The Beauty of Catholicism

[Totenkindly]

The Methodist churches I know about use glasses that do indeed look like shot glasses.

Most of the protestant churches seem to use the little disposable plastic shot, but I think I remember when I was growing up using glassier ones that did resemble shot glasses.

"This is the blood of Jack Daniels, given for you -- amen!"

Lutheran churches usually have a chalice and offer individual cup as an option.

I used the chalice when I was younger, especially when I did the candle lighting. I have also seen people, to avoid contaminating the cup, keep with the chalice but hand out the bread right before it so you could "dip it" in the chalice and then eat the bread which was now sopped in the wine -- two in one shot so to speak.

 

[substitute]

Yeah Jennifer I see that in Anglican churches too, the bread dunking thing. When I'm presiding or altar-serving at a Eucharist, by far the most common thing though is the president (ie priest usually) goes round with a patten (plate) of small round wafers and gives one into the hands of each person kneeling at the altar rail, and following him is the chalice bearer who just puts the chalice to the lips of each person in a row, wiping it between each person with a purificator (linen towel). Some people dunk, but most just sip from the chalice.

The reason for wiping the chalice though isn't to do with hygeine, it's so none of the blood of Christ falls onto the floor.

Sometimes, if the congregation is small, both patten and chalice are just passed around from person to person.

I've never been to a church where individual 'shots' of wine were passed around. I think I'd have a problem with that ....

 

[Totenkindly]

...I've never been to a church where individual 'shots' of wine were passed around. I think I'd have a problem with that ....

Wow. The Lutheran church is the only church I have been to where they DID do the chalice. Everywhere else (methodist, baptist, non-denom, brethren in christ, evangelical) they do the little cheapo plastic shots... of grape juice.

 

[Ivy]

At the bluehair Baptist church where my grandparents took me occasionally when I was a kid, there were little shotglass holders built into the backs of the pews so everyone would have a shot of grape drank in front of them when they did communion. I think they only did it 4 or 5 times a year, though. In the Anglican church it's done at nearly every service.

 

[substitute]

Wow. The Lutheran church is the only church I have been to where they DID do the chalice. Everywhere else (methodist, baptist, non-denom, brethren in christ, evangelical) they do the little cheapo plastic shots... of grape juice.

It might have to do with what it is that you believe yourself to actually be doing. If you're handling bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus, but it's still bread and wine, then I guess you'd be fine with sloshing it into little plastic cups and stuff... lol but if you're dealing with the actual blood and body of Jesus (transubstatiation) then you'd want to have a little more reverence... hence the silver/gold chalices and pattens, the great reverence of where it goes and ends up, how it gets there etc, haha... see what I mean?

I guess for me though it's also largely a feeling of how wasteful and un-green it is to be using dozens of little plastic cups every time when it could be one reusable chalice... and also it irritates me when people are too precious about 'germs' and stuff.

Then again it also depends on how often it's done too, possibly - for me a Eucharist is every day, at the very least once a week, and it's the actual body and blood of Our Lord. I've heard though of some Protestant churches who do it once a month, if at all.

 

[Sniffles]

"This is the blood of Jack Daniels, given for you -- amen!"

"Ahhh.....I don't think I got enough of Jesus' blood last time around, can I have another one?"

 

[Totenkindly]

It might have to do with what it is that you believe yourself to actually be doing. If you're handling bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus, but it's still bread and wine, then I guess you'd be fine with sloshing it into little plastic cups and stuff... lol but if you're dealing with the actual blood and body of Jesus (transubstatiation) then you'd want to have a little more reverence... hence the silver/gold chalices and pattens, the great reverence of where it goes and ends up, how it gets there etc, haha... see what I mean?

Totally.

Then again, you could just say that Jesus hung out with the sinners and hookers and street raff, not the posh fancy uppercrust crowd, and he was also born in a stable, not a palace... so is the chalice REALLY appropriate as opposed to the beer mug here?

IOW, WWJDHOBOO?
(What would jesus drink his own blood out of?)

I guess for me though it's also largely a feeling of how wasteful and un-green it is to be using dozens of little plastic cups every time when it could be one reusable chalice... and also it irritates me when people are too precious about 'germs' and stuff.

I remember when the shift seemed to happen, it was when AIDS was starting to get really prominent in the 80's.

