[QUOTE=PadeyeLeftover juice was poured on the ground but we now have a special area for communion prep with it’s own sink that drains directly into the ground rather than the sewer.[/QUOTE]
This interests me. As AWB, it’s common for the priest to finish the wine in Catholic masses (I don’t know if it’s part of doctrine, but it’s a common practice). Why is the left over juice poured on the ground, rather than finished by the celebrant?
There are so many denominations; which was the first?
(It had to start somewhere)
Oh sheesh, Egg.
The Catholics and the Orthodox will tell you that they were first.
The rest of them, AFAICT, will answer “who cares?”
This is an actual practice, seldom observed today, that is common to all rites of Christendom and dates back to apostolic times: those unable to participate in communion would not be allowed to be present for the eucharistic service. This is so that the Mysteries might not be witnessed by those not fit to see them, as well as fulfilling the apostolic rules forbidding prayer with non-Christians. The dismissals by the deacon at the end of the first part of the liturgy have long since disappeared in the west, but they were present up until the Middle Ages. I have somewhere a recording of mass taken from an Ambrosian-rite manuscript that has the deacon proclaiming “Let all catechumens depart… Let those preparing for baptism depart… Let all penitents depart… Let all Arians depart.” Byzantine-rite liturgies still have the deacon proclaim “As many as are catechumens, depart; let no catechumen remain”, as well as the proclamation “The doors, the doors!” as an instruction to seal the doors against any outsiders. The Byzantine Liturgy of St. James also includes the instruction “Let none of the catechumens remain; none of the uninitiated; none of those who cannot pray with us. Recognize one another!” In the strictest Orthodox monasteries, non-Orthodox and catechumens will still be dismissed from the church, or made to stand in the narthex, and I believe (someone help me here) that the modern RCIA has a provision for catechumens to leave the mass before the eucharist starts.
Two flavors? I grew up in a small town in Minnesota (population 12,000) and there were at least 4 different Lutheran churches in town. Plus a couple more out in the countryside.
And I recall that they all thought that the others were wrong & misguided.
Some even felt that the “misguided” Lutherans were more wrong than Catholics (in that they had seen the reforms of Martin Luther, but got them wrong; whereas Catholics hadn’t ever believed Luther’s teachings).
[All this based on the statements of other kids from these various churches, not any official ministerial pronouncements.]
I grew up in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. They believe in the priesthood of all believers, which is a little unusual. During Communion, the sacrament is passed from one communicant to the next in the pews – much like the offering plate. It is an open Communion. I don’t know how it is done now, but back then, Communion was generally offered only on the 5th Sunday in a month or on special occasions and observances.
I never can remember if it is defrocked or deflocked.
Well, remember that ELCA is a relatively recent union of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the American Lutheran Church, and the Lutheran Church in America (if I remember the three co-founding churches correctly). And at least two of those represent mergers between other denominations.
Finally, in addition to ELCA and Missouri Synod, there is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and a couple of smaller groups that find the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods way too liberal for their tastes (!).
All are, however, united on the Augsburg Confession, the Book of Concord, the Greater and Smaller Catechisms, the necessity of lutefisk, and the requirement that covered-dish suppers occur at least as often as communion. 
As an example of yet another “what to do with left over communion wine” practice, my (Episcopal) parish has a special holy sink (I’m sure there’s a proper word) in the sacristy that they pour it down.
**The Official Catholic Point of View ** (disregard everything you’ve ‘heard’ or were taught by Sister Rosetta Stone):
On Salvation of All Peoples: While the RCC was quick to find heretics and ex-communicate them at one time… there was never, never an official declaration that those people were hell-bound. The RCC never proclaimed that anyone institutionally ‘outside’ the church was damned. A Fr. Sweeney from Boston in the 1950’s was infamously ex-communicated for his declaration that there was no salvation outside the Church (irony of ironies that he wound up outside the Church for holding that belief). It is unfortunate, though, that too many of the RCs (including sisters, priests, and even a few bishops) were unable to make the distinction between being outside the Church and being cut off from salvation.
