Sally Quinn and Communion

HI LIB, ENDING ANOTHER THREAD WITH YOUR CUT AND PASTE IS SEE...

I attended the University of the South (Sewanee) at the same time as Jon Meacham (he was a senior and I was a freshman). One of the most enlightening experiences about attending that university was that, although it was technically a Christian institution founded by the Episcopal church, the school and the church did its best to welcome EVERYBODY. People of all faiths, nations, creeds, and preferences.

And you know what? The earth did not open up and swallow the place whole! It was far from perfect, but we were all enriched by learning about and sharing our different experiences with each other, even if we didn't agree with them.

In today's world, there are so many different groups which seem to want to prove that they are right and everyone else is wrong and should be excluded. I ask, "To what end?" The more we try to exclude, the more WE are excluded, and at the end of the day, do we really feel like we have accomplished anything?

Every major religion in the world, in its own words and in its own language, has at its heart the principle which many know as "The Golden Rule"...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. To the best of my knowledge, there is no caveat which says, "...unless the 'others' you are referring to fall into one of the following categories..."

Each religion/church/congregation/sect/etc. has their own traditions and rituals which should be respected whether or not you ascribe to that tradition. Catholic churches often state that Holy Communion is to be received by baptized Catholics only. Unless there is someone checking baptism certificates, I am fairly certain that there are more than a few non-Catholics who have received Holy Communion at a Catholic service.

Sally Quinn was attending a funeral for a friend who had died suddenly. She and everyone who attended were grieving in their own ways and seeking their own comfort in this ceremony to say goodbye. She came to that Communion rail seeking a small piece of comfort from the Almighty to let her know that Tim Russert was going to be okay and that SHE and everyone in that church was somehow also going to be okay without him.

Isn't that what Holy Communion is all about? Wasn't that the intention of the Last Supper?

Whether we are talking about who should and should not receive Communion or be ordained or be allowed to worship, the more I feel we are missing "The Point." Each time anyone on earth does something to exclude someone else or to make them feel less important, we strain or snap another thread in the fabric of Humanity. We help to push the world a little farther apart and to encourage the conflict and resentment which leads to violence, hatred, and wars.

What are we, our religious traditions, and the world gaining by drawing these dividing lines? Again, I ask, "To what end?" At the present rate, I suggest the answer is, "Our own."

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Hmmm, may if you would give some straight answers about Islam we would stop "dogging you".

Let us begin again with the following survey/poll:

Do you believe:

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

7. (a new question), that Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel, is an accurate biography of her life.

(from the book, paperback, p. 47:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

I would really like to hear what Chuck Norris has to say about all of this.

no daniel this is the same victoria that lib has been dogging since the inception of this blog-

there is another victoria who comes in on occasion- but she links her name to sher won site and her name is always in blue text

I love copying and pasting good quotes. If this is sloppy plagiairism, I apologise simply that giving credit where credit is due is the only responsibility of appreciation. The following I thought of interest...

As far
as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are

not certain;
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to

reality.

Schlick in his book on epistemology has
therefore characterised axioms very aptly as "implicit

definitions.

-Albert Einstein, GEOMETRY AND EXPERIENCE, Address to

the Prussian Academy of Sciences
in Berlin on January 27th, 1921.

Spanish proverb holds
good, which declares that honor and money are not to be

found in the
same purse--_honora y provecho no caben en un saco_.

-ON AUTHORSHIP, THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER, TRANSLATED BY T. BAILEY SAUNDERS, M.A.,

Dear CCNL

Perhaps I am wrong, but I sensing that Victoria who is currently posting is a different Victoria than the one you have in mind.

victoria, victoria, victoria,

keeping up with the thread you ask?? do a little surfing on this thread and the other threads on this topic and see. maybe we will "crossanize" you yet!!!!

and again you fail to come to grips with the flaws and errors of islam as you continue to make commentary on everything but said warmongering religion. but then again obfuscating is a general problem with muslims.

Anonymous :

As I said earlier, I dont think it is wrong for Sally Quinn to take Communion. I think all who come humbly to the table should be allowed to par-take in Christ Love. I think rituals that are in the church today hold us back from knowing the true God through Jesus Christ. So Yes, I still think the rituals are Crap. They hold us Back from knowing the True God.

We like them because deep down we like the mundane schedule of Sunday Service. We dont have to think. It's like Fast food restarant. Drive up - order take and go. But in doing that we do pay a price everytime we accept a ritual that intervenes with the Gospels. So Yes.

We dont like to think out of the Box because we are scared. I think we are scared Of God and what His Word will transform us, because as Paul says we are slaves to Death and Sin. And We like it.

So yep. Its crap......

July 14, 2008 9:56 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If rituals are crap, who bother to attend them? A guest is expected to respect the feelings of the host even in a home. So why the difficulty in following the rule in a place where the members of the faith consider its rituals sacred?

lib- do you even know what thread you're on?

the subject is communion and sally quinns' partaking of it at tim russert's funeral.

tim russert is a well known moderator of political debates and 'if it's sunday, it's meet the press'.

try to keep up, lib- you seem caught in some kind of loop-

are you okay?

As a Presbyterian minister I had a Catholic priest as a spiritual guide for several months during a seminary class. One day, after observing him officiate at communion at his church, I asked what he would have done had I taken communion. He said he would have done nothing at the time but later asked me about it. Our beliefs and understanding of communion and the elements were so different I would have had to dishonor either his beliefs or my beliefs to receive communion in the Catholic tradition. I have never forgotten that when in a Catholic service when communion was offered to those present. Consequently I wonder what Sally's understanding of Communion is and what traditions she may have dishonored, if any.

victoria, victoria, victoria,

for one who cannot even cite proper references for supporting islam, you are hardly one to critique someone's commentary.

then there is that poll/survey, you apparently cannot understand because there are capital letters in it. we have removed said capital letters in the following and again await your answers.

do you believe in:

1. in "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. that the long-dead arab did actually talk to the "pretty gabriel" in the "gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. that sunnis are superior to shiites in all aspects of life?

4. that islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between sunnis and shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. that having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. and that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

and i agree with viejita agreeing with daniel-

lib, not only was your comment NOT an improvement- it actually just demostrated your obliviousness to all conversations around you and their content- and the really forgettable one note song that you sing-

i,too, am bored with sally- if i bump someone in the laundromat- i apologize-
let alone deliberately and ineptly ingesting what is held to be sacred by some- being fully cognizant of the insult as i do it-

also- paganplace is such an interesting writer and i know she'll come back and sock it to me

i'm not trying to srep on your rights paganplace- just presenting an alternative here-

PP- "And exactly how does a religious group using the government and abuse of a pharmcist's name tag to deny emergency contraception and force me to carry a child to term constitute being 'secure in my own person?"

i dont know if you can call the morning after pill an emergency, as pregancy hasnt been determined at that point-
health and life are not in danger-
the nature of emergencies is that they are unexpected-

for someone to be surprised by the unexpected possiblity of pregancy- the next day- and they suddenly develop the knowledge (in the interim of a night to morning)that a morning after pill exists- and that they want one-

such a lack of education followed by spontaneious knoweldge seems a stretch-
so far, there is no right to morning after contraception-

i dont think you want the government litigating what one does in the bedroom-
and if one has sex, and suspects pregnancy- it isnt the government that forced them to do so- but their own free will.

impregnation is the direct consequence of a freely given decision to engage in sex-

the morning after pill, while it may free one of the inconvenience of having an abortion later-

it's refusal doesnt force one to carry a baby to term- nor can its refusal really be logically construed as governmental coercion to do so-

babies come from sex- and the morning after pill really hasnt been around long enough for scientists to demonstrate its long term effects on women-

"They trespassed on the inalienable rights of man’s Right to Life guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights that every citizen has a right “to be secure in their own person.”"

And exactly how does a religious group using the government and abuse of a pharmcist's name tag to deny emergency contraception and force me to carry a child to term constitute being 'secure in my own person?'

As I said earlier, I dont think it is wrong for Sally Quinn to take Communion. I think all who come humbly to the table should be allowed to par-take in Christ Love. I think rituals that are in the church today hold us back from knowing the true God through Jesus Christ. So Yes, I still think the rituals are Crap. They hold us Back from knowing the True God.

We like them because deep down we like the mundane schedule of Sunday Service. We dont have to think. It's like Fast food restarant. Drive up - order take and go. But in doing that we do pay a price everytime we accept a ritual that intervenes with the Gospels. So Yes.

We dont like to think out of the Box because we are scared. I think we are scared Of God and what His Word will transform us, because as Paul says we are slaves to Death and Sin. And We like it.

So yep. Its crap......

Viejita del oeste,

Improving on Daniel's statement:

The Catholic, Lutheran and Episcopalian Eucharist is nothing more than low calorie, sometimes stale wafers and/or inexpensive, sometimes sour wine. Tis time to leave the Dark Ages of superstition, myth, goblins and "pretty/ugly, wingie, talking, fictional thingies. Sally Quinn's action was "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" in escaping said Dark Ages.

I agree with Victoria that the columnists have been equal opportunity insulters. Monsignor Barr also makes a good point too. I hope that the WP would consider adding someone more thoughtful to lead the faith discussions in this paper.

