This article notes that the rubric is an enacted Prayer Book teaching about the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist.

[Fixed your link -ed.]

Sorry, for some reason the link doesn't work. Here it is: http://www.gracechurchinnewark.org/how-the-episcopal-church-teaches.php

To me, this seems to have very little, if anything, to do with priests "getting more than their fair share." It's much more like a duty than anything else. However, in one parish I attended, and where pita bread was used, the priest or deacon asked parishioners to help "revently consume " the excess consecrated bread. And many parishes dispose of extra wine this way, too, or put it into the ground via some "reverent method."

I'd like to be clear that I am aware of the rubric (p. 408-9) and want to take exception of the public nature of it. My beef is not with what happens after the service is over or the care with which whatever happens may occur, but with the specifically public nature of the consumption of "remaining" elements after Communion but prior to Dismissal. It's also more than just priests - it seems to be anyone on the "other" side of the altar rail - leading me to wonder about how we appear to visitors.

I believe the rubric may be at odds with itself. This act of public consumption of leftover eucharistic elements by members of an altar party might not be as reverent as it seems in light of the entire assembly.

Torey Lightcap

Well, I would agree that the words could be changed to simply "after Communion." That's how it normally happens in my experience, anyway - the bread was distributed after the service was over - so it seems people are not following that rubric to the letter anyway. The Spirit of the Law seems to reign here in practice.

It doesn't seem very "traditional " to me, anyway. I mean, churches were "traditionally " built with special drains for disposal of excess wine, right?

(Actually, according to that article, the rubric says " ... either after Communion of the people or after the Dismissal...")

Here is the rubric in question:

If any of the consecrated Bread or Wine remain, apart from any which may be required for the Communion of the sick, or of others who for weighty cause could not be present at the celebration, or for the administration of Communion by a deacon to a congregation when no priest is available, the celebrant or deacon, and other communicants, reverently eat and drink it, either after the Communion of the people or after the Dismissal.
Book of Common Prayer, pp. 408-409

Torey Lightcap

So if people are "gobbling up" the elements while the service is still going on, they've made a conscious choice to do that - and it is allowed. So what you're saying is that they should be discouraged from doing this by changing the rubric?

I should say that personally, I rarely notice what the altar party is doing at any time before, during, or after communion. I don't know if this is usual, though. Also, I haven't seen this "gobbling" myself - but perhaps because I'm not paying much attention....

Changing that might be like an act of Congress.

And, of course, I'm using "gobbling up" hyperbolically. But what else is the Internet for?

Torey Lightcap

The "review" of the wafers reminds me of the old joke about the Catholic child making his first communion. After, his grandmother said, "Did you believe it was Jesus in the bread?" The child replied, "I believe it was Jesus, but I don't believe it was bread!"

The clergy and altar servers at my church don't consume the elements at the altar, and I don't remember seeing it done at any church I have attended, which means that if they are doing it, they are doing it subtly. At my present church, we have a piscina for the extra wine and the altar guild members consume the bread or feed it to the birds.

Thanks for commenting marny - please sign your name next time. ~ed.

Surely I am not the only person left who remembers Robert Farrar Capon's diatribe about "angelic fish-food wafers" in Hunting the Divine Fox.

Yes, I agree that finding the Real Presence of Christ in the wafer is much easier than finding actual bread in there!

;-)

(It seems this may be the one thing just about everybody agrees with, no matter their theological persuasion...)

Let's not forget the background of this rubric. One of the great controversies for quite a long time in the Anglican churches was around the reservation of the sacrament. The low church parties suspected that any attempt o reintroduce reservation was an attempt on the part of the high church folk to smuggle in transubstantiation and the "worship" of the Eucharist in through the back door. In today's Episcopal Church this is largely a non-issue; reservation is common. And, yes, there are parishes who conduct Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament--mine among them (thankfully!).

As far as I'm concerned, the reason to consume the elements is if they are going to spoil; the wafers don't.

