Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 June 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 20

Communion wine

Why do some churches allow everyone to participate in communion? What is the purpose of allowing everyone? Isn't it supposed to be a Christian activity? Why do churches typically use dark wine rather than white/clear wine? Why does the Roman Catholic church use flat wafers instead of bread-looking bread? Sneazy (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The act of receiving communion is a personal one, between you and God. What right has anyone else to judge who should receive it? The wine is red because it substitutes (or transubstitutes) for the blood of Christ. Other denominations use the wafers you describe too. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It is morally irresponsible, but there is no explicitly stated instruction to not allow gentiles to participate. As for the dark wine and wafers, they are due to historical reasons. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that it's a Christian ritual, I would expect only Gentiles to be taking communion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but the United Church of Christ uses grape juice and LDS use water. Sneazy (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I grew up in the UCC, and my congregation definitely used wine, although they had water as well for people who didn't want to consume alcohol. The UCC has congregational rule, so it's difficult to generalize, as all these decisions are made, at least in principle, at the local level. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So they do. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

unsupportable personal speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I do not remember very well, but I think the dark wine and wafer is a connected with Egyptian mythology and Constantine the Great, something to do with the literal consumption of the Sun god's flesh, or something along those lines. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Apparently, Catholicism was set up to mirror the ancient Egyptian religion, albeit with the names of the titles exchanged. Supposedly, the Pope plays the role of the Pharaoh, as the living incarnation of Horus, which is the son of Ra. Now that I thing of it, it was the literal consumption of the son of the Sun god's flesh. I think the aim of said ritualistic consumption, was that by consuming the flesh of Horus, the consumer would attain the qualities of Horus. This sounds like very familiar doctrine indeed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Citation needed! AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Seriously, PP, that's blatant ahistorical rubbish. No serious scholar believes such a thing. Catholics are Christians, their rituals are Christian rituals, and the symbolism is as it has been explained to be by Catholic apologists. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me this or a similar question was raised a number of weeks ago. Participation in communion by everyone or by members-only, and whether to use wine, grape juice, water or Kool-Aid is generally a matter of church policy. As regards communion itself, it originated with two elements of the Passover feast, the wine and the unleavened bread, in which Jesus asked his disciples to commemorate Him by taking these two elements as symbolic of His blood and body. The Catholics took this symbolism a step further and came up with the "transubstantiation" idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is about five questions, and the discussion archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 5#Making bread and wine 2000 years ago? was about five other questions related to these five.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC) and 23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