The confusion comes from the RCC’s insistence that the Church contains the fullness of salvation from an institutional stance. It has the Apostolic succession and Tradition and sacraments which can give its adherents an assurance of salvation through their participation in the Church (provided their heart is in the right place and not actively rejecting God’s grace).
Before Vatican Council II, the RCC was a bit unsure about salvation of those outside the Church. Without condemning outsiders to Hell, it shrugged and basically left them to God’s mercy (and with little optimism about that). After Vatican Council II, the RCC proclaims that all people are created good, are in need of salvation because of their sins (including RCs), all are sought and called by God to be holy, all are offered freely the gift of mercy and salvation because of God’s unmerited love for each and every person, and that all this good stuff comes through the work of Jesus Christ and is fully manifested in the RCC.
Now, it’s that last part which raises the question: What if you are not a member of the RCC, can you still be saved? And, what if you are not a ‘believer’ in Jesus Christ, can you still be saved?
The RCC answer to both is yes, through God’s mercy, and we’re now a lot more optimistic about God’s mercy. And whether you believe it or not, and whether you like it or not, if you do not reject God through willfully and knowingly rejecting the natural Good or willfully and knowingly causing grave evil to other humans, then you do have access to God’s saving grace which comes through Jesus, even if you do not recognize the role Jesus plays. IOW, Jesus is the bridge to God. RCs see the bridge, know the bridge, and cross the bridge confident they’ll get to the other side. Those who do not recognize Jesus, don’t really fully recognize the bridge, or may be blinded to where the boundaries of where the bridge is; but if they are people of Good Will, they still stumble across the bridge on the route to God. One famous Catholic theologian (Karl Rahner) dubbed these people as ‘anonymous Christians.’ And this not different from the Gospel witness in which Jesus says that those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, or visit the sick will enter the Kingdom of God, even if they didn’t know they were doing this for Jesus, who identifies with the poor and lowly of the world. Salvation is for the compassionate, not necessarily those with the right knowledge or beliefs.
And so, this is how the RCC can proclaim that all salvation comes through Jesus. He makes salvation possible, and he is the means (whether one is aware of this fact or not) of salvation. Some denominations will use that statement of “Salvation through Jesus alone” as a test of belief in Jesus, and those who don’t have the right belief (a big gnostic, maybe?) won’t go to heaven. That is not the RCC position.
On Relations with other Christian Denominations: The RCC recognizes the baptism of all churches that believe in the Nicene Creed, have a trinitarian theology, and baptize with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Thus, the LDS, Jehovah’s Witness, Christian Scientist do not have a valid baptism; but almost all Christians do. The RCC sees every baptized person as a member of the mystical body of Christ. The RCC longs to be in full communion with every baptized person… but, there are divisions.
Some divisions are based on arguments over authority. Those who no longer recognize the universal authority of the Pope are in schism (most famously the Orthodox). Those who break apart and believe in heretical beliefs, or, whose practices are so ‘defective’ that their lawful acts (e.g., their ordination of clergy, or the way they celebrate the Eucharist) are considered to be invalid (most famously, the Reformationist and Protestant denominations).
The RCC does more than simply tolerate these denominations… it seeks unity. Well, the official RCC does. There are unfortunately the prejudiced and the ignorant (including clergy!) who don’t give the impression of Christian charity that they should.
However, since there is division, the powers that be in the RCC have decided that Communion, a sign of unity, ought not be shared with those with whom there is not that fullness of unity that there should be. Not that shared Communion with Protestants is an inherent evil, but it is a practice that is institutionally withheld until institutional unity is restored.
And as in most human endeavors you get extremists: those who are mean spirited and become Communion police in order to stop shared Communion; and those who ignore the state of division and actively encourage shared Communion. In between, you have the majority who slighty discourage shared Communion in the politest way possible, and those who tow the party line when asked, but they themselves don’t ask (a don’t ask, don’t tell policy).