I've always appreciated the rubric from the 1552 BCP:

¶ And to take away the supersticion, whiche any person hothe, or myghte have in the bread and wyne, it shall suffyse that the bread bee such, as is usuall to bee eaten at the Table wyth other meates, but the best and purest wheate bread, that conveniently maye be gotten. And yf any of the bread or wine remayne, the Curate shal have it to hys owne use.

Our parish consecrates wafers to reserve them in order to communicate the sick and homebound. Otherwise, we use leavened bread which is made by a parishioner. If any of the leavened bread is left over it is "fed to the birds" (a term that I find rather distasteful..."returned to the Earth" might be an appropriate alternative). Prior to the Eucharistic Prayer the deacon pours a small amount of wine into the priest's chalice. The rest remains in the cruet, is consecrated, and poured into each chalice as it is needed. In this way there is very little left over in the chalices to consume and what is left over in the cruet is reserved in the tabernacle (the altar guild takes care of this after the liturgy). Usually, each of the Eucharistic Ministers will consume the left over wine in the chalice they are using (if there is any left). This way the deacon or priest doesn't risk becoming "buzzed" by having to consume it all.

To be perfectly honest, I have to echo a previous comment and say that I'm usually unaware of all of this unless I'm assisting at the altar. The focus of the congregants appears to be either on the communion hymn or on their own prayers and reflections.

I have, however, felt somewhat inappropriate in consuming the left over wine...kind of like I was finishing my cocktail at closing time. I have considered suggesting that this, along with purifying the chalice, be done after mass in the sacristy.

-Cullin R. Schooley

I see the consumption of the over-consecrated elements as an act of humility and stewardship. Being assigned the leftovers is hardly an honor or privilege.

One might also consider that better planning and counting can reduce the need for "consumption of Mass quantities." ;-)

Gotta tell ya, I see priests and others at the altar consuming the "leftovers" all the time, and it drives me nuts. Theologically, it is exactly what Torey says, a "gobbling up" as though those of us inside the rail are more deserving or better than the rest. It also is terrible hospitality ... rather like inviting people over to dinner, then clearing the table, eating all the leftovers, washing the dishes and resetting the table all while the people are still sitting at the table!

I am on the road every week, and serve in approximately 30-35 parishes a year as a missionary and consultant. When I am the celebrant, I refuse to consume the leftovers ... especially the wine. In some parishes, people get quite upset if I don't partake of the extra bread and wine. In others, people are surprised that they do NOT have to consume.

I follow the rubric - I set it aside, and AFTER the service check to see if we need to set aside bread and wine for communion kits. If not, the bread can be consumed in private or set out for the rest of God's creatures, and the wine goes down the piscina or out on the rose bushes, again returning it to God's creation.

I am all for reverence and follow Lauren's policy. First time I served at a Lutheran church - I was shocked at the policy there- the bread was used week to week or tossed out in the trash - the wine poured down any sink. Quelle horreur! for this cradle Episcopalian - but I learned that for them Jesus is only present in the bread and wine when the community is present. With the sharing of ordained persons between our churches - I was surprised this had not been a sticking point. (what's a bishop - seemed to be the only trouble for full communion)

I think that a reason to do it during the service might be to avoid it slipping the celebrant's mind (most priests I know are busy talking with congregants immediately after the service) and to avoid accidental spilling of the wine.

There are parishes in the CofE, I have read, where the consecrated elements are thrown away, just like the practice at the Lutheran church referenced above.

I'm a little puzzled about people feeling that whoever ends up consuming the excess is getting more than their fair share. More than their fair share if what? It's pretty standard teaching that Christ is present in the smallest crumb of the Host and the smallest drop if the Wine - you don't end up with more Jesus if you consume a pound of consecrated elements than you do if you get just a tiny bit - no more sacramental grace, no more Real Presence. If people are concerned the priest is getting more than their fair share of Cavanaugh wafers or tawny port, I guess I find that even more puzzling; neither are exactly a treat. The priests I know are careful not to consecrate more than needed - they don't want to have to finish the leftovers.

