Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 December 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 21

Serving bread and wine at Catholic Masses during Communion

When I have witnessed a Roman Catholic Mass (here in the United States), I would say that 99.99% of the time, the priest consumes his host and then offers a host to the congregants receiving Communion; however, when it comes to drinking the wine, the priest will do so, but he does not offer any sips of wine to the congregants. (There has been a rare occasion -- here or there -- where I have actually seen the wine being offered to all of the congregants. In fact, I think that I have seen this exactly once.) So, my question is: why is this? Isn't the "blood of Christ" (the sipping of the wine) just as critical to the Catholic beliefs of Communion as is the "body of Christ" (the consuming of the host)? Why do they "skip over" this important step? Is it a financial reason? A legal one? A practical one? It seems odd. Also, when a little kid (usually in first grade or second grade) receives the First Holy Communion, would a Church legally be allowed to offer the kid a sip of wine as part of the ceremony? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9153:6944:89B5:F0A2 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You'll find some info at Communion under both kinds#Roman Catholicism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

1) This is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the topic. It is dated, as it is early 20th century, but gives the background. Wikipedia has an article on Communion under both kinds. Here is a Vatican article on the topic, and here is a statement by the American bishops on how it is supposed to work.

To summarise: the priest(s) celebrating the Mass (at the altar) is supposed to receive under both kinds (that means under the form of bread and wine), because that is part of making sure the Mass is actually taking place in the way it should. Everyone else, if they're receiving Communion, can receive either one or both: it doesn't make a difference from a 'real' spiritual point of view, because a single drop or a single crumb is believed to contain the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The benefit of people other than the celebrating priest receiving both is that it "makes the sign more complete": that is, it helps people see/imagine more easily the whole Body and Blood of Christ being offered.

For centuries, people other than the celebrating priest were not offered both kinds, and in fact were often forbidden from being offered it. The reasons for this are more complicated than the Wikipedia article make it sound. Certainly, an awareness of the counter reformation will help with understanding this, but we're not just looking at the hierarchy imposing these rules from above. You have to remember that some rules in the Catholic Church were brought in because people were so afraid of messing up that they weren't receiving Sacraments. Confession being offered in its modern form of a private Confession that the priest must on no account reveal was a reaction to people delaying Baptism until they were dying: the rule that everyone must receive Communion at least once a year was a reaction to people constantly thinking they were not prepared to receive and being afraid of being disrespectful by receiving. The offering of the chalice seems to have been a combination of priests and laity being afraid of treating it without complete respect (what if it spills?!), but it being made a rule was a reaction to people who saw this new normal practice (which gradually developed over centuries) and responded by not only offering both kinds but insisting that everyone had to receive under both kinds, or they were missing out on something important. That crossed the line into heresy, which is why the ruling was not only that nobody missed out by receiving under only one kind, but that everywhere should only offer one kind: to avoid people thinking the heresy was Church teaching.

2) Children often sip from the chalice, yes. It is more often offered at special occasions, and first Communions can be that, but obviously this varies by place. The chalice is offered more often than not around here, on Sundays anyway, and not everyone chooses to receive from it every time. Children are a little less likely than adults, but they still do: most countries, even if children that age are usually forbidden from drinking even under parental supervision, include some exception for reasonable religious practice. We're talking a tiny sip here.

