Planks and specks (Erin)

If Jesus gave His life for the world ("and the bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world"), why does the church deny the cup and bread to those who probably most need His life? Surely God can take care of His own body and blood.

She didn't just sail up there one Sunday. It was a funeral for a deeply loved friend. It sounds as though the general emotional climate may have confused her a little.

Did she "recognize the body" of the Lord as per 1 Corinthians? Hard to say, since I'm not inside her heart, and neither is the Catholic League.

But Erin's right here. While the Catholic Church itself sends out confused messages, how can outsiders be anything but confused?

When I was a sophomore at Providence College, I had to write a paper in Western Civ on John Henry Cardinal Newman's stance on relativism and education. I remember contrasting his with Matthew Arnold's, and made a point of quoting the guy who would be grading it - Fr. Stanley Azaro O.P. - as much as I could in my essay (NB: always a good tactic for a student - quoting a teacher's articles, or especially doctoral dissertation is a great way to score points, if you do it judiciously) - I got an A, but made the mistake of referring to the Church as "The Catholic church," with a small "c" - Father made the arch comment in the margin that that formulation had been condemned as heretical - by one of the Lateran Councils, the fourth one, if my memory serves. But maybe I'm misremembering the exact citation, since I don't think that they captilized as we do in English, in Latin back then..

In any case, Fr. Azaro schooled me. Leave it to a Dominican to set a fellow straight. I've never made that "mistake" since. I never fail to notice now, when a Catholic fails to capitalize in that fashion. They tend often to be Jesuits.. Funny how that is..

As for our anonymous friend immediately above (I suspect a protestant?) referring us to 1 Corinthians - about how "those eating and drinking unworthily of the Eucharist without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on themselves" - Would you have had her drop dead at the altar? The death is explicitly a spiritual one, one that can lead to physical illness (like an upset stomach, you know?) I personally think our current spiritual malaise in the West has a lot to do with our casualness in approaching the sacraments. We've come from a Jansenist to a Pelagian extreme.

In any case, in these things justice and mercy are tantamount to the same.

Kyrie elison, Christi elison. Ostende nobis Domine misericordiam tuam: et salutare tuum da nobis.

Oh, she definitely should not have gone--that much is true. But the question seems to me to be whether we can so confidently judge as sinful what charity compels us, for want of other evidence, to see as only ignorant.

Gee, I would buy the story that she was simply ignorant and didn't know any better if I hadn't read this:

"I’ve become a champion of pluralism and a spirit of inclusiveness. Any religious people who purport to be Christians, or whatever faith you might be, would do everything they could to welcome others — in the case of Catholics, to welcome others the way Christ would welcome others. This is a perfect example of WWJD. Would Jesus have said, “No you don’t, Sally Quinn. You’re not going to get away with this one!”"

When my wife's aunt died I was probably the only person in the church who was not now nor had ever been Catholic and I certainly did not intend to take communion. It would have simply been bad manners (after all, no one was asking to see membership cards or anything). But on the program they gave out there was the last page, which was dedicated to trying to explain that communion was only for the Catholics and how they really weren't trying to offend anyone but it really was only for Catholics and please don't be offended...

It was really very funny reading that confused mess and seeing the knots they had tied themselves into trying not to be offensive but managing to be really offensive, to my wife of all people! She was very upset by it which was funny because I, who was not then nor had ever been Catholic was not bothered in the least.

I was just wishing that they would shut up and bury the damned woman!

I've twice been present at religious services where communion was offered. Not being religious I had no temptation in either case to take communion. Nor did I feel they were being intolerant for saying I should not take it.

So what I find a odd about this event was that she wanted to do it.

Reaganite, I'm not being especially kind, just Catholic. Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 2478:

"2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

"Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."

I would be wrong to tell Sally Quinn that what she did was fine; I don't say that. But I would be equally wrong to impute bad motives to her action when the plausible motives of confusion, ignorance, and a very mixed-up (but at root, loving) desire to honor her Catholic friend at his funeral is a viable alternative to narcissism or self-absorbed carelessness. Nothing I've read that Quinn has written makes the motive of ignorance implausible--in fact, she strikes me as being the sort of hyper-emotive illogical thinker who seldom has a clue about the objective reality of things, removed from how she feels about them. This doesn't necessarily imply narcissism--it is, alas, an all-too-common characteristic of many writers of my gender.

I have been at services in the Catholic Catheral in Baltimore (inclduding the funeral of one my son's godfather) in which everyone, including the unbaptized, was invited to receive Communion.

If the Church wants to tighten the discipline about who is allowed to recieve Communion, it has to do so gently.

Anyone who has been a parent, teacher, or scout leader leader knows it is alway a lot easier to loosen disciple than to tighten it once it has been loosened.

Regarding Sally Quinn, I will also be praying for the woman.

