Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Ship of Fools: St Margaret of Scotland, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


imageShip of Fools: St Margaret of Scotland, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Sugar cookies, banana bread, fudge and white roses – but no people!

Read the full Mystery Worshipper report here


Comments

  • I’ve never heard of The Blood of Christ being administered in such careless fashion. Disgraceful. Perhaps the server was new and not properly trained. Still that’s no excuse. At my place consecrated wine is from a shared chalice (pre-pandemic). The remaining is to be entirely consumed then the chalice washed in plain cold water in which that is poured into a sink that goes directly into the ground, then dried off with a purificator. Failure to adhere is grounds for excommunication.
  • Let me expound a bit more on the cleaning procedure. The Sacristan gathers all the dry sacred vessels at the beginning and end of the week and hand washes them with hot water and soap. They are are all rotated. I think it might be time their local Bishop pays a visit to this parish.
  • a sink that goes directly into the ground

    The sacrarium, it's called. Not calling tat by the names that God has ordained for them makes the Baby Jesus and his Blessed Mother . . . well, you know. :smile:
  • The very Low church I attended many years ago (1662 Prayer Book Evangelical) had an 8am Communion every Sunday, and I would sometimes assist as Lay Reader (usually by just reading the Epistle, and administering the consecrated wine). It was the Vicar who prepared the vessels, pouring the wine (he did sometimes overestimate the amount required) himself. The bread had been cut into little squares beforehand, by the Verger (who acted as sacristan)

    Our practice was to leave the vessels, along with any unconsumed bread and wine, on the Holy Table, and to remove them to the vestry after the service had ended. The unconsumed remains would then be reverently consumed by the Vicar and myself (neither of us had to drive home!), and the vessels would be left for the Verger to clean and put away.
  • BTW, the church MWed seems to be a fairly bland-looking building on the whole, perhaps typical of its period, but O! that hideous tower!

    Sorry, but it is An Abomination Before The Lord, and I'm surprised the said Lord has not yet demolished it (just the tower, not the church) with a well-aimed thunderbolt.

    The tower certainly must make the Baby Jesus etc. etc.

    Back to the Report, and I assume the Lay Reader acted as server - maybe the usual server was absent, and they had to step in at short notice? Hence perhaps the errors...
  • Thank you, Miss Amanda. Yes that’s the official term, also referred to as a Piscina. I rather like the idea individual servings of consecrated wine. Methodist or Presbyterian style, but with wine. Especially in these times. A lot of work for the server though. Even in pre-pandemic times I would only drink from the cup if I’m in the Altar party and get first dibs. My place can seat up to 2000 comfortably. That’s a lot of lips.
  • Wee cuppies (a la Presbyterians etc.) are not permitted in the Church of England, but it's not entirely clear from the Report if this was how it was done at St Margaret's.

    My impression is that rather larger vessels than the traditional wee cuppies were used, although with such a small number present, a common cup (chalice) would have sufficed. Was an individual large glass of wine offered to each communicant?
  • john holdingjohn holding Host Emeritus
    Our place's attempt to deal with Covid precautions means that the priest consecrates a (large) cruet of wine ...holds about 50 sips. This is used to fill individual wine glasses for those who want to partake of wine. All with appropriate sanitary precautions The first time, the rector saw me brining in a tray of wine glasses and remarked that it looked as if we were going to have a party -- and t hen realized, that of course that's just what we were about to have.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Since covid started, we've been using wee cuppies. With the choice being them or nothing, we go along with them. But I'm a bit concerned with the ablutions procedures described above. Any surplus hosts or wine should be consumed as a part of clearing the altar. After the chalice is empty, it should be rinsed out with plain water, preferably twice, and that water consumed in the sanctuary, not tipped down the drain. That plain water should have been poured over the patens into the chalices to wash off any crumbs of consecrated hosts. If you're lucky, the congregation will be singing a fairly long hymn to allow all this to get done at a suitably dignified pace. Then when cleaning up after the service, all the chalices, patens etc should be washed in hot soapy water and rinsed thoroughly before being put away.
  • edited November 2021
    Without straying too far into general practices surrounding the distribution of communion...

    What bothered me about the reporter's assertion is the phrase "abandoning it in a plastic tub."