I am a Catholic, and not one who generally follows doctrine closely or very well. However, I do sense in Quinn's piece that there is no real mea culpa, rather, her response is more representative of her lack of thoughtfulness on religious issues in general. It is true that the questions posed about Islam include LOTS of erroneous and racist assumptions about the faith tradition. On the other hand, Monsignor Barr makes a good point that somehow the beliefs of Christianity and Catholicism incur a certain level of virulent criticism from the outside and it is viewed as ok. If my "liberal" co-workers say something negative about Catholics it is okay (think of the way Catholic priests have become synonomous with child molestation), yet they would never do so about Jews or Muslims because they would be pegged as anti-semitic or racist. Similary, a rabbi in NYC conducting a bris using his mouth gets page four coverage, but every incident of sexual assault by a catholic is reported widely.

In the end, Ms. Quinn should have known better. I am a feminist, though when I travel to Arab and/or Muslim countries I am sure to be respectul of local community and faith traditions. I think to some degree "liberals" exoticize non-western faith traditions and naturalize western faith traditions to a point at which they view them differently and treat them differently. We should all be aware and act accordingly.

OK, it's all been said.

Daniel's comment, especially this:

"We all should be allowed to participate in at least some great rituals. But the Catholic church should be off limits to anyone not taking communion with complete awe and respect for its proper objective: Christ.

"My feelings toward Sally Quinn and the funeral of Tim Russert are extremely negative. I think the funeral had very little of Catholicism to it. I think it was about Tim Russert and the media in general. The communion aspect of Catholicism was removed from a worship of Christ and superimposed on the body of Tim Russert so that all taking communion were really feasting on the body of Tim Russert rather than Christ. This is probably why Sally Quinn was encouraged to take communion (prompted from within). Communion was removed from its proper objective and made secular and applied to a secular hero....There either should have been a secular event for Tim Russert or communion should have been left out of his funeral. IN GENERAL WHEN WE HAVE A FUNERAL THERE IS A TENDENCY TO CONFUSE THE BODY OF CHRIST WITH THE RECENTLY DEPARTED AND FOR THIS REASON COMMUNION SHOULD BE SEPARATE OR RISK BEING DEBASED AND CONFUSED WITH SECULAR HEROES--IN FACT JUST PERSONS IN GENERAL."

was extremely insightful and I can't imagination how anyone will improve on it.

How about we move on, maybe to a general question about respect and communal values.
Respect is like a birthday present. Do we choose a gift just because we like it -- which is a well-meaning and sincere gesture -- or do we try to pick something that the recipient will like? Another analogy is to humor. Maybe I tell a joke that is offensive, or just not funny, to others. Is it their sense of humor that is faulty, and am I justified in being angry with them for not laughing, or for reporting me to the EEOC?

We are a diverse and pluralistic society, and everyone has different tolerance levels and sacred cows. A white secularist like Sally Quinn pushes a lot of buttons when she presumes to critique a Catholic ritual, particularly because she has access as a member of the Washington establishment to the bully pulpit of the Washington Post.

What other buttons do people have, and how do the rest of us steer clear of them?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANONYMOUS :
“MAGICAL”

IRT:
“Perhaps we should begin to be more concerned about having 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court?

I hope they're able to separate the magical from the mundane - for all of our sakes.”

ANS:
First, the Word of God is not magical, magical is sorcerous and portends witchcraft. God’s Word is mystical and orphic; His Natural Laws and Natural Moral Laws are exigent, and their mystery is in their Creator.

Second, how about the sakes of the over 48 million unborn that have already been legally murdered because of an amoral callous and insensitive Court? How about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalyptic Court, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, with Kennedy riding on their backs? In their decision of “Lawrence v. Texas,” these Injustices, led by Stevens, said that traditional moral values served no legitimate purpose to the State.

In addition, the Apocalyptic Justices have little if any sense of tradition. Not only did they trespass on the Right to Life, but also trampled on our “Freedom of Political Speech,” on “Eminent Domain,” the “Freedom of Religion,” and they infringed on the “Separation of Powers. We came within one unelected Justice from abolishing our inalienable “Right of Self Defense.” Worry about that.

The only real Catholics on the Court are Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Kennedy is a pseudo Catholic in name only. You cannot be pro-abortion and remain in good standing as a member of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, you cannot elevate the authority of the Supreme Court over the authority of God’s Natural and Moral Laws, as has the impervious Justice Kennedy, and then represent one’s self as Catholic.

No one remains Catholic who embraces Roe v. Wade as a “Right of Privacy.” That includes the so-called Catholics in Congress viz. House Speaker, Pelosi and Senators. Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin and Kerry. They, as Kerry, elevated civil authority over God’s authority that is embedded in the Natural and Moral Law.

In Roe v. Wade, the Apocalypse Justices redefined human nature, usurping the authority of God, and infringed on the Separation of Powers of the Congress by writing law instead of interpreting it.

They trespassed on the inalienable rights of man’s Right to Life guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights that every citizen has a right “to be secure in their own person.”

They circumscribed the Amendment Process to amend the Constitution. They quelled the voice of the people and wrote their own law.

During the last of three attempts to proscribe Partial Birth Abortion, where the child’s arms are flailing, his gasping for his first breath is heard by all, and then his body falls limp and silent, four Justices closed their eyes.

Justice Souter, Breyer, and Stevens were engaged with the ACLU plaintiffs. They were inquiring as to how far out of the birth canal was the baby before the abortionist plunged a surgical scissors into the back of this little child's skull and sucked out his brains.

The soulless Three Blind Mice, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens, were more concerned about the position of the child in the birth canal, than about the child. They were so blinded by their arrogant dispositions immersed in the law that they lost all meaning of the law.

Consequently, they ignored the Bill of Rights prefaced by the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, endowed by God with the inviolable Right to Life. In addition, they failed to see a child that was not only human, but was being murdered before their very eyes.

The Catholic Church is the conduit through which God speaks to all men. All other churches are man's attempt to speak to God, but his voice must inevitably pass through His Church for man to be heard because not all religions are equal, except in their goals and purpose.

Yes, we should be worried, not that a Justice is Catholic, but whether as a Catholic, he will part from being Catholic and fail to embrace the Natural Moral Laws, and the Inalienable Rights of man that the Church so ardently defends and that the Founding Fathers recognized and guaranteed.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

I am sure Soja will answer in the affirmative.

Now it is your turn. Do you believe,

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

To wit:

From Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel:

paperback issue, p. 47:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

it wasn't a prelude to a discussion soja-

just a simple yes or no question-

as a catholic, born into a family that has been catholic for 1,000 years- one would assume you've been taught the basics at age 7 as every catholic child has-

do you believe in the real and substantial presence of the flesh of the christ in the eucharistic host?

no dicussion necessary- yes or no

Here a beautiful account of Muslim hospitality in Sydney, Australia for Catholic pilgrims as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald:

July 11, 2008

POPE Benedict XVI may have raised the ire of the Muslim world almost two years ago when he invoked a harsh medieval description of Islam during a speech in Germany, but for almost 300 Catholic pilgrims, an Islamic school will be home during World Youth Day.

"Pope Benedict clarified his comments on Islam," said Pinad Elahmed, a teacher in charge of inter-religious activities at Malek Fahd school in Greenacre. "Anyway, no one here even thought of it when we decided to offer hospitality to the pilgrims.

"We are Muslims but we are also very committed Australians and that means living in a multicultural, multi-faith country. We want to be a role model of generosity for all Muslims.

"This is not unusual. After all, the prophet himself opened his house to Christians."

The 281 pilgrims will bunk down in the gymnasium and several classrooms. "They will basically have the run of the place," Ms Elahmed said.

Andrew West

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world-youth-day/school-of-the-prophet-welcomes-lords-flock/2008/07/10/1215658037562.html

Daniel

You were right to address the question as you did. It is your view and you have every right to it. Not even a single Catholic is of the opinion that Communion in the Catholic Church is not a holy Sacrament which should be received only by those the Catholic Church permits. So your opinion is correct. But you should not take Sally's behaviour so personal and be so upset about it. Sally did not receive Communion to spite Catholics. She was misguided but there was no malice on her part. You must believe that Jesus Himself would not hold it against her.

No you must leave it with Jesus and not take it personally. Let the matter go. It is silly to get so worked up about it.

Timothy Shriver has posted some wonderful reading on his blog. You might like to read it.

Here the suggestions I posted (you might find it useful):

Sermon on the Mount: Matthew chapters 5 -7
Jesus at Last Supper: John chapters 14-17
Epistle (letters) of James and 1 John
Psalms 23 and 139
The Book of Proverbs (OT)

Take good care of yourself
Soja

To Soja from Daniel. Thanks for kind words. I should probably learn more about the very faith I grew up in. I doubt I have been understanding correctly. This question of Quinn taking communion has been very confusing and personal for me. I probably should not have attempted to answer the question at all. Thanks again for kind words.

Daniel

You should not let guilt rule your life and let guilt keep you away from Jesus Christ or receiving Communion. A pathological guilt does not do Jesus any honour. He came to die for sinners like you and me. For that reason we should have the confidence to go to Him without any sense of shame and guilt for He alone loves us as we are, our sinful self. If you are to wait for the day when you are completely worthy of God's love with your purity, that day will never come. God loved us while we were yet sinners. That is the glory of our faith and the wonder of Jesus. Be bold and go to Jesus exactly as you are, sin and all, but with humility. That is really all He expects.

May you have the courage to go to Communion often without being paralyzed with a false sense of guilt and unworthiness. May you experience the joy of His love and forgiveness.

What do you think about Sally Quinn, a non-Catholic, going to Communion at Tim Russert's Catholic funeral?

