Should an agnostic take communion?

[Smoove_B]

Religion is also a culture. Respect other people's culture.

You respect the religion by not taking a drink from the holy water fonts while you walk through the doors. Partaking in communion, IMHO isn't a "respect" issue.

[Dirt]

Religion is also a culture. Respect other people's culture.

You respect the religion by not taking a drink from the holy water fonts while you walk through the doors. Partaking in communion, IMHO isn't a "respect" issue.

Oh, okay.

[$iljanus]

Religion is also a culture. Respect other people's culture.

You respect the religion by not taking a drink from the holy water fonts while you walk through the doors.

Heh, sort of reminds me of Kurgan walking into the church and snuffing out all the offering candles.


FORGIVE ME FATHER, I AM BUT A WORM. IT'S BETTER TO BURN OUT...THEN FADE AWAY!

(I think if Rob doesn't show up in black leather and safetypins holding his neck together yelling "HOLY GROUND, HIGHLANDER!", he's good to go...)

[ChrisGwinn]

Find out what Communion means. If you agree with that, then take it. If you do not (and if you're agnostic, you probably do not,) then don't. Taking a Communion if you don't believe what is behind it is comparable making a solemn vow you have no intention of keeping just to be polite to the person you're lying to. The lie is more impolite than the refusal. I'm not saying that Communion is an oath - it isn't. It is considered a sacrament (along with things like marriage and ordination.) It is more accurately an act of sharing with the Christian divine.

Neither marriage nor ordination are sacraments in the Lutheran church. Generally, Lutherans consider Baptism and Communion to be the only sacraments.

[Rowdy]

Neither marriage nor ordination are sacraments in the Lutheran church. Generally, Lutherans consider Baptism and Communion to be the only sacraments.

That's one of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, AFAIK. Protestants generally only have the two sacraments.

[Freezer-TPF-]

Neither marriage nor ordination are sacraments in the Lutheran church. Generally, Lutherans consider Baptism and Communion to be the only sacraments.

That's one of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, AFAIK. Protestants generally only have the two sacraments.

The Episcopal Church recognizes the two great sacraments (baptism and the eucharist) as well as five other sacraments: confirmation, holy orders, holy matrimony, reconciliation, and unction.

[BrendanG]

This is almost certainly a bot. No response to messages. I am leaving it as it's somewhat on topic and there aren't any links to anything. Will deal with account. - EH3k

I have a similar problem. There was a time when I did have strong faith in the supernatural elements of the religion, but I've since lost that. But I have still found that I can consistently find good and practical psychological advice from Jesus' teachings. I see the main point of the religion in trying to orient one's heart properly, and I'd do that with or without a promise of heaven. In fact, I'd think that having one's heart orientated properly in a certain sense IS heaven, so that being worthy of going to heaven and making the attempt to live properly are one and the same.

Given the confusion in the church over doctrine, and the confusion in my own life, I can't believe that the Holy Spirit is actively guiding everyone who has faith. In this case, it's impossible for me to know the details of what Jesus meant when he said certain things. I can believe that Jesus died and take the communion in remembrance of him, and resolve to try to do those of his commandments that I feel I understand. But in which way is it his body and blood, what are the details of the covenant, and when/ in what manner I might be raised from the dead, I have no idea.

As another example, in the Apostle's creed, it says that "I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." The different denominations must have very different ideas about what this even means. So, since I don't have very great confidence in any particular church denomination, I can't claim to understand what this even means, and thus I can't claim to believe it.

I am not aware of any church denomination that would accept or even understand this kind of faith. I am going to a Presbyterian church right now. The pastor won't let me take communion. I respect him for this, because if he let any random person take communion, it would disrespect the ceremony. I would not take communion from a church which did not respect its own doctrine. But it makes me sad, because Jesus told me to do it, so, I would do it, even though I don't claim to understand its full significance. I have thought about doing it myself (since I don't believe that most of the pastors who offer the communion actually understand more than I do), but since I'd be doing it alone, and it is supposed to be a communal activity, I would feel silly doing it. It might seem strange to say that I don't think most pastors understand more than I do, when I claim to understand very little, but this must be the case, because there are so many contradictory doctrines, and they can't all be right.

