Communion and the sick, placed on chest
Leaf
Shipmate
This is a new one for me. I was visiting a hospitalized relative, who is unconscious, and inquired if their clergy had visited. I was told yes, and they had Communion. I asked if the hospitalized relative had regained consciousness to participate. They had not, but...
The clergy placed a tissue on the chest of the hospitalized person, and the bread on top of the tissue. After communion, the clergy retrieved the tissue and the bread, and told the family that both would be taken home and burned.
Has anyone else ever heard of this or practiced this? I ain't mad about it, no one was hurt. From a pastoral point of view, I imagine the family felt their loved one was included. But it was entirely novel to me. If you are someone who brings Communion to the sick, would you do this?
The clergy placed a tissue on the chest of the hospitalized person, and the bread on top of the tissue. After communion, the clergy retrieved the tissue and the bread, and told the family that both would be taken home and burned.
Has anyone else ever heard of this or practiced this? I ain't mad about it, no one was hurt. From a pastoral point of view, I imagine the family felt their loved one was included. But it was entirely novel to me. If you are someone who brings Communion to the sick, would you do this?
Comments
I've taken the Sacrament to the sick - albeit not in hospital - but never found the intended recipient unable to participate. Maybe the clergyperson had done it before, or perhaps was inspired to do so by the pressing need of the moment? Either way, they did well.
IME, consecration is not usually carried out at the bedside, but the Reserved Sacrament is used. Our local hospital reserves two lots, so to speak - one for the Anglicans and Everyone Else (yes, there are possible Dead Horse issues here) - and one for the RCs (not sure what happens if an Orthodox person requires Holy Communion).
Normally the priest would bring the reserved sacrament with him from his church,
@Leaf, I’ve never heard of what you describe. Interesting!
Only a priest may celebrate the sacrament of the sick and anoint.
That's what I would have thought, but our local hospital does not allow this (AFAIK), the practice being (I was told) for chaplains and local visiting clergy to use the hosts consecrated and reserved in the chaplains' office on the premises.
Hence the provision of two lots of hosts - the RC chaplain (or the priest from the nearest RC church) consecrates his batch, and the Anglican chaplain (or maybe a minister from one of the other denominations) consecrates the second lot.
I'm a bit unsure of all this, but I'm going by what I was told when our lovely Father F***wit failed to take Communion to one of our people who was rushed to hospital, and not expected to come out alive. Fr F's excuses as to why he didn't visit were:
1. I didn't know where to find the key of the aumbry in church;
2. We're not allowed to take the host in from outside the hospital anyway;
3. I don't like hospitals - they remind me of my own mortality...
Those of you who are ministers, and who visit hospitals from time to time, will be able to update me as to what the protocols might be these says. The occasion to which I refer above was in 2010, long before Covid.
Home communions, of course, often use the reserved Sacrament. The C of E has short liturgies which can be used at home, or in hospital (or hospice, where I presume the minister would take the host in with him).
Could I ask for focus on the bit about placing the bread on a non-consuming participant's chest and subsequent disposition?
If you have done this, may I ask your denominational context?
If you are someone who brings Communion, or consecrates Communion, would you engage in such a practice? Why or why not?
Would you ask those present to consent to placing and retrieving the bread on an unconscious person?
Would you place the bread in this way if no one were available to witness?
You are often told on first aid courses that hearing is the last sense to go when someone loses consciousness and the first to return, so if someone is on the edge of consciousness they could well hear what is spoken.
(sorry, Leaf, not sure that helps you)
Luther preferred this method too. The thought was the sick would be participating in the communion of the congregation.
However, often times, the ministers of communion will repeat the words of consecration as a way of assuring the one being communed the elements have been properly blessed.
As far as communing someone who is unconscious, it usually does not happen in Lutheran circles, at least to my knowledge.
What follows is just reaction and maybe not worth much.
It smells of magic to me--as described, I mean. Why, for heaven's sake, take the sacrament home and burn it--as if it had no function but to sit on somebody's chest? Why did nobody eat it?
I could imagine a situation where a family, wishing to take communion beside with an unconscious relative, might think it appropriate to er, use the person's body as an altar in this way, and I wouldn't say no provided the person was a believer him/herself, and it's reasonable to think they would have wished it themselves. But it ought not to stop there! Take, eat, take, drink, were the instructions; not ... whatever this is.