I think communion is not something to be taken lightly. I was raised a Catholic and I always have felt guilty about taking communion. When I was a boy the guilt was because I was not sure what communion meant. Should I be taking something I do not understand? As an adult the guilt has only grown greater because now I think I do understand somewhat. For me communion is the highest honor which can be paid to the highest hero as conceived by the Catholic church. One eats the body and drinks the blood of the highest hero of the church and it is inconceivable that one would indulge in a vestige of cannibalism for anyone but a very great hero. This honor is so great it seems to me preposterous as some conceive that the church should relax and try to gain adherents by giving them communion before they understand what an honor it is. The precise opposite is the correct course unless we want communion mocked!

Communion was so awe-inspiring to me as a boy that I have never been able to really be a Catholic. As a boy I did not understand. As an adult I understand somewhat but am not certain Christ is the highest hero conceivable. Therefore I should never take communion. I am lost to the Catholic church. But I have learned much: I believe that even if a person does not take Christ to be the highest hero--and of course does not take communion--there should still be rituals for the highest heroes among us,--the heroes in a secular sense. We all should be allowed to participate in at least some great rituals. But the Catholic church should be off limits to anyone not taking communion with complete awe and respect for its proper objective: Christ.

My feelings toward Sally Quinn and the funeral of Tim Russert are extremely negative. I think the funeral had very little of Catholicism to it. I think it was about Tim Russert and the media in general. The communion aspect of Catholicism was removed from a worship of Christ and superimposed on the body of Tim Russert so that all taking communion were really feasting on the body of Tim Russert rather than Christ. This is probably why Sally Quinn was encouraged to take communion (prompted from within). Communion was removed from its proper objective and made secular and applied to a secular hero somewhat (Tim Russert no real hero). There either should have been a secular event for Tim Russert or communion should have been left out of his funeral. IN GENERAL WHEN WE HAVE A FUNERAL THERE IS A TENDENCY TO CONFUSE THE BODY OF CHRIST WITH THE RECENTLY DEPARTED AND FOR THIS REASON COMMUNION SHOULD BE SEPARATE OR RISK BEING DEBASED AND CONFUSED WITH SECULAR HEROES--IN FACT JUST PERSONS IN GENERAL.

There remains little more to be said except perhaps the most important thing: a catholic church service is the funeral of christ and when we take communion we eat the remains of christ and go with him to where he has gone. It is the most special funeral because highly mystical. A catholic service should never be confused with a regular funeral (of a regular person). A catholic funeral for a regular person should emphasize the difference between Christ and the recently departed as much as reconcile the departed to Christ. Certainly we should not have people taking communion and not certain whether they are there to eat of Christ's body or the recently departed. The more we allow anyone to take communion at a catholic funeral the more we risk that they are there to eat not of christ but the recently departed. The more communion is restricted or removed from funerals altogether the more it remains with its original objective: Christ.

Therefore, and to conclude with a logical and amused note, I am against Sally Quinn having taken communion at the Catholic funeral of Tim Russert.

Autonomous

Thank you for the essay you provided. I will not go into commenting about it, since I do not want to convert this public forum into a deep discussion.

I'm familiar with some Buddhist and some Hindu spirituality, although I have had no academic interest in them at any time. Dom Bede Griffiths dedicated much of his life in India to integrating Hinduism and Buddhist ideas into his Christian understanding. In that sense he is a pioneer, way ahead of his times. As an ex-Catholic, maybe you'd like to read his works.

Victoria, as an ex-Catholic, who attended Catholic schools and was in training to be a nun in a Franciscan convent for many years, you know Catholic dogmas much better than I, a lay person, do.

I see no sense in going into a discussion with you, a Catholic convert to Islam. I am a Catholic by choice and conviction. That should be sufficient answer for your question. A discussion why I could never be a Muslim is equally meaningless.

Pope Benedict XVI is about to land in Sydney, Australia within the next three minutes for the Catholic World Youth Day.

I welcome the Pope on behalf of all Australians!

The Pope will spend a whole week in Sydney and convert this wonderful city of mine to a spiritual paradise. The Pope has christened Australia as the "great southern land of the Holy Spirit."

I wish the Pope a safe stay and wonderful time with young Catholics from around the world!

I extend my welcome to all the Catholic guests from around the world! Thank you for coming to convert this beautiful city into a spirit filled world for the next week. May your presence and prayers bear fruit and last long after you have departed. May Australia and the young Catholics around the world experience a powerful springtime filled with the joy and power of the Holy Spirit!

Hasn't this horse beaten beaten beyond the point of death?

Auto:
When you share a long piece like that you need to break it into smaller sections. Otherwise it is hard to read.

Cutting to the chase: The Eucharist in either form is a great symbol but body and blood do not reside there. Time to stop saying God the Father was/is guilty of filicide 2000 years ago and continuing on 24/7.

sorry that was me-

no- oneholy and...

what you are describing is ubiquitarianism- whcih lutherans reject in favor of consubstantiation- (which is their long debated and drawn out consensus on the issue)

http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=U&t2=b

so, synchronistically- the answer for your question-
"Were we to strip away questions of who 'logically' and 'reasonably' ought to partake in the mysteries of faith, where might the grace of a relationship of faith lead us?"

would be- to martin luther- and the lutherans-

The Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord's Supper is common throughout Christian traditions, though the various Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions vary. Common definitions are difficult among Christians...and that non-Christians might be confused is to be expected.

The Lutheran tradition does not properly believe in either transubstantiation or consubstantiation; the Lutheran traditions confesses a "sacramental union" wherein Jesus is present in a literal way as his body and blood are in, with and under the bread and wine. Lutherans do not confess "how" this happens, but simply trust that Jesus is present and received.

It is all very illogical and irrational--and that's okay.

Perhaps it would help us to remember that Christian faith (like many religious expressions) predates the Enlightenment tradition in which we're discussing these matters.

The relationship of faith is often ontologically other than rational and logical. Faith is not limited by logic and reason, though the conventional wisdom by which we modern people view the world largely (or at least ideally) is.

Were we to strip away questions of who 'logically' and 'reasonably' ought to partake in the mysteries of faith, where might the grace of a relationship of faith lead us?

SOJA- since it is wellknown that you are a practicing catholic- i'll assume that includes you observe the sacrament(sacred obligation and requirement of all catholics) of the eucharist-(holy communion)

since we're talking on that subject- what is YOUR personal belief on transubstantiation?

do you believe in the literal (there's no allowance for any other interpretation on that subject) belief of the 'real presence' of the body of the christ in the host?

or do you fall in the consubstantiation category of the episcopalians noted before-

the catholic church hasn't changed it's position on this- are you in agreement with papal authority on this particular issue?

EDWARD ORDMAN- what a sensitive and lovely attitude- thanks for your contribution to this conversation.

good manners and consideration to others are universal concepts, aren't they?

actually lib- you kind of diminshed transubstantiation- it is a literal and not synbolic or figurative belief in the cahtolic church of the real presence of the body of the christ in the host-

episcopalians and lutherans believe in consubstantiation- (presence that is not literal in the host) NOT transubstantiation-

such belief is deemed anathema and heretical to the catholic church-

there isn't any wiggle room in this-

basically- you can call yourself a catholic if you don't believe this- but the church does not recognize not make any allowance for this idea-

so, technically- one who tries to bypass or mitigate this belief- is not a catholic any more (according to church law)

Soja - I thought you'd appreciate this modern take on the elightenment experience...you'll see some Christian references contained therein.

José le Roy

We talk a lot these days about awakening and enlightenment. In the Western world, more and more men and women are curious about their true nature. So it is more important than ever to be clear about what we mean by enlightenment.

Enlightenment or awakening is the movement from total dentification with an individual to a life centred in Emptiness. This movement is revealed through the discovery of a totally new way of seeing oneself and the world, a discovery that is called in the Eastern tradition 'the opening of the third eye'.

This awakening is often described as the egoless state. But what does the word 'ego' really mean? Words such as 'individual', 'person', 'ego' are concepts to which everyone gives their own meaning depending on their cultural and religious background. For Christians theses words have a meaning which they would not have for Buddhists. The only possibility of really clarifying the meaning of awakening is to return to the pure and simple description of the experience.

From the individual to the Void

After enlightenment, what is most remarkable is that the subject, the me is no longer visible. My first impression is to have completely disappeared from the world. When enlightenment happened, I was in my bedroom. I opened the window and what I saw threw me into a state of total astonishment. There was, as usual, the wall of the building in front, the roofs, the court, the patio-stones, but bathed in a light that was incomprehensible and sublime. This vision of the world I beheld as if for the first time. Most of all, I had vanished from the scene. No one was looking at the world ! Douglas Harding describes very precisely his own astonishment at this experience:

"It was all, quite literally, breathtaking. I seemed to have stop breathing altogether, absorbed in the Given. Here it was, this superb scene, brightly shining in the clear air, alone and unsupported, mysteriously suspended in the void, and (and this was the real miracle, the wonder and delight) utterly free of "me", unstained by any observer. Its total presence was my total absence, body and soul, lighter than air, clearer than glass, altogether released from myself, I was nowhere around."