[msduncan]

If this is Catholic Communion we are talking about, there is a simple solution:

Cross your hands across your chest when you approach the priest. He will say a prayer over you but not offer you communion. This is respectful of the ceremony but indicates that you aren't prepared to receive communion. People do this for a variety of reasons: 1. You aren't Catholic 2. You are Catholic but haven't been confirmed 3. You are both Catholic and have been confirmed but you feel like you aren't in a state to receive communion until after you have gone to confession.

Many people do this every day during mass and it's not given a second thought.

Edit to add interesting additional info: In the Catholic church, the Eucharist isn't just a ceremony with crackers and grape juice. Once the Priest has said the appropriate prayers over the wine and bread, it is believed that they BECOME the body and blood of Christ. So you are literally receiving Christ as he stated at the Last Supper. In most other denominations, Communion is simply symbolic. That is why Catholics are supposed to fast for an hour prior to receiving Communion.

[msduncan]

Religion is also a culture. Respect other people's culture.

You respect the religion by not taking a drink from the holy water fonts while you walk through the doors. Partaking in communion, IMHO isn't a "respect" issue.

These are old posts, I know... but just to clear this up: The holy water fonts at the doors are to dip your finger into and make a cross on your forehead. Not to drink from.

[Grifman]

Find a Unitarian Universalist Church near you and attend there. They are pretty loose in their beliefs, you can pretty much pick and choose and make your own version of Christianity if you want. They seem a perfect fit for you.

That said, your view of communion is flawed. The propose is to not just remember Christ and his life, but to remind us of the sacrifice of his life for us and the promise of resurrection. Since you reject the supernatural elements, you really reject one of the primary purposes of communion.

[msduncan]

I have thought about doing it myself (since I don't believe that most of the pastors who offer the communion actually understand more than I do), but since I'd be doing it alone, and it is supposed to be a communal activity, I would feel silly doing it.

The word Communion isn't meant to mean communion with others in the church. It's communion with God. That is to say the word means "union with God" in this context.

[Smoove_B]

These are old posts, I know... but just to clear this up: The holy water fonts at the doors are to dip your finger into and make a cross on your forehead. Not to drink from.

Which, as stated, would be disrespectful.

[Grifman]

I have thought about doing it myself (since I don't believe that most of the pastors who offer the communion actually understand more than I do), but since I'd be doing it alone, and it is supposed to be a communal activity, I would feel silly doing it.

The word Communion isn't meant to mean communion with others in the church. It's communion with God. That is to say the word means "union with God" in this context.

While true, communion is an activity of the church, and is meant to be experienced with the body of the church. It’s not about activity meant to be practiced solo by Christians.

[msduncan]

I have thought about doing it myself (since I don't believe that most of the pastors who offer the communion actually understand more than I do), but since I'd be doing it alone, and it is supposed to be a communal activity, I would feel silly doing it.

The word Communion isn't meant to mean communion with others in the church. It's communion with God. That is to say the word means "union with God" in this context.

While true, communion is an activity of the church, and is meant to be experienced with the body of the church. It’s not about activity meant to be practiced solo by Christians.

While it is a group activity, at least in the Catholic Church the Priest will bring Communion to elderly, sick, etc. So, it's a ritual that is supposed to be done regardless of whether it's in a group or not.

[Grifman]

I have thought about doing it myself (since I don't believe that most of the pastors who offer the communion actually understand more than I do), but since I'd be doing it alone, and it is supposed to be a communal activity, I would feel silly doing it.

The word Communion isn't meant to mean communion with others in the church. It's communion with God. That is to say the word means "union with God" in this context.

While true, communion is an activity of the church, and is meant to be experienced with the body of the church. It’s not about activity meant to be practiced solo by Christians.

While it is a group activity, at least in the Catholic Church the Priest will bring Communion to elderly, sick, etc. So, it's a ritual that is supposed to be done regardless of whether it's in a group or not.

