A bit shocked I asked what stopped them. Was it because they had to be confirmed? No, it transpired that they had been confirmed, but the couldn't take the wine because of their past drinking habits. Asking the minister if there was a way in which non-alcoholic wine could be provided, they were told that this wasn't possible and that unless they choose to take the wine, communion just was not available.
I contacted the minister and during the conversation asked whether he'd ever used gluten free wafers, a question which was answered in the affirmative. So I asked why he couldn't use two chalices, one with wine and one with non-alcoholic wine. the response was that it had to be from the same cup and so this was impossible. Not only that, but it distinctly says that it has to be wine in the Bible and that it has to be one cup! Apparently, it doesn't matter what 'bread' is used as it just says 'bread' and so meeting medical needs with gluten free was permitted.
Having asked about Christmas, Easter and other 'peak' times, I pointed out that he used two chalices during the communion services one a number of occasions. He accepted this but pointed out that the source of the wine was the same vessel at the beginning and so he was maintaining the requirements from Scripture.
When I have been faced with this situation in the past I have merely, without really thinking about it, provided a second 'non alcoholic' chalice and would use gluten free wafers for people who would find the bread or (flying saucer paper) wafers a problem.
Why on earth do we struggle to be so very right when in doing so we become so very wrong such that the cup of fellowship become a source of separation or even condemnation. I use the term 'condemnation' because in one situation where the alcohol was an issue, the minister told the members of the PCC that 'n' couldn't take communion because "He was an alcoholic!' (what wallies some clergy are)!
So, just something that has been playing on my mind this morning for others to consider and advise me perhaps, but also for us all to consider how in our haste to be 'right' we deny everything that jesus came to do, say and be.
Pax
Suddenly he realised,
here were no gluten free wafers!
here were no gluten free wafers!
19 comments:
It seems there are two options here. Canon law does say that the wine for communion is to be "the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome." So this strictly rules out the use of non-alcoholic communion wine unless it is wine with the alcohol removed.
The second option is for this person to communicate in one kind only - a practice discouraged in the CofE, but permissible, I believe, in cases of necessity, which I believe this to be.
I worked on the theory that vine was made from the 'fruit of the vine' and that the greater need was met if I just didn't wait to let it ferment, and so grape juice fitted the bill.
Interestingly I found an article that said I could use a semi-fermented grape juice and I have experimented (long time back) with bernache.
Wehn faced with this situation myself, it seemed to me that the bread without wine was consider just a little to verboten in a very 'It's RC' sense from some around me and that the lesser of the errors before me was to extend the blessing that is contained in and made manifest in being communicated.
The excellent place that is anamnesis as we meet at the tardis that is the altar rail and see passover, last supper, now and the wedding feast of the Lamb cannot be restricted or refused, To do so would be to be lost within the caves of legalistic self-righteousness. I prefer His!
Thanks for the comments Simon, as ever valid and helpful.
V
Some of the non-conformist Churches routinely use non alcoholic communion wine. This might be a solution, but I'm not sure a very good one.
Gosh, it is hard to believe there are such ministers as the one you describe out there! When I used to work at an Evangelical run nightshelter for the homeless the manager was also ordained. He would celebrate communion with a slice of the bread ‘Motherspride’ we served with the soup and used non-alcoholic wine. I am reminded of Mk 2:27 – the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. I’m not an expert on Anglican Rubrics, but I am sure there is nothing against having a small cup with some non-alcoholic wine that can then be used – I’ve just read through the passage in N.T. Greek and yes, the minister is correct, it just says ‘artos’ – bread, but specifically says ‘the cup’, it doesn’t say whether the wine was alcoholic or not. Nor does it mention the sharing of communion with women – only men are mentioned in the narrative (tho’ it is likely women were there doing the waiting etc.). Does this minister only allow men to participate in communion?
