I know that with the Lutherans that wee cups are associated with 'Americanization' around the turn of the 20th century, and grape juice has the same origin plus the Temperance Movement behind it. Generally, grape juice and wee cups go together to the extent that I have seen. The better Lutheran liturgical writers anathematize them at length complaining that they are a puritan innovation (any bad & American becomes Puritan in their eyes) and not in accordance with the true spirit of Lutheranism. Around here they seem to have dropped into the habit of left hand side of grape juice in little cups, and right hand side for wine in chalice!
As far as I have been able to fathom out, only the Episcopalians made a concerted stand against both to the point where Bishop Manning of New York threatened to suspend a Rector for not following the rubrics of the BCP when he tried to introduce the liturgical shot glass. Even the Reformed Episcopal Church did not completely succeed in holding out, mainly because Bishop Rudolph (PB 1916-30) was a temperance advocate.
This article from a November 1978 (I think) issue of the Journal of the Church Service Society (Church of Scotland) might be interesting and instructive:
FWIW, I seem to recall that in a recent COVID-related discussion, @Cathscats mentioned that in the Kirk, a common cup must be available for anyone who chooses to drink from it, even if wee cuppies are otherwise used. I think I remember that correctly.
In American Presbyterianism, questions like whether to use a common cup or wee cuppies or whether to use fermented or non-fermented wine belong to the Session, not to the presbytery or General Assembly—a principle we’ve recently seen play out again with regard decisions to about virtual celebrations of Communion.
In a nearby Anglican parish where we go from time to time, some communicants take the wee cuppies; when offered the chalice, they tap the cuppie against it before drinking. A gesture towards the commonality of the communion.
FWIW, I seem to recall that in a recent COVID-related discussion, @Cathscats mentioned that in the Kirk, a common cup must be available for anyone who chooses to drink from it, even if wee cuppies are otherwise used. I think I remember that correctly.
And I believe that I may have mentioned at the time that if such an ordinance exists it is neither acknowledged nor enforced at parish level.
FWIW, I seem to recall that in a recent COVID-related discussion, @Cathscats mentioned that in the Kirk, a common cup must be available for anyone who chooses to drink from it, even if wee cuppies are otherwise used. I think I remember that correctly.
And I believe that I may have mentioned at the time that if such an ordinance exists it is neither acknowledged nor enforced at parish level.
Ah, you may indeed have.
@Gee D, I have seen a chalice with a pouring lip before—mainly, I think, in Lutheran churches. As communicants approach the rail/altar, they take an empty wee cuppie from a tray on a small table. The person administering the chalice then pours a small amount of wine into the wee cuppie.
FWIW, I seem to recall that in a recent COVID-related discussion, @Cathscats mentioned that in the Kirk, a common cup must be available for anyone who chooses to drink from it, even if wee cuppies are otherwise used. I think I remember that correctly.
And I believe that I may have mentioned at the time that if such an ordinance exists it is neither acknowledged nor enforced at parish level.
Ah, you may indeed have.
FWIW it piqued my curiosity so I had a rummage but couldn't find anything in the CofS Church Law archive on their website, but it only goes back to 1931.
@Nick Tamen, that's an interesting variation, but it does leave those taking a "poured mini" getting the sacrament which may have partially washed back into the cup from previous communicants? At the church I mentioned*, the flask is consecrated and the chalice and minis poured from that.
* which is old-fashioned low-church, not Sydney Anglican
@Nick Tamen, that's an interesting variation, but it does leave those taking a "poured mini" getting the sacrament which may have partially washed back into the cup from previous communicants?
I wouldn’t think so. The wine is poured from the chalice to a clean cup. The communicant drinks and then leaves the used cup in another tray or, in some places, in a grove in the altar rail designed for the purpose. So there would never be an opportunity for backwash.
FWIW, I seem to recall that in a recent COVID-related discussion, @Cathscats mentioned that in the Kirk, a common cup must be available for anyone who chooses to drink from it, even if wee cuppies are otherwise used. I think I remember that correctly.
And I believe that I may have mentioned at the time that if such an ordinance exists it is neither acknowledged nor enforced at parish level.
Ah, you may indeed have.