But these are obviously humanitarian exceptions, and as you note, a priest is present. He’s not going to come around and do this for anyone.

[Unagi]

Bots can really stir up old posts.


I would say, "If they are hungry" to the OP.

[Blackhawk]

Communion is all a bunch of hocus-pocus.

Spoiler:

(Sorry - it's a linguistic joke that nobody is likely to get. No disrespect intended.)

The ceremony in Latin for the transubstantiation (transforming bread to the body of Christ) includes 'hoc est corpus', which means 'this is the body.' It was seen as such a powerful statement that commoners - who spoke no Latin - tried to use it elsewhere, but got the exact phrasing wrong. Thus the origin of 'hocus pocus' as a 'magic word.'

[ImLawBoy]

Bots can really stir up old posts.


I would say, "If they are hungry" to the OP.

I'm letting it stay at this point because I don't see any embedded links or a questionable signature or anything. Maybe he can stop by and let us know why he felt the need to register and respond based on an almost 20 year old post? I'll be checking occasionally to see if he tries to go back and stealth edit to embed a post.

Communion is all a bunch of hocus-pocus.

Spoiler:

(Sorry - it's a linguistic joke that nobody is likely to get. No disrespect intended.)

The ceremony in Latin for the transubstantiation (transforming bread to the body of Christ) includes 'hoc est corpus', which means 'this is the body.' It was seen as such a powerful statement that commoners - who spoke no Latin - tried to use it elsewhere, but got the exact phrasing wrong. Thus the origin of 'hocus pocus' as a 'magic word.'

Now that's interesting! If nothing else, I learned something from this resurrection. (Trying for some kind of religious joke there, but failing to come up with one . . . .)

[Punisher]

Religion is also a culture. Respect other people's culture.

You respect the religion by not taking a drink from the holy water fonts while you walk through the doors. Partaking in communion, IMHO isn't a "respect" issue.

These are old posts, I know... but just to clear this up: The holy water fonts at the doors are to dip your finger into and make a cross on your forehead. Not to drink from.

Is that why I was excommunicated?

[Grifman]

Communion is all a bunch of hocus-pocus.

Spoiler:

(Sorry - it's a linguistic joke that nobody is likely to get. No disrespect intended.)

The ceremony in Latin for the transubstantiation (transforming bread to the body of Christ) includes 'hoc est corpus', which means 'this is the body.' It was seen as such a powerful statement that commoners - who spoke no Latin - tried to use it elsewhere, but got the exact phrasing wrong. Thus the origin of 'hocus pocus' as a 'magic word.'

Interesting, I learned something today!

[Grifman]

Bots can really stir up old posts.


I would say, "If they are hungry" to the OP.

Hah, is this a bot? I just checked the poster, joined today, first post today. But it seems a strange thing for a bot to do. Interesting . . .

[Max Peck]

Bots can really stir up old posts.


I would say, "If they are hungry" to the OP.

Hah, is this a bot? I just checked the poster, joined today, first post today. But it seems a strange thing for a bot to do. Interesting . . .

Do generative AIs dream of electronic communion?

Replying to ancient posts is a completely normal thing for a bot to do.

[msduncan]

Bots can really stir up old posts.


I would say, "If they are hungry" to the OP.

Hah, is this a bot? I just checked the poster, joined today, first post today. But it seems a strange thing for a bot to do. Interesting . . .

Do generative AIs dream of electronic communion?

Replying to ancient posts is a completely normal thing for a bot to do.

They would probably stay away from water though, holy or not.

[Holman]

Bots can really stir up old posts.


I would say, "If they are hungry" to the OP.

Hah, is this a bot? I just checked the poster, joined today, first post today. But it seems a strange thing for a bot to do. Interesting . . .

Do generative AIs dream of electronic communion?

Replying to ancient posts is a completely normal thing for a bot to do.

I suspect a bot.