However, there are valid exceptions to the rule against shared Communion. If a baptized Protestant who receives Communion in their own church (even if that Communion is not regocnized as institutionally valid by the RCC) finds themself in an area where they can not get to their own service on Sunday (let’s say they’re in Catholictown, Upper Alaska); then that Protestant, if they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, may lawfully receive Communion in a RC Eucharist.
Pax.
Heaven will be less populated than a major city on earth? 
Anyway I thought that Catholics believed in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”…i.e. you’re baptized not as a Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc but as a Christian.
Correct. Those who are in the Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults program are treated as catechumens and are escorted out of mass before the Liturgy of the Eucharist. (Others who may not be Catholic who are visiting are not carded and chased or escorted out, however.) The departure of the catechumens is actually a symbolic gesture connected to the RCIA and frequently the catechumens will use the time until the end of mass studting the readings they have just heard proclaimed. (Many of them have Catholic family members attending mass and it would be awkward to tell them to go home or have them standing around the doors waiting for mass to end.)
You forgot the coffee.
And it’s not a true covered-dish supper (i.e., not liturgically correct) without jello salad!
(Argh!! Apparently if you don’t set “Remember Me” when logging in, this gives the hamsters a free pass to eat your reply. Anyway, once more, this time with gusto!)
moriah, can you provide us with your source for this information? I was quite spooked when I first saw your proclamation of “The Official Catholic Point of View” without seeing any cites. What you’ve written is doctrinally sound based on my own limited knowledge, but we’d all appreciate knowing what your source is (I’m pretty sure it isn’t the Catechism, since what you’ve written is quite a bit more verbose than what the Catechism has on this subject).
For you to “push the issue” would be extremely disrespectful. The Catholic Church teaches that the host and wine are truly the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. If you do not believe this (i.e. if you think it’s just a ceremony with bread and wine, or if you think it’s just symbolic), you absolutely should not receive communion during a Catholic Mass. To receive communion, knowing what the Church teaches and what us Catholics believe, and not agreeing with us, is tantamount to saying that what we believe isn’t important.
Of course, if I am taking a guest to Mass, it is my responsibility to teach my guest so they understand the gravity of the situation. If someone does not understand how important this is, then I won’t be offended (it would again be my job to teach them).
For this same reason I won’t take communion at a Protestant church. I used to years ago, but then I realized that the logic I followed in these instances was disrespectful and patronizing. Here’s what I would tell myself while taking communion in a Baptist church: “I don’t believe these people are actually participating in communion as Jesus taught it, but even with this, I can participate because what they are doing is a good ceremony that I should be able to join, since I don’t want to be separated.” What I realized is this is bad reasoning, because when I participate in someone’s ceremony, I can’t just ignore half of what’s important without completely disrespecting the crememony.
P.S. Generally, ‘cracker’ is not a very respectful way to refer to the Eucharist.
Anyway, hope that helps.
I dunno. Most of it seems to be simply a good restatement of the Catechism from Paragraphs 836 through 848 with some additional information from other sections plus some historical perspective.
Piscina.
Technically, consecrated wine will generally either be preserved for the next service, or consumed by priest(s) and altar guild; what the piscina is normally used for, is to do a “first rinse” of the paten(s)/pyx and chalice(s) that held the consecrated elements, a little water being put into one or more chalices and then used to rinse breadcrumbs off the paten(s). The vessels, from which any trace of Body and Blood have been removed, are then washed in a normal sink with soap and water, polished if necessary, and shelved pending the next service.
I could, if I had the time, which I don’t right now, get you all those cites. However, what I posted comes from someone with a Pontifical Post-Graduate degree in Catholic Theology from Catholic University of America. And that someone would be me. I cite myself. 
Pax tibi.
In RC churches, it’s called a sacrarium.
Peace.
And you are now the recipient of the 2004 Aldebaran Award for Self-Documenting Posts!
The 144,000 number was determined some time early in the 20th century, and nearly all of them have subsequently passed on. They were the only ones eligible to receive communion, as well.