Finally, yes, wafers do eventually spoil. In particular they are subject to molds of various kinds. I've read that a possible explanation of some of the "Eucharistic miracles" reported in the RCC is the growth of a reddish-orange mold on reserved Hosts, which was interpreted as proof that it was really human flesh.

Bill Dilworth

It was actually quite a nice thing to be offered the bread to "reverently consume" after Communion - the deacon brought it to the parish house after the service to find people to eat it. That's another reason to eschew the awful wafers, in my view.

Of course, you can't, as they say, put a muffin in a monstrance, so Anglo-Catholics will still need the wafers for Benediction.

;-)

It does seem to be more a problem with self-perception, rather than with actual perception - at least judging from this thread. Three "pewsitters" here have noted that they're not really watching what's happening at the altar after Communion; we're sitting in our seats at that point, praying or singing, usually. (Although I'd be interested: does anybody really resent the altar party for "getting more than its fair share" via the consumption of excess consecrated elements? I know I don't think this at all, but perhaps others do?)

While I respect those who prefer not to perform ablutions at the altar, I do think it is going a step too far to insist that it is wrong to consume the remaining consecrated bread and wine at the altar.

I believe that doing ablutions as the altar has the capability of modeling the respect we have for the sacrament. It enables the people to see their priest, with great care and love, conclude the distribution of the sacrament. They see that the sacrament is not thrown out, it is not put to the side and ignored until someone has a moment. Instead, the priest can model reverence and care in a way that can indeed be edifying for the people.

However, that only works if there is proper teaching attached to the practice.

Like with most pieces of liturgical practice—particularly those in which we insist that our way is the only theologically correct way—the real thing that is needed is better teaching. Whether one does ablutions at the altar or does them reverently in the sacristy afterwards, if the people are not taught the theological rationale behind the practice it is only so much arguing amongst clergy.

BSnyder: if you "give a monstrance a muffin" - I can see a whole teaching series for children emerging ala "If You Give a Moose a Muffin" or "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" books. Thanks for the grins.

It's interesting that the conversation immediately departed from the point of the video, which I take to be the generally unappetizing nature of communion wafers. Why is it that we are content with "bread" that tastes like plastic? I've taken this stuff on Sunday mornings I no longer notice how bad it is, but it really is awful. I hate to take on yet another job in my tiny church, but maybe I should start baking bread each Sunday . . .

Ann: We should write a song....

;-)

Like with most pieces of liturgical practice—particularly those in which we insist that our way is the only theologically correct way—the real thing that is needed is better teaching.

Yeah!

Ann, I think ELCA Lutherans are of different minds where this is concerned, as seem to be Episcopalians. Christ isn't only present to everyone when the congregation is there, because we also send people to the community to distribute communion to the sick and homebound.

In my parish, the ordained ministers communicate last, because this provides the most hospitable symbolism (inviting someone to your house and serving yourself last). After communion, each chalice bearer consumes the remains in his or her chalice very discreetly at the credence table as the altar is being cleared. Bread (yummy, barely leavened whole wheat bread) is consumed by sacristans or even child communicants afterwards in an informal but reverent event after the mass.

We ensure that for every two chalices, someone has a flagon of consecrated wine he or she can use to keep the chalices filled just enough. Parishioners recognize that if they are at the end of the line and there is a lot left, they may want to take more than a sip but less than a gulp.

In my former Episcopal parish, we were encouraged to overfill communion chalices (the priest said something about it being faster and "more hospitable" for the people who intinct), and to my horror, the rest was poured down the regular sink into the New York City waste system. I got my head bitten off when I questioned her about this practice.

A few thoughts:

(1) Since the prayerbook is somewhat "vague" about sacramental theology, I think it best to err on the side of treating the remaining elements reverently. If it's "just bread" to you, what is the harm? If it remains the body of christ, then it is not optional, but mandatory to treat it with due reverence. If there is leftover non-wafer bread that will spoil quickly (an argument for wafers, of course), then consume it reverently either in the chancel or the sacristy. For those who insist on "real bread" rather than wafers, this is a chance for them to step up and take responsibility for using common bread forms.