The 'me', such I had known it before, had quite literally vanished and in its place was suddenly a seeing that came from nowhere, belonged to nobody and gazed upon the Unknown. From that time, a mystery is alive in the heart of our being: the Void. It becomes impossible to perceive the 'me', to see oneself. Enlightenment is the end of a journey, the end of a quest because the searcher no longer exists. It's exactly the same as waking up from a nightmare. Let us imagine that in a nightmare we are being pursued by a ferocious dog. The fear is so strong that we wake up suddenly in a sweat. All of a sudden, the dream is over: the dog, the chase and the dreamer, every thing has vanished without trace. We discover to our great relief that we are comfortably tucked up in the warmth of our bed. Such is enlightenment : the end of an hallucination.

This seeing, this enlightenment cannot possibly be imagined or conceived of. It can only be lived. This awareness is completely different from our everyday awareness. In the everyday awareness the individual takes as his reference point the body-mind. After awakening, this reference point has disappeared. This isappearance is totally extraordinary because, as from then, life is going to be lived on a new level and in an unknown dimension.

In reality, it is the old 'me' which disappears; the old way of living as a separate individual and located in time and space. A new 'me' , the real 'me' is unveiled. Enlightenment doesn't remove the personal sense, the feeling of existing, but this feeling of being, this 'I AM' is pure; it is no longer identified with an individual who is confronting other individuals. The 'I AM' is not relative, it is absolute; it is an unlimited presence and conscious of itself. This feeling of being alive becomes even more intense. When awakening happened, it was as if I had just been born into the world for the first time. Life before awakening is a dream, a deep coma, a death. The newly discovered 'I AM' has divine attributes. This 'I AM' is beyond time, beyond space, without limits, without size, conscious, empty, full, silent, still and bliss. God the most high is within me and I am in HIM.

So, there we have a paradox. On the one side, I see absolutely no 'me', no observer, nothing and, on the other side, I feel myself to be alive as I never felt before. So we have here a mystery. Whilst diving into the pure Void, I remain, nevertheless, myself; by grace of the pure Void, I am finally myself and this 'me' is nobody!

Free from thoughts and desires

So with enlightenment, life does not stop. What disappears is the mistake of taking oneself to be somebody, of taking oneself for ones' appearance in the mirror. My true nature (what I am) is the total opposite of what I appear to be. In this Emptiness, thoughts and desires do not cease to be. My mind continues to function and life goes on.

But I no longer see thoughts arising from a solid thing that we call a head, but arising from the empty space. The wonderful sense of freedom as a result of enlightenment comes from the free Presence that appeared and which makes me independent from thoughts. Before enlightenment, what I took to be my 'me' was the continual stream of thoughts which produces stress and suffering. Now I see that thoughts arrive from the Void. I no longer identify myself with them, I have the possibility of being behind them. They no longer define me. If it happens that I identify with thoughts and consequently suffer, I now know how to extricate myself from them to find again the place of freedom which is without thoughts and silent. In the deepest centre of the 'me', there is complete and total silence. Of this silence, one can say nothing because it is not an experience; it is non-duality. But it is the background, unknown and transcendent which makes possible all the experiences and within which thoughts arrive. When thoughts are completely absent, silence reigns.

However, all this is not about destroying this marvelous tool; thought in the right place is very useful. Pure thought, that is to say without stress, is a reflection of the wisdom of the Source. This is why the mind is often symbolized by the moon and the wisdom of God by the sun. When it is spontaneous, thought is quite simply a correct response to the situation as it presents itself without the harmful intervention of the ego.

But it is important to leave thought in its right place. Thought is limited and the mind cannot comprehend everything. Thought is created and belongs to the world. The truth is beyond; it is the Source and can only be perceived by a direct intuition and not by the mind. The 'philosopher' who searches for truth through the use of reason is like a man who tries to reach the stars by pulling up his trousers to the sky. It is stupid and dangerous. Stupid because the 'philosophers' are lead to write, in general, vain things. And dangerous because they end up denying that it is possible to know the truth or even that truth exists at all.

On the other hand, it is useless to look to control thoughts. We have in fact a lot of difficulties in letting go (and I have my own difficulties); the ego, the little guy in the mirror has the tendency to come back again and block up the Void to take control of the show. But thoughts are spontaneous and arrive from the Void. Their ultimate Source is the supreme intelligence. So it's useless to get upset about it: the world takes care of itself. My life will run much smoother if nobody is thinking. In fact, where do thoughts come from ? From a mind-box? From a head-shaped thing ? Of course not: they come from the absence of mind.

Just as Emptiness welcomes thoughts, it also welcomes desires. These do not entirely disappear with Seeing, but what is removed is the dissatisfaction. Identification with the ego generates suffering and dissatisfaction. To fill up this gap, this lack of being, the ego rushes into an unbridled run to obtain possessions. Desires follow desires, frustrations follow frustrations in an endless chain. When we are aware of our true nature, a huge feeling of fullness fills us up and all kind of needs vanish. There is no more thirst. Enlightenment pacifies us beyond all limits. In the Gospel of John, Jesus met a woman near a well. She came to look for water and Jesus said to her:

"The one who drinks these water will have thirst again, but who will drink the water that I give, never will be thirsty again; the water I give will become in him a fountain of eternal life."

The awakening to our true nature generates an immense relaxation in our being and an openness to the present moment. Thus thirst has disappeared but desires remain. My humanity still exists. This life, however centred on the supernatural, is a natural life. Nevertheless, compared to my life before awakening (I should say my no-life !) what I know today could be called a desireless state. I can stay very long moments without any desire because the 'I AM' is filled with a perfect joy.

As regards the nature of desires that sometimes appear, they are very simple and ordinary and there is nothing specific to say about them. For example, I like to drink a glass of French white wine from the Loire in a small cafe in Montmartre, and I desire to make love to the young and pretty woman I live with. Seen from outside, I look like an ordinary person but lacking in social ambition. But seen from inside, it's different; you have to believe me, it is the Kingdom of Heaven.

A Way Into Non-duality

The enlightenment is like being born again, being born from above as Christ puts It. The entire life is now transformed in an infinite proportion. Before this passage, I had lived myself corruptible and physical; now I am incorruptible and the Light. Of course for this transformation to be achieved, I need not only to have some glimpses of the reality, but I have to settle in it. But anyone who perceives this reality even for one second sees it perfectly for it is always the Absolute that sees itself. Truth does not depend upon time. There is no possible improvement in the Seeing. Each moment is the moment of awakening, and each awakening is the awakening to the Absolute.

This birth is the death of the identification with the body-mind, with the appearance in the mirror. So we could say that it is an egoless life if we call 'ego' the total identification with our human appearance. It is then no longer possible to live as before. Everything has changed. An upsetting has taken place. The spiritual quest has stopped because the seeker has vanished and truth has been revealed.

However with this birth, a new life begins. The new child, the child of light, the heavenly being can keep on growing up. In concrete terms, it means that I still see that egoistic reactions can appear in this space in relation to events. The perfection which is in the Centre, the perfection of my true nature illuminates all the imperfections I had not paid attention to before. The habits have to disappear and I do not forget that for more than 20 years I have been totally identified with a body-mind called José. So there is at the same time consciousness of the Void and consciousness of some egoistic desires and thoughts. But when these egoistic reactions linked with the little José, emerge, they are seen through the light of my true nature and they lose their power and vanish soon. This new light is very important because it transforms the whole of my being and embraces little by little each part of me in its clarity.

So after the illumination, a process of disidentification and of gradual unification is going to take place. But if the identification with the body easily disappears (indeed, it is actually ridiculous to identify with a piece of meat), the belief to be a thinker is more deeply rooted. It will take more time to stop living as a thinker. As Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj puts it:

Thanks to this revelation (enlightenment), your identification with what is corporeal is going to know a vast spread and to extend to the dimensions of the manifested universe. Then you will discover that you contain and penetrate the whole cosmos and that you know it simply as your own body. This is named by the words 'pure superior knowledge' , Shud-Vijnan. Nevertheless, even in this state of sublime Shud-Vijnan, the intellect denies to be recognised as non-entity. However, in giving up yourself to the pure consciousness, the evidence of the fallibility and of the lack of consistence of the intellectual process is going gradually to become stronger and you will be able then to put the intellect to its true place, the second one.

Living in the timeless, the past and the future become unreal; thoughts relating to memory, regrets, remorse or anticipation about the future diminish in number and in power. The only thing that matters is the present moment. The mind is no longer the master of the house, it becomes the servant. Thoughts come and go; they belong to the world and are like clouds crossing the sky leaving no trace.

This is why the incessant chatter of the mind becomes quiet. Thoughts and desires continue to arrive in the Vacuity, but a little bit like a fire that one no longer feeds with wood, or like a wheel that the engine no longer turns and yet nevertheless continues to turn. Disidentification with the body-mind, with my appearance in the mirror breaks the mind's own ability to create more and more thoughts and desires in an infernal circle generating stress.

Indeed, there is here a paradox because in fact nothing changes. The seeing of my true nature always remains. There is no progress in this seeing because there is no time. This process of disidentification and unification simply happens in a spontaneous way. Naturally, the awakening brings its fruits and the heart opens itself. As St. Paul said: 'our external man falls into pieces, our interior man is renewed every day.' This way of realisation and accomplishment is a way of total surrender to my true nature which is the all Being. Nothing can be taken or added to this Being. It is what it is and contains everything. The present moment is in itself an absolute perfection, each situation is full in itself and opens on the infinite. My true nature is perfect. It has no problems and no needs. From thereon thoughts and desires are no longer essential to life; they belong to the world and are one of the expressions of Life. The most important thing in life now is to live each moment consciously from the Void. What I have to do is to rest in the wholeness, in the peace of my original state. It doesn't require any effort. I have to be passive and let the uncreated light of Awakening achieve its great work. It is a way towards unity, bliss, peace and the Unknown.

