Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 16

= February 16 =

Sunday school, Confirmation class, Catechumenate, Bible Study, Small Groups, Devotionals
I always get these terms mixed up, because Christians tend to use them to express the same thing - a place where Christians congregate and study the doctrines of their own denomination, the scriptures, and maybe a bit of relevant information from local everyday life. Are there any differences, and if so, what are the differences? How are they different structurally (that is, having a prayer at the beginning or the end or at both the beginning and end)? I notice that some churches have daycare programs. Do children begin learning about the Christian faith right in daycare? How long is each of the above things - Sunday school, Confirmation class, Catechumenate, Bible Study, Small Groups, Devotionals? Are there any overlaps between the terms? Can the baptized individual refuse to be confirmed, or is the confirmation necessary as finishing-up of the original baptism? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They all involve similar things with lots of overlap- the precise definitions of each will vary by church, denomination, community, etc. Each has their own jargon. But some simple differences- confirmation class is for people who will soon be receiving confirmation. Catechumanate is probably similar, for someone (the Catechumen) anticipating some particular milestone. Sunday school happens on Sunday. Bible study involves studying the Bible, which is usually a part of all the others. As for baptism and confirmation, of course baptized people can refuse to be confirmed- anybody can refuse any of that stuff. Many denominations and communities (typically ones which exclusively practice adult baptism) don't have confirmation at all. Staecker (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You still did not describe the differences. You merely defined them. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What I said describes part of what is distinctive about each. Sunday school is only on sundays, the others can be on any day. So that's one difference. Staecker (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I still like RomanSpa's in-depth answer. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Summary of Typical Church of England Meanings/Practices (based on my own experience):
 * Sunday School: Children attend only part (generally the first 40% or so) of the normal Sunday morning service. At an appropriate point (typically during the singing of the second or third hymn) children leave the service for some other room or building (generally the church hall), along with a couple of competent adults (the "Sunday School teachers"). Until the adult service is finished, the children are instructed in aspects of the Bible or doctrine, or are given history lessons about famous Christians. If you attend sufficient of these lessons during a year, you receive a small prize (generally a book of Bible stories, or another Bible to add to your family's collection). As well as serving an educational purpose, Sunday School keeps children out of the more adult aspects of the Sunday service, such as sermons on adult themes (i.e. sex) and Holy Communion (which is more or less limited to particular congregants, depending on religious denomination).
 * Confirmation Class: Attended by young people in the run-up to their Confirmation. Depending on the denomination of Christianity, these may attract people from ages 5-6 up to 50-60. (A good rule of thumb seems to be that the lower the church (that is, the more "protestant"), the higher the age at which one starts taking communion.) In the C of E these classes are generally taken somewhere in your mid-teens, and you probably have to sit through a course of about 15-20 hours before you can be confirmed. Classes last about an hour, and generally take place once a week, typically on weekday evenings or at a convenient time during the weekend, and are usually taught by the clergy of the church you attend, possibly with additional instruction being provided by visiting clergy from other nearby churches. Classes generally cover instruction in all aspects of doctrine, and you only get confirmed if the teacher(s) are convinced that you're serious in your belief in the doctrines of your denomination. In effect, at Confirmation you "confirm" that you are Christian, following your baptism as an infant, when your parents and godparents affirmed that you were a Christian on your behalf. You don't have to be confirmed following your baptism as a baby; this simply means that you aren't a full member of the church (though you're probably still welcome at the services, if you can be bothered to turn up). If you like, Confirmation is when you become a fully-paid-up member of the club and agree to obey its rules; up till that time, you got to use the facilities for free because your parents were members. And this takes us on to...
 * Catechumenate: If you weren't baptised as a child, you've never been any kind of member of the Church. To get to be a member as an adult, therefore, you have to catch up on all the stuff that you missed during Sunday School and Confirmation Classes. You become a catechumen - someone who is receiving instruction in all aspects of doctrine, with a view to being baptised as an adult, and immediately affirming (on your own behalf) that you're a Christian and immediately participating fully in all aspects of Church life. Although I don't know for sure, I imagine classes for this are similar to, but perhaps run for longer than, Confirmation Classes.