    Our Blessed Lord is not going to suffer any more than he already has by anything we might do to his Precious Body and Blood, so long as we don't do it out of disrespect. However, through the ages the faithful seem to have been keen to "put on their best" when going to church. Receiving the Precious Blood in a plastic wee cuppie is, at worst, debatable as to being "best", but tossing the cuppie into a plastic tub doesn't seem to come close to qualifying as "best." When I think of "tub" in this context, I think of the slops bucket that one sometimes sees at wine-tasting parties. Or something that washerwomen used to utilize on laundry day.

    At Our Place, at present we do drink from wee cuppies, but then we reverently place them in a beautiful hand-made wicker basket that a parishioner made and donated to the church as an act of love.

    At St. Margaret's, judging from the report, it does seem that the Precious Blood was ministered in proper glasses, not in plastic wee cuppies. I don't imagine most churches would be able to afford gold plated goblets, but surely a good sturdy glass of proper size, that fits comfortably in the palm of one's hand, would not be, erm, out of reach. Shoo, I just ordered a set of juice glasses from Amazon that would fit the bill very nicely.

    I don't see how receiving the Precious Blood in such a vessel, and then leaving it in a suitably respectful receptacle, or even just setting it down on a linen-covered credenza, as one might do at a cocktail party, would be considered an affront to Our Lord. And of course the sacristan would collect them all afterwards and reverently wash them in hot soapy water . . . to be disposed of down the sacrarium.

    I'm bothered more by the practice in some places of the priest consecrating the wine in a chalice and then leaving it sit there without being consumed.
  • BTW, the church MWed seems to be a fairly bland-looking building on the whole, perhaps typical of its period, but O! that hideous tower!

    Sorry, but it is An Abomination Before The Lord, and I'm surprised the said Lord has not yet demolished it (just the tower, not the church) with a well-aimed thunderbolt.

    If you find that unpalatable, you should see some of the un-majestic edifices that get topped with crosses in Korea. Do a duckduckgo on "Methodist church Itaewon" for just one example.

    (The Itaewon church seems to be just one of numerous organizations occupying that rather pedestrian business tower, but, as is often the case over here, they still saw fit to put their symbol right on top.)

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    I suppose it all depends on what they think the Communion Service is and what the wine is after consecration. If they think its just a memorial meal and just wine ........
    On the other hand the report gives the impression that not a lot of care went into the service as a whole. I found myself thinking "why bother."
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    Hmm. ISWYM, but I got the impression that perhaps the bad weather had discombobulated people somewhat - maybe the server was absent, and the Lay Reader was roped in to help at the last minute?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    At St. Margaret's, judging from the report, it does seem that the Precious Blood was ministered in proper glasses, not in plastic wee cuppies. I don't imagine most churches would be able to afford gold plated goblets, but surely a good sturdy glass of proper size, that fits comfortably in the palm of one's hand, would not be, erm, out of reach. Shoo, I just ordered a set of juice glasses from Amazon that would fit the bill very nicely.

    I agree with and like your post - except that in the extract above, you refer to "glass". That worries me. Glass can be pretty slippery, wet glass even more so. Church floors I'm familiar with are either tiles or wood upon which dropped glass would shatter and splinter.
  • edited November 2021
    I'm not going to try it and see, but I would very surprised if one of these would slip out of anyone's hand. Quoting from the blurb: "The ergonomic design keeps the mug firmly in your hand." Besides, any eucharistic service done in such a way as to not upset the B.J. and his B.M. would have the eucharistic minister or an acolyte at the ready to catch anything that might slip.
  • Not really relevant to the Report, as the church is not in the UK, but the C of E's firm advice to receive Communion in one kind only (except for the priest) during Ye Plague seems sensible.

    No faffing about, less work for sacristan and server, and no chance of the Most Blessed Sacrament being spilled on the church floor...
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    I suppose it all depends on what they think the Communion Service is and what the wine is after consecration. If they think its just a memorial meal and just wine ........
    On the other hand the report gives the impression that not a lot of care went into the service as a whole. I found myself thinking "why bother."

    I don't think memorialism is standard in the Anglican Church of Canada.
  • stetson wrote: »
    BTW, the church MWed seems to be a fairly bland-looking building on the whole, perhaps typical of its period, but O! that hideous tower!