Then again it also depends on how often it's done too, possibly - for me a Eucharist is every day, at the very least once a week, and it's the actual body and blood of Our Lord. I've heard though of some Protestant churches who do it once a month, if at all.

The church I went to was usually once a month. It was funny when an influx of Catholics migrated to the church, because then there was disagreement over how often to have it. The Catholics were used to it weekly.

"Ahhh.....I don't think I got enough of Jesus' blood last time around, can I have another one?"

"Yeah -- another round of Jesus juice, for me and my friends here! *hic*"

Oh dear. Is it bad form to kiss the porcelain god after communing too much?

 

[Sniffles]

Then again, you could just say that Jesus hung out with the sinners and hookers and street raff, not the posh fancy uppercrust crowd, and he was also born in a stable, not a palace... so is the chalice REALLY appropriate as opposed to the beer mug here?

But of course we're talking about honouring God's blood and body, so you want to present your best to him. Remember Cain and Abel, and how God treated their different sacrifices?

 

[Totenkindly]

But of course we're talking about honouring God's blood and body, so you want to present your best to him. Remember Cain and Abel, and how God treated their different sacrifices?

Oh, don't confuse the issue by dragging that OT pre-Jesus stuff into your blog!

(jk)

It's confusing, isn't it?
Is it "Caesar Jesus" or "Buddy Jesus" that we are dealing with most of the time?

Now that I think of it, though, I don't think Cain and Abel were about 'presenting your best.' Both gave their best offering. But Cain was resentful because God asked for something specific and he insisted on giving him something else -- something that did not involve blood.

 

[Ivy]

Oh, goody. Are we going to have a lord-off? I'll pop the kettle corn!

 

[Sniffles]

It's confusing, isn't it?
Is it "Caesar Jesus" or "Buddy Jesus" that we are dealing with most of the time?

I think you need to strike a balance between the two. If you focus too much on the former, then Christ becomes too distant. If you focus too much on the latter, then Christ's importance becomes trivalized.

It really does become annoying when people reference to Jesus as their best buddy and stuff. Although I still laugh at the one SNL skit where Will Ferrell kept saying how him and Jesus made a wonderful team and other competitors were complaining "Hey man, stop hogging Jesus." :yim_rolling_on_the_

Now that I think of it, though, I don't think Cain and Abel were about 'presenting your best.' Both gave their best offering. But Cain was resentful because God asked for something specific and he insisted on giving him something else -- something that did not involve blood.

It was my understanding that Cain didn't offer his best, while Abel did. Oh well.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think you need to strike a balance between the two. If you focus too much on the former, then Christ becomes too distant. If you focus too much on the latter, then Christ's importance becomes trivialized.

It's a fine line, isn't it?

It really does become annoying when people reference to Jesus as their best buddy and stuff. Although I still laugh at the one SNL skit where Will Ferrell kept saying how him and Jesus made a wonderful team and other competitors were complaining "Hey man, stop hogging Jesus."

Wish I had seen that. How funny. Farrell really found the right spot to press on there.

I see a lot of double-think too -- on one hand, people preach about God being King and try to have an authoritative approach to life, while at the same time they act like Jesus is their best friend and how they cry in his lap all the time. It doesn't feel like there is much consistency between the two when it's actually lived out. What would it really mean if Christ was a King?

And what would it really mean if he's your friend? My friends don't always put up with my crap, to be honest.

It was my understanding that Cain didn't offer his best, while Abel did. Oh well.

from biblegateway...

Genesis 4
2 Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." [d] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

So the blood seemed to be the defining point.
And what is interesting is the contrast here: Abel sacrificed his animals to God, while Cain instead sacrificed his brother in secret. Both spilled blood, but for entirely different reasons. I never really thought much about how Cain refused to spill blood to cover his sinfulness... but eventually spilled blood as part of his sin, out of hate and resentment.

 

[Sniffles]

from biblegateway...

I don't see how my argument is refuted. Cain worked the land, while Abel hunted. I don't get the impression God looks more favorably upon the latter per se rather than the former.

Also many Jewish commentaries have noted that Cain didn't offer up the best fruits of his labour as the reason why God rejected it.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't see how my argument is refuted. Cain worked the land, while Abel hunted. I don't get the impression God looks more favorably upon the latter per se rather than the former.