 * Saying Your Catechism: Many branches of Christianity, including the Church of England, have an explicit catechism. This is a highly ritualised set of questions and responses designed to allow the respondent to state clearly the beliefs that they hold. In previous generations in the Church of England children would have to learn these questions and responses verbatim, and a small prize was awarded (another book of Bible stories, probably) to each child able to "say his/her catechism" correctly. By the time I was growing up this had been replaced by more free-form approaches. My grandmother was still word-perfect on her catechism well into her nineties! Teaching of the catechism, either verbatim or in more general terms, is part of what happens in Sunday School.
 * Bible Study: This is exactly what it sounds like. Either on your own, or with a group of friends, you study some aspect of the Bible, generally by setting aside time each week to do so. If you're studying the Bible on your own, you might end up doing this every day, or if you're in a group it might be once or twice a week. Some denominations provide supporting reading material and notes, so as to provide that particular denomination's interpretation of particular passages. If studying in a group, you may from time to time be visited by your church's minister, but this depends on the denomination. Some denominations just let you get on with it, but other denominations are aware of the dangers posed by...
 * Small Groups: Where a small group of people meet for regular Bible study, there is a risk that strong personalities in these groups may steer them in particular ways. One significant risk is that these small groups may start inventing their own interpretations of the Bible and making up their own doctrines. At its worst this can lead to these groups breaking away in some sort of schism (for example, this is how Methodism started), but even a relatively doctrinally conservative small group can easily become a "church within a church", and this can lead to all sorts of social and doctrinal problems, or even the creation of cults or forms of religion strongly different from the church they appeared in. This sort of problem is much worse in the non-episcopal denominations, but can arise even in the Church of England: the Alpha Course began as a "small group" in the C of E, but has a great many cult-like characteristics (our article on the subject is surprisingly light on criticism; it should also be noted that the C of E has taken great pains to rein in the worst excesses of the Alpha Course).
 * Private Devotions: These are simply your private prayers. Christians are encouraged to set aside time on a regular basis to pray, and these private prayers are your private devotions. Typically, you pray for whatever matters most to you, perhaps using a prayer book (such as the Book of Common Prayer) to help you find the words you need. In some denominations there is also "Private Devotional Reading", which is just Bible Study by a different name.
 * I hope this has been of some use. RomanSpa (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Were there mnemonics to help you remember the whole catechism? Did you turn it into a song? I read Martin Luther's Small Catechism (no, I'm not Lutheran) before, and it's written as if the author intends that the child or developing Christian must repeat the words verbatim. Was there any freedom in putting the catechism into your own words, or is that a modern invention? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any mnemonics. From what I can work out, in "the old days" people simply learnt their catechism verbatim. I don't imagine it's much more difficult than learning your "times tables" or chunks of poetry. I had a reasonably traditional education, and although I don't know my catechism (as I went to Sunday School after the approach had changed to the modern "in your own words" one) I have still managed to pick up a fair number of collects and psalms, can recite the books of the Bible in order, and can recite reasonably large chunks of it by heart. (I also know the common logs of many numbers to 7dp. If you learn things as a child they stay with you forever!) RomanSpa (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the olden times (of my youth), there were 150 Catholic catechism questions that you had to memorize the answers to in preparation for confirmation. The nuns would drill you in them so you didn't embarrass the parish in front of the bishop :) There were no tricks, just straight rote memorization, and woe unto you if you got even one word wrong. Enjoy yourself in Hell!  Because you would go over the questions from beginning to end, and often not reach the end, you tend to remember the early questions later on in life, and the late ones...not so much. But nearly everyone who went through the process remembers the answer to #1: "Who is God?" and can recite the only acceptable answer: "God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things, and keeps them in existence." - Nunh-huh 07:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is true elsewhere in the world, but in Canada (or at least in Ontario), we have Catholic schools that are in every other way exactly the same as the public schools, except for the religion classes. So, I never went to "Sunday school", because every day in Catholic school was like Sunday school. Preparation for communion, confession, and confirmation was part of the school curriculum. None, or almost none, of my religious education actually took place in a church. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also the case in NZ although not everyone attends and I'm not sure what options there are for those who don't but want the religious education. Perhaps not surprisingly this wasn't the case in Malaysia although Sunday school largely didn't happen at the church (considering at least 10 years, with I probably at least 30 or more people per year, there's no way that would have worked, actually  suggests the number of students is now 1300 and I expect even in my time i may have been half that), but at a nearby school they had permission to use. Although there were perenially fears they would be kicked out, which was controversial for numerous reasons including the fact that the school use to be a Catholic school (although I think it was always government aided), and when it was turned in to a normal government school I think there were undertakings that they would have the right to use it for sunday school. Anyway they eventually managed to get their own building, actually house due to planning issues. But it was never really large enough anyway and considering the area was also residential and the size of the land, I'm not sure they ever had much chance of a building suitable for 1300. Anyway sunday school was held between the two morning church services (I believe there are now 3), we weren't kicked out of church, but were expected to attend before or after (or the evening mass). In the year where confirmation was expected, we had a bunch of extra stuff to attend, and there was obvious recognition we were going to be confirmed soon, but I don't remember it being called confirmation class much, although some do use the term  . The earlier source I linked to calls it confirmation year. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You may find the articles Sunday school or Robert Raikes helpful. The original Sunday Schools were schools for the children of the working class poor, who were expected to work 6 days a week and not attend school. They were, therefore, places of education and children were taught to read and write using the Bible as the main textbook. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oral tradition
Have historians observed any oral tradition being passed down in an illiterate (or mostly illiterate) society? I mean that 1) something happened in this society, and historians know exactly what happened from reliable sources, and 2) traditions about the event continued circulating for decades or centuries. I'm curious about how quickly the oral tradition gets corrupted. --98.232.12.250 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Stories of the Franklin Expedition were passed down orally...I guess this isn't exactly right since historians didn't really know what happened, but later research and archaeology more or less matches Inuit oral history. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It sounds like your requirements require the interaction of a literate culture (and hence reliable info) meeting an illiterate one, as in the above example. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Australian Aborigines never had any writing system whatsoever, as well as many African tribes and North/South American tribes, but their stories are well documented.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  01:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mycenaean Greece was illiterate before they invaded the Minoan empire. Mycenaean Greece was literate until the Bronze Age collapse attributed to the Doric invasion. During the Greek Dark Ages, Greece was illiterate and Homer's heroic poetry of the Trojan War was passed down orally. However, the Trojan War was not historical by contemporaries. Sleigh (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Walter Ong writes great stuff on this subject. Orality and Literacy is the one I'm most familiar with. It's big with the media ecology crowd (Marshall McLuhan, Harold Innis, etc.) because it's all about how people think about things like history and tradition differently in primarily oral cultures vs. literate cultures. We have an article on Orality that may be of some help. Another place to look is early ethnography work in anthropology where literate researchers lived for extended periods with illiterate/pre-literate/non-literate groups. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

98.232.12.250 -- Attila the Hun conquered and oppressed a lot of Germans in his lifetime, but by the time of the Nibelungenlied, centuries of folklore have transformed "Etzel" into something rather different... AnonMoos (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A great deal of research has gone into the works of Homer, which, according to a well attested theory, is a compilation of generations of orally-transmitted stories, including anachronisms, where aspects of life and culture of the day of the compiler have been attributed to a more ancient period. Start with our main article on Homer, then Homeric Question and go from there. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Illiterate" != "stupid." And the fact is that we have only one area where "oral tradition" can be tested scientifically - that is by the DNA passed down in the line of Jewish Kohanim   and the apparent accuracy of the oral tradition was amazing. Once language exists, oral traditions also exist, and while minor changes get made, the gist seems to be kept intact. Even today, many people memorize works of many thousand words. Collect (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Norway no longer extradite prisoners to US
Someone told me that Norway no longer extradite prisoners to US due to the poor condition of US prisons. I'm highly skeptical of this. I managed to find one story back in 1999 that seems to partially corroborate it though. Has anyone been successfully extradited from Norway to US since said 1999 case? WinterWall (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This deal is still in effect, since 1980, at least according to List of United States extradition treaties.