(2) I too remember the "horrors" of seeing communion loaves in trashcans. The symbolism is bad and the environmental stewardship is bad. If the eucharist is not the treasure of the church, then it is better not to have it at all. "Trashing" a symbol renders it meaningless.

(3) I have a hard time thinking that consuming a little leftover wine or bread will induce substantive intoxication or severe dyspepsia.

(4) Reservation is so common in TEC today, I am surprised that there are so many parishes, it seems, where it is not practiced. At the church I attend now, there is a tabernacle on the retable. Our cathedral has an "aumbry" type cabinet on the wall of the sanctuary with the sanctuary lamp adjacent.

(5) Just as at any meal, "gobbling" is not only poor manners but suggests significant disrespect for the host. You should not gobble a common table meal. Don't "gobble" the eucharist either. The world will not end if consumption of the remaining bread extends things a few minutes. Horrors! You mean that people might have to pray/meditate for a few minutes before running out to brunch?

All about Cavanaugh's and others who make wafers here.

I think a possible reason for doing ablutions during the service is so that the celebrant doesn’t forget to do it, and to avoid accidentally spilling it the contents of the chalice while moving it to the sacristy. Usually priests are busy talking to congregants immediately after the service, so if it’s left until then it might not get done.

I don’t understand the idea that whoever consumes the leftovers is getting more than their fair share. Their fair share of what? You don’t end up with more sacramental grace if you down a flagon of consecrated Wine than you do if you have just have a sip, after all. If the concern is that they’re getting more than their fair share of Cavanaugh wafers and inexpensive tawny port mixed with water, I’m even more puzzled – it’s not as if those are delicacies, after all. Has someone actually been approached by someone in the congregation – either a member or a visitor – who took exception to the practice?

In spite of careful planning, sometimes you do end up with leftovers. I’m a chalice bearer, and have had the experience of returning to the altar with almost the same amount of consecrated Wine as I set out with, because of an unusually large number of people receiving by intinction.

Finally, in response to Derek’s post, consecrated Hosts do go bad. I read that an explanation for some of the “Eucharistic miracles” (“miracles” in which the consecrated elements take on the appearance of human flesh and blood) reported in the Roman Catholic Church might be the growth of a particular type of orange-red mold.

Bill Dilworth

I'll reserve the theological wrangling about consumption of the elements for the rest of you, but I feel compelled to come to Gordon Atkinson's defense.

I started reading Gordon's blog almost as soon as he began it. We have corresponded on more than one occasion, and I believe that--at heart--he has a lot of Episcopalian in him. In fact, I know that he worships with us on occasion. I'm pretty sure that--despite his Baptist commitments and his distaste for the commercially processed wafers (one I share)--he is not "gunning for liturgical churches" or "using satire to take shots."

Personally, I think we ought to go back to real bread--and forbid intinction--but that just opens up another can of worms, doesn't it? ;-)

Thanks for the backstory Paige. I like real bread but it has to be non crummy and hang together - nothing much worse than seeing a suspicious floating or even sunken bit. We kept a spoon on the credence table for fishing those out - the chalice bearer would scoop out strange bits after every pass. I have succumbed to wafers after all these years - but there is always the danger one's sleeves will sweep them off the paten if it is very flat. One time I saw Barbara Harris pour the wine all over the altar at EDS - the cruet was made to look like a big chalice but when one tried to pour from it the spout was too small for the circumference and it came out on either side. So sorry for the sacristan that day.

I've read +/- 15 of the comments. Not one of them referred to "reserved sacraments." My parishes (3) have reserved the bread and consumed the wine. The priests have found it difficult to have the left over wine in the ombrey. Perhaps the wine tends to turn sour.

I'd appreciate a comment about this from a priest or deacon.

Friends,

I'm really enjoying this conversation and want to respond to just a few things in the hopes this can keep going for as long as seems productive.