Most Lutherans AFAIK do not have the practice of reserving the sacrament. We prefer to repeat the Words of Institution in the hearing of the person who will be communing, and we don't get too fussy about whether some of the wafers etc. might have been through a similar consecration fifteen minutes earlier (though after everything's over, we eat and drink what remains, rather than reserving it or (shudder) putting it back among the unconsecrated stock.
As for communing an unconscious person, there are safety problems with that, mostly the chance of aspiration--don't want to get bread or wine down the windpipe. But I do hope that, if I'm ever in that situation and not expected to recover consciousness soon, that someone would take pity on me and put a drop of wine, a crumb of the bread, between my lips. Our view of the Lord's Supper is that it is all about what God gives us, not what we do for God--and God can give his gifts of forgiveness, peace, comfort, etc. to the conscious or the unconscious. So I'd only worry about it if it posed a physical danger, or if there was doubt about the person's faith and desire for communion while awake. I mean, it's a bad, bad thing to force communion on someone who isn't awake enough to deny it, and I've known families where that sort of coercion isn't completely out of possibility.
You ask:
I think it unlikely there would be communion if no one else were present, as we normally have at least two people present, and me plus an unconscious person (who might not be physically safe to communion, and whose desires I might not know) is kinda dodgy. But leaving all that aside, if I DID feel the urge to touch said person with the elements, it's the lips I'd be aiming for. It just feels closer to what it's all about (the eating and drinking) and less like some sort of magic.
Reservation of the sacrament for the sick and housebound is normally done once a year, at the Divine Liturgy on Holy Thursday. The consecrated bread is cut up, sprinkled with the consecrated wine, and then dried, before being placed in the tabernacle on the Holy Table. When needed one particle is taken, and re-activated with wine and hot water for communion.
There is also, what I think is a modern Russian practice, of taking part of the sacrament (bread soaked in wine) at any Divine Liturgy, placing it in a very small chalice with a screw top lid (e.g. https://www.istok.net/portable-communion-chalice-no.2.html), and then taking this to the sick person immediately after the Divine Liturgy.
If that were not permitted by the circumstances, I would do as @Lamb Chopped indicated: laying on of hands with anointing and prayers.
Would such an element be placed on the chest of an unconscious person, as distribution of Communion?
OTOH, it could perhaps be argued that, although the sick person was unable to receive and ingest the Body of Christ, yet that Body still touched his or her body.
IYSWIM.
That being so, and the liturgical tradition here being fairly *high*, it seems, it would be quite in order to reverently dispose of the uneaten Host by burning it. That Host was intended for the sick person, and that intention has been fulfilled as far as possible.
Not sure if any of that makes sense...
We don't really know a great deal about the details of the situation - it's up to @Leaf to tell us more, if they feel it's appropriate to do so, but I'm loth to ask.
My own impression is that a delicate pastoral matter was handled with sensitivity and reverence.
My elderly father was in hospital unconscious earlier this year. One of the clergy from our area visited him and anointed him with oil. I later learned that he was indeed aware of it happening and greatly appreciated it.
Dad is a lot higher up the candle than I am, but I don’t think he would feel he missed out because it wasn’t communion.
That seems very odd to me.
One can certainly say Mass with a special intention for the sick person, but if you want to do something to an unconscious person, unction would seem to meet your needs. We are exhorted not to come to the communion table unworthily: how does an unconscious communicant "approach the table" in the correct state?
I suppose one could contrive the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in a hospital room.
That said, I think that some clergy have *home communion kits* which include a small vial for oil, as well as vessels for the Sacrament.
No. If the sick person is not able to swallow then communion would not be an option. They could be anointed. That service might well be abbreviated from the full version, which takes about two hours and ideally involves more than one priest (to be consistent with the Epistle of St James).
When I was seriously ill in hospital our priest anointed me in the Sacrament of the Sick. It was deeply, deeply moving. A lay minister, a friend came on Sunday with communion consecrated at the Mass where I am the musician. Again very moving.
I have never heard of the practice mentioned in the OP but perhaps it was felt that the sick person would be blessed by having the sacrament placed so close - a bit like the RC rite of blessing with the sacrament called Benediction.
In my experience not as a matter of routine, but only when requested by the sick person or their family.
There would be a problem of the amount or paraphernalia required. The only detailed rubrics are for the performnce of this service in church with up to seven priests, one or more deacons, and one or more singers. How the service gets cut down for home use would be up to the individual priest, although there are some published guidelines/suggestions for this.
