan300 Shipmate
    In the swine flu pandemic the 1547 Sacrement Act was cited by Anglican churches as making this permissible. It states "...that the saide moste blessed sacrament be hereafter commenlie delivered and ministred unto the people, within this Churche of Englande and Irelande and other the Kings Dominions, under bothe the Kyndes, that is to saie of breade and wyne, excepte necessitie otherwise require..."
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Though there was some legal disagreement about whether the 1547 Sacrament Act still had force.
  • Do any of us actually think that if God does have an opinion on how we should take communion, then our lives have otherwise been good enough that failing to do communion properly will be the sin that keeps us out of heaven?
  • yohan300yohan300 Shipmate
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Do any of us actually think that if God does have an opinion on how we should take communion, then our lives have otherwise been good enough that failing to do communion properly will be the sin that keeps us out of heaven?

    John 6:56 - He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood directly from a shared cup on a weekly basis and in wanton disregard of any ongoing pestilence, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
  • Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Do any of us actually think that if God does have an opinion on how we should take communion, then our lives have otherwise been good enough that failing to do communion properly will be the sin that keeps us out of heaven?

    Well, quite.

    The whole question is surely academic, certainly at the moment. In a few weeks' time, believers will be lucky to (a) find an open church, and (b) get to it, without worrying about wee cuppies, chalices, spoons, intinction etc.

  • In a few weeks' time, believers will be lucky to (a) find an open church, and (b) get to it, without worrying about wee cuppies, chalices, spoons, intinction etc.
    That is today here.

  • Yes, I apologise. Insensitive of me.

    I was referring to the UK, temporarily forgetting that other countries are in a worse state (IYSWIM).
  • Oh, no need to apologize. I knew what you meant, and no umbrage was taken. More like commiseration.

  • Indeed. I guess we all live in hope that the crisis will eventually pass, and some semblance of normality (whatever that may be) will return.

    I think some former practices will, however, change, and this might not be altogether a Bad Thing...
  • Our Coeliac congregation member has always received in one kind only, and never touches the chalice.

    Now it is the official diocesan 'party line', we were wafers only this morning, although nothing was said about just receiving in the hands. We were reminded that He is fully present in both bread and wine, so there is nothing doctrinally wrong with changing practice.
  • Anglican BratAnglican Brat Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    A historical question:

    Does anyone know if they adjusted communion during the Black Death? Is the Black Death the historical reason for communion in one kind in the Roman Church?
  • They may have done (first major outbreak in UK was in 1348-1349), but by then wasn't it the custom for only the priest to receive Communion (except at Easter)?
  • It is difficult to say just when the practice of receiving Communion only in one kind developed within the Catholic church. Heightened awareness of the presence of Christ in the Sacred Species and the fear of spillage of the Precious Blood encourage Communion under one kind. Similarly the awareness that Christ was truly present in both species and truly and fully present in the smallest particle of the Host contributed also.
    We can say that the Council of Constance banned in 1415 the reception of the Precious Blood by the laity.
    It is better to say that Communion was mandatory at Easter time rather than it was forbidden at other times , but it was generally the case that most of the faithful would communicate only at Easter.
  • angloidangloid Shipmate
    Yes, I apologise. Insensitive of me.

    I was referring to the UK, temporarily forgetting that other countries are in a worse state (IYSWIM).
    Actually I think it's us in the UK who are in the worst state because we have a government at best running round like headless chickens and at worst in denial.
  • You may well be right - time will tell (if we live...).
    :grimace:

    I note that there seems to be an emphasis on scientific and medical grounds in the guidance given by the C of E. I wonder if TPTB don't trust the Box Of Headless ChickensGovernment?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    You may well be right - time will tell (if we live...).
    :grimace:

    I note that there seems to be an emphasis on scientific and medical grounds in the guidance given by the C of E. I wonder if TPTB don't trust the Box Of Headless ChickensGovernment?
    I think that's a genuine problem. A significant proportion of the public, with good and sound reasons, don't believe a word that comes out of the Prime Minister's mouth, and don't respect the integrity anyone who is willing to be in his cabinet. So guidance has more credibility, the more independent it is of that particular contaminated source.

    I get the impression the same applies in the US. I'm sorry if this offends US shipmates, but to distant eyes and ears, and in addition to his record on the truth and integrity stakes, the President's pronouncements don't carry any quality of leadership.

  • Enoch wrote: »

    I get the impression the same applies in the US. I'm sorry if this offends US shipmates, but to distant eyes and ears, and in addition to his record on the truth and integrity stakes, the President's pronouncements don't carry any quality of leadership.

    More than that they don't carry any coherent sentences. It's hard to be reassured by a leader when (as my wife, who is not a follower of politics, suggested) they appear to be drugged up to the eyeballs.
  • Comments on other Coronavirus threads (e.g. the one in Purgatory) suggest that US shipmates would fully agree with you both.

    It seems that the pandemic is showing up, in a very clear and cruel light, the shortcomings of 'normal' American life and politics (with some notable exceptions in the form of various State governors, and others).

