Was the Church I used to go to a Catholic Church?

Originally posted by truthiron
Most would do it quarterly but could be done more often. Known also as the Lord's supper.

The wine was unfermented of course.

The wine at the Last Supper? Where does the "of course" come from? There is no teaching against alcohol, merely against drunkenness.

We (Methodists) call it Communion, and it's once a month. We use grape juice, rather than wine, because of the long lived temperance doctrines of the church (an example of me being a heretic :-) and the open nature of our communion. I'm not sure how universal it is with other denominations, but Methodists practice an "Open Table" -- you don't need to be a member, a Methodist, or even a Christian to take communion. I'm a little iffy on the "don't even need to be a Christian" bit, but it doesn't affect me, so it probably doesn't matter.

Originally posted by eight bits
I notice, adj, that the organizational website describes their perspective as restorationist.

church-of-christ.org...

The United Church of Christ may be more aligned with Calvinist thought. It is the modern survivor of the Puritans, via the Congregational Church, which then merged with another denomination, hence "united."

I've just finished a course on the history of Christian Theology, and I really enjoyed the lectures on the evolution of Protestant theology from Luther and Calvin through the revivalists in the 18th and 19th centuries, which is where these guys seem to have come out of.

The page you reference shows an interesting mix of reformist (Presbyterian churches are the largest remaining "pure" Calvinist sect in America,) Anglican and Anabaptist beliefs, but it seems like they're mostly focused on the tenet of Sola Scriptura, scripture alone (which I mostly go along with, though I think that the Holy Spirit can still give us insights into the practical application of scripture, making me more aligned to Prima Scriptura.)

An interesting church, RR, but definitely one with beliefs that are less common (like adult baptism, Baptists and Anabaptist offspring like the Amish and Mennonites are the other main sects that practice this,) and because of the congregationalist nature of the Church of Christ, you'd likely get a different experience at a different CoC church.

I'm not sure whether the incredible diversity in the Protestant landscape is a good thing or not. On the one hand, I'm not convinced that any of the differences are all that important to salvation, on the other, many people are convinced, and get all angry or confused by anyone who thinks differently from them. The Anabaptists, for example, were persecuted horribly by both Catholics and Protestants for their beliefs, which were essentially Christian, but the "adult baptism" bit had them telling everyone who had been baptized as an infant that they weren't really Christian, which incensed them to the point of burning Anabaptists at the stake, quite a lot.

reply to post by adjensen

or even a Christian to take communion. I'm a little iffy on the "don't even need to be a Christian" bit, but it doesn't affect me, so it probably doesn't matter.

I agree with everything in your post except this above. there is strong warning to not partake of communion "unworthily", EVEN by Christians who are living with unforgiveness and unrepented sin.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

or even a Christian to take communion. I'm a little iffy on the "don't even need to be a Christian" bit, but it doesn't affect me, so it probably doesn't matter.

I agree with everything in your post except this above. there is strong warning to not partake of communion "unworthily", EVEN by Christians who are living with unforgiveness and unrepented sin.

A clarification, then, my friend. The "it probably doesn't matter" refers to me, as in, the church allowing persons who are not technically in fellowship doesn't invalidate it for those who ARE in fellowship. There is (as expected) a great deal of diversity within Protestants about the nature of the communion food, but everything that I have seen indicates an agreement that, for non-believers, nothing but bread and wine / juice is received.

reply to post by adjensen


Yes, what you said is true, but on the other hand it's very important to make sure the person administering the communion let's people know they must examine themselves and abstain from the ceremony if they feel in their spirit they are not worthy at that point in time. If they have an offense with a brother, to go rectify that in the sight of the Lord, then come and partake of communion.

Communion has no bearing on salvation, it's just a ceremony to remember the sacrifice of the Lord within the body of Christ.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Yes, what you said is true, but on the other hand it's very important to make sure the person administering the communion let's people know they must examine themselves and abstain from the ceremony if they feel in their spirit they are not worthy at that point in time. If they have an offense with a brother, to go rectify that in the sight of the Lord, then come and partake of communion.

Agreed, one hundred percent.

