Ian Paul in conversation with Andrew Atherstone Psephizo History, law, and individual cups at Communion
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love What if we just weren’t made for these things?
Durham University Church of England must do more to recognise dangers of spiritual authority
I have read that there is a suggestion that the introduction of individual cups, particularly in the southern states of the US in the 1890s was for racist reasons rather than because of health fears. I don’t know whether this is accurate or not.
Surely there would have been segregation in those days, and until comparatively recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_of_churches_in_the_United_States
Probably it is not as simple as one first thinks, different practices in different churches.
Good point. Thank you.
The Church of England struggles with many things- Communion cups are just one example- because it is more concerned with “how” than “why”. It conspicuously fails to teach people that their reason for doing something, or not doing it, is often more important than the actual course they choose. So, for example, if someone is worried that they might have a cold deciding to use an individual cup rather than the common chalice is a loving act. But if, as you say, it is an act of racist segregationalism that’s evil. Yet, if you listen to the debate, whether someone… Read more »
Bad spiritual pretended authorities find ways of imitating the features of the genuine, real thing. Therefore they deceive the very elect
Related to the Durham University research about Soul Survivor there’s a report from an international conference on abuse in church settings at: https://www.youthandpolicy.org/articles/faith-abuse-youthwork/
It’s not all comparable to Soul Survivor but there are some useful points in common such as victims being ignored or punished, the dangers of celebrity culture and the protection of institutional reputation..
Really good thoughts from Colin. It’s almost a cliche to say that responding to the environmental crisis is a significant part of the church’s life in the 21st century. More fully, we need to listen closely to the Jesus of the gospels who Colin talked about in his previous blog. His teachings are rooted in nature, and we need to consider how he is calling people in this century to live in harmony with the animals, plants, lands, oceans and skies of this world. Trump’s rejection of technological solutions is not wholly wrong. Of course it makes no sense to… Read more »
I can’t see anything in the Gospels about living in harmony with nature or any of our contemporary concerns along those lines
The church I belong to has a very simple approach to the cups question – we have both a common chalice and small, separate glass cups, and people are free to choose which one they prefer. There are good reasons, besides the issues of health, for both practices. The common cup reflects the Lord’s instigation of communion when he blessed the cup after supper, which is a fair enough reason to me. It emphasises the wholeness of the ‘one body’ aspect of communion. On the other hand, those who follow a more nonconformist / evangelical line which emphasises individual repentance… Read more »
Thank you John for your comments. At the church where I worship we too have both a common chalice and individual cups. It was noticeable that during the last Swine Flu outbreak the Church of England insisted on individual cups, yet during Covid they came down against individual cups.
I have not posted on this site before but there’s no time like the present.
Ian Paul’s conversation with Andrew Atherstone refers to a controversy during lockdown. I think Thinking Anglicans covered this back then and, assuming I have done this right, the link should be here:
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/individual-cups-at-holy-communion/
It is noteworthy that the Thinking Anglicans piece links to an opinion given, at the time, by several barristers on the topic. I have not read the LAC’s guidance of June 2024, but I wonder if this might have influenced the clarification it has now issued.
It seems to me that this is a key observation in the common/individual cup debate: ‘Therefore he asked the Archbishop to grant dispensation for communicants to drink from a small individual glass into which consecrated wine was poured at the communion rail.’ There’s a big conceptual difference between pouring into individual cups from one vessel of already-consecrated wine and consecrating hundreds of individual pre-filled cups. I’d have no problem with the former, but would be less comfortable with the latter, despite– or perhaps because of– my background in ‘individual cup’ nonconformity. The common cup has meant a lot to me… Read more »
I can see practical difficulties with pouring wine from a flagon into hundreds of individual small cups at the communion rail. There would inevitably be spills and splashes. And it would involve a person or persons issuing the glasses to individual worshippers, another person or people to fill them from a flagon, and a third person to collect the empties – as well, of course, as the person/people administering the bread. It would make for a crowded chancel.
I wonder how it was done in the parish which gained the original archbishop’s dispensation?
That’s precisely my question: how was it done? Basing an argument for individual cups on a past ruling from an Archbishop should be done with a mind to what the original ruling entailed. I’d like to hear more! Perhaps people bought their own small cups…
If they brought their own, there would be the issue of not being able to rinse out the remaining drops of wine with the rinse water being consumed by the celebrant and servers.
I suspect that wasn’t a concern in the period in question. If Jesus isn’t ‘in’ the wine, it’s not relevant.
It would have been a concern if the church were Anglo Catholic or even of central churchmanship. I’ve known even con evos be concerned about it.
In my own church the chalice and trays of cups are on the communion table before being blessed all at the same time; due to the numbers at communion there are two ‘queues’ of communicants; one is served by our minister, and an assistant serves the other then two other assistants on each side administer the chalice, or the cups containing non alcoholic wine to the communicant according to their choice. Simple and straightforward. Out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen a ‘Volstead’ or ‘pussyfoot’ Bible ?- issued in America during the Prohibition years, it had had all approving references… Read more »
But it would clearly be impractical and time-consuming to fill lots of small cups as Communion is being dispensed. My practice – and I think this is quite common in Baptist churches – is for the congregation to be served the “wee cuppies” but for me to drink from a representative chalice. And although we take and eat the bread when we receive it (“as a sign of our individual faith in Christ”), we wait until everyone has received their cup and then drink together (“to show our unity, and unity with all God’s people”). That seems to work fine.… Read more »
Ian Paul’s historical research is fascinating – and brilliant. It demonstrates how ignorance of the past can easily lead to unfounded responses in the present. During Covid, once post-lockdown churches were initially allowed to meet, one church I was in contact with used intinction – The host is partly dipped into the wine. The moistened host is then given to the communicant to eat. Our church moved to individual cups and only later post-vaccine moved back to a single cup. In both cases, contagion was at the heart of the practice, plus a desire not to just have communion in… Read more »
Intinction is strongly discouraged in the Diocese of Chelmsford on health grounds.
The service would last forever if I had to do the ablutions on 100+ individual shot glasses.