FWIW it piqued my curiosity so I had a rummage but couldn't find anything in the CofS Church Law archive on their website, but it only goes back to 1931.
Yes, it goes back to 1909! Weatherhead, in his authoritative book "The Constitution and laws of the Church of Scotland" says (page 109) "Strictly speaking members are entitled to communion by the common cup and to the ordinary elements of bread and wine (1909, Sess 11&13) but the individual cup and unfermented wine are permitted and are in use in many congregations..."
@Nick Tamen, that's an interesting variation, but it does leave those taking a "poured mini" getting the sacrament which may have partially washed back into the cup from previous communicants?
I wouldn’t think so. The wine is poured from the chalice to a clean cup. The communicant drinks and then leaves the used cup in another tray or, in some places, in a grove in the altar rail designed for the purpose. So there would never be an opportunity for backwash.
I think the pouring from a lipped chalice into wee cuppies may be Churches of Christ practice. Recalling a brief conversation about thirty years ago when talking about a URC Minister who came from the Churches of Christ when he mentioned the practice.
Dear me. With due respect to the churches concerned, of whatever denomination, it does all seem a bit...umm...fussy.
TBH, the current practice in the C of E (bread and wine both consecrated, bread distributed to the Faithful, but wine consumed only by the priest, on behalf of all present) seems a lot less work!
Dear me. With due respect to the churches concerned, of whatever denomination, it does all seem a bit...umm...fussy.
TBH, the current practice in the C of E (bread and wine both consecrated, bread distributed to the Faithful, but wine consumed only by the priest, on behalf of all present) seems a lot less work!
YMMV, of course.
I suspect that communion in one kind has traditionally been deemed by Presbyterians as among those things which make the baby Jesus cry (while emphatically not making any reference to his blessed mother).
Yes, that may well be so, and the current practice of Communion in one kind is a kind of side-effect of The Plague™, I suppose.
Perhaps one day Communion in both kinds will be allowed again, but I wonder how many of the remaining Faithful might avail themselves of the common cup/chalice?
Perhaps one day Communion in both kinds will be allowed again, but I wonder how many of the remaining Faithful might avail themselves of the common cup/chalice?
Dear me. With due respect to the churches concerned, of whatever denomination, it does all seem a bit...umm...fussy.
TBH, the current practice in the C of E (bread and wine both consecrated, bread distributed to the Faithful, but wine consumed only by the priest, on behalf of all present) seems a lot less work!
YMMV, of course.
I suspect that communion in one kind has traditionally been deemed by Presbyterians as among those things which make the baby Jesus cry (while emphatically not making any reference to his blessed mother).
Indeed, it has been seen that way, at least when seen as a general practice rather than a communicant’s choice based on individual circumstances. And no Presbyterian minister I know would feel at all comfortable partaking of the cup when the congregation can’t.
FWIW, I think once there’s an effective vaccine, churches will fairly quickly return to how they did Communion pre-COVID. The concern now is not about viruses in general, but about a specific virus, and I think we’ll see a return to the status quo ante once there’s general confidence that that virus is under control.
FWIW, I think once there’s an effective vaccine, churches will fairly quickly return to how they did Communion pre-COVID. The concern now is not about viruses in general, but about a specific virus, and I think we’ll see a return to the status quo ante once there’s general confidence that that virus is under control.
On the question of using a chalice. it has been pointed out that covid cannot be spread on what is eaten or drunk, it must be breathed in. What goes into the mouth goes down the throat and into the stomach -- comes nowhere near the lungs.
I suspect that communion in one kind has traditionally been deemed by Presbyterians as among those things which make the baby Jesus cry (while emphatically not making any reference to his blessed mother).
In all honesty, the same goes on the Protestant side of Anglicanism where denial of the Cup to the laity is regarded as contrary to institution of the sacrament.
On the question of using a chalice. it has been pointed out that covid cannot be spread on what is eaten or drunk, it must be breathed in. What goes into the mouth goes down the throat and into the stomach -- comes nowhere near the lungs.
Why is it, do you think, that everyone is emphasizing the importance of handwashing? Do you think there could be a connection here?