When her appointment (as a co-editor of the religion blog) was announced a year or so ago, it became clear to readers like me that she was a person seeming to seek the truth. Like most Americans who follow journalists and journalism I was aware of her background and, yes, notoriety.

And so, yes, she made a "boo boo" and the Catholic League called her out on it. They did their job and I applaud them for it. However, the rest of us should pray for Sally Quinn and pray that she finds rest in the arms of God.

Well, if Tim Russert was Ms. Quinn's instructor about the Catholic faith and the Eucharist, then I can understand why she had no problem taking communion at his funeral:

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/06/tim_russert.html

I quizzed him in the interview about his faith, particularly about the meaning of communion.

“Well, in the Catholic Church,” he said, “we’re going to get very technical here, transubstantiation means it’s the body and blood of Christ…But to me, it’s an acceptance of Christ into your life and you try to do the best that you can ... I’ve never been one who walks around with a stamp that says, 'I am a Catholic, come follow me, join my faith!' That’s not my role in life.”

After the interview he called his friend and my co-moderator of “On Faith”, Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham. “Jeez”, Tim told Meacham. “She was tough. She asked me about transubstantiation and she really got into it.”

Tim and Jon both knew that I had been an atheist most of my life. Over the years, Tim particularly loved sparring about religion with “Miss Sal,” as he called me....

Last Wednesday at Tim's funeral mass at Trinity Church in Georgetown (Jack Kennedy's church), communion was offered. I had only taken communion once in my life, at an evangelical church. It was soon after I had started "On Faith" and I wanted to see what it was like. Oddly I had a slightly nauseated sensation after I took it, knowing that in some way it represented the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Last Wednesday I was determined to take it for Tim, transubstantiation notwithstanding. I'm so glad I did. It made me feel closer to him. And it was worth it just to imagine how he would have loved it. After I began "On Faith," Tim started calling me "Sister Sal" instead of "Miss Sal."

When I interviewed him last year I asked him what the divine is to him. He didn't hesitate. "A sense of being a complete human being," he said, "living, caring, understanding, mindful, respectful and appreciative of others for all their strengths and all their faults, including my own."

Lutherans in my circles (outside the ELCA) also believe that the Sacrament is indeed the very Body and Blood of Christ. Because of the possibility of unworthy partaking - - occurring when people of other confessions of faith do not discern that the Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ - - pastors may announce to the congregation, justbefore the service begins, what we believe, and kindly ask guests of other beliefs not to partake. My experience is that such visitors generally understand and do not partake.

The pastor is a steward of the Mysteries (1 Corinthians 4:1; of course, in churches that do not recognize the Sacraments as Mysteries this passage will be understood differently). He must exercise the duties of his office including that of making the distinction between people just noted. The Church's teaching and the duty of the pastor must not be trumped by someone's desire for an emotional experience of "closeness" or something. No one is saying that the Baptist who is advised not to partake is not a Christian, a member of Christ, etc. But if you believe in the inspiration of Scripture, you mustn't set Scripture against Scripture and argue that "love" etc. requires that the Church set aside this teaching from its own pages, that only those who discern the Body and Blood of Christ, and who confess the same faith, should partake.

Werner Elert's book Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries is helpful on this topic.

As for the Lord's Supper in non-sacramental churches, I think Lutherans would agree that it is what they say it is. It is a commemorative and devotional occasion and is not the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore it makes sense that these churches should invite anyone who wishes to commemorate Christ's giving of Himself and who wishes to strengthen his devotion to Christ, to participate. But it is uncharitable to chatrge sacramental Christians with un-charity because their convictions about what Christ instituted, and therefore their practices, are different.

I don't know about 'outside the ELCA', but that that is at least the practice in some of the ultra conservative synods, like the LCMS, or WELS. (Not that I'd call that representative of the average Lutheran..)

Though the one I grew up in called it 'consubstantiation' and I spent three years in confirmation classes to try and figure out the difference between that and TRANsubstatiation, they have similar rules about who can have communion.

Karen Brown: Though the one I grew up in called it 'consubstantiation' and I spent three years in confirmation classes to try and figure out the difference between that and TRANsubstatiation, they have similar rules about who can have communion.

Consubstantiation: it looks like bread and wine and it really is bread and wine but also really is the body and blood of Christ, i.e. they coexist.

Transsubstantiation: it looks like bread and wine but isn't. It is really the body and blood of Christ.

I seem to remember that Cardinal Ratzinger made mention of a measure of agreement between RC's and Lutherans achieved at some conference several years back. Still not complete agreement but I think the RC's now tend to downplay the Aristotelian and Scholastic substance/accidents theory. In any event, there is probably far more agreement on the nature of the Eucharist, than on allowing women to confect it.

Incidentally, the Greeks, inveterate definers by nature, do not use either term exclusively. The simple term is "metaballein", to change. At one point they used "metousiosis", a calque on "transubstantiation"; but these terms are not explanations, merely descriptive of the reality that the Eucharist is Christ's body and blood and not mere symbols. In fact, they insist on no dogmatic term at all, preferring to leave the undefinable undefined, the incomprehensible uncomprehended.