CONCLUSION

The vacuity is independent of phenomena (thoughts, desires, as well as forms, colours, sounds...) that occur in itself. Fortunately, reality is always available. Reality is the only guide in our often peaceful but sometimes troubled journey. But peace at the centre is never affected. The secret lies in asymmetry. All the changing phenomena appear in the foreground of my non-changing nature. The Seeing of the Vacuity is like a sword which cuts off the illusion as soon as it shows its head. At every instant, the Infinite is here and now, and all the limitations due to experience collapse. The personal is plunged into the Impersonal (or suprapersonal). It could be compared to a carafe of water immersed in the sea: then there is no more interior or exterior.

There is only the ONE.

Soja - I thought you'd appreciate this modern take on the elightenment experience...you'll see some Christian references contained therein.

José le Roy

We talk a lot these days about awakening and enlightenment. In the Western world, more and more men and women are curious about their true nature. So it is more important than ever to be clear about what we mean by enlightenment.

Enlightenment or awakening is the movement from total dentification with an individual to a life centred in Emptiness. This movement is revealed through the discovery of a totally new way of seeing oneself and the world, a discovery that is called in the Eastern tradition 'the opening of the third eye'.

This awakening is often described as the egoless state. But what does the word 'ego' really mean? Words such as 'individual', 'person', 'ego' are concepts to which everyone gives their own meaning depending on their cultural and religious background. For Christians theses words have a meaning which they would not have for Buddhists. The only possibility of really clarifying the meaning of awakening is to return to the pure and simple description of the experience.

From the individual to the Void

After enlightenment, what is most remarkable is that the subject, the me is no longer visible. My first impression is to have completely disappeared from the world. When enlightenment happened, I was in my bedroom. I opened the window and what I saw threw me into a state of total astonishment. There was, as usual, the wall of the building in front, the roofs, the court, the patio-stones, but bathed in a light that was incomprehensible and sublime. This vision of the world I beheld as if for the first time. Most of all, I had vanished from the scene. No one was looking at the world ! Douglas Harding describes very precisely his own astonishment at this experience:

"It was all, quite literally, breathtaking. I seemed to have stop breathing altogether, absorbed in the Given. Here it was, this superb scene, brightly shining in the clear air, alone and unsupported, mysteriously suspended in the void, and (and this was the real miracle, the wonder and delight) utterly free of "me", unstained by any observer. Its total presence was my total absence, body and soul, lighter than air, clearer than glass, altogether released from myself, I was nowhere around."

The 'me', such I had known it before, had quite literally vanished and in its place was suddenly a seeing that came from nowhere, belonged to nobody and gazed upon the Unknown. From that time, a mystery is alive in the heart of our being: the Void. It becomes impossible to perceive the 'me', to see oneself. Enlightenment is the end of a journey, the end of a quest because the searcher no longer exists. It's exactly the same as waking up from a nightmare. Let us imagine that in a nightmare we are being pursued by a ferocious dog. The fear is so strong that we wake up suddenly in a sweat. All of a sudden, the dream is over: the dog, the chase and the dreamer, every thing has vanished without trace. We discover to our great relief that we are comfortably tucked up in the warmth of our bed. Such is enlightenment : the end of an hallucination.

This seeing, this enlightenment cannot possibly be imagined or conceived of. It can only be lived. This awareness is completely different from our everyday awareness. In the everyday awareness the individual takes as his reference point the body-mind. After awakening, this reference point has disappeared. This isappearance is totally extraordinary because, as from then, life is going to be lived on a new level and in an unknown dimension.

In reality, it is the old 'me' which disappears; the old way of living as a separate individual and located in time and space. A new 'me' , the real 'me' is unveiled. Enlightenment doesn't remove the personal sense, the feeling of existing, but this feeling of being, this 'I AM' is pure; it is no longer identified with an individual who is confronting other individuals. The 'I AM' is not relative, it is absolute; it is an unlimited presence and conscious of itself. This feeling of being alive becomes even more intense. When awakening happened, it was as if I had just been born into the world for the first time. Life before awakening is a dream, a deep coma, a death. The newly discovered 'I AM' has divine attributes. This 'I AM' is beyond time, beyond space, without limits, without size, conscious, empty, full, silent, still and bliss. God the most high is within me and I am in HIM.

So, there we have a paradox. On the one side, I see absolutely no 'me', no observer, nothing and, on the other side, I feel myself to be alive as I never felt before. So we have here a mystery. Whilst diving into the pure Void, I remain, nevertheless, myself; by grace of the pure Void, I am finally myself and this 'me' is nobody!

Free from thoughts and desires

So with enlightenment, life does not stop. What disappears is the mistake of taking oneself to be somebody, of taking oneself for ones' appearance in the mirror. My true nature (what I am) is the total opposite of what I appear to be. In this Emptiness, thoughts and desires do not cease to be. My mind continues to function and life goes on.

But I no longer see thoughts arising from a solid thing that we call a head, but arising from the empty space. The wonderful sense of freedom as a result of enlightenment comes from the free Presence that appeared and which makes me independent from thoughts. Before enlightenment, what I took to be my 'me' was the continual stream of thoughts which produces stress and suffering. Now I see that thoughts arrive from the Void. I no longer identify myself with them, I have the possibility of being behind them. They no longer define me. If it happens that I identify with thoughts and consequently suffer, I now know how to extricate myself from them to find again the place of freedom which is without thoughts and silent. In the deepest centre of the 'me', there is complete and total silence. Of this silence, one can say nothing because it is not an experience; it is non-duality. But it is the background, unknown and transcendent which makes possible all the experiences and within which thoughts arrive. When thoughts are completely absent, silence reigns.

However, all this is not about destroying this marvelous tool; thought in the right place is very useful. Pure thought, that is to say without stress, is a reflection of the wisdom of the Source. This is why the mind is often symbolized by the moon and the wisdom of God by the sun. When it is spontaneous, thought is quite simply a correct response to the situation as it presents itself without the harmful intervention of the ego.

But it is important to leave thought in its right place. Thought is limited and the mind cannot comprehend everything. Thought is created and belongs to the world. The truth is beyond; it is the Source and can only be perceived by a direct intuition and not by the mind. The 'philosopher' who searches for truth through the use of reason is like a man who tries to reach the stars by pulling up his trousers to the sky. It is stupid and dangerous. Stupid because the 'philosophers' are lead to write, in general, vain things. And dangerous because they end up denying that it is possible to know the truth or even that truth exists at all.

On the other hand, it is useless to look to control thoughts. We have in fact a lot of difficulties in letting go (and I have my own difficulties); the ego, the little guy in the mirror has the tendency to come back again and block up the Void to take control of the show. But thoughts are spontaneous and arrive from the Void. Their ultimate Source is the supreme intelligence. So it's useless to get upset about it: the world takes care of itself. My life will run much smoother if nobody is thinking. In fact, where do thoughts come from ? From a mind-box? From a head-shaped thing ? Of course not: they come from the absence of mind.

Just as Emptiness welcomes thoughts, it also welcomes desires. These do not entirely disappear with Seeing, but what is removed is the dissatisfaction. Identification with the ego generates suffering and dissatisfaction. To fill up this gap, this lack of being, the ego rushes into an unbridled run to obtain possessions. Desires follow desires, frustrations follow frustrations in an endless chain. When we are aware of our true nature, a huge feeling of fullness fills us up and all kind of needs vanish. There is no more thirst. Enlightenment pacifies us beyond all limits. In the Gospel of John, Jesus met a woman near a well. She came to look for water and Jesus said to her:

"The one who drinks these water will have thirst again, but who will drink the water that I give, never will be thirsty again; the water I give will become in him a fountain of eternal life."

The awakening to our true nature generates an immense relaxation in our being and an openness to the present moment. Thus thirst has disappeared but desires remain. My humanity still exists. This life, however centred on the supernatural, is a natural life. Nevertheless, compared to my life before awakening (I should say my no-life !) what I know today could be called a desireless state. I can stay very long moments without any desire because the 'I AM' is filled with a perfect joy.

As regards the nature of desires that sometimes appear, they are very simple and ordinary and there is nothing specific to say about them. For example, I like to drink a glass of French white wine from the Loire in a small cafe in Montmartre, and I desire to make love to the young and pretty woman I live with. Seen from outside, I look like an ordinary person but lacking in social ambition. But seen from inside, it's different; you have to believe me, it is the Kingdom of Heaven.

A Way Into Non-duality

The enlightenment is like being born again, being born from above as Christ puts It. The entire life is now transformed in an infinite proportion. Before this passage, I had lived myself corruptible and physical; now I am incorruptible and the Light. Of course for this transformation to be achieved, I need not only to have some glimpses of the reality, but I have to settle in it. But anyone who perceives this reality even for one second sees it perfectly for it is always the Absolute that sees itself. Truth does not depend upon time. There is no possible improvement in the Seeing. Each moment is the moment of awakening, and each awakening is the awakening to the Absolute.

This birth is the death of the identification with the body-mind, with the appearance in the mirror. So we could say that it is an egoless life if we call 'ego' the total identification with our human appearance. It is then no longer possible to live as before. Everything has changed. An upsetting has taken place. The spiritual quest has stopped because the seeker has vanished and truth has been revealed.

