Re: [conculture] Digest Number 360
|From:||Padraic Brown <pbrown@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, June 8, 2000, 16:44|
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Adrian Morgan wrote:
>In addition, I was told an anecdote by an ex-alcholic, who
>still felt in his conscience that he was not yet recovered.
>He went to a church and refused an alcoholic communion, and
>got given absolute hell for it.
That doesn't make sense at all! Whoever gave him hell for
_not_ taking wine is a real bastard. On top of not knowing
that any communicant can take one the other or both.
Now, if your friend went in there and _demanded_ a nonalchoholic
Communion; then he was the bastard.
>That is a very sad story
>about people taking things far too seriously. So there are
>at least two reasons why communion should be non-alcoholic,
>or at least have a non-alcholic option.
The nonalchololic alternative is the bread/body. It contains
the compleat RDA of spiritual nutrients for the communicant
that eats it. (As promulgated by the RCC, etc.)