I want to issue a warning of reading that the denial of the cup to the laity in Presbyterian circles being seen as 'something that makes baby Jesus cry'. I am pretty sure that the problem is in the understanding of the role of the celebrant. If the cup is removed in Presbyterian Churches and similar it must be removed in its entirety (i.e. the celebrant may not partake of it either). This making clear the celebrant's position, as a member of the laity.
Dear me. With due respect to the churches concerned, of whatever denomination, it does all seem a bit...umm...fussy.
TBH, the current practice in the C of E (bread and wine both consecrated, bread distributed to the Faithful, but wine consumed only by the priest, on behalf of all present) seems a lot less work!
YMMV, of course.
I suspect that communion in one kind has traditionally been deemed by Presbyterians as among those things which make the baby Jesus cry (while emphatically not making any reference to his blessed mother).
Talking of things that make the baby Jesus cry, there are traditionalist RCs who will not go to communion as it has to be in the hand and not on the tongue at the moment. Apparently this is a blasphemous sacrilege which causes souls to linger for centuries longer in purgatory.
I know one or two devout A-C people who habitually receive the Host on the tongue - but they have sensibly accommodated themselves to the present norm of receiving in the hand.
I will refrain from telling them about the extra centuries in Purgatory that this Infamous Practice entails...
BTW, aren't the Fearful Faithful in danger of Hellfire for not receiving the Sacrament, when It is available?
Does any of you know whether the hymn Sancti, venite, Christi Corpus sumite has a surviving ancient chant?
It is commonly sung to various modern tunes in one of the two translations, Draw nigh and take the Body of the Lord and Come, Christ's beloved, feed on his Body true.
The text survives in the Bangor Antiphonary but what of the melody?
My bishop has done some searching for me and found this very same melody in an ancient antiphonary from Milan. It seems to be the ancient Celtic melody that was transmitted to Bobbio along with the text.
I've produced a translation building on the work done by Adrian Fortecue, as his is the only English text I have been able to find that matches the original metre.
Now we have text and the ancient melody, we're working on a harmonised version.
Does any of you know whether the hymn Sancti, venite, Christi Corpus sumite has a surviving ancient chant?
It is commonly sung to various modern tunes in one of the two translations, Draw nigh and take the Body of the Lord and Come, Christ's beloved, feed on his Body true.
The text survives in the Bangor Antiphonary but what of the melody?
My bishop has done some searching for me and found this very same melody in an ancient antiphonary from Milan. It seems to be the ancient Celtic melody that was transmitted to Bobbio along with the text.
I've produced a translation building on the work done by Adrian Fortecue, as his is the only English text I have been able to find that matches the original metre.
Now we have text and the ancient melody, we're working on a harmonised version.
If you are going for authenticity ..... why harmonise?
If you are going for authenticity ..... why harmonise?
I suppose that depends on what you mean by authentic.
The idea is to bring the hymn into use within our existing liturgical tradition, in which many of the ancient psalm tones, hymn melodies, and other chants are sung in harmonised form (after the pattern established by Maxim Kovalevsky). It is hoped that, through prayer and use within our worship, the Sancti. Venite will become an authentic part of our liturgical tradition.
If you are going for authenticity ..... why harmonise?
I suppose that depends on what you mean by authentic.
The idea is to bring the hymn into use within our existing liturgical tradition, in which many of the ancient psalm tones, hymn melodies, and other chants are sung in harmonised form (after the pattern established by Maxim Kovalevsky). It is hoped that, through prayer and use within our worship, the Sancti. Venite will become an authentic part of our liturgical tradition.
Seeing some ordination pictures from (Holy) Chichester, I noticed that some deacons are wearing their stoles over the left shoulder, whilst others are wearing the stole over the right shoulder. Is there any significance in this, i,e, suggesting a difference between permanent deacons and transitional deacons?
Seeing some ordination pictures from (Holy) Chichester, I noticed that some deacons are wearing their stoles over the left shoulder, whilst others are wearing the stole over the right shoulder. Is there any significance in this, i,e, suggesting a difference between permanent deacons and transitional deacons?
My guess is that all of the deacons were probably wearing the stole correctly, over the left shoulder, but that someone decided to invert some of the photographs.
I've noticed that webmasters and people who manage social media for churches often do this for reasons that are beyond me and with no regard to the resultant strangeness.