Also many Jewish commentaries have noted that Cain didn't offer up the best fruits of his labour as the reason why God rejected it.

Not being argumentative... but where is that in the text I quoted?

I don't see anything you say mentioned there, and I'm just going by what is in the text itself.

As contrast, the book of Malachi does talking explicitly about the heinous sin of offering God the little sickly diseased animals rather than the best animals they had.

 

[Sniffles]

Not being argumentative...

I'm not taking it as such.

but where is that in the text I quoted?

It's not directly mentioned, but it is somewhat implied by the basic notion that when you sacrifice something to God - you always offer your best.

I don't see where the text mentions that God rejected Cain simply because he sacrificed fruits.

As contrast, the book of Malachi does talking explicitly about the heinous sin of offering God the little sickly diseased animals rather than the best animals they had.

Well of course. Abel offered the best of the animals he had.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm not taking it as such.

Good.

I don't see where the text mentions that God rejected Cain simply because he sacrificed fruits.

Okay. I read it as implicit, since it was the only stated difference.

(Just as if Cain had offered red, and Abel had offered blue, and God accepted blue. It really makes it sound like God did not want red. The quality of blue and red was not discussed at all nor seems to have a bearing. Does that make sense?)

Well of course. Abel offered the best of the animals he had.

I wonder if things would have been different if Abel had raised hamsters instead of lambs.

 

[Ivy]

I don't participate in lord-offs anymore but I have always thought that story had to do with whether you give to God from your first fruits or your leftovers. The passage implies that Abel offered his firstborn while Cain offered his excess.

 

[Sniffles]

Okay. I read it as implicit, since it was the only stated difference.

(Just as if Cain had offered red, and Abel had offered blue, and God accepted blue. It really makes it sound like God did not want red. The quality of blue and red was not discussed at all nor seems to have a bearing. Does that make sense?)

Sure. It looks like we're looking at the same text from different perspectives; which of course doesn't imply one view is wrong.

Reminds me of what the Catholic Church teaches in regards to private interpretation: contrary to popular view, the Church actually has nothing against it as long as the interpretation doesn't contradict Church doctrine.

Also what I stated to CC about the nature of universal truth and how it differs from objective truth. Objective truth applies to everybody and everything in the eaxct same manner; universal truth aplies to everybody and everything in their own unique manners. It's still ultimately the same truth, but with different twists and turns so to speak.

That's how it seems to appear in this situation, to me at least.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't participate in lord-offs anymore

We'll make a spot for you if you want!

Then again, Ivy always does it better...


All right. So let's say that Cain was raising turtles, and Abel was growing poison ivy? And Cain gave God one of his turtles that was smaller and had a brownish-stain on one edge of its normally green shell but had a higher IQ than most of the other turtles and also gave off a pleasant fragrance when cooked -- except that he shelled and breaded and baked it instead in a rather bland parsley and pepper base, while Able picked the greenest and healthiest poison ivy he had but made a rather weak tea out of it that just did not taste good iced and put it in an expensive glass he had purchased from Macy's, although he knew that God always shopped at the Bon-Ton...

... and they both offered this to God...?

And God actually liked the taste of poison ivy and being god he would not die when he drank it, but he had an allergic reaction to the turtle despite enjoying the aroma of cooked shelled reptile meat?

Which one would God accept?

I admit, I am still a little hazy here.

 

[Sniffles]

We'll make a spot for you if you want!

Then again, Ivy always does it better...


All right. So let's say that Cain was raising turtles, and Abel was growing poison ivy? And Cain gave God one of his turtles that was smaller and had a brownish-stain on one edge of its normally green shell but had a higher IQ than most of the other turtles and also gave off a pleasant fragrance when cooked -- except that he shelled and breaded and baked it instead in a rather bland parsley and pepper base, while Able picked the greenest and healthiest poison ivy he had but made a rather weak tea out of it that just did not taste good iced and put it in an expensive glass he had purchased from Macy's, although he knew that God always shopped at the Bon-Ton...

... and they both offered this to God...?

And God actually liked the taste of poison ivy and being god he would not die when he drank it, but he had an allergic reaction to the turtle despite enjoying the aroma of cooked shelled reptile meat?

Which one would God accept?

I admit, I am still a little hazy here.

If that happened, I think the flood would've happened much much much earlier and God would've started over again.