However with this birth, a new life begins. The new child, the child of light, the heavenly being can keep on growing up. In concrete terms, it means that I still see that egoistic reactions can appear in this space in relation to events. The perfection which is in the Centre, the perfection of my true nature illuminates all the imperfections I had not paid attention to before. The habits have to disappear and I do not forget that for more than 20 years I have been totally identified with a body-mind called José. So there is at the same time consciousness of the Void and consciousness of some egoistic desires and thoughts. But when these egoistic reactions linked with the little José, emerge, they are seen through the light of my true nature and they lose their power and vanish soon. This new light is very important because it transforms the whole of my being and embraces little by little each part of me in its clarity.

So after the illumination, a process of disidentification and of gradual unification is going to take place. But if the identification with the body easily disappears (indeed, it is actually ridiculous to identify with a piece of meat), the belief to be a thinker is more deeply rooted. It will take more time to stop living as a thinker. As Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj puts it:

Thanks to this revelation (enlightenment), your identification with what is corporeal is going to know a vast spread and to extend to the dimensions of the manifested universe. Then you will discover that you contain and penetrate the whole cosmos and that you know it simply as your own body. This is named by the words 'pure superior knowledge' , Shud-Vijnan. Nevertheless, even in this state of sublime Shud-Vijnan, the intellect denies to be recognised as non-entity. However, in giving up yourself to the pure consciousness, the evidence of the fallibility and of the lack of consistence of the intellectual process is going gradually to become stronger and you will be able then to put the intellect to its true place, the second one.

Living in the timeless, the past and the future become unreal; thoughts relating to memory, regrets, remorse or anticipation about the future diminish in number and in power. The only thing that matters is the present moment. The mind is no longer the master of the house, it becomes the servant. Thoughts come and go; they belong to the world and are like clouds crossing the sky leaving no trace.

This is why the incessant chatter of the mind becomes quiet. Thoughts and desires continue to arrive in the Vacuity, but a little bit like a fire that one no longer feeds with wood, or like a wheel that the engine no longer turns and yet nevertheless continues to turn. Disidentification with the body-mind, with my appearance in the mirror breaks the mind's own ability to create more and more thoughts and desires in an infernal circle generating stress.

Indeed, there is here a paradox because in fact nothing changes. The seeing of my true nature always remains. There is no progress in this seeing because there is no time. This process of disidentification and unification simply happens in a spontaneous way. Naturally, the awakening brings its fruits and the heart opens itself. As St. Paul said: 'our external man falls into pieces, our interior man is renewed every day.' This way of realisation and accomplishment is a way of total surrender to my true nature which is the all Being. Nothing can be taken or added to this Being. It is what it is and contains everything. The present moment is in itself an absolute perfection, each situation is full in itself and opens on the infinite. My true nature is perfect. It has no problems and no needs. From thereon thoughts and desires are no longer essential to life; they belong to the world and are one of the expressions of Life. The most important thing in life now is to live each moment consciously from the Void. What I have to do is to rest in the wholeness, in the peace of my original state. It doesn't require any effort. I have to be passive and let the uncreated light of Awakening achieve its great work. It is a way towards unity, bliss, peace and the Unknown.

CONCLUSION

The vacuity is independent of phenomena (thoughts, desires, as well as forms, colours, sounds...) that occur in itself. Fortunately, reality is always available. Reality is the only guide in our often peaceful but sometimes troubled journey. But peace at the centre is never affected. The secret lies in asymmetry. All the changing phenomena appear in the foreground of my non-changing nature. The Seeing of the Vacuity is like a sword which cuts off the illusion as soon as it shows its head. At every instant, the Infinite is here and now, and all the limitations due to experience collapse. The personal is plunged into the Impersonal (or suprapersonal). It could be compared to a carafe of water immersed in the sea: then there is no more interior or exterior.

There is only the ONE.

I have been an interfaith activist for many years - a Jew who has attended church since the 1960's, and, in more recent years, also attended mosque somewhat regularly. I'm very clear on what I do and don't believe, and want to be respectful of other religions without compromising myself. At a place I attend regularly, and where my views are known, it is fairly easy to negotiate what I will and won't do.

I generally don't kneel in churches; but one family of grandchildren belongs to an Episcopal Church that uses a very open call for communion, and in that church I will go up and kneel with my grandchildren (but I do not receive the elements; crossing hands over one's chest is understood pretty universally as "no thank you.") At one church my wife and I attend, the elements are passed down the row in pews, so that I may serve my (Christian) wife and participate in that way.

At a Catholic funeral mass for a friend, the priest issued an open call to line up for standing communion, specifying that one could receive a blessing instead of the elements. It was a very moving experience to participate in this alongside a devout Muslim friend.

I do not go up for communion is response to the usual invitations which are (typically) for baptized believers in Jesus as Christ. But I very much appreciate invitations properly extended to others to join in in some ways.

Muslims usually are reluctant to attend church services because of the fear of appearing to worship someone / something other than "The One God" (the Cross, Jesus, etc.); some are slightly more comfortable in Jewish services due to the clear monotheism. I am certainly more comfortable (theologically) in Muslim services than Christian ones, and after some discussion with the locals have become comfortable kneeling in my neighborhood mosque, where it is understood that I am not a member of the Muslim community.

With regard to the specific question starting this discussion - I think that funerals often attract people respectful of the deceased but not necessarily of the same faith. I would certainly prefer to see open and inclusive services, open invitations (e.g. to communion), and a great deal of permissiveness and understanding as to the extent to which people may show respect by participating. If an non-believer or non-member responds to an invitation extended to believers or members, I would allow it.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
WALTER POE
“CRAP IS THE DISRESPET FOR GOD AND HIS LAWS”

IRT:
"This whole idea of observing the religious rituals is stupid. Everyone should be allowed to par-take in the Eucharist. Christ calls us all to the table.

The Communion table is not a Catholic table, a Baptist table, a Presbyterian table. It is Gods table and it is freely given to all who humbly accepts it and its full meaning that Christ Died for our sin and Loves us."

ANS:
God gave the powers of Transubstantiation only to the Apostles at the Last Supper to pass on to His people through His only Church, and St. Peter was the first Catholic Pope of that Church.

The city streets belong to ever one to drive on, but if you don’t obey the traffic rules, you eventually go to jail or get killed.

It’s the same with the skies; don’t try to fly without following the rules even though the skies belong to everyone. To disregard the rules would be recklessly irresponsible and would demonstrate a maniacal opprobrious contempt for the lives of others.

Everyone is welcomed to the Eucharist, but they must abide by the decorum, in manner and conduct, set out by the Church, who represents God on earth, so that the proper homage and respect that is due God be given by all who receive Him.

IRT:
“So this Crap about observing the religious rituals is stupid. Every religious denomination has to stop thinking that they OWN the Communion table.:

I hate to tell you but No one owns the Eucharist. God owns it and gives to us freely...Who the Hell made us GOD. Everyone is welcome to those who seek Christ.”

ANS:
You might try reading Mt 16:19; Mt 18:18 and get your facts straight. God gave His Church the authority to bind and loose all things upon the earth in regards to the worship and moral teachings of His Church, including the Eucharist.

“Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven”—Mt 18:18 .

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man therefore examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup in the proper manner—The Council of Trent."

"Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh--Mt 18:7" . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Those who improperly receive the Eucharist scandalize God.

So you think it’s crap to give honor and homage to God. I wonder if you invited guest to your house and they disrespected your mother, sat at your table and dump it over with all the food on it. Then your guest lights a cigar and flips the ashes on your new rug and urinates on the rug when it catches fire. Not all those awless acts can be compared to even the minutest disrespect to God.

It is written:
“A King [God the Father] was giving a wedding feast [God’s Kingdom and His Church] for his son [Jesus the Bridegroom Mt 9:15] and He invited all His friends [His Chosen People] to the feast but none came, they were to busy with their affairs.

“But they neglected and went their ways, one to his farm and another to his merchandise. And the rest laid hands on his servants [prophets] and, having treated them contumeliously, put them to death [Jesus and His disciples].

But when the King had heard of it, He was angry: and sending His armies [Angels], He destroyed those murderers and burnt their city [Jerusalem].

Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; BUT THEY THAT WERE INVITED WERE NOT WORTHY. Go ye therefore into the highways; and as many as you shall find [Gentiles], call to the marriage [the Union of Jesus and the Church]. And his servants [disciples] going forth into the ways, gathered together all that they found, both bad and good: and the marriage was filled with guests.

And the King went in to see the guests: and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment. [Sanctifying Grace]. And He saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither not having on a wedding garment? But he was silent.

Then the King said to the waiters [His Angels]: Bind his [the Unworthy Guest] hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness [Hell]. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.—Matt 22: 1-14.”

If one enters the House of God not clothed properly, he defiles God’s House, the Church, and God. All are invited not to defile God, but to honor Him and respect His awesome majesty and Divine Presence.