I've found the album in question on their Facebook page and some of the deacons are indeed wearing the stole on the wrong shoulder. The photos have not been inverted as the bishop in the very same photographs is the right way round.
Well the diocese of Chichester is something of a Looking Glass world. Some people might even consider it a Wonderland.
Mrs CD and I served in the Chichester Diocese (house for duty) for about five years and we were told right from the beginning that Chichester did things differently from everyone else.
Anyway, thanks for the comments
Well, +Lewes is an Anglo-Carflick, so presumably he's kosher, whereas +Horsham is not only a *Wooman* herself, but was consecrated by a *Wooman* (+London)!!
Seriously, though, if she's involved with any licensings or whatever, on her patch, the Holy Bits will probably be done by +Richborough, the Flying Bishop (or PEV). A typically Anglican fudge compromise, but it seems to work.
Anglo-Carflicks would *not* go down well with much of East Sussex - +Lewes may be technically kosher in terms of gender but East Sussex is Gafcon/Reform/Christian Concern land, and I believe some parishes were already under +Maidstone. Plenty of people at the Lewes bonfire parades shout 'no popery' without irony.
The non-evangelical parishes in East Sussex do tend to be Trad Cath (some of them doing excellent community work, real slum parish stuff) though so I'm intrigued to see it all pan out.
Anglo-Carflicks would *not* go down well with much of East Sussex - +Lewes may be technically kosher in terms of gender but East Sussex is Gafcon/Reform/Christian Concern land, and I believe some parishes were already under +Maidstone. Plenty of people at the Lewes bonfire parades shout 'no popery' without irony.
The non-evangelical parishes in East Sussex do tend to be Trad Cath (some of them doing excellent community work, real slum parish stuff) though so I'm intrigued to see it all pan out.
O - I wasn't aware that East Sussex was quite so...er...well...
I stand corrected!
Mind you, parts of West Kent (Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells/Sevenoaks) are of like nature.
I'm looking for a decent translation of Christe, Redemptor Omnium in a form of English contemporary with our times.
Does this hymn exist in the modern RC office?
Also, does anyone recognise this tune? I'm sure I've usually heard it sung to the The God Whom Earth, and Sea, and Sky but it doesn't appear to be married to this hymn in any of my hymnals.
If it exists anywhere in The English Hymnal or The New English Hymnal, is anyone able to direct me to it? I'm particularly keen on these volumes as they tend to use the Sarum variations of hymn tunes where such exist, and our UK mission has my bishop's blessing to use these as local custom.
Comments
As far as I have been able to fathom out, only the Episcopalians made a concerted stand against both to the point where Bishop Manning of New York threatened to suspend a Rector for not following the rubrics of the BCP when he tried to introduce the liturgical shot glass. Even the Reformed Episcopal Church did not completely succeed in holding out, mainly because Bishop Rudolph (PB 1916-30) was a temperance advocate.
The Individual Cup: Its Use at Holy Communion.
FWIW, I seem to recall that in a recent COVID-related discussion, @Cathscats mentioned that in the Kirk, a common cup must be available for anyone who chooses to drink from it, even if wee cuppies are otherwise used. I think I remember that correctly.
In American Presbyterianism, questions like whether to use a common cup or wee cuppies or whether to use fermented or non-fermented wine belong to the Session, not to the presbytery or General Assembly—a principle we’ve recently seen play out again with regard decisions to about virtual celebrations of Communion.
And I believe that I may have mentioned at the time that if such an ordinance exists it is neither acknowledged nor enforced at parish level.
@Gee D, I have seen a chalice with a pouring lip before—mainly, I think, in Lutheran churches. As communicants approach the rail/altar, they take an empty wee cuppie from a tray on a small table. The person administering the chalice then pours a small amount of wine into the wee cuppie.
FWIW it piqued my curiosity so I had a rummage but couldn't find anything in the CofS Church Law archive on their website, but it only goes back to 1931.
* which is old-fashioned low-church, not Sydney Anglican
Yes, it goes back to 1909! Weatherhead, in his authoritative book "The Constitution and laws of the Church of Scotland" says (page 109) "Strictly speaking members are entitled to communion by the common cup and to the ordinary elements of bread and wine (1909, Sess 11&13) but the individual cup and unfermented wine are permitted and are in use in many congregations..."