    Please God we don't follow suit in this country, despite the lack of decent leadership.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    They may have done (first major outbreak in UK was in 1348-1349), but by then wasn't it the custom for only the priest to receive Communion (except at Easter)?

    The Cup had gradually been withdrawn from the laity in the 11th and 12th centuries, but was not written into Canon Law until 1415. As far as I have been able to ascertain the Black Death did not alter sacramental practice in the short term, but you might have had difficulty finding a live priest at times in urban areas where mortality rates were highest. However, the Black Death did have a profound on term impact on popular devotions.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Well, well. It'll be interesting to see how (and if) church life revives once the current crisis is over.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Well, well. It'll be interesting to see how (and if) church life revives once the current crisis is over.

    I suspect that strong communities will be straining at the leash to get back together again.
  • O I hope so, and I hope that applies to Our Place! There will be some that fall by the wayside, though, I fear.
  • The intinction discussion takes me back to the time the Diocese of Toronto studied the matter; I didn't find the document just now. We have in the pews directions about communion, that all baptised may receive, that one kind is full communion, and that intinction is not recommended and that in this parish it is not done. This has been in place since for 15 years maybe a bit more or less. As a person who used to an altar server, we were trained to observe when someone raised a host in their hand in a pre-intinction motion. One parish had a wee chalice on a table with an attendant for the intincters, and in another we did not allow it to occur, which if I recall correctly only occurred once and person was being rather deliberate. There's an aspect of communion which involves going with the flow of thing and being part of the community.

    We've also had at least since SARS that alcohol gel is used before communion prep starts by the altar party, and there are also dispensers at the front, attached to outside of the first pew, used by all. That alcohol gel is provided to all and used by the altar party was ordered (decreed?) two bishops ago. It's simply absorbed as part of the sequence of events before communion, as peace is over and offering is ready to be received at the front. No big deal. No more than any other bit of the thing.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    In a few weeks' time, believers will be lucky to (a) find an open church, and (b) get to it, without worrying about wee cuppies, chalices, spoons, intinction etc.
    That is today here.

    We remained open on Sunday, though most the other down churches canned it, as the local recommendation at the time was that folks should avoid congregating in groups of more than 100. As our average attendance is 15 to 20, and the building relatively large, we felt our own risk index was relatively low, though I did advise those in high risk groups to stay home.

    Doubtless there will be three more sets of guidelines before I make a decision on next Sunday.
  • Indeed. I guess we all live in hope that the crisis will eventually pass, and some semblance of normality (whatever that may be) will return.

    I think some former practices will, however, change, and this might not be altogether a Bad Thing...

    We have to face the fact now that when (if) this is over, things will not go back. We will all be working at church from scratch and that will be painful not just for a few but for us all
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    My first FB live message was "how shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?"
  • What a good text to use! One thing has struck me - and I said it in church on Sunday. The people who lived in Bible times, and indeed the many writers who wrote about God's protection, were very well aware of the uncontrollable dangers of pestilence, flood, drought or locusts. Of course they often interpreted them as a sign of God's judgement, which I suspect most sane modern preachers won't do (and of course modern nations aren't in a covenant relationship as ancient Israel was). Of course they didn't have modern media to rapidly spread panic information, but they still kept their faith in the face of extreme difficulty. I know this is more of a Purgatorial discussion - but how did they do it?
  • Maybe we've got used to the idea that we can do, and/or control, EVERYTHING in our world, just as we wish?

    We now realise (or are beginning to realise) that we can't.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    In brief, my take was (I made this up as I went along as I had not been down to preach that day but happened to have the technology to hand):

    - strange environment
    - weeping: loss, grief, Kubler-Ross stages, nostalgia: all of this is normal and we will have to learn to go through it
    - captors ask for a song: this may have been cruelty, but also genuine curiosity; those around us will be wondering what sort of song we as believers will sing in these circumstances
    - (I'd already mentioned the idea of "finding our song" in my previous, last RL message, on Paul and Silas in the Philippian jail, with nods to the movies Life is Beautiful and The Shawshank Redemption; if anybody wants that PM me as I have hashed out an English translation)
    - the psalm says "how shall WE sing". Finding our way through is not a top-down, by fiat, it's a collective undertaking that mobilises the community of believers (cue lots of my Jer 31 mantras about the new covenant and everybody knowing the Lord from the least to the greatest).
  • Well said, @Eutychus. Thank you!
  • cgichardcgichard Shipmate
    One of the litanies in Orthodox Vespers includes a petition for protection against "the plagues of sickness that march against us" - a salutary reminder that this is but the latest of many down the centuries.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    @cgichard - Our little Anglican church uses the BCP Litany every Sunday during Lent before the Eucharist, and the petition "...; from plague, pestilence, and famine..." Good Lord, deliver us has a bit more resonance than usual. That said, I reasonably sure that the plague, albeit a relative modest one is Covid-19, and pestilence is the "news" coverage therefore. The US media in particular is long on hype and short of facts.
Sign In or Register to comment.