Interesting, though (and apologies to RR for pulling off topic,) when I think about it, my church (at least) has really, really gotten away from the whole confession bit. When I was in my teens, the Methodist church I attended (which was a conservative, fundamentalist aligned one) had a "Prayer of Confession" as part of the service. There is no such thing in the church I attend now. There is, in fact, no mention of confession, apart from the lines we recite in the Lord's Prayer.

When I go to Mass, same thing -- prayers for this and that, but nothing confessional. They do have a Sacrament of Confession, of course, but few Catholics seem to do that any more -- my wife never went to Confession, for example, and when I asked her about it, she said that they had a special Mass for Confession, but I never went with her to that, so I don't know what it was about.

But it seems that, without a prayer of confession, we're just sort of putting that stuff aside and saying it doesn't matter to be introspective and think about what we've done to hurt others that have made us out of sync with Christ. I'm going to think about that for a bit, thank you for waking up that concern in me.

reply to post by adjensen


Don't thank me my friend, it was the Holy Spirit, thank Him.

But it's true, we need a pure heart and a clean conscience before partaking in communion, it's a very serious memorial to the Lord. And if done correctly, will bring healing to our bodies, and sickness if done wrongly.

God bless brother.

reply to post by adjensen
adjensen,

I didn't think you wanted the old wine for the ordinace as being an imbiber isn't kosher in church that I ever heard. Being a drunkard is no good and with many all it takes is a taste of the so called "good stuff". Here's a verse on the subject.

1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

My brother ruined his life on boose and he finally before he died a few yrs. did get the mastery over the evil thing. Boose is the master of many. Satan cares not how he destroys a man.

There were a lot of drunkards revealed in the Bible and no occasion written any good came from it. Were you ever in a church service that used hard wine? I have never heard that any used hard wine.

Well anyway, poor old Noah should not have gotten drunk

Truthiron.

reply to post by truthiron


There isn't really anything wrong with alcohol, it is also referenced as being a good thing. Every warning and every bad thing spoken of it in scripture is on the over indulgence of it. And yes many churches do use actual wine for communion. While others for various reasons do not.

As far as a confession mass, I have yet to hear of that one. What I can tell you as of a few years ago, going to confession isn't required to partake of communion. It has been considered that during the mass you have already confessed them to God and have received forgiveness for them during the mass. Personally I find this to be a bit wrong as it is not the same as confessing ones sins to another, which we are instructed to do, but that is just me.

No church uses wine in communion that would be illegal.They use un-sugared grape juice.

Baptists only have communion a certain time.

I could never figure out exactly when that time was.

Catholics have communion every time they have mass,but I do not consider Catholicism a real religion anymore.

Apparently, they have to fill all that time they are not reading from the bible doing something.

Repeating what the priest tells them to and shaking each other hands,spreading germs, only wastes a certain amount of time.

Real religions do not have "state" status,and no other world religions leader is considered a head of state.

Originally posted by Oneolddude
No church uses wine in communion that would be illegal.They use un-sugared grape juice.

I don't know where you came up with that, but it's incorrect. Only evangelical and Presbyterian churches (and not all of those, even,) do not use grape wine, complete with alcohol. From my experience, though, perhaps 1/4 of Catholics take the wine, the rest make do with the host only.

reply to post by adjensen
adjensen,

Just another thought to pass, the KJV does not use the term "grape juice" but "new wine" which if new enough is grape juice unadulterated unlike some of it used today. I suppose many believe when Jesus turned the water into wine and it was found so good that it must have been fully aged to a boosers taste perfection. They had to put new wine into new bottles as if put in old wine bottles it would burst the bottle quickly as the bit of old left in it really set it "working". Men have always loved boose way on back, many try to drown their sorrows by staying "high". They just make more for themselves and have to keep it up and soon it has such a hold they cannot stop it.

Truthiron.

reply to post by truthiron


Again, my reading of things is that there is no issue with alcohol, but with the abuse or overuse of alcohol. All things in moderation, I suppose. Plenty of examples and instances in the Bible of the consumption of wine, but it's not viewed negatively except in drunkenness, such as the incident with Noah.

reply to post by truthiron


That would be an incorrect assertion. The reason new wine has to go into in wine skins is because of the fermentation process. If one were to put it into wine skins that had been used before they would not have the ability to expand during fermentation. It has absolutely nothing to do with old wine starting the process as it would be incapable of doing so. As the yeasts and sugars have already been expended.