unsupportable personal speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(edit conflict) That explains why the sun features so prominently in catholic decorations. From what I understand, IHS was carefully designed to have a double meaning, one meaning 'Iset Haru Setekh' (Isis Horus Seth), and the other 'Iesus Uios Soter'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Then you understand wrongly. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Moreover, Isis happens to be the mother of Horus, as Mary is the mother of Jesus. Plasmic Physics (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Constantine associated the Sun with the Christian God, but there's nothing special about that. The Sun has always been recognized by humans as being a vital resource. I'd like to see some evidence from Plasmic tying Constantine or the Pope or anyone else in the Roman empire to some specific scholarly claim that there's some direct connection with an Egyptian ritual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Me too. This looks like standard-grade anti-Catholic hogwash. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC) It's well-known that the early Church wove a few pagan ideas into their calendar and re-labeled them for Christian purposes (the winter solstice, for example). The specific stuff about the Egyptian sun god seems a bit far-fetched, unless Plasmic can give us a good citation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Sun-worship is one thing, but all the rituals, and systems that accompany it, are quite another. A German car and a Japanese car are both cars, but they entirely different on the inside. Singing off for tonight. Plasmic Physics (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Plasmic Physics, Jack Chick, Alexander Hislop, or Gerald Massey, but all modern scholarship, even the Jesus Seminar, would balk at all you've suggested. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC) I also baulk at it. Plasmic Physics, your way of operating is quite wrong. This is called "Reference Desk" for a reason, namely, that it it a reference desk. That means that if an editor has something substantial to present in answer to a question, it is not just his personal musings but is supported by a link to an article or an external reputable source. Other editors should not have to spend their time either calling for citations (to which you have thus far not responded) or flat out denying your very questionable assertions. This is not some random chat room and it is not Facebook. We have a higher standard here, and editors will be held to it. We volunteers are simply the agents through which references are provided; we are not, personally, sources of information (except in some cases where personal knowledge is all that's available; but this is not such a case). -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 20:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all churches insist on dark wine; I've had communion wine that resembled a sherry or white port (in the Church of England, which does insist on actual wine). And the wafers are a form of unleavened bread, sized and shaped for easy distribution. Unleavened bread is used in commemoration of the Passover, both as a feast in its own right and as the occasion of the Last Supper, Passion and Resurrection of Jesus. I was quite surprised on one unusual occasion to be in an Anglican church where the bread on the altar was a leavened loaf that seemed to have come straight from the local baker's. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That's funny. Did they also bring in a bottle of Thunderbird to use as the communion wine? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha - I had to look up Thunderbird, as we don't get it over here. I suspect the wine was supermarket bargain-label port. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• To go back to answering Sneazy's question, the answer is that each of the various Christian denominations has a different attitude towards who can, and cannot, participate in their rituals. Eucharist in the Catholic Church explains who can, and cannot, receive communion (the Eucharist), according to Roman Catholic tradition. Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation, and as such, have very strict rules on who is worthy to receive the body and blood of Christ; they practice what is known as Closed communion. If you do not meet the qualifications, and receive it anyways, many Catholics would consider this to be rude and invasive towards the sanctity with which they hold the act of Communion. On the other hand, other denominations have Open communion, where all christians are invited to participate; or even non-Christians in some cases. Each denomination has their own attitudes and policies about these things. --Jayron32 20:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to share some personal experience here, but it agrees with the articles you linked. I do so in the interest of clarity, because that section of the article is written in legalese. (WP:OR commence) I attended a Catholic grade school, as a known non-catholic. I was required to attend mass as part of some school functions, but was required to not take communion. During those proceedings, the few non-catholics just sat in the pews twiddling our thumbs and feeling awkward, while everyone else filed up to the front and ate their wafers. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Even practicing Catholics are supposed to refrain from taking communion if they don't have a clear conscience. For example, Catholics who have not recently undergone confession and penance after having committed a "mortal sin", and thus are not "right with God", are supposed to not take communion themselves as well. I was raised in a Catholic Church myself (now a member of a Baptist church), and underwent childhood catechism, and though this is a bit OR as yours is, this is what I remember from my (now 20+ year-old) religious education growing up. --Jayron32 22:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not just "protecting the sanctity of Communion", etc -- part of the Catholic doctrine surrounding Communion is that it is actively sinful for someone who doesn't accept the Catholic doctrine on the matter to participate in Communion, and so by denying the participation of Protestants, etc, the priest (or whoever) is protecting them from sin. ("Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: 'For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died' (1 Cor. 11:29–30).") — Lomn 21:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See also Sacramental wine. Alansplodge (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That verse is qualified, not generalised. The person must be aware that eating and drinking without discernment of the body is sinful, for them to be brought into judgment. Otherwise, they are not judged, and it is not sinful. Again, to be aware, is to either to have knowledge of, or to be convicted by the Holy Spirit. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Source please - or is that a personal interpretation? Rmhermen (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