94.9.163.213 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A relevant issue is the doctrine of the Real Presence. If the priest's words of "Hoc est corpus meum" literally transform bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, making it appropriate and important to exhibit and give worship due only to God himself to elements of the Sacrament that weren't consumed by parishioners, think how thoroughly debasing it is to spill some of Christ's blood. It's noted by 94.9.163.213, but I didn't see anything of this issue in the Communion under both kinds article. Your point about "just as critical" was taken by the earliest Protestants, who argued that it was a high-visibility example of the Church's corruption; that's why the use of both bread and wine (or grape juice in alcohol-unfriendly churches) is universal in Protestantism, and why when I spilled some while taking the sacrament in my church several years ago, it was merely considered to be a matter of using a napkin to clean up a miniature mess. Final note — aside from "communion under both kinds", another term is "communion under both species"; this term is used by the Library of Congress Classification for library books and resources, for example. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Some perfunctory questions here. (1) How exactly do they offer the sip to each congregant? Do they "wipe it clean" after each individual drinks? (2) When the chalice runs out of wine, what happens? Does someone (an altar boy or whoever) come up to the priest and "refill" the chalice from a bigger bottle/jug with more wine? (3) What is the status of grape juice? They can/cannot offer it in lieu? And does that "count" as wine? Thanks. 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For Roman Catholics, grape juice is not an option. It must be grape wine under canon law. Interestingly, it can be white or red. There's a sort of a loophole allowing the use of partially fermented grape juice ("mustum"), as a low- but not non-alcoholic alternative. Similarly, the bread must be wheaten; there is no gluten-free alternative. As to [1], some places (but not Catholic churches) use disposable dixie cups for each individual serving. But more often, it's a communal chalice wiped between sips. Not that that does much for sanitation. The actual risk of contagion from sipping at the chalice is, however, rather low. There have been some actual studies (search for "Anne Lagrange Loving" or click here :) - Nunh-huh 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

1) Someone stands with a chalice, and hands it over for sips (never moving their hands far away) to people who come up for it. The place they drank from is wiped with a cloth (a special cloth that is treated in a special way afterwards) and the chalice rotated for the next person so that it has time go dry by the time it comes around to the same place again.

2) When the chalice runs out, that's it: no more. Usually, there is a little left by the end (priests get good at estimating before they start) and that remainder must be drunk by the person holding the chalice, and then rinsed with water that is also drunk. If it runs out, the person holding the chalice turns to face away and everyone knows not to go up for it. It is not considered to be wine any more, so could not be topped up with wine. Consuming it is, where possible, considered the most respectful way to dispose of the Eucharist.

3) Grape juice is not permitted because it is not wine, is not what Jesus used, and does not carry the connotations of wine. The Church actually says that if it is not wine made from grape, the Eucharist does not take place: there is no change into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. But if you are not a priest, you do not need to receive from the chalice at all to receive the full Graces, so nobody has to drink wine if they cannot. 94.9.163.213 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

On the contagion issue, see our Oligodynamic effect article; a silver chalice is safer to use than chalices made of other metals, because silver self-sterilises. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Over a course of hours, yes, but a chalice is drunk from every few seconds. Even with the rotation, it's only a minute or two until it comes back around. Smurrayinchester 10:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Another thought: so is it true that the Church would then need two people (priests or deacons or whatever), one to dispense the host and another for the wine? A single priest cannot do both, correct? (In other words, the single priest gives a host, then wine to the first person; then repeats for the second person; and so forth.) 2602:252:D13:6D70:9D55:2706:817F:DC85 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose they could have one person give both, but I haven't seen it. Besides bishops, priests and deacons (and acolytes), lay people called "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at Mass" may be part of the "sufficient number of ministers of Holy Communion so that it may be distributed in a reverent and orderly manner." [1] Rmhermen (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Temple of Music