God did institute a Church and the Sacrament of the Eucharist for all mankind, but God also made the Catholic Church the guardian of the Eucharist, that is the Son of the Father, so that people don’t scandalize Him.

well many catholics have shown up and expressed real discomfiture over sally's thoughtless act-

also i see some atheists have shown up-

i'll propose a hypothetical situation to see if we can elicit a little empathy from atheists to the feelings and positions of the catholic perspectives-

let's say we are able to do a distant viewing of the funeral of Joesph Fletcher-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22_v43/ai_11662755

let's also, because it's a hypothetical say that 98% of the mourners, are, secular humanists to a man-

here comes a bereaved Mrs.X- a well known atheist and journalist- (and let us say, editor-in-chief for a leading secular humanist magazine)dear friend of the decedent-

in direct contradiction to what is common knowledge about her beliefs-

she approaches the coffin, kneels and says a prayer- then takes out a vial of holy water- and annoints the deceased-

there is a stir of unease among the mourners-

doesn't she know she is doing something directly contrary to what Fletcher would have wanted for himself?

how can she so flagrantly and cluelessly completely disregard his most closely held beliefs (as a secular humanist)with such a disrepectful act?

later, after a series of angry calls from atheists- she states that (first she didn't kow it was disrespectful as there no signs posted) then later says,she was so clouded by grief, that she just wanted to honor the holistic man- and he used to be a priest- and she didn't believe in the efficacy fo the prayer anyway-
basically it was an empty show- because she wanted to be close to her dead friend-

but she doesnt apologize to the offended atheists-
she simply abuses her position to write long editorials justifying her actions-

now, of course- there will be differences in the analogy that is likely the atheists here will deconstruct-

but- what a pointless exercise! it's a hypothetical!

instead, try and empathize with and have a bit of the same sensitivity and respect that you ask for from believers-

people complain in here that the god is or should be universal- and all should have access-
from a humanist POV- respect for all humans is universal- or should be-
and from that humnaist base-

it is hypocritical to deride or mock believers beliefs just as it is hypocritical to mock atheists-

Autonomous

And yes, Fr Bede Griffiths was very radical. He was also a very holy man and a pioneer. He had the inner freedom truly holy people have when God is so real in their lives and they are filled with unconditional love for all, that rules don't matter anymore. Didn't Jesus model that in His life in the way He responded to the Jewish Law?

autonomous :

Soja - you make a lot of sense with your post. Bede Griffiths represents the contemplative side of Catholicism, so in my view the emphasis would be on the spirit rather than the letter of the Law (read dogma or doctrine) - since the essense of Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general has been expressed as communion with the Divine, and love of one's neighbor through deep spiritual empathy (agape rather than eros), strict adherence to a conventionally narrow interpretation of ritual might well be missing in the ethos of a contemplative or meditative order e.g. their orientation toward universal compassion and communion with the Holy.

I must emphasize my complete lack of belief in the idea of salvation by proxy - which is for the outer circle of believers. The inner circle always strives for direct knowledge of the Absolute.

Can this be accomplished by ingesting a symbolic wafer, or does it take a bit more work than that?
This points up the large differences between exoteric religion for the many, and esoteric practices for the few - the intrepidly devout that are after real Gnosis.... or as David Hume says, real knowledge based on first-hand experience. Mystical traditions through the ages have always taken this approach to the sacred.

Most practicing Catholics are convinced (either actively or passively) that conventional Church rituals and dogma are the end-all and be-all of their faith....and resultant beliefs.

I discovered this first hand at the age of 17, when priests were unable to answer many of the questions I had concerning the 'mysteries' of the faith.

Although not a practicing Catholic for nearly 50 years now, it has been clear to me through many years of research that engaging in contemplative and meditative practice greatly enhances the chances of the practitioner reaching their spiritual goals - when compared to that same outcome through a mere reliance on fixed and largely unengaging rituals. I don't see this as true participatory faith.....but it is afterall what's available to most of the faithful.

July 10, 2008 9:05 AM

==================================

Autonomous

I somehow missed this post you addressed to me.

Thank you for your response.

It is a pity you are no longer a practicing Catholic for 50 years. There is incredible spiritual wealth in the Catholic Church that an average Catholic does not know about because it is within contemplative traditions and religious orders and not in the parishes. It is a terrible pity for many don't seem to know of its existence.

People are at different levels on their spiritual journey. So it is not wise to make judgments about what satisfies each one spiritually. Only the Holy Spirit can really know and lead each one.

Contemplation is not a path for many. Each one is led along the path they need. There is no such thing as one being better than the other, just a question of one being better suited better than the other.

I don't know that Catholicism teaches salvation by proxy in the sense you mean it. Don't Catholics believe faith without works is dead? I believe we are merely given the grace to lead good lives in accordance with God's will.

I was a textbook Catholic as a child. I got a free copy of the Gideon Bible (only NT and the Psalms) in school when I was about ten and when I started to read it, I became less and less Catholic in the conventional sense, relying only on the rituals, rosary etc. I remain deeply indebted and grateful to the Gideon society.

I was extremely lucky to know some terrific Jesuits and did retreats with them. Meeting Dom Bede Griffiths was the high point of my spiritual journey. I'm a lousy contemplative even now, but it is the tradition which makes me feel most at home. At no time in my life was religion stuffed down my throat. I was gradually led to contemplation by God and Fr Bede was a gentle guide who waited until I was ready. He remains a perfect example of a spiritual director for me - unconditionally loving and ultra sensitive. Any coercion on anyone's part would have had just the opposite effect. That is why I'm against anyone trying to preach AT people, even with the best of intentions, it can only go wrong.

I wish you would have the joy of the spiritual treasures in the Catholic Church, if you haven't already found them.

Best wishes
Soja

Mo: you are a Muslim. We respect your beliefs. Could you try to respect the beliefs of other religions in a similar way?

A Christian calls the Creator God, God the Father. For Christians there is also Jesus Christ, Our Saviour and Lord, there is also the Holy Spirit. And Catholics believe in the communion of saints, including Mother Mary.

Daniel"

"Pagans in deep antiquity used to kill and eat kings. Christians devour the body of christ. We feast on just average people in our secular life--or at best celebrities."

You do realize that we wouldn't be having this argument if someone hadn't come along with this new 'taking writing literally' thing and started insisting the 'killing and eating kings' thing had to be literally true?

the significance of death.

death is clear and plain sign ,mankind should give it the utmost thought and attention,above all it is the fate of every body,no exception no favorism the matter is absolutly certain .

those who they deny the life after should as well deny this life???just living and dieing infiniti without any puropse does not even fit in the perfect universal diagram,something wrong with the picture if mankind just work ,eat ,drop,die and then sally quinn or other say a pray for!.

the matter is so serious .please further your information and read about death the most sacred communion ever happen to mankind.

at the death communion no mankind will be with you,no jesus ,no mary, no holy saint ,no holy emperor,no holy darwin ,no holy scince and technolgy,none but returning back to your creator god .

To concerned the christian from Daniel. I have no idea what I'm saying on this question. A lot of little insights but nothing adding up to much. Why this question confuses me so much I have no idea.

What I am relatively certain of is this: communion in the Catholic church is the highest way a catholic can honor the sacrifice of jesus christ and should not be taken lightly. One does not eat the body and drink the blood of just anyone. One does such a thing for only the highest persons. Now a secular person might disagree that christ is the greatest, etc. but in secular life we should still have rituals which honor the greatest humans. With Sally quinn taking communion we have a trivializing of religion with no secular type of hero worship taking its place. We have just a plain watering down--which is why I just call the event the media worshipping itself and that pretty much it was just Tim Russert's body being eaten. A combination of catholicism and paganism with no real hero at the center--just Tim Russert. Pagans in deep antiquity used to kill and eat kings. Christians devour the body of christ. We feast on just average people in our secular life--or at best celebrities.

Personally I'm of the opinion that all believing Christians should be allowed to receive the Holy Communion in a Catholic Church if they have taken the step to attend the Mass.

One humble suggestion to avoid such confusion in the future:

1. The priest could announce just before the giving of Holy Communion starts that non-Catholics are to remain seated and not receive Holy Communion; that they may come forward at the end of the distribution of the Holy Communion for a blessing and cross their hands as a sign that want only a blessing.

2. Have unconsecrated hosts and wine which could be distributed in a separate line and/or in a separate corner of the Church for non-Catholics as sign of partaking of a meal without violating the sacredness of the Host in a Catholic sense.

"Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,"

Not that it's ever stopped you before, CCNL, but you do, of course realize this little repetition makes you sound like an....

Never mind. Sometimes, if you gotta spell it out, saying it won't help.

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

Graduate school theology- at places like Catholic U.

"Transubstantiation is still a Catholic doctrine, but it never meant aliteral transforming of bread and wine into the physical body and blood of
Jesus. "Substance" in medieval philosophy referred to the essence of a thing
and was not reducible to material appearance.

Transubstantiation is a way of
expressing belief that Jesus Christ is SOME HOW present in the consecrated bread and wine in a special way. Some theologians believe that
"transignificantion" would be a better term today than transubstantiation.

[Note: both Episcopalians and Lutherans believe in the real presence of
Jesus Christ in the Eucharistized bread and wine.]"

Cutting to the chase: The Eucharist in either form is a great symbol but body and blood do not reside there. Time to stop saying God the Father was/is guilty of filicide 2000 years ago and continuing on 24/7.

What do you think about Sally Quinn, a non-Catholic, going to Communion at Tim Russert's Catholic funeral?

I think taking communion is not something to be taken lightly. What is communion? For me, a Catholic (a bad Catholic I might add) church service in general is something of the funeral for the most important fallen comrade of all, Christ, and communion in particular is the way of ways of honoring Christ's sacrifice. Christ as the greatest hero and communion the eating of his remains. In fact we would not want to take communion for any but the very greatest heroes. And we would not have a good conscience taking communion unless we ourselves are determined to live heroically. Believing in christ is not enough to take communion. One must want to act as Christ. I have not taken communion in years because I feel unworthy in religious or secular terms--and communion can be interpreted in secular terms: one might dismiss God, christ, etc. but if we do not have rituals honoring our greatest concept of the hero we are finished. And few rituals are as perfect in honor as communion.

