The one I was thinking of was quite crumbly (adding an extra worry in terms of inadvertantly missing some of it), with something vaguely sweet in it.
As I say, I cannot rule out the possiblity of someone “cheating”; I simply have not encountered it, myself.
I actually know someone who has Celiac disease, and he’s an alcoholic. Thank og he’s an atheist. 
Might be tricky to be a practicing Catholic with such restrictions, but I’ve been a regular attender at 2 different United Methodist Churches which routinely offer a gluten-free option (and as has been indicated, grape juice is the norm for the UMC). One church offers a gluten-free bread which looks like the bread that isn’t gluten-free, in the ordinary sandwhich bread family (as opposed to matzah–not as in pre-sliced). The other one offered rice cakes for people who wished to avoid gluten.
Oh, I doubt that.
This is often turned around by anti-alcohol sects with the argument that he was, in effect, recommending the use of wine medicinally, as if it were a drug, and hence should not be regarded as an invitation to drink wine on a regular basis. I actually listened to a Free Presbyterian sermon on the subject, since I am curious about it, and the minister emphasized the fact that the thought of drinking wine did not occur automatically, but had to be suggested in the passage.
While we’re on this subject, can anyone explain what is meant about not drinking the wine when it “giveth his color in the cup”?
Protestants generally don’t take communion as often as Catholics, so it would be more difficult to establish the custom so that everybody would know which usher had the grape juice.
Seems a little hypocritical to me. By analogy, the mass media could be viewed as detrimental to society based on the lowbrow crassness of much of their output, but I’d wager that this pastor doesn’t forsake all TV shows and films, but only the ones he considers immoral or harmful. In the same way, a Central Coast boutique winery can hardly be considered in the same light as a mass market beer company that uses questionable ads in questionable places that might attract the wrong clientele.
I do applaud his personal flexibility in the matter, but such flexibility should be alloted to others as well.
:dubious: Many Protestant churches–certainly many Methodist churches–have communion once a month–often the first Sunday of the month. I’m not seeing why it would be so hard to establish a custom in a particular congregation that the usher on the left had the grape juice.
Now yes, there are churches which offer communion only once a quarter (4 times a year) and perhaps churches which offer communion more rarely than that. In such a case, one might need to make announcements about “Hey, everyone, the usher on the left has grape juice” while the pastor is explaining how the congregation determines who gets to go first, whether communion will be taken by intinction or by taking a piece of bread/cracker and a small cup of juice/wine, etc.
If it were desired to offer wine and juice, it would not be difficult to do so. I think the number one thing standing in the way in most Protestant churches today is Tradition, and the number two thing is some form of anti-alcohol sentiment.
We just got the note in the bulletin that because of cold and flu season, distribution of the wine will be suspended until spring.
I am in the heart of the Southern Baptist Bible Belt… I grew up hearing and believing that alcohol was evil - when talking about “sin” as a teenager, it was understood that we were talking about cussing, fornication, and drinking. I’ve moved on from that particular conviction about drinking, but only drink casually, and specifically avoid being drunk.
I was with a friend this weekend, and before dinner asked if he would be offended if I had a beer with our meal. He said that he wouldn’t tell me what to do, but he is staunchly anti-alcohol. In his opinion - “No one has ever been hurt by not drinking, but lots of people have been hurt BY drinking”. I think that sums up the abolitionist roots of this particular belief quite well…
Long-time reader, first time poster.
Lots things of interest in this thread, and a bit of a surprise that an(other) Eucharistic minister has not chimed in on some of the topics of interest. It’s not my intent to answer any specific question raised, but to give some background, at least from my own experience.
As a cradle Episcopalian and former seminarian, I can say that Anglican tradition was for administration of Communion in both kinds at least from the late 1950’s. Wine was used, never unfermented grape juice, even in the pre-1966 days when Mississippi was still (officially) a prohibition state.
Wafers (or Host) were ubiquitous until the mid-70’s, when leavened (usually homemade) bread became common, at least in the parishes with which I am familiar. Among altarboys it was considered “lucky” to get a fraction of the Host rather than a wafer.
There are many, many different customs concerning the Cup. Many choose intinction (holding the bread until the cup comes around and then dipping it), especially since expanded knowledge of STDs. It can come as quite a surprise for a chalice bearer to encounter for the first time a (usually very old-school) recipient who elevates the wafer for the Eucharistic minister to dip and then place on the recipient’s tongue. Some with alcohol issues kiss the cup rather than partaking, which always seemed very sweet and touching to me.
Regards,
64 Imperial Fan
Yep, that’s pretty dubious. According to the Code of Canon Law:
Can. 924 — §1. The Most Sacred Eucharistic Sacrifice must be celebrated with bread and wine, with which a small quantity of water is to be mixed.
§2. The bread must be made of wheat alone and recently made so that there is no danger of corruption.
§3. The wine must be natural wine of the grape and not corrupt.
I’ve wondered that myself. Maybe it has to do with the wine having “legs,” indicating a higher alcohol content?
Born and raised Catholic. In every church I’ve been to, the majority of people do not receive wine. I’ve always found this to be strange. The little sip of wine you take couldn’t possibly get anyone drunk. The wine is pretty popular with kids, however, since it’s basically the only chance they have to drink alcohol
As for Protestants, I’m sure that their anti-alcohol stances are mostly a reaction to the heavy drinking that used to be extremely common (even normal) in the United States. You don’t even need to go that far back in history to see chronic alcohol abuse. My parents tell me that, when they were kids, standard etiquette was to keep a decanter of liquor (something like bourbon or sherry) by the door, and offer drinks to any guests who came around. That was also the generation where pretty much everyone smoked. No wonder most of them died in their fifties :dubious:
I think it no coincidence that Christ’s blood is spirit.
Actually, the reason to use unleavened bread is because it’s the closest to the kind used in the Last Supper. It was the Easter Supper, so it had to be taken with unleavened bread.
We’ve had Communion with regular bread a couple times that we were in the mountains and ran out of wafers. The priest figured it was better than trying to split the wafers so tiny that pieces of them might fall to the floor.
Funnily enough, in German the word for ‘legs’, in reference to wine, is Kirchenfenster–which translates as “Church windows”. This comes from the shape of the drip which vaguely resembles a tall narrow arch like in a Gothic cathedral.
Welcome, 64 Imperial Fan! This reminds me of how the priest breaks the larger host he holds up in two and sometimes has to struggle to eat the whole thing! And he breaks a tiny piece off the drop in the wine.
Then came the occasional use of the HUGE host. Maybe it was so that folks in the back could see it, but it had to be eight inches across! I think it’s also idented so in breaks up into smaller squares for distribution to other folks. The priest doesn’t seem to try to eat that thing in halves!