There is (as expected) a great deal of diversity within Protestants about the nature of the communion food, but everything that I have seen indicates an agreement that, for non-believers, nothing but bread and wine / juice is received.

Oddly enough, the one church service I have attended in the past few years, apart from showing respect for my believing friends and family at weddings and funerals, etc. was at a United Church of Christ.

I was most definitely, no questions asked, welcome to participate in their communion (done by something I would describe as "Eastern Orthodox" conventions: tincture of leavened bread in wine, but with grape juice and glutten-free alternatives on offer - thoughtful provisions, IMO). As it happened, I did not participate.

Anyway, the minister explained the openness by noting that Jesus himself was undiscriminating about whom he shared his table with. Even Jesus' best friends at the first Lord's Supper mostly deserted him, and some betrayed him, shortly thereafter. How much worse than that, less worthy to share his table, could any of us be?

I liked the way he thought . In the end, I decided it best to pass. But it was a near thing. Obviously, I got a lot out of the invitation. It is hard to see how I would have gotten nothing, really nothing, out of the rite besides a bite of soggy bread.

BTW, the UCC minister's approach was opposite to the statement by NOTurTypical (Hello), with which you agreed:

... it's very important to make sure the person administering the communion let's people know they must examine themselves and abstain from the ceremony if they feel in their spirit they are not worthy at that point in time.

Being unworthy seems almost a prerequisite to partake . Well, if an agnsotic gets to opine about Chrsitian practices... only on the web, I guess.

Originally posted by eight bits

There is (as expected) a great deal of diversity within Protestants about the nature of the communion food, but everything that I have seen indicates an agreement that, for non-believers, nothing but bread and wine / juice is received.

Oddly enough, the one church service I have attended in the past few years, apart from showing respect for my believing friends and family at weddings and funerals, etc. was at a United Church of Christ.

I was most definitely, no questions asked, welcome to participate in their communion (done by something I would describe as "Eastern Orthodox" conventions: tincture of leavened bread in wine, but with grape juice and glutten-free alternatives on offer - thoughtful provisions, IMO). As it happened, I did not participate.

Anyway, the minister explained the openness by noting that Jesus himself was undiscriminating about whom he shared his table with. Even Jesus' best friends at the first Lord's Supper mostly deserted him, and some betrayed him, shortly thereafter. How much worse than that, less worthy to share his table, could any of us be?

I see the the UCC is a member, along with the Methodists, of "Churches Uniting in Christ", a legacy group that came out of a 1960s effort to combine ten denominations (though I suspect the significant differences in doctrine would have made that impossible anyway -- the UCC is a reformed church, the UMC is Anglican, and some of the core beliefs are utterly irreconcilable.) But churches who participate in the CUIC acknowledge the validity of the rites and sacraments of the other members, so they should be in accordance.

However, the UCC is also a congregationalist church, so any given church may behave and work in a manner independent of others (with shared beliefs, of course, which maintains an undercurrent of harmony,) so that particular approach may not be universal. However, the UCC has made a mark for being an inclusive church, and practicing an "open table" would be an aspect of that.

Theologically, the nature of communion food is quite varied, but, as I said, most people are of the mind that, if one is a non-believer, then Christ is not present in the bread or wine (for the non-believer.) If a church's theology is that Christ is never present, that communion is simply an act to remind us of Christ's sacrifice, then it makes no difference if you are a believer or not. But if I, a non-Catholic, go to Mass and participate in the Eucharist, Christ is not in the wafer the priest gives me, though he's in the wafer the fellow in front of me in the queue got.

As for the worthy/not worthy part, none of us are worthy. The Catholics pray, as part of the Eucharist, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." However, there is "not worthy" and "REALLY not worthy", lol. For the Catholics, this is being in a state of mortal sin (as opposed to being in a state of venial sin.) If one is in a state of mortal sin, they cannot (well, should not,) participate in the Eucharist until they have gone through the rite of Confession.

Protestants, who figure that we're all (barring a select few, which we talked about in another thread) in mortal sin, don't make that distinction, but we're also expected to resolve things the best we can, prior to taking communion. This should involve reflection on one's behaviour, and making some sort of penitent action if one needs to be made.