 * Not sure about from Norway, but the US sent three of its prisoners to testify as material witnesses in a 2012 Norwegian case about a plot to attack Denmark. One of the defendants was Iraqi, the Norwegian swore he intended to attack the Chinese embassy instead and the one who got off lightest was an Uzbek. Courts can be very multicultural. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Najmaddin Faraj Ahmad is accused (though not necessarily wanted by) the US for financing insurgents/designated terrorists in Iraq. Norway held him for a while on threat charges, then released him last month. That could suggest a lack of cooperation, but far from conclusive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider the case of Gary McKinnon in the UK. He was accused of hacking into US military systems, arrested with a view to extradition, but after appealing and losing all the way to the ECHR and becoming a cause celebre in the British media, his extradition was blocked by the British government on human rights grounds, because he was considered likely to commit suicide. I remember (don't cite me, I know this is original research) the condition of the US prison system playing a big part in the campaign against his extradition. 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, an extradition treaty doesn't ensure extradition will happen just because the country that wants that person back demands it. There are all sorts of issues at stake and it can be a complex business to decide who gets sent overseas for trial, who gets tried for the crime under the local justice system and who walks free.  SteveBaker (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of Europe has outlawed the death penalty, and also refuse to extradite someone unless the requesting country agrees to waive the death penalty (or doesn't use it, themselves). This includes extraditions to the United States. LongHairedFop (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Are Catholics allowed to just take the flesh but not the blood of Christ?
Are Catholics allowed to just take the flesh but not the blood of Christ? Or are the accidents supposed to make the experience of taking communion unpleasant? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the second part of your question means, but the answer to the first is yes. It's perfectly fine to take just the body.  My parish didn't even offer the cup until I was in my teens. Mingmingla (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems a little halfways to me, but I guess if a priest says it's OK, it's his house as much as the Lord's. If "accident" means getting drunk, there generally isn't enough for even a child to get buzzed. It's barely a bigger drink than a rum ball. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The 'accidents' is the technical term for the outward appearance of the consecrated Host as bread, and the contents of the chalice as wine, which after they have been consecrated are held to have the 'real substance' (as distinct from accidents) of the most precious body and blood of Jesus. And if you don't like the taste of communion wine, but want to receive in both kinds, you may alternatively 'intinct' - which is to say to retain the bread until presented with the cup, and then dip the bread in the wine and eat it. It used to be the custom only to give the cup to the priests and servers; I think that it became customary (again) to offer the cup to all communicants after one of the Vatican Councils. And to answer the OP's second question: the accidents reflect the accidents of the Last Supper itself - a piece of unleavened bread from the Passover table, and a cup of wine for blessing after the meal. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And the relevant articles are Accident (philosophy) and Transubstantiation. - Lindert (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm not exactly a terrible Catholic, but no star pupil. I knew the bigger word, for what it's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In Malaysia or at least the Catholic church I went to, as of 15 or so years ago the wine still wasn't offered to anyone adult or child. It was obviously used by the priest during the consecration, and may have been taken by the priests and servers (I admit I never paid enough attention that I would know). I'm not sure whether they didn't get the message or had some other reason (alcohol can sometimes be a slightly touchy subject because of the Islamic influence and dominance but it's really not generally much of a problem for non Muslims particularly in a place like Petaling Jaya, provided you don't do anything stupid, which wouldn't really happen in a church setting, it is very heavily taxed though). From my search, it sounds like at least one Catholic church in Malaysia does offer wine to the general congregation or at least to those receiving first communion. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When I was a kid (brought up as catholic), I wasn't allowed to drink the wine. In fact nobody but the priest drunk it. I had first holy communion when I was about 10 or 11, then stopped going to church at age 12 (for two reasons: 1 was that it made no sense to me, and the 2nd was that I was too busy with school work - some of us have better things to do than live in a fantasy world).  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  01:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, and maybe not representative, but in the Russian Orthodox churches I've attended with my Russian wife, everyone who receives communion drinks the wine. Even little babies get some dabbed on their lips. It is a very small sip, and the wine is diluted from a hot kettle beforehand, so I doubt it causes "accidents" :-) 31.107.223.15 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I also stopped going rather early (maybe I am a terrible Catholic), but my priest had no problem mixing alcohol with young boys. Of course, the connotations were different then. