Catholics getting communion
Hi all I've noticed that some Catholics when going up to get communion don't always drink the wine but they do eat the bread, why is that?
Sonak Sun 18/05/08 20:58
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
They're hungry but not particularly thirsty.
|
|
|
In years gone by,before Pope John XXIII(I think) changed it,the wine(or blood of Christ) was considered so holy that only the priests could drink it.The congregation got only the wafer.
After the change,some stricter(and older) Catholics preferred to eat the wafer only(which they had become used to).
Others were content to have the wafer AND wine.
BTW,I am a Quaker! LOL
|
|
|
Personal choice and preference.
The Eucharist is more often taken alone for many reasons, such as:
1. Many just don't drink alcohol
2. The altar wine (or mustum) is quite strong and can sometimes taste horrible!
3. Hygiene: Avoid any germs that may be left on the chalice by someone else!
4. Abstain because of bits of floaty wafer that someone else has left behind in the wine!
5. The queue is too long
6. Not thirsty
7. Some people won't recieve wine from a Eucharistic minister, or anyone other than an ordained priest.
8. Some may have had a skinful the night before and the mere smell of it may induce some undesired emotions/feelings.
|
|
|
It is a Scientific fact that drinking blood can cause vomiting.
OR they may be Vegetarians !
|
|
|
Our local church (Anglican) gets its communion wine from Tescos - cheap vino plonko - and those who drink it tell me it tastes horrible.
|
|
|
Question Author
The wine tastes quite nice in my church but I just wanted if there was a proper reason.
Thanks for input guys
|
|
|
I've always wondered what about if someone was / is an alcoholic in recovery. Surely one sip of communion wine could start the craving again? After all aren't alcoholics in recovery supposed to avoid ALL alcohol?
That's from a CURIOSITY viewpoint not a religious one.
|
|
|
Due to religious reasons they do not drink alcoholic beverages. lol
|
|
|
evedawn, they woud need abstain from drinking alcohol no matter what environment they are in. Being in a church doesn't make it different.
|
|
|
reply to octavious - yes i know that theyd need to abstain wherever they are and really i just wondered how an alcoholic may react if being presented with the wine in such a setting. Cos maybe theyd still want to take part in the sacrament but not drink the wine...and if they felt religiously obngligated and tooka sip it might start them on the downward spiral again. Just soemthing i've thought of whilst taking communion whilst growing up.
|
|
|
It's only in recent years that drinking the blood has become an option - in the past you could only have the bread. If you have a look at who does and doesn't receive communion in each form you'll probably notice that many older worshippers just have the bread. It's just that they're not used to having the blood as well, while the younger people are more likely to have both.
It could also be a bit of ettique thing with this as well. When I was at school and taking my First Holy Communion (at seven years old) we only had the bread option and were taught the 'proper' way to do it! It might be a bit daunting to someone who's never tried the blood before to know the 'right' way to do it!
|
|
|
It depends on the individual really. Some will take the 'wine' at communion, but won't feel compelled to go and drink themself silly afterwards because they know its the blood of Christ and revere the experience spiritually as they believe that God has helped them overcome their addiction.
Most, like my sister, just abstain but receive the Eucharist. There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds, so abstaining is acceptable.
|
|
|
Reply to In A Pickle - are you seriously a Quaker? Been reading about them recently and it makes a lot of sense! Can't believe it's not more popular!
|
|
|
Hi there srh,
Yes I am a Quaker,although as not many people have met Quakers I think they seriously doubt if they exist!
But they DO.
|
|
|
Sorry
SRH(I didn't give you your capitals!).
|
|
|
Ha ha In A Pickle - but you're likely to be a pacifist so I'm not too worried about upsetting you! Seriously though, got in touch with the Quakers a few weeks ago and they sent me some books about themselves. can't believe there are not more followers. Everything about Quakerism makes so much sense. Been searching for a long time for a belief system that 'fits' me, rather than me trying to follow every rule in a belief system where only 50% of I can agree with (which would be hypocritical). Think it's one I need to look into a bit more...
|
|
|
Well SRH,
I wish you well, we don't believe in "converting" people in a missionary way,like other religions,we prefer people to(like yourself) discover Quakers.
|
|
|
Just popping back to supply some straightforward historical facts:
It is perfectly logical for Christians to abstain from communion because it is, in fact, a pagan ritual, called The Lord’s Supper, which was practised in honour of pagan god-men such as Mithras, Dionysus et al long before Jesus’ supposed time. I may have mentioned these words before (though not to this audience)
“He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will make one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.”
Sounds very Jesus-like, but they are the words of Mithras. Compare them with John 6.53 and John 6.56 and you’ll see that Jesus’ script (or, rather, that of the author of John) was written by Mithras years before.
The ritual was introduced into Christianity by Paul in I Corinthians 11.23 et seq. where he says that he ‘received it of the Lord’ i.e. in a dream or vision. Rather strange, surely, that Jesus should have chosen such a roundabout way of purveying the information when (Christians believe) there had been 11 eye-witness disciples knocking around in the 20 years or so between the event and Paul’s writings.
The early Church disliked the pagan term ‘The Lord’s Supper’ and decided to call it by the Greek word for the innocent and charming ceremony that preceded orthodox Jewish meals, whereby the host would bless the food and the wine, as a thank-you to God, before handing it round. That word was ‘eucharist’. If there was a Last Supper and Jesus performed some ceremony that is what it would have been. The idea that he would have gone all pagan is ridiculous.
So if you want to perpetuate this piece of paganism then step forward to the altar and do your bit. But if you want to remain a pure Christian then stay in your seat and put on a knowing smile.
|
|
|
Partaking in a meal or feast, consisting of food and drink in symbolism is hardly new and nobody above has claimed that Christianity invented it. Your point is based on the asumption that everyone is a cloistered numpty.
Wheeling out the old "the pagans invented it" cliche is a bit infantile isn't it? I imagine cavemen did it in some form or another, an offering to the sun or moon or suchlike.
|
|
Reptile Supplies | Refinance | Car Insurance | MySpace Backgrounds | Adverse Credit Remortgage