Thank you Erin for citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I'm surprised that there was some disagreement on the thread as to how much charity somebody like Sally Quinn "deserves" from the faithful given that she is such a sinner and possibly a narcissist.

The smear of Fr. Martin's possible motivations for giving a patient, charitable, yet at the same time strong rebuke of Ms. Quinn's actions really says a lot: as if only a man looking to suck up to the rich and powerful would act like a Christian in correcting others.

Some of the comentators here are so well catechized you would think they would know that none of us is worthy of the mercy Christ has given us and so all of us should be humble and give the other as much charitable consideration as possible, with the goal of giving much more charity we can give, not how much is required.

Fr. Martin is a much more effective spokesperson for the faith than Bill Donohue. He comes across so rabid that it embarrasses me that he is believed to represent Catholicism.

Karen at 10:22, you wrote, "I don't know about 'outside the ELCA', but that that is at least the practice in some of the ultra conservative synods, like the LCMS, or WELS. (Not that I'd call that representative of the average Lutheran..)"

My understanding is that the ELCA is in fellowship with churches that do not hold to the doctrine of the Sacrament that is expressed in the Lutheran Confessions. I don't know if the typical ELCA church discourages any baptized person from partaking; I'm not sure that some ELCA congregations would limit their invitation to partake to the baptized. Perhaps someone with knowledge of ELCA policies would like to comment.

I am a convert to Confessional Lutheranism. I became interested in the conservative Lutheran church after growing up in an evangelical milieu. Many years ago, the pastor of the LCMS church I was attending regularly by then visited me. I was not a communicant. He kindly asked me about my then-beliefs (which were vague), and advised me that, at that time, I should not partake. Eventually I did study doctrine and become a Lutheran, and something like 15 years after the time I had been attending the church where he was pastor, tracked down his address and wrote to him to thank him for his faithfulness. I am grateful that he held to the official policy of the LCMS and, like a true pastor and steward of the Mysteries, told me that I should not partake at that time. I imagine that such faithful pastors get a lot of disapproval when they do not give Communion to visiting relatives of church members and so on. Those who understand the historic practice of the Christian church in closely connecting agreement in doctrine with the Real Presence and with sacramental fellowship, should consider commending their pastors who are faithful.

...since judging other people is so much fun, a sport obviously being much appreciated on this thread.

Exhibit A.

"...since judging other people is so much fun, a sport obviously being much appreciated on this thread.

Exhibit A."

What, is this some type of rhetoricl Moebius strip here?

"I would venture a guess that 90% or more of the people who regularly blog here are more knowledgeable than Sally Quinn about religion. She should be fired as co-editor of the "On Faith" blog ... so that the journalists among you can get in line to apply for her job."RINYC

TR: This might be a bit unrealistic. From what I can tell national-level journalists are not exactly a religious group of people. Or especially informed on the matter. (Local journalists in many "flyover states" might be a different matter) Also the "on religion" segments in newspapers I believe are generally seen as something they give to lesser journalists.

And on the Homicide quote, I feel I should say I just wanted to quote "Homicide" as I like the show. I'm not necessarily meaning to be as condemnatory as the character named. Still this woman was apparently not ignorant or confused. I think calling her diabolical and calumnous is a bit overboard, but it does sound like she was doing something even she considered incorrect so she could "understand Tim better." If one of Russert's male friends decided to french-kiss Maureen Orth, Russert's widow, so he could "understand better what it's like to be Tim" it would be a vaguely analogous act of idiocy. Although I don't know if people would be as charitable.

Thomas R: I think calling her diabolical and calumnous is a bit overboard ...

Sure, the whole comment was designed to be overboard. That's what satire is. I certainly will never try to out-Donohue Donohue.

But to be precise, I did not call her diabolical! I wrote that she was blinded by diabolical hubris. In Greek tragedy, it is hubris and the just retribution of Nemesis that causes the fall (the Fall?) of the protagonist. Oppose the gods and you will fall. In Christianity it is the hubris of Eve, incited by the Devil in form of serpent, that induces the Fall. The consequences are the agonizing pain of childbirth for all of Eve's mortal daughters.

I will pass over your bathetic comment on "French kiss" except to note that the French have perfected many styles of kiss not limited to the snog the English consider a Gallic idiosyncrasy.

At my father's funeral (he was Catholic; I'm Jewish; long story), I left all the liturgical planning to my aunt the nun, except for the music, which (having been a professional chorister) I felt competent to deal with. I was asked to speak, and did; I did not take communion, and knew that my father would have approved of my choices in participation. But it's always a tightrope kind of situation, even at a funeral for a non-family member. I don't blame Quinn for her choices, but I'm not sure she ought to be doing a religion blog.