Adventures in RCIA - The Difference between a Mass and a Protestant Service

There are some differences between a Mass and a Protestant service. The Mass is modeled very much after the Jewish tradition, whereas Protestant churches usually, though not always, have a tradition all their own or at least much further removed from Jewish traditions.
The first thing that is different is that a Mass is called a Mass instead of a service or meeting. The word is capitalized.
Not every Protestant church uses vestments for the ministers.
Protestant churches usually do not have communion at every single service, though some do.
You can go to Mass about every day if you choose to, whereas most Protestant churches meet 1-3 times a week.
The pulpit in a Catholic church is called an ambo, but it works the same way.
Superficial differences aside,
The first thing that happens is a server, formerly called an alter boy, carries in a cross. The cross goes ahead of everything, since the Jesus' cross is how we are saved. It's the core of our faith. That goes ahead of everything.
Another server will carry a big, ornate book. It has the gospels in it. Not the whole Bible, Just the gospels, and it is held aloft as it is carried. Again. the gospel is the core of our faith.
The priest walks in last. These all comedown in a procession, like a little parade.
Some Protestant churches have a similar arrangement but most don't. Most of the tens of thousands of Protestant sects in the U.S, are pentecostal or non-denominational charismatic churches. Such churches tend to have very little ritual, and do not follow a liturgical calender, save Easter and Christmas.

Water is mixed with the blood of Christ to represent Jesus's humanity. It is not holy water, just regular water. As far as I know, there are no Protestant sects that mix the communion wine/juice with any amount of water, unless they use unfermented juice from a concentrate, which, again, I've never heard of. I would not be surprised though, to hear of it.
Some charismatic and/or non-denominational  churches do not have a set order for their service but pretty much "play it by ear" every week! I've been in those. They say they let the Holy Spirit run the service, and have free reign. I am not sure that is necessarily what is happening all the time though, I think many times it is the emotions and whims of those in the church running the service. I have no doubt the holy spirit takes advantage of this open door, but strongly doubt whether anybody is capable of hearing and discerning so well that they can truly let the Holy Ghost order the service individually and specifically each time. Also there is not always adequate accountability for the leadership. I have been fleeced pretty badly in a church like that, as well as seeing a lot of corrupt doctrine that proved to be destructive in my life and others, and more false prophesy than I can even specifically recall.
Loads upon loads of false prophecy like that is much harder to find in Catholicism. In the Catholic church, a committee of bishops and cardinals have to examine and verify a spiritual gift like prophesy or word of knowledge before the church recognizes it. It may seem like quenching the spirit, but I see wisdom in it. Some people have had "words" for people to go off of their medicine, and the individual died as a result. A pastor of a church my family went to lost a dear friend that way. Others have just made fools of themselves and God by giving words about "Problem between you and your wife will be resolved" to unbelievers visiting who were not married. My dad actually saw that happen once.
Mass is a very different thing for me, obviously, but I enjoy it.

I will discuss the actual Mass and how it runs and the meanings and roots behind everything in my ext post. Today I just wanted to do a contrast and point out some differences that might take newbies by surprise, I will remind everybody not to take communion in a Catholic church unless you have been confirmed Catholic.

Adventures in RCIA - More on the Eucharist

As I mentioned in my first post in this series, this is one of the biggest pulls for me, to the Catholic church.
Eucharist is a Greek word that means, "thanksgiving." It refers to Holy Communion.

There are a few description that Catholics use to explain the Eucharist that work very well for insiders, but will make little sense to someone who is not already Catholic.
"The Real Presence of Christ" for example. This refers to "trans-substantiation," the belief that the second person of the Trinity is present in the bread and wine. When the bread is blessed, we believe that Jesus'presence comes into the bread and wine, sort of like a vessel carrying his spiritual presence. We do not think that a chemical test would start showing human flesh and blood rather than grains and fermented fruit, though.
God is everywhere, of course, but yet if you have had any kind of encounter with God at all, you understand how God can seem to be more in some places than others at times. We believe that, spiritually Jesus is present with us in the Eucharist in a special way.
We believe this is referred to in John -6:24-69. If Jesus had been speaking metaphorically, wouldn't he have said so, for the sake of the disciples who he so loved who were offended and walked away? In RCIA last week, it was explained that this has always been a hard teaching for people, and this scripture was given to demonstrate both how upsetting it was for Jesus' first followers and how important it is to him. He came to die by torture for those people. He had just fed them all with a miracle because he cared about them (v. 5-24), if he was speaking metaphorically, don't you think he would have explained himself to those who he cared about? Having people walk away from you because they do not like what you are saying is one thing, but letting them go like that to damnation (it says they "walked no more with him") over a misunderstanding is something else.
I note that in this text, it says they told him he was crazy when he said that he was God and was before Abraham and that some in the crowd intended to kill him.
I do not find actual scriptural support for the notion that communion is supposed to be just a symbol. He said on two occasions that "This is my body, this is  my blood." Paul taught that we should examine ourselves before communion, and that it is life-threateningly dangerous to take communion when not right with God (1 Corinthians 11:27-32), because when we do that we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
I think this is because the early church was before the Catholic/Protestant division, before Constantine and long before Luther. They did not have any offense at any group within the body that they sought very hard to distance themselves from, and did not have anyone telling them it was only a symbol. They were in agreement about what they were doing, so it would have been that powerful.
If you visit a Catholic church, either do not go down for communion, or go down with your arms crossed over your chest, sort of like the traditional coffin laying position. The communion servers will give you a blessing instead of communion, because you are out of agreement in what is going an and since everyone is in such agreement about the actual habitation of the spirit of Christ resting on that host (the bread and wine); it is not safe for you to eat it. "According to your faith be it done to you." If you commune in a Protestant church, you are not in danger of dying. Nobody invited Jesus to use that bread and wine that way, it is only a symbol. go ahead and eat it, if you agree to revere what it symbolizes.
I would probably take communion in a Protestant church again, I can receive it as a symbol to recollect things by. However, I was told in RCIA that "memorial" in Judaism,like the Passover, is not just sitting around recalling something. It is reliving. It is almost like repeating but not exactly. Its not just thinking about something, it goes much farther.
The RCIA lady who taught the class last week said Eucharist was what drew her to this Church as well, and when she finished RCIA and took communion the first time, she was full on just that.
You are supposed to fast an hour before receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic church,so she was ravenous when she went up, but she was full for hours after taking it. It is only one bite worth, maybe less, of unleavened bread, but she was full the rest of the day and felt the presence of God very strongly.  I believe this happened for her because her belief was so strong. She said she actually snatched it out of the priest's hand, which was not proper decorum at all, because she was so excited about it. He forgave her and overlooked it, though.
I hope I don't do anything drastic like that...
Communion is supposed to mimic the Passover. Like the Passover Feast, it is not a mere recalling but a reliving, an actual experience of it, sort of like. The sacrifice is Jesus, present in the Eucharist and consumed just like the lamb was. The Passover also foreshadowed the coming of Jesus and his Sacrifice for us all. In the Eucharist, we relive the sacrifice of Jesus. We have our Passover Feast - every single week, and almost every day if we so choose. There are daily Masses as well as Sunday Masses.