My edition was published in 1997
Thanks - I see I misread how it works.
TBH, the current practice in the C of E (bread and wine both consecrated, bread distributed to the Faithful, but wine consumed only by the priest, on behalf of all present) seems a lot less work!
YMMV, of course.
I suspect that communion in one kind has traditionally been deemed by Presbyterians as among those things which make the baby Jesus cry (while emphatically not making any reference to his blessed mother).
Yes, that may well be so, and the current practice of Communion in one kind is a kind of side-effect of The Plague™, I suppose.
Perhaps one day Communion in both kinds will be allowed again, but I wonder how many of the remaining Faithful might avail themselves of the common cup/chalice?
They'll try & go back to intincting....
FWIW, I think once there’s an effective vaccine, churches will fairly quickly return to how they did Communion pre-COVID. The concern now is not about viruses in general, but about a specific virus, and I think we’ll see a return to the status quo ante once there’s general confidence that that virus is under control.
I do hope so.
Exactly. Christ alone is the living word of God.
In all honesty, the same goes on the Protestant side of Anglicanism where denial of the Cup to the laity is regarded as contrary to institution of the sacrament.
Why is it, do you think, that everyone is emphasizing the importance of handwashing? Do you think there could be a connection here?
Talking of things that make the baby Jesus cry, there are traditionalist RCs who will not go to communion as it has to be in the hand and not on the tongue at the moment. Apparently this is a blasphemous sacrilege which causes souls to linger for centuries longer in purgatory.
I will refrain from telling them about the extra centuries in Purgatory that this Infamous Practice entails...
BTW, aren't the Fearful Faithful in danger of Hellfire for not receiving the Sacrament, when It is available?
Thank you, again, @Alan29 .
My bishop has done some searching for me and found this very same melody in an ancient antiphonary from Milan. It seems to be the ancient Celtic melody that was transmitted to Bobbio along with the text.
I've produced a translation building on the work done by Adrian Fortecue, as his is the only English text I have been able to find that matches the original metre.
Now we have text and the ancient melody, we're working on a harmonised version.
If you are going for authenticity ..... why harmonise?
I suppose that depends on what you mean by authentic.
The idea is to bring the hymn into use within our existing liturgical tradition, in which many of the ancient psalm tones, hymn melodies, and other chants are sung in harmonised form (after the pattern established by Maxim Kovalevsky). It is hoped that, through prayer and use within our worship, the Sancti. Venite will become an authentic part of our liturgical tradition.
Got it.
My guess is that all of the deacons were probably wearing the stole correctly, over the left shoulder, but that someone decided to invert some of the photographs.
I've noticed that webmasters and people who manage social media for churches often do this for reasons that are beyond me and with no regard to the resultant strangeness.
I've found the album in question on their Facebook page and some of the deacons are indeed wearing the stole on the wrong shoulder. The photos have not been inverted as the bishop in the very same photographs is the right way round.
How peculiar!
Sinister deacons?! Is that allowed?
Mrs CD and I served in the Chichester Diocese (house for duty) for about five years and we were told right from the beginning that Chichester did things differently from everyone else.
Anyway, thanks for the comments
But on the whole I suspect they transition to "higher" orders
Seriously, though, if she's involved with any licensings or whatever, on her patch, the Holy Bits will probably be done by +Richborough, the Flying Bishop (or PEV). A typically Anglican fudge compromise, but it seems to work.
The non-evangelical parishes in East Sussex do tend to be Trad Cath (some of them doing excellent community work, real slum parish stuff) though so I'm intrigued to see it all pan out.
O - I wasn't aware that East Sussex was quite so...er...well...
I stand corrected!
Mind you, parts of West Kent (Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells/Sevenoaks) are of like nature.
Does this hymn exist in the modern RC office?
Also, does anyone recognise this tune? I'm sure I've usually heard it sung to the The God Whom Earth, and Sea, and Sky but it doesn't appear to be married to this hymn in any of my hymnals.
If it exists anywhere in The English Hymnal or The New English Hymnal, is anyone able to direct me to it? I'm particularly keen on these volumes as they tend to use the Sarum variations of hymn tunes where such exist, and our UK mission has my bishop's blessing to use these as local custom.