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I know in some Catholic churches, the priest will dip the bread into the wine... so celebrants get both body and blood at the same time (I think this is called "tincture", but I may be incorrect.) Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Intinction', as I mentioned above. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This was a big issue at the Reformation, with Protestants insisting that Communion be given in both bread and wine ("two kinds" or "two species") whereas the Catholic practice at the time was for the priest to take bread and wine, but the ordinary people were only offered bread. This article, written from a Catholic viewpoint, says " the Council of Constance, in its 13th Session on 15 Jun 1415, totally rejected the need to reintroduce the practice of giving the chalice as well as the bread to the laity (Communion under both species), and prohibited it...". Meanwhile the Protestant reformers made it a central plank of their disagreements with Catholic theology. The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles said (Article 30); "The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." I don't know if the recent change in Catholic practice is a result of the Second Vatican Council or some other reform; perhaps another editor knows? Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think some catholic churches (and protestant ones) use non-alcoholic wine, so that everyone can have some.  KägeTorä - ( 影 虎 )  ( Chin Wag )  13:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, wine which contains alcohol is required by canon law in the Latin rite Catholic churches. The CofE has a similar requirement, although I believe there is a dispensation for non-alcoholic wine (which must still be made from fermented grapes) to be used for medical reasons. The use of non-alcoholic products for regular communion of the people is very much a feature of churches that are more Protestant than the Church of England. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See Communion Under Both Kinds at the Catholic Encyclopedia. Tradition varies by rite.  In the Ruthenian Catholic Church, as opposed to the Latin rite, the Host, which is bread shaped like a crouton, is dipped by the priest into the wine with a small fork, which he then uses to deposit the moistened bread in your mouth. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the saliva wiped off with a towel? Does the communicant's lips touch the fork? 140.254.136.178 (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article: Communion under both kinds which is not very enlightening on this particular point. However, [ http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/pc/sacraments/communion_under_both_species__is_it_required.htm mycatholicsource.com] says; "...introduction of Communion under both species for lay persons in the 20th century began as a result of disobedience to the Pope... As a direct result of the calculated disobedience to papal authority perpetrated by the modernists in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, the practice of Communicating under both species may be tolerated by the Church ("the Vatican reluctantly surrendered on this point due to widespread and blatant disobedience"), but only under limited circumstances and under certain conditions." Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't remember about a towel, but wouldn't be surprised. The whole process was much longer than in a Roman Catholic church.  Two lines formed on each side.  The fork was long and fine, with two tines.  There was a plate with the bread in 3/4" squares (and one never saw crust!) and a chalice.  The priest speared a Host, dunked it, and you took it with your lips.


 * I certainly didn't close down on the fork, and I doubt most people did. But before you took communion you knelt down at a kneeler with a bar (wooden railing) that separated the congregants from the altar, and made the sign of the cross.  I suspect the priest may have wiped the fork between administrations, but can't say.  I have been an atheist since 16, and the last time i received communion was in the 80's, so it may be 30-35 years since I received it that way.


 * I understand the church was renovated after my last grandparent's funeral in 2001, which I attended, without taking communion, and they perform the liturgy mostly in English, not the Ruthenian Recension at this point. I would attend mass there with my nephews and niece just to introduce them to the tradition (their Father's an Irish-Catholic atheist himself) but there's not much left.  My mother refuses to, for a combination of reasons, including my sister's death, which weakened my parents' faith, the Church's opposition to any military response to 9/11, the sex scandals, and especially the fact that the current pastor doesn't speak our Rusyn language, and is effeminate to the point of creepiness.  It's amazing the difference a few decades make. μηδείς (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Followup: I called my mother, and she says they used a spoon, not a fork. It may have changed over time, or either of us could be misremembering.  But she says she used to get to church early so as to sit in front and go first because they were supposed to drop it in, but the stari babi (old ladies) would gum the spoon, which was not wiped between congregants. This may have changed around the time of Vatican II. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to make explicit some of the content present in many of the links:
 * Catholic teaching is that any single crumb or drop contains the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ: therefore, while it is customary to refer to the former-bread as the "body" and the former-wine as the "blood", the teaching is that anyone only receiving under one 'kind' (just the former-bread or former-wine) is still receiving everything.