Next time in RCIA, we will be having a walk through the Mass. I am greatly looking forward to it. I understand there is a connection between the Mass and the Catholic interpretation of Revelation. Soon I will be going through some extra things that are part of actually joining the Church, so I can also fill you in on those details when I get them.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star

On Criticisms of Catholicism - expensive buildings

High, arched ceilings. Exposed beams. Carvings. A choir loft. Statuary. Stained glass on every window. What comes to mind when you think of a Catholic church? Does this sound expensive? Like a waste of kingdom resources? Like an outward show that must be hypocritical? Something else?

Electric lights. Video walls. High ceilings, many windows. Images of clouds, or of a cross, or of weather, or of roads, or of the sun shining. Ever changing images, on the big movie screen, and contemporary music thumping from the PA system to go along with the images, or else the images go with the song. Power point presentations or short, professionally shot videos to update you on announcements for church. Sound familiar? Does your church do any of the above?
That sounds a bit expensive too.

I am currently in RCIA, which is the class you take to join the Catholic church. My last protestant church was big, They were doing a lot of good things and coming up with innovative ways to pay for it. I was pleased with it.
They also paid for a TV spot on the local station and put their services and sermons out on webcasts and post the recordings online. This led to people with all sorts of problems contacting them for advice and answers, and they started a support group for people recovering from various addictions.
Another large church in town ran a school and two daycare centers. All of these things were expensive, but productive. I have no issues with that (A.G.) church, I did not leave out of any big disagreement or bitterness whatever.

Some people who have serious issues with Catholicism - or who at least think that they do, some people have only ever heard of it through people who seek to discred it - make snide comments about how much it cost to build or maintain cathedrals. Some protestants point fingers and pass judgments, acting like or saying, "WE are not like that, we are better." I grew up exposed to such things.

When catholic churches started building cathedrals and doing stained glass, mosaics, and statuary, there were no printing presses mass producing Bibles and almost nobody could read. Nowadays we have "picture bibles" for non-literate tribes. In the middle ages, the picture bibles WERE the stained glass and the statues. The Vatican and surrounding buildings are designed to be a Bible for people who could not read. Obviously, this artwork was expensive too, so having it on the church building, which was shared with the whole community, helped get the stories and messages to everyone around it. Having little pieces of such work at home, and using the original rosary, helped people get their spirits fed at home. The original use of the rosary was recitation of the Psalms. You can look it up, if you like.

Its funny how we hear those criticisms from people who's churches have purchased expensive PA systems and musical instruments but have no one to play them, or who have video walls behind their pulpits, and every bit as high of ceilings as the cathedral down the block. None of that stuff is cheap, and it actually serves the same basic purpose. People in modern protestant churches usually do not need picture stories of the Bible, but images that "minister," or bring about prayerful or hopeful attitudes, or that evoke emotions matching the sermon or theme are very common. There is nothing wrong with this, ever. Nevertheless it costs money. In modern Catholic churches, the architecture serves the same purpose as the powerpoints and videos in so many protestant churches that I have been fortunate to visit the last several years. I also find it helps me feel connected to earlier Christians and brings the depth and size and timelessness of the family of God to the forefront. Catholic churches in ornate buildings continue to help the poor in many regions, and in many ways, to protest abortion and offer alternatives to it, to shelter the homeless and minister to the sick and the dying in local communities and across the world, just like protestant churches usually do.

Disagreeing with doctrine is one thing, slandering people is another. Please check yourself if you have been judging others.

Godspeed.

~Mother Star