The full service requires for each priest the wearing of phelonion (chasuble) as well as stole (whereas for communion only the stole is required_. There should be a bowl of wheat, with an empty shrine lamp in it. Small bottles (or other containers) of olive oil (to be consecrated during the service) and water (or, in some places, wine) are needed, along with seven cotton buds (or equivalents) for the seven anointings (one by each priest if you have the full complement of clergy), as well as cotton wool to wipe the oil off after each anointing. There is also need for a liturgical Gospel Book as well as the text of the service.
This contrasts with communion, which requires just a small container for the particle of the resered sacrament, a miniature chalice and spoon, and a small bottle of wine, plus priest's stole and text. Hot water should be available in the location.
I think that's the idea I was trying (rather clumsily) to express.
There was no identified risk of infection (on the part of the patient, anyway).
I really appreciate your last sentence, @BishopsFinger. Those two qualities of sensitivity and reverence count for a lot with me when considering ritual actions, and I thank you for identifying them. Good intentions, and no harm coming to anyone, also matter.
I think my problem is identified in @LambChopped's post, so I'll come to that shortly.
Both Lutheran.
It's this Scriptural point that sinks home for me, in terms of identifying what is problematic for me. Take and eat, take and drink are the clear verb forms. It does not include crush, snort, inhale, wave, blend to a paste and apply to affected areas, or place on the chest. ISTM that the consecrated elements are meant to be consumed by mouth. (Now I have a whole new worry, about whether or not they may be administered by naso-gastric tube. Good heavens.)
But I would like to address this:
That is not my understanding of Lutheran practice in North America. (To be fair to you, I am not familiar with all Lutheran practices around the globe, so you may be right.)
Reviewing the numbers of members, there are more folks using Evangelical Lutheran Worship than Lutheran Service Book or Christian Worship. Surprise! Evangelical Lutheran Worship does indeed allow for the practice of laity bringing and sharing consecrated elements from the congregation's celebration of Holy Communion. More than allows it - highlights it. The rubrics for the last part of Holy Communion begin with the following:
Communion ministers may be sent to take the sacrament to those who are absent.
It's not called reserved sacrament, because it isn't what other Christians might understand as Reserved Sacrament. It's expected to be shared on that day or the next. No aumbry is needed.
So yes - Lutheran practice of communion with the sick is either to have lay people bring and share consecrated elements from the congregation, or to have an ordained person consecrate it at bedside. Hardcore liturgical nerds can find this explained in a lovely little doc from the ELCA, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each practice: https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/How_can_we_provide_for_communion_of_the_ill_homebound_and_imprisoned.pdf
All of which is an attempt to gently point out that there are different practices among Lutherans, not all of which are covered by the word "we."
And what you describe as the practice encouraged in Evangelical Lutheran Worship sounds much like the practice encouraged in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), including not using the word “reserved.”
It may not make sense to you, but remember that some churches - high up the candle - do regard the Reserved Sacrament with great reverence, and, if it is not consumed, will burn it rather than simply throw it away. I note that @Forthview has told us of the RC practice of dissolving an unconsumed, but consecrated, Host in water - I wasn't aware of that option, but it may well be rather more convenient these days than a fire!
(The first time I received Communion in the hand many years ago was when a little girl beside me received the Host and then took it out of her mouth and replaced it on the little paten which the altar server was holding. I picked up the host and consumed it,believingf it to be the easiest solution to the dilemma as to what should be done.)
Of course I would not dream of suggesting it to our parish priest.
Yep, props to you for dealing with it. We do get some weird situations to cope with! (Had one tiny child who kept grabbing for his mother's, not because he had any understanding or desire but just because ... toddler? We distracted him with gummy bears going forward.)
This.
I’m aware if sacred objects being burned, but I’ve never heard of the sacrament being burned though. More often than not it would be consumed by the person administering it, but that’s not always practical. I regularly take the sacrament to a local nursing home where many of the residents suffer from dementia. It’s not unknown for a recipient to chew the host a couple of times and spit it out, or for the host to just fall out of their mouth naturally, in both cases covered in saliva. When this happens, I wrap it in tissue and bury it in consecrated ground.
And more! Not only dissolved, but...
https://catholiceducation.org/en/culture/disposing-of-blessed-objects.html
Yes, it would have been the easiest option, but there may have been a good reason for the minister disposing of the Host in the way they did.
I'm not quite sure why dissolution in water is deemed more reverent and seemly than burning, though I expect there is an explanation.