 * This teaching, and misunderstandings of it, is at least partly why Communion under both kinds was restricted for the laity several centuries ago. The actual history is messier than that (and interesting), but the idea that the bread becomes the body while the wine becomes the blood is specifically a heresy which was supposed to be repudiated by having the laity only receive one of them.
 * After Vatican II, the restriction was lifted (with some qualifying words about special occasions), as receiving under both kinds is supposed to be a more complete symbol of what is believed to be received, but it remains the case that nobody but an ordained minister celebrating Mass is obliged to receive both, that what the communicant receives is considered to be the same whether or not they receive under both kinds, and that actual practice is extremely variable. No priest has to offer the laity both kinds, and even parishes that regularly offer it on Sunday rarely offer it on weekdays.
 * Many Catholics who were raised, or prepared for Communion, in a parish that only offered the former-bread rarely receive the former-wine when it is offered, because it's not what they're used to or comfortable with. I am surprised that any western Catholic belongs to a parish where receiving the former-wine is so ingrained (even for the children?) that they would imagine they weren't allowed to skip it.
 * I hope this helps. I'm also confused by the idea that drinking a sip of diluted wine could be interpreted as "supposed to make the experience of taking communion unpleasant", but the world is full of people I guess. 31.54.195.124 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The thing about this entire line is it just goes to show that when they make stuff up, they have to make other stuff up to deal with questions that arise from the first stuff they made up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Disparaging comment about your beliefs and values." 31.54.195.124 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Non-denial denial." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Suggestion that disagreeing with any of my actions is disruptive." 31.54.195.124 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Keep in mind it's not just Catholicism that makes stuff up. They all do. I'm not arguing that it's all made up. It has a bssis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Defensive attempt to pretend that disdain for more groups renders my comment more helpful or useful." 31.54.195.124 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you're getting your quotes from. But here's the problem: Communion is in the Bible. "Transubstantiation" is not. The church made it up. And once you make things up, it get complicated and confusing. As for the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, did you actually want to have this conversation? I assumed this was just your generic reflex to seeing a question on Catholicism.
 * The Catholic Church has never taught Sola Scriptura, and does not claim to derive its teachings from the Bible. Rather, it claims that it is responsible for writing and compiling the New Testament in light of its already existing beliefs. To take the New Testament, and derive non-Catholic beliefs from it, from this point of view, is rather like a cargo cult. It also claims that the Church is allowed to discuss beliefs, and come up with new ways to explain and understand these beliefs: development of doctrine. Communion is in the Bible pretty much exactly as much as Transubstantiation is: both can be interpreted from the text, if you read it with that understanding, but groups reading it without that understanding are capable of coming up with completely different understandings. For example, the groups who believe the important thing is that everyone wash each other's feet regularly. To call a 2000 year process of sharing and discussing beliefs to reach a consensus on what fits with what everyone agrees was passed down to them and also logic "making it up" is like calling the entirety of mathematics "making it up", just because you don't understand why set theory matters to anyone. 31.54.195.124 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that the church has given itself the right to make stuff up. That kind of thing is what led Martin Luther to raise his complaints. And, no, there is no "transubstantiation" in the Bible, unless you're claiming that right then and there, Jesus temporarily turned Himself into the wine and unleavened bread they were sharing during the Passover Seder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And if we were discussing the beliefs of the Church of Bugs, this would be relevant. Yes, the claim is that (what with God being outside time and space) Jesus literally held his own Body and Blood in his hands at the Passover, but that gets into deeper theology than "you're just making stuff up, because it doesn't match what I think" really deserves. If we were discussing Judaism, would you complain that some Jewish beliefs don't match how Muslims interpret the Koran, what with Muslims believing that the Koran is the original document that Jews were given? Or would you expect a discussion of Jewish beliefs to be conducted within the context of what Jews themselves actually believe? I am baffled that you think this contribution would be appropriate to this discussion: how badly did we fail you when you first showed up on the desks, if you think this is how it's supposed to work? 31.54.195.124 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're the one who admitted the church makes stuff up. The problem with the OP's question is that it makes dubious assumptions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)