It was the specific instance of seeing Gordon Atkinson pop wafer after wafer in his mouth (in an acknowledged non sacramental moment) and take quick, large bites of the priest's hosts that provided the inspiration for my rant. I don't know him and think we would probably get along, because he has a liturgical sense of humor and I aspire to one myself. My hope was to set aside the question of potshots and move to the specific liturgical point I wanted to make. So if he styles himself a provocateur of the church, then he did his job, and I'm glad for it.

To those who think you can't get a little hazy from too much communion wine consumed in the moment, I beg you to imagine serving in a parish where the rector hands you a half full chalice Sunday by Sunday with the instruction to "finish this off." (Successful compliance with such an instruction may mean one is a little too eager to please, but still.)

I think, finally, about all I'm hearing in answer to my initial challenge is the very sensible argument by Tobias that

... consumption of the over-consecrated elements [can be] an act of humility and stewardship [whereas] Being assigned the leftovers is hardly an honor or privilege.

I hear this as an appeal for congregations to possibly assess their own individual and collective sacramental theology about meals in general vis-à-vis this Meal. That can only be to the good so long as it eventuates in better practice. In my case, coming as I do to the eucharist from a more functional standpoint, I don't want to contravene hospitality or fairness. Others more focused on Christ's presence in the eucharistic feast might be more inclined to reverently attend to the elements as they are. Good teaching, as has been said, is the key to whatever practices may be more consciously adopted.

As for the argument that it doesn't matter if no one's seeing it - well, all I can say is I'm not so sure.

Torey Lightcap

Christi - if you are using non-fortified wine it will turn to vinegar quite quickly. Most churches use port or some other wine like port, sherry, madeira, etc- it keeps for quite a while. One should check it occasionally though. (I am a priest but I don't play one on TV)

I just want to say how delighted I am to find a conversation raging on the Cafe about an issue on which I have neither an opinion nor the need to develop one.

"As for the argument that it doesn't matter if no one's seeing it - well, all I can say is I'm not so sure."

Nobody's arguing that, though. The point was that people in the pews are busy with other things during and after Communion. Also that nobody who's supposed to feel slighted actually does fell slighted, it seems. I've never heard anybody say they did, anyway. Has anybody here heard this?

"Gobbling" and being forced to drink full chalices of wine after Communion are different issues, and not related to either "unfairness" or "hospitality" that I can see.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, though....

We do reserve the Sacrament (in both kinds) at the parish I serve, and I generally consume the remaining wafers if there are only a few. The wine is returned to the earth following the Dismissal.

I think the difficulty is when there is an excessive amount of bread or wine. If you're trying to consume 30 or 40 wafers and a quart of wine, it is extremely difficult to do it reverently! One either has to consume it hurriedly by oneself or distribute it to ushers or acolytes ("Here: Eat/drink this!") on the fly. I recall the Rector of the church at which I was doing fieldwork in seminary weaving slightly down the aisle at the recessional and asking me to do the dismissal because he had just downed a full chalice of wine and was feeling a little "buzzed". Clearly, that is not the reverence we're looking for!

My thought is that it is the reverence that is the key. If you can, and it is appropriate, consume the remaining wine and eat the remaining wafers. If it cannot be done quickly and unobtrusively, then either consume it or return it to the earth following the service.

I guess this is especially problematic for parishes that don't reserve the sacrament.

But it's mainly an Employee Relations issue, I think! A rector who'd force a curate to drink a chalice full of wine (or something even more potent) is just acting in a completely inconsiderate manner, IMO.

I agree with the preceding poster that reverence is the key. Our tradition officially teaches consubstantiation, which seems to give about equal weight to the natural and spiritual nature of the elements themselves, as well as our participation in the rite as material and spiritual beings (and continuing the confession of the church that both divinity and humanity came together equally in Jesus, and is our ultimate destiny as well).

At table, I reflect on not only Jesus, but the Cosmic Christ, who is present in all things, in every drop of wine and every crust of bread and every person, and this increases the joy of the rite for me. I don't see how plowing through the bread piece by piece, or even making it primarily about the elements themselves, does anything to promote reverence. If anything, it makes it look more like the "Julia Child" Eucharist Joseph Campbell compared modern communion practice too.