For one thing, they say this:

I am going to a Presbyterian church right now. The pastor won't let me take communion. I respect him for this, because if he let any random person take communion, it would disrespect the ceremony. I would not take communion from a church which did not respect its own doctrine.

My understanding is that Presbyterians (like most mainstream Protestants) practice "open communion." They don't police it. For example, if you're a visitor at the church and want to partake, they don't first run some kind of background check on you.

Plus, unlike in Catholic communion (where the worshippers individually approach the priest to receive communion), Presbyterians pass the bread (wafer) and wine (grape juice) in trays along the pews. It would be almost impossible for the pastor to prevent someone in a pew from partaking if they wanted to.

So unless something super unusual is going on, a pastor "forbidding communion" just isn't how Presbyterianism works. In fact it would considered very wrong.

[stessier]

FWIW, Catholics don't police it either. If someone goes up, they will be given the sacrament.

[Holman]

FWIW, Catholics don't police it either. If someone goes up, they will be given the sacrament.

Under very extraordinary circumstances an officiant might refuse communion to a worshipper. This happens from time to time when a right-leaning bishop or cardinal declares that a certain politician who supports abortion rights will not receive communion if they visit their church.

It's super rare, but I think it's technically within the priest's power (at least until a higher-up tells them to knock it off, as IIRC Pope Francis has done once or twice). And it course it was done more often a few centuries ago.

[stessier]

FWIW, Catholics don't police it either. If someone goes up, they will be given the sacrament.

Under very extraordinary circumstances an officiant might refuse communion to a worshipper. This happens from time to time when a right-leaning bishop or cardinal declares that a certain politician who supports abortion rights will not receive communion if they visit their church.

It's super rare, but I think it's technically within the priest's power (at least until a higher-up tells them to knock it off, as IIRC Pope Francis has done once or twice).

Technically, yes. But you are also correct that they generally get yelled at (although not if the bishop agrees with them and it can take a while for the Pope to get involved). I doubt, however, that the OP or our recent poster fall into that camp.

[Unagi]

Is this a good place to talk about communion?


Can I just point to the elephant in the room?

Why the fuck do Christians want to eat the flesh of Jesus. How does symbolically eating his flesh help one be closer to him. WTaF. Oh wait. Not creepy enough? Here, let us pretend this wine is his blood and we will now all drink his blood too.

Yeah, that's totally normal. Just, you know, a Sunday morning....

[Blackhawk]

Why the fuck do Christians want to eat the flesh of Jesus. How does symbolically eating his flesh help one be closer to him.

It's the same reasoning as eating the heart of a lion to become more like a lion.

[Isgrimnur]

Transubstantiation. The belief that it literally is the flesh and blood of Christ once consecrated.

[disarm]

It's like a replay of the events of the last supper. The night before he was crucified, Jesus sat at a table with his disciples and shared bread and wine with them, stating that they were his own body and blood. It's all symbolism for Jesus giving his own body and blood as sacrifice in exchange for forgiveness of the sins of the world.

So when did someone in the Catholic church decide that a symbolic gesture should actually be "transubstantiation," in which bread and wine are literally converted into the flesh and blood of Jesus? I don't know the answer to that, but I agree that it's extremely (and pointlessly) unusual.

For what it's worth, apparently transubstantiated flesh and blood still taste exactly like bread and wine...or at least they did before I gave up going to church.

[Max Peck]

According to The Other Big Book of All Knowledge:

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, in the Eucharistic offering, bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. The affirmation of this doctrine on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was expressed, using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215. It was later challenged by various 14th-century reformers, John Wycliffe in particular.

All I can say from personal experience is that practicing Catholics really don't like it if you refer to it as "juice and cookies"...

[Blackhawk]

So when did someone in the Catholic church decide that a symbolic gesture should actually be "transubstantiation," in which bread and wine are literally converted into the flesh and blood of Jesus? I don't know the answer to that, but I agree that it's extremely (and pointlessly) unusual.

Channeling the essence of a deity/spirit into food/drink and consuming it isn't all that unusual. Making it literal (this is the body, this is the blood) is.

[Unagi]

Is it possible that our god is actually made of some form of rum cake?