The article states that the aforementioned building (as well as most other buildings used in the Pan-American Exposition) were demolished after March of 1902 (the exposition took place in 1901). The question: why were the buildings demolished in the first place? Neither article gives information on why the buildings were demolished. Given what happened at the aforementioned building, I'm surprised there wasn't some sort of movement for it to have been preserved in some manner, if only to serve as a theater for events in Buffalo or as a McKinley memorial (today, the site is just an avenue with houses, with only a boulder plaque marking what used to be on the site). Interestingly, there was a movement to save one of the other structures from the exposition, the Electric Tower, but the move failed due to lack of funds. This page suggests that a similar movement to save the Temple existed, but also failed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a reference for you, but I strongly suspect that it was only designed as a temporary structure and would have needed considerable work to make it permanent. The elaborate buildings thrown up for these events were nearly always demolished afterwards. Two exceptions spring to mind, the the Crystal Palace which was dismantled and moved across London onto proper foundations after the Great Exhibition of 1851; also the Eiffel Tower which was built for the Exposition Universelle of 1889,and was only saved because it turned out to be a useful radio mast. Alansplodge (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Also in Paris, by contrast, the Grand Palais and Petit Palais (1900 Exposition) and Palais de Chaillot (1937 Exposition) were always intended to be permanent. Compare also Olympic Parks, which typically contain a mix of permanet "legacy" works and temporary structures dismantled after the Games. jnestorius^(talk) 20:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It was, as Alansplodge writes, always intended to be a temporary structure. It was built with a framework of wood and cast-iron, but the facade consisted of plaster of paris on a jute cloth underpinning. The lower parts may have had some concrete added for strength. "Nowhere more fitting than in the Temple of Music by the Tower of Light between the Fountain of Abundance and the Court of Lilies at the great Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo" :) - Nunh-huh 20:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Police training

In many terrible incidents of shootings across the world, police end up shooting the shooter and killing them but will they always try to make an arrest first such as by giving them the opportunity to surrender or tackling them to the ground or do they just go in straight for a deadly shot without thought? What if they shoot a victim or hostage by accident? 2A02:C7D:B91D:8000:2946:E9DC:EA34:D4A2 (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No, they will only try to arrest the shooter or give him a chance to surrender if they can do this without substantial risk to themselves and to bystanders. Protecting lives is considered more important than treating dangerous suspects fairly. Whether it is acceptable to risk other lives by shooting the suspect is a decision that has to be made on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils. - Lindert (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, in many countries, police will usually go substantial lengths and policemen will take substantial personal risks to de-escalate situations and get shooters to stand down and surrender. In the UK, most policemen don't even carry weapons. Of course, the overall risk may be more acceptable in these countries because shootings are very rare in the first place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Aside from everything else, going in straight for a deadly shot without thought is risky to the police: convincing the guy to surrender is a lot safer, because you might not need to go in at all. If he doesn't have hostages, it's possible to wait it out if you're the police: if there's no way in or out, the guy's bound to run out of food (and you could get the water company to cut off water to the house), while you can be supplied indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, practical matters also figure in. The same guy who they would just shoot dead, if out in the open, they may negotiate with, if he is well barricaded. Another practical matter is that if they can't kill the guy quickly, then the press may show up, and at that point they need to be careful to avoid any obviously unjustified killings, as the media will broadcast those and they will get into trouble. (It's a lot easier to lose or erase their own video than the media's.) StuRat (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This questions, and the answers below, are pretty much asking for, and providing opinions. Abaget (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See Raoul Moat, particularly 2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt#IPCC_investigation_and_inquest for an example of police officers in the UK, well supported by plenty of armed officers, opting to try to Taser a suspect so that he cannot harm himself or anyone else before they arrest him. They were unsuccessful. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pitman Tomb/Mausoleum at Mount Auburn Cemetery

Can anybody find reliable non-self published sources, maybe even a primary source newspaper, about the Pitman Tomb/Mausoleum at Mount Auburn Cemetery? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Antietam and Battle of Sharpsburg

So I have a gravestone that talks about a solider fighting in the Battle of Antietam and the Battle of Sharpsburg. But they are just two names for the same battle. What may explain this redundancy? Was there a Battle of Sharpsburg that was distinct from Antietam?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you give us the exact text of the stone? (Minus the name, if necessary.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The person is Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman, but the question is not specifically about him. But as to why someone would mention Antietam and Sharpsburg side by side as if they were distinct battles:--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A member of Co. H, 22nd Regiment
Mass. Vols., was with his Regiment in the
battles of South Mountain, Antietam and
Sharpsburg. Was taken prisoner by Stuart's
cavalry on the march to Fredricksburg;
Imprisoned in Libby Prison, paroled and
sent to Camp Parole, Annapolis, and died in
camp of pneumonia.