That said, I do think there is a touch of idolatry going on that a sip of wine is going to cause a relapse; it is affording alcohol a power it does not possess. For man makes the alcoholic not the alcohol! I know the AA 12 Step Approach is pretty hot on total abstention - but as a social worker in the past (and as a volunteer at present) I’ve worked with alcoholics (and have them in my own family!) and other addicts and total abstention is not the only way. There is sometimes a temptation to make much of our failings and foibles and give them a power that they do not possess. Rather it is our will that is the issue. And we are all ‘addicts’ to a greater or lesser degree, just as we are all fallen, we are all sinful and we are all totally dependent on the Grace of God for our redemption. Hence I am happy to be sympathetic to a degree, when someone begins to jaw on about their troubled past, but when people (and I’m not suggesting this is the case here!) begin to build their identity on their past failings (‘I’m a reformed alcoholic...’; ‘I used to deal in drugs...’; ‘I’m an ex-gay...’ etc.) then I can’t help but wonder if they are proud of their pasts. I sometimes wish ‘regular’ parishioners (if there is such a thing) would become just as conscientious: ‘I treated the girl on the check out at Tesco’s appallingly today!’; ‘I took great delight in spreading gossip around the office about the new temp.’ ‘I purposefully belittled the new member of the housegroup by pointing out his lack of knowledge of the finer points of Habakkuk.’ ‘I couldn’t be bothered visit granny this week because she is such a moaning old cow...’ It is in the mundane we fail and while ‘alcoholics’ or reformed prostitutes or ‘ex-gays’ can seem to have cornered the market in ‘redemption’ stories, in reality, we all have the same tale to tell each day... It is just our compromises and failings are better hidden...
When I was in the Pente side of things we used to use a most ghastly non-alcoholic communion wine, brought back terrible memories.
Where we are, currently, we use a rather nice tawny regimental port. I experimented with quite a few before we choose the current brand and settled on a tawny because it was easier on the washing of the linen.
The problem with non-alcoholic is that you can't use a common cup (unless you're methodists, for they did when they had an ordination service at a cathedral a few years back - whoops!) because it's the alcohol that lets you do it!
Pax
Sorry Pete, missed your response.
Been there, done that with the impromptu communion with bread and Shloer! Seemed to work well for those who were present.
Indeedy. Was the Sabbath made for the man or man for the Sabbath? I think I know which - it's just a shame that some so very obviously dont!!!
The legalism of some (and the dog-collar in question was what I'd consider very low church, so I think it was the appearance of being Catholic that spooked him) makes me despair and seek the post of diocesan assassin!
I don't think the issue is actually idolatry but the fact that the person isn't perhaps in a place of healing and what we are seeing on their part is actually fear that one sip of wine will set them back off down the road to alcoholism. The powers that be in their AA/recovery group are red-hot on the total abstinence or you'll stumble approach and this, along with the "You're only ever a recovering or non-drinking alcoholic" approach might not always be the most realistic or helpful, but then again that a rulle which is used for larger quantities than a communion affords.
Thank you for your very helpful and insightful comments,
Pax
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others." Matthew 23:23
Seems the minister in question is falling into the self-same pit.
As you pointed out, the consecration of more than one chalice is quite common in churches with large congregations or more than one administering clergyman. And communion in one kind is surely permissible in this, as in other, circumstances?
Query. Does the rubric still require that "the best and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten" be used at communion?
Too right Steve,
Swallowing gnats and straining at camels!
I want to do the stuff properly and right, but some of the pastoral inadequacies the crop up in the name of orthodoxy leave me frustrated and angry. Especially when church practice is at variance with, or opposed, biblical stuff.
Pax
Communion in one kind is a 'no no' as is the use of individual cups (which I was prepared to use when the HN51 scare was on) and, for me is rather flawed - would rather use tinctures.
Rubric - BCP has it, will take look at CW,
Pax
Canon B17.2: "The bread, whether leavened or unleavened, shall be of the best and purest wheat flour that conveniently may be gotten, and the wine the fermented juice of the grape, good and wholesome."
Vic:
"the lesser of the errors before me was to extend the blessing that is contained in and made manifest in being communicated."
I suppose it depends on what your theology of the Eucharist is. The CofE contains a broad range of opinion on this, but I think that to see the communion as simply containing or manifesting a blessing is too restrictive. I prefer to remain quietly agnostic about exactly how it happens, but our communion prayers and thanksgivings do tell us that we are partaking of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.
To me, "looking RC" is the worst reason for an individual not to communicate in one kind if that is the most appropriate thing to do.
I know one minister who refuses to face East during the creed because "It's Papist" - what a Wallybean!
Seems that there are many who go for the not RC bit - sad ain't it?
Eucharist has so many elements and so many things attached - bottom line has to e that we don't restrict it to those who can take wine, do we?
Like the quietly agnostic bit :)
The rubric is my response to those who castigate illiterate Americans who say "gotten".