[Holman]

It's like a replay of the events of the last supper. The night before he was crucified, Jesus sat at a table with his disciples and shared bread and wine with them, stating that they were his own body and blood. It's all symbolism for Jesus giving his own body and blood as sacrifice in exchange for forgiveness of the sins of the world.

So when did someone in the Catholic church decide that a symbolic gesture should actually be "transubstantiation," in which bread and wine are literally converted into the flesh and blood of Jesus? I don't know the answer to that, but I agree that it's extremely (and pointlessly) unusual.

For what it's worth, apparently transubstantiated flesh and blood still taste exactly like bread and wine...or at least they did before I gave up going to church.

Belief in the real presence of Christ's body and blood was the mainstream norm in Western Christianity, various "heresies" notwithstanding, nearly from the beginning. (The place of the physical body in late-Antiquity and medieval Christianity involves some profoundly weird and different thinking from our own.) Declaring it to be merely a symbol or remembrance came in with Protestantism in the 1500s.

As with most Christian theological debates, there were church politics involved here as well. Much Catholic worship in the period allowed only the bread to the congregants, reserving the wine for the priest to drink on their behalf (as sloppily spilling Christ's blood again was sacrilege). This, along with the consecration itself, made the priest absolutely necessary for closing the ritual circuit. Protestants, meanwhile, liked anything that diminished the power/status of the priesthood and the ecclesiastical hierarchy as a special caste.

(Yes, there were huge debates over the status of consecrated bread that was snatched by mice or fell to the floor as crumbs.)

As with most things like this, accommodations to modern thinking have been made. A Catholic today who accepts the doctrine of transubstantiation (and many don't) believes that the bread and wine *are* the body and blood of Christ but also that Christ is essentially elsewhere and cannot be harmed by mistreating the physical items.

[Punisher]

It's like a replay of the events of the last supper. The night before he was crucified, Jesus sat at a table with his disciples and shared bread and wine with them, stating that they were his own body and blood. It's all symbolism for Jesus giving his own body and blood as sacrifice in exchange for forgiveness of the sins of the world.

So when did someone in the Catholic church decide that a symbolic gesture should actually be "transubstantiation," in which bread and wine are literally converted into the flesh and blood of Jesus? I don't know the answer to that, but I agree that it's extremely (and pointlessly) unusual.

For what it's worth, apparently transubstantiated flesh and blood still taste exactly like bread and wine...or at least they did before I gave up going to church.

Or everyone is wrong and flesh and blood doesn't taste like chicken.

[Holman]

(The place of the physical body in late-Antiquity and medieval Christianity involves some profoundly weird and different thinking from our own.)

Here's a wild example of a medieval thought-experiment about the physical body and the resurrection.

Spoiler:

There were medieval scholars who actually debated this sort of thing:

Suppose a woman, having reached puberty, embarked upon a policy of eating only human fetuses(!). After she becomes pregnant and gives birth, the child somehow proceeds to eat nothing but human fetuses until their own death.

What happens at the resurrection, when all of the bodies of the dead are brought back to life? Since this child's entire physical body was built of matter taken from other human bodies, do they themselves even have a body that can be resurrected?

Physicality in the relation of body and soul was taken very seriously in this period. They were not so naive as to believe that any disease was a sign of divine punishment, but they definitely did believe that the body was a participant in one's relationship to God.

I don't think many Christians in the modern world think quite this way. Few worry that donating their organs at death will leave them crippled in the afterlife, or that being cremated will leave them without a resurrected body at all.

[Jaymann]

Only if you are a fan of Pascal's Wager.

If you are, try playin' it safer,
drink the wine and chew the wafer.

[rob]

Wow. I still read OO with some regularity, but I'm just now noticing that my post was bumped, albeit by a bot. Cool.

Wife and I are still happily married, by the way.

[Unagi]

Wow. I still read OO with some regularity, but I'm just now noticing that my post was bumped, albeit by a bot. Cool.

Wife and I are still happily married, by the way.

mazel tov !