Not really my field, but I can't find anything that suggests there were two different events. Perhaps a breakdown of communication between whoever wrote the epitaph and the stonemason? Alansplodge (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it was meant to say Battle_of_Shepherdstown, which happened a few days after the other battle. RudolfRed (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

He did fight in Battle of Shepherdstown.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

One possibility is that whoever came up with the text for the stone didn't know that they were the same battle. If they got info saying he fought at Antietam from one source, and another source said he fought at Sharpsburg, he wouldn't automatically think to consult an expert and ask if those were distinct battles. So, if he didn't already know it, and nobody (like the stone-carver) corrected him, the error would stand. And after it was literally carved in stone, they might be reluctant to attempt a fix.

That is might original assumption to that it was a mistake of the sculptor. I just wasn't clear if there was an obscure skirmish also called Sharpsburg as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, being that the victim was Hawaiian, I have to wonder if the people who were involved in making up the text were his relatives, and therefore also Hawaiian. At that time, I expect that details of the US Civil War were rather scant in Hawaii, so the locals not knowing which battles had alternate names would be perfectly understandable. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

His relatives are all basically now living in Massachusetts not Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

But where they at the time the stone was carved ? I would have expected people in Massachusetts to be more familiar with Civil War battles, at the time, although now most people in both states probably wouldn't know those were the same battle. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The naming reflects the differences between Union and Confederate practices. The Union always emphasized rivers in the naming of armies, and to some extent battles: see Army of the Potomac, Army of the Tennessee, Army of the James and so on. The Confederates were a bit more straightforward and gave names like the Army of Northern Virginia, Army of Kentucky, etc. Battlefield terminology followed the same pattern: the so-called-by-the North First Battle of Bull Run was the First Battle of Manassas in the South. Likewise, what the North called the Battle of Antietam (named for Antietam Creek), was the Battle of Sharpsburg for the south, named after the town. Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

True, but why would they list them on the stone as if they were separate battles? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pittsburg High School in Pennsylvania?

Apparently there was once a Pittsburg High School located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (For example, it was attended by one Thomas Lyttleton Lyon, Emeritus Professor of Soil Science at Cornell University.) I searched Google but I couldn't find out what happened to it. Presumably it was replaced by another High School, but I'm not sure which one. Any suggestions? Praemonitus (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

See Etymology of Pittsburgh#Spelling controversy; the post office attempted to force "burgh"s nationwide to drop the "h", and while they were successful in most places, Pittsburg(h), along with assorted Newburghs, was able to resist. Nevertheless, in the last years of the nineteenth century and the first years of the twentieth, "Pittsburg" was a common spelling. And if your source dates from that time period, it was likely to spell the high school's name "Pittsburg" even though it wasn't spelt that way when Lyon was graduated from it. Are you talking about [2] or something else? Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a slight chance, I suppose, that this is an anachronistic reference to Allegheny High School (the city of Allegheny got annexed into Pittsburgh in 1907, three years before [3] was published), with the author of your source assuming that anything "Allegheny" was being renamed. However, my best suggestion is to try to look up information from Cornell, either looking for biographical information for the class of 1891 (the much smaller class sizes of the period meant that sketches of all alumni were practical; such a thing appeared in 1908 for my alma mater, for example) or for a post-1906 collection of faculty biographies. Cornell's got an archival collection of class printed materials; you could perhaps contact them about that, or better yet, Lyon has an entry in their faculty biography files. While archival research is detailed enough that archivists can't generally do significant research for others, this is a simple enough question that you might be able to get good help. You can email their reference desk; if you go that way, be sure to pick the option for Kroch Library (Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections). Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Nyttend. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)