    Sorry, but it is An Abomination Before The Lord, and I'm surprised the said Lord has not yet demolished it (just the tower, not the church) with a well-aimed thunderbolt.

    If you find that unpalatable, you should see some of the un-majestic edifices that get topped with crosses in Korea. Do a duckduckgo on "Methodist church Itaewon" for just one example.

    (The Itaewon church seems to be just one of numerous organizations occupying that rather pedestrian business tower, but, as is often the case over here, they still saw fit to put their symbol right on top.)

    I actually don't mind that - it at least fits in with the building style. It looks like one complete building. The tower on the church being MWd looks like a barn aeration windmill tower plonked on top of a normal suburban church building. The problem for me anyway is the difference between the building and tower styles - some 60s/70s church buildings have towers that at least look like a coherent part of the whole, even if the overall style isn't something you like (personally I am actually a fan of brutalist church architecture).

    The body of the building actually reminds me of Mormon churches (not temples) found in UK suburbs.
  • Here is the Methodist church in Seoul.

    And Pomona, not to be a one-upper or anything, but when you say you like "brutalist church architecture", do you mean brutalism in the technical definition of the term, eg. Boston City Hall?

    Again, not trying to be a jerk, but in my experience, about 90% of the time when people use the term "brutalist", they're using it to mean something like Modernist, or International Style, or "big glass boxes". Which is not actually the proper definition.

    Not that I can really enunciate the definition either, but it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things. Something to do with lots of concrete, and the exterior reflecting features of the interior, or something. I'm not sure, but I think the church is Seoul has some features that are brutalist.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I'm not going to try it and see, but I would very surprised if one of these would slip out of anyone's hand. Quoting from the blurb: "The ergonomic design keeps the mug firmly in your hand." Besides, any eucharistic service done in such a way as to not upset the B.J. and his B.M. would have the eucharistic minister or an acolyte at the ready to catch anything that might slip.

    They look very similar to the glasses we use at home for day-to-day. They are indeed very easy to hold and hold securely. Not really suitable for communion though. Given the choice between communion using the little plastic cuppies or communion in one kind only, we use the plastic.
  • @stetson no, I do know the difference between Brutalism and Modernism :p Although I get your point. I mean places like the Pilgrimage Church in Neviges. I think more rural settings often work better with the common mountainous or paleolithic look of Brutalist churches.
  • @Pomona

    That church definitely looks brutalist to me. Had you posted that in your earlier post, I would not for a second have questioned your architectural chops!

    (And I had no solid reason for questioning them anyway, besides every other discussion I've had about brutalism, where everyone seemed to be using the term incorrectly.)

    And if you like the Pilgrimage Church, you might also like St. Mary's Church in Red Deer, Canada. (Though I don't think it would qualify as brutalist.)




  • We're getting off the MW Report a bit, but I do wonder if perhaps the church was built sans tower, and the horrid thing was added later...

    (The Methodist Church in Seoul looks fine to me, and the one in Red Deer is simply superb! All those lovely curves, and equally lovely warm red bricks...).
  • The Seoul church looks more like a religious-oriented business office -- perhaps the publishing headquarters for the Watchtower magazine -- than a church, but I don't consider it as ugly as the church that is the subject of the report.

    Speaking of which -- the reporter did not go into a discussion of architecture any deeper than to give his opinion of how the building looked, so let's not continue in this vein.

    I will, however, say that speaking of Watchtower, I understand that their publishing headquarters did at one time, and perhaps still do, occupy what was once a factory where Ex-Lax was made. I'm not going to touch that one. :smirk:
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited November 2021
    @Bishops Finger
    the one in Red Deer is simply superb! All those lovely curves, and equally lovely warm red bricks....

    The architect on that was Douglas Cardinal, an indigenous person who went on to numerous prestige assignments, including the Smithsonian's Museum Of The American Indian in D.C.

    And yeah, Cardinal has always had a pretty clear aversion to flat surfaces. Some might find the repeated motif a little gimmicky, but I think most of his buildings tend to work as stand-alone structures.

  • Enough about ecclesiastical architecture in general. Please stick to the specifics of the report.

    @Amanda B Reckondwyth
    Lead Editor, Mystery Worship
Sign In or Register to comment.