Lapinbizarre
"Gotten" is but one of quite a significant number of so-called "Americanisms" which actually reflect 17th century English but dropped out of British use under the influence of Samuel Johnson (who standardised spelling by producing a dictionary) and 19th century grammarians who wanted to make English grammar look like Latin. You can find "gotten" in the BCP Psalms too.
I've lived in the US for 40 years now & seems to me that I don't hear "gotten" nearly as often as I used. Maybe I've just got[ten?] so used to hearing it that I no longer notice it. Or maybe (quite possible) it's more common in Yankee (N England) usage. The grammatical rules governing its use are really quite complex. "Got" was sometimes discouraged as bad style when I was a kid.
[off topic here, aren't we?]
Vic Many thanks for this.
I was chatting with friend a few weeks ago about my research – especially that both ‘churches’ or organisations I am working with have a bias towards the poor; as if the latter are some ‘special’ category. In fact at one of these ‘church’s’ Sunday services, the guy taking the service spent a good portion of his talk on this subject and ended by reminding us Jesus said ‘Blessed are the poor...’. I am just an observer at these services, but I did want to correct this misuse of Scripture! Jesus is reported as saying ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit’ – or more literally ‘Happy are those who know their spiritual [inner] poverty.’ Which is not quite the same as presuming the Scripture is about ‘the poor’.
I got into a spat on someone’s blog a year or so ago. The blog’s author styles himself as an ‘evangelist’ with a ‘passion for the lost’; and then goes on tell of his stint working at an Evangelical homeless centre (where I too worked, but before his time) working with ‘alcoholics and drug addicts’. Besides the fact I think it is very odd to have a tagline/biopic describing yourself, written by yourself, but in the third person, as the introduction to your blog, I find it of immense interest why the words ‘alcoholic’ and ‘drug addict’ are added. It is as if they are some form of social or symbolic capital used as a high denomination currency in the economy of religious philanthropy – and self-advertisement. The question I find myself is asking (and did, hence the spat!) ‘For whom are you writing?’ Are you telling us about the work you did, or are you telling us about yourself and how special you are?
There is no gradation of those in need of salvation. Personally, on many occasions (tho’ not all) I think all we are doing, when we presume others are ‘special’ cases’ for salvation, is that we are seeking to highlight our own ‘special’ capacity for righteousness and compassion – or the self-belief in the fact that we may be ‘bad’ but we’re not as bad as these poor people. It is just a subtle version of the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector! Well, this is at the root of much of my thinking that is forming the basis of my PhD.
The sad thing, when you do work with those with addiction problems who have succumb to the associated chaotic lifestyle, is that they internalise the label of ‘special case’ – they often state this is the reason why they are where they are; and it goes on to reinforce their sense of worthlessness. Or ‘pride’ in their burden: often both, which is curious, but endemic. Jesus asks a very odd question in John 5: 6 ‘Do you want to get well?’ (or words to that effect – this is from memory!). At face value, it is a bit of a daft question! Everybody, you’d think, wants to get well But do we? In fact many of us are happy to gravitate to where our compromises with the Holy Spirit as best hidden! I think it was Quentin Crisp who said ‘Health consists of having the same illnesses as one’s neighbour.” And sometimes church life can be a bit like this. Hence the need for little groups in special need of ‘salvation’ – it takes the heat off the majority!
[I know you mentioned the alcoholic person, above, to highlight how daft some clergy can be – I certainly don’t presume you are playing the ‘social capital’ game here!]
Thanks for comments Peter - just looking at things and seeing how we can be so right that we leave out the 'wring' I guess!
Worked in a church where being an ex anything gave an air of extra something or other, sadly, it also pushed some straight back into ti too :(
Pax
Hi, Vic. Just found this particular post of yours when searching for one on another topic to send to a friend.
You may remember I too am an alcoholic. These days, I can say "a recovered alcoholic" but with the proviso that I do not take alcohol into my system and so do not trigger that physical craving again.
I have often depped on trumpet for a local orchestra that worked with a local choir to perform classical settings of "the mass" (such as the Nelson Mass of Haydn, the Sparrow Mass of Mozart etc) in Anglican communion services, and was at that time also a member of my local village parish church.
How, then, to take Anglican communion without taking alcohol?
Simple. A quiet word with the celebrant beforehand explaining the situation and asking permission to take communion on one kind only - ie only the "bread" sufficed without exception.
Allie - the Mad Trumpeter
Post a Comment