As for laity participation in the "aftermath" of the rite, I agree but want to go one step further and say that representatives from the laity should be AT the table assisting the priest as he or she performs the rite and consecrates the elements, and I would especially love to see children and young adults be invited to this sacred task.

This would be comparable to present day Jewish tradition, where a young person is "called to the Bimah" to read the Torah with the Rabbi, which is the sacramental part of their service.

Something similar in our church would increase the joy of the whole service by honoring both laity and clergy at God's table, and reiterate that laity and clergy are truly partners in mission and in the life of the church more broadly.

"Our tradition officially teaches consubstantiation"

It does?

I don't see how ... making it primarily about the elements themselves, does anything to promote reverence.

I'd say this is because Christ himself said that bread was his body and wine was his blood. And told his disciples specifically to eat and drink these things in remembrance of him.

It's not surprising at all to me that reverence attaches to this....

Josh, about laity at the altar assisting the priest - isn't that what acolytes and ( where they exist) subdeacons do now?

Acolytes are not AT the table in my experience. It would be great if they were. But I would like every child in the parish to have an opportunity, acolyte or not, to be at the table during consecration.

Of course, my ultimate preference would be to have laity and clergy co celebrate the Eucharist, (with everyone getting a turn like in the ancient house churches) but that's not going to happen anytime soon, i don't think.

Well I don't think the line in Luke where Jesus says "this is my body, etc." comes from the lips of the historical Jesus, but I can understand how meaningful it is to you if you think they do. My Protestant side says that the Eucharist is a remembrance meal for Jesus(which means to actually bring the sacred presence into the present, not just reflect on a past event), and my Catholic side says that the Cosmic Christ, the second person of the Trinity, is truly present in the elements.

Celebrants who force ANYone to consume the leftover wine are abusers. Pure and simple. Whilst a seminarian, I had a few priests hand me almost full cups (which they had intentionally poured) and instruct me to finish them off, because they couldn't drink wine. I did so twice. And after that, I absolutely refused. Just as I refuse to pour too much into the chalice to begin with. Alcohol abuse is just that: abuse.
Lauren R. Stanley

"Well I don't think the line in Luke where Jesus says "this is my body, etc." comes from the lips of the historical Jesus, but I can understand how meaningful it is to you if you think they do."

That's OK - I don't believe in "the historical Jesus"....

;-)

No, TEC doesn't officially teach consubstantiation. It teaches "Real Presence". If you want to personally believe consubstantiation, you're fine. If you want to personally believe transubstantiation, you're equally fine. [If I think BOTH these Latin terms tend towards Killing the Mystery, I think I'm OK, too! ;-)]

JC Fisher

Josh, in a way the laity are already "co celebrants" with the priest, which is why, traditionally, there has to be somebody else present besides the priest for the Eucharist to be celebrated (as opposed to Roman practice). Are you saying, though, that in the "ancient house churches" the role of presider rotated among the membership equally? I'd never heard that before; could you point me towards a source?

I think clergy and laity should eventually co-preside (one should not be able to celebrate without the other, as all offices are needed, and if the bishop or deacons are present, they should all be at table together along with priests and laity).

The role of the presider rotating in the house churches comes from the scholarship of Elaine Pagels.

William Temple translated the term "substance" as value, blurring real presence, consubstantiation, and transubstantiation, preferring the terms "transvaluation" and "convaluation." Luther, by the way, never used "consubstantiation."

http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/1/30_William_Temple1881-1944ARchbishop_of_Canterbury.html

Eucharistic theology doesn't have to be either/or, nor, logically, would disposing of the consecrated bread and wine.

"Real presence" doesn't mean a physical presence but a spiritual presence, as in Jeremy Taylor's real and spiritual presence.

http://web.mac.com/brian.douglas/Anglican_Eucharistic_Theology/Case_Studies/Entries/2006/4/26_Jeremy_Taylor1613-1667Bishop_of_Down,_Connor_and_Dromore,_Ireland_and_Spiritual_Writer.html

Gary Paul Gilbert