- Feb 29, 2004
- 4,698
- 5,400
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Last Sunday my priest announced a change in practice. I am interested in other Anglican reactions to it. Some background: I recently moved so this is a relatively new parish for me. When I arrived, I noticed that local practice was for most people to shun the common cup in favor of intinction. I don't know the history of this in this parish, but it was as the pandemic was winding down. This was a change from my former church, which I found unusual.
Sunday's announcement was two-fold: to address widespread intinction as well as to accommodate those who abstain due to sobriety. The announcement was that sipping from the Chalice was preferred along with dispelling myths about it being unsanitary in comparison to intinction. Okay, so far, but there is more. Secondly, going forward two chalices would be passed, the first containing wine and the second grape juice to accommodate those maintaining sobriety. Thirdly, if you want wine, you must sip from the first chalice coming to you. If you want to dip or if you want the non-alcoholic element, you wait with host in hand for the second chalice of grape juice. In short, wine requires sipping from the common cup and intinction requires the grape juice. Both are consecrated in the same way. A subsequent newsletter published messages from several congregants who were very appreciative of the being able to fully participate after abstaining from the cup for 10 or 20 years for sobriety reasons.
There certainly is a logic to aspects of it I reckon, but I am not sure how I feel about the two cups with different elements. Perhaps it is no different than a side offering of gluten-free bread? It begs the question, are there practice adaptations that alter the theology of what we are doing and where is that line drawn? I dunno.
Sunday's announcement was two-fold: to address widespread intinction as well as to accommodate those who abstain due to sobriety. The announcement was that sipping from the Chalice was preferred along with dispelling myths about it being unsanitary in comparison to intinction. Okay, so far, but there is more. Secondly, going forward two chalices would be passed, the first containing wine and the second grape juice to accommodate those maintaining sobriety. Thirdly, if you want wine, you must sip from the first chalice coming to you. If you want to dip or if you want the non-alcoholic element, you wait with host in hand for the second chalice of grape juice. In short, wine requires sipping from the common cup and intinction requires the grape juice. Both are consecrated in the same way. A subsequent newsletter published messages from several congregants who were very appreciative of the being able to fully participate after abstaining from the cup for 10 or 20 years for sobriety reasons.
There certainly is a logic to aspects of it I reckon, but I am not sure how I feel about the two cups with different elements. Perhaps it is no different than a side offering of gluten-free bread? It begs the question, are there practice adaptations that alter the theology of what we are doing and where is that line drawn? I dunno.