unsupported personal speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I found a paper that reveals that the S in IHS may be Serapis and not Seth.[1] I did recall from memory, so I get change my mind. And a bit of further research has revealed that Greco-Egyptian religious fusion has taken place around the time of Ptolemy I. This means that Egyptian mythology was already incorporated into the local pagan religions around the time of Constantine's reign. I lost my original source for all these things, so I have to find threads and weave a new tapestry that resembles what I once found. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but The Herald of Christ's Kingdom is published by the Pastoral Bible Institute, an idiosyncratic splinter group of the Watch Tower Society. It may hold deep religious truth for some, but it is not a reliable source on anything historic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Someone really ought to link to IHS (the first and relevant part of which deserves its own article, imo). -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Odd that it doesn't mention in hoc signo. --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC) It mentions in hoc signo vinces in the next bullet point. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, theological schools of Alexandria played a major role in the determination of doctrine, and if I'm not mistaken , it is actually, located in Egypt. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC) From research it seems, that initially, Mary did not feature so prominently in doctrine in the beginning. Only later did Cyril of Alexandria give her the title 'Mother of God' as Isis is to Horus. This shows that if the Greco-Egyptian IHS triad was initially the model for the Catholic triad (Mary Jesus Father), then it dissimilarities have only become decreased over time. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC) It is already established that Isis with Horus is an artistic inspiration for art featuring Mary and Jesus, as per our own article Isis (lede). Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, but that's an iconographic influence -- an influence of external form which ends up being given rather different content in the new system. Unfortunately, your posting of "14:50, 20 June 2013" above appears to be based more on Jack Chick than sound scholarship... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I don't know who this Jack fellow is, but my point is that even if untrue, it is not such an outlandish conclusion, based on the coincidences between both religious systems. I tend to be skeptical about evidence given by those affiliated directly or indirectly with Catholicism, it amounts to a conflict of interest. Independent evidence is hard to come by these days. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC) It is no less of a conflict of interest to persue evidence by those that have an axe to grind with the Catholic Church. You've made some outlandish, unsupported claims about the Catholic Church, bordering on insulting. It would be nice if you either presented reliable sources to back up your rather unusual claims, or just stopped before you dug yourself deeper. --Jayron32 02:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC) "Outlandish": not so much; "unsupported", nope, otherwise, I'd be a lone wolf; "reliably sourced", indeed not; "bordering on insulting" please explain? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Please refer to my post at 20:46 above. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC) That doesn't explain why it is bordering on insulting, it doesn't even address the concept of insult. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC) Plasmic Physics, would you like for people to tell you that the Seventh Day Adventist Church was founded as a neopagan experiment, using sources that no scholar of religion in the past century finds reliable? If "Do unto others..." wasn't enough, there's the simple fact that you're citing WP:FRINGE material as if they were facts that anyone knows, when in fact, most scholars know that fringe material is false. Set(h) was never worshiped along Horus, they were enemies; so the IHS claim is obvious bullocks to anyone who knows the least bit about Egyptian mythology beyond names (the Serapis backtrack ignores that the temple of Serapeum in Alexandria was destroyed by Catholics, while Serapis was still popular and Christianity wasn't). There is the more immediate and obvious origin of communion in the Jewish Passover feast. The last supper occurred around Passover, Jesus said "this is my body," making transubstantiation a pretty face value interpretation; and with no evidence of a direct pagan parallel, one must assume that is the origin of it. Passover supper and many traditional communion features wine and unlevened bread being consumed in relation to (different kinds of) salvation as a result of (different kinds of) Lamb's blood being shed; it requires additional unevidenced leaps and assumptions to try and connect the wafer to hypothetical (i.e. unevidenced) pagan rites. Occam's razor slits the throat of pagan origins. There's plenty of Catholic records where they get into fights with Gnostics, Manichaeans, Hermeticists, and other folks who tried to combine Pagan and Christian thought, so how would their own priests manage to incorporate outright pagan symbolism? Heck, they didn't even like it when people tried to incorporate Judaism (the most closely related religion), or even used slightly different language to express the same idea (which is why the Assyrian Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the Catholic Church are not in communion). The truth is, you're simply repeating stuff that some atheists and neopagans made up in the 1800s to attack Christianity, that some Protestants repurposed to act against Christ's command in Mark 9:41. And that you seem to think the conspiracy theories you're spouting are anywhere near academic is insulting to those of us who study real history. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A line from Departed (movie)

"Heaven keeps the faithful departed."

What do you think it means? Does it stem from the Bible?

46.107.26.54 (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"The faithful departed" is a common set phrase meaning dead church members - that is, those who were faithful, and have departed (from) this life. So the quoted phrase has a similar meaning to this verse from the Apocrypha: "But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them." (Wisdom 3:1). AlexTiefling (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I had an entirely different idea about it. It's so different it's silly. I thought it means that the faithful are relatively few compared to the number of unbelievers and God puts them in places in the population where they are most needed as beacons of light for the lost, but unfortunately for them they are surrounded by darkness. 46.107.26.54 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No shame in that - it's a statement which is pretty firmly couched in insider-speak. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And the interpretation could be spot on, since the line is likely meant to be interpreted in more ways than just the strictly traditional sense in the movie, as the plot does revolve around the theme of shifting allegiance and trust (faithfulness). --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about The Departed, right? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I heard the same line from the song, "Bon Jovi It's my life". Sneazy (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually the line is "No silent prayer for the faith-departed". I think that means someone whose faith has departed them, not who was faithful but has now departed. Quite the opposite. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Or he just clipped off the ending to make it fit the meter. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)