Now take Sally Quinn and the funeral of Tim Russert. It was not about Catholicism at all. It was about the media honoring one of their fallen. Something of the ritual of the hero debased to the point that all can partake of communion. Not about eating the body of Christ the greatest hero and being determined to alter one's life toward Christ, but merely a feast on the remains of Tim Russert, a quite lesser hero. The question is one of being willing to walk in the footsteps of the hero. If one is Christion communion means walking in Christ. If one is not Christian communion had better not be debased but made secular in a high and noble fashion. The funeral of Tim Russert was a mere media event. Useless in a Catholic sense (not high enough for such) and really not worth all the fuss in a secular sense. Any old dog let in to feast on the remains of the "hero". No religion or secularism to speak of. Just a mass event, the media glorifying itself.

Patrick J Burwell writes:

"As I said to her post directly we have an issue here on many fronts, but there is one paramount problem: God is NOT "universal".
And if you want to lump all religions into this pile leave Christianity OUT. Because Jesus made it VERY clear He has not allowed for this error."

That might be worrisome if god really existed. The gods exist as supernatural beings, which means they exist nowhere outside of mens' minds. But even if god existed, there's absolutely no evidence that a corporeal Jesus existed. Anything "Jesus" said is the stuff of, at best, historic novels, not history.

I wouldn't worry about such things, Patrick. I've read a lot of fiction including the Bible, and there are many other works of fiction that present a much more believable story than the Bible. One must discount the Bible as being truthful about the gods based on the fact that it gets most of the "historical" and "scientific" evidence that it presents horribly wrong.

If the Bible is so woefully ignorant of such mundane matters as the Earth revolving around the sun, why would you or anyone give credence to its blathering about anything?

In other words, how grievous is an "error" made by real, living humans when the "error" has been defined by a fictional character (Jesus) about a fictional entity (Yahweh)?

One may as well worry about making the "error" of not beliving the grave admonitions of Chicken Little.

As I said to her post directly we have an issue here on many fronts, but there is one paramount problem: God is NOT "universal".
And if you want to lump all religions into this pile leave Christianity OUT. Because Jesus made it VERY clear He has not allowed for this error.
So, as to Sally taking communion at a Catholic funeral: She was foolish to to do something so insulting and to be so careless with her own soul. For, when you take communion without proper preparation, you endanger yourself with God Himself. Communion, though it is only symbolic, is a profession of your FAITH, which Sally does not have. Just like baptism, communion in anjd of itself does nothing. But, just like Baptism, communion is a profession of what YOU believe to yourself and to others and is not to be entered into lightly, ever.
Especially in an apostate setting to begin with...
Patrick J. Burwell/OnlyJesusSaves.com

As far as I knew. Gods are supposed to be universal deities, available to everyone, not just an exclusive few.

I am a big opponent of exclusivity in religion. I don't think you should have to abide be certain rights and rituals to participate in something as mundane as eating a wafer.

Yes, transubstantiation is a belief that Catholics hold, that not many others do. But perhaps, allowing others to participate in at least the more tame parts of our services, would allow better understanding of those beliefs.

Perhaps we should begin to be more concerned about having 5 Catholics on the Supreme Court?

I hope they're able to separate the magical from the mundane - for all of our sakes.

Imagine a child's game where Team Roman says to Team Secular: "Don't step over that line". Team Roman owns the territory on its side of the line.

A member of Team Secular steps over the line despite Team Roman's admonition.

Since Team Roman owns its territory, it's offensive for anyone from Team Secular to step on it against the wishes of the Romans.

But to the cosmic universe it makes not slightest difference whether the step took place or not.

The same is true for a non-Catholic's taking Roman communion: offensive but insignificant.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
VIEJITA DEL OESTE
”EUCHARIST”

IRT:
“Dos and Don'ts? How about, for starters, respecting the liturgical and theological rules and traditions of the faith that invites you as a guest? How about not blythely disregarding the intent behind a sacred act? How about putting your own ego aside and letting the service be about your departed friend and not you?”

ANS:
How could it be said so succinctly and to the point any better than your post.

Can anyone imagine such a desecration of a sacred ritual at a Muslim ceremony occurring? The opprobrious uproar that would occur would be devastating.

When the Muslims read a Newsweek story that two guards at Guantanamo flushed the Qur’an down the toilet, they went into a pandemoniacal cacophonic insurrection and four people ended up dead over a story that wasn’t even true.

The Host, the Sacred Body and Blood of the Creator’s Son, who is God, was being unwittingly desecrated at a sacred religious ceremony of worldwide interest.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#VI

“Because this bread and wine have been made Eucharist ("eucharisted," according to an ancient expression), "we call this food Eucharist, and no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught." 180 St. Justin, Apol. 1, 66,1-2: PG 6, 428

It was apparently evident that there was little understanding of the Eucharist Banquet when this reception occurred.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm

Communion

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

By Communion is meant the actual reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Ascetic writers speak of a purely sacramental reception. That is, when the Eucharist is received by a person capable indeed of the fruits but wanting in some disposition, the effects of a spiritual reception are not produced; that is, by a desire accompanied with sentiments of charity. A sacramental and spiritual reception is that by those who are in a state of grace and have the necessary dispositions.

It is of this last kind there is question here. For real reception of the Blessed Eucharist it is required that the sacred species be received into the stomach. For this alone is the eating referred to by our Lord (John 6:58).

Under the moral aspect will be considered, in reference to Holy Communion: Necessity; Subject; and Dispositions. The liturgical aspect will embrace: minister of the sacrament; method of administration.

Moral aspect
Necessity
The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin.

Moreover, there is according to theologians a Divine precept by which all are bound to receive communion at least some times during life. How often this precept urges outside the danger of death it is not easy to say, but many hold that the Church has practically determined the Divine precept by the law of the Fourth Council of Lateran (c.xxi) confirmed by Trent, which obliges the faithful to receive Communion once each year within Paschal Time.

Subject
The subject of Holy Communion is everyone in this life capable of the effects of the Sacrament, that is all who are baptized and who, if adults, have the requisite intention

Dispositions
That Holy Communion may be received not only validly, but also fruitfully, certain dispositions both of body and of soul are required. For the former, a person must be fasting one hour before receiving the Sacred Host from everything that is in the nature of food or drink.

The general exception to this rule is the Viaticum, and, within certain limits, communion of the sick. In addition, to the fast, it is recommended, with a view to greater worthiness, to observe bodily continence and exterior modesty in dress and appearance.

The principal disposition of soul required is freedom from at least mortal sin and ecclesiastical censure.

For those in a state of grievous sin confession is necessary. This is the proving oneself referred to by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:28). The only case in which one in grievous sin might dispense with confession and rest in content with perfect contrition, or perfect charity is when on one hand confession here and now is morally speaking impossible, and where, on the other a real necessity of communication exists.”

This whole idea of observing the religious rituals is stupid. Everyone should be allowed to par-take in the Euchrist. Christ calls us all to the table. The Communion table is not a Catholic table, a babtist table, a Presybeterian table. It is Gods table and it is freely given to all who humbly accepts it and its full meaning that Christ Died for our sin and Loves us.

So this Crap about observing the religious rituals is stupid. Every religious denomination has to stop thinking that they OWN the Communion table....I hate to tell you but No one owns the Euchrist. God owns it and gives to us freeley...Who the Hell made us GOD!

Everyone is welcome to those who seek Christ...

Stop acting like your GOD!

This whole idea of observing the religious rituals is stupid. Everyone should be allowed to par-take in the Euchrist. Christ calls us all to the table. The Communion table is not a Catholic table, a babtist table, a Presybeterian table. It is Gods table and it is freely given to all who humbly accepts it and its full meaning that Christ Died for our sin and Loves us.

So this Crap about observing the religious rituals is stupid. Every religious denomination has to stop thinking that they OWN the Communion table....I hate to tell you but No one owns the Euchrist. God owns it and gives to us freeley...Who the Hell made us GOD!

Everyone is welcome to those who seek Christ...

Stop acting like your GOD!

It seems to me that communion in the catholic faith is both a sign from the communicant that the they are part of the Catholic Community and a gift from God of his grace to the communicant who has thus given his intention. It is the church's role to prepare the communicant for this through catechesis and then to administer the sacrament through the preistly sacrifice. If a Catholic falls from Grace by committing mortal sin, they become unworthy to partake of the sacrament until they are redeemed through confession. Furthermore, if someone takes a position in opposition to Church teachings, they are also barred from Communion until they repent. Given all that, how could it possibly be okay for Sally Quinn or any other non-
Catholic to simply decide to partake of the sacrament because she or they feel like it? If she really wants to partake, she must become a Catholic. While I appreciate that Sally is a seeker, she must also be responsible for her actions and those actions must be condemned because they violate the rules governing the most blessed sacrament. If they aren't condemned, doesn't that degrade the sanctity of the sacrament and the moral authority of the church to administer it? Doesn't it also cheapen the efforts of those who are legitimately in communion with the church>

To all, please excuse my post. It was sheer gibberish. I seem to have forgotten how to write. Too confused about the question. Will think about it some more and perhaps post later when thoughts are in order. Thanks.

For the moment though, I do want to say--and repeat from my last post--that I was raised a Catholic and even as a boy I knew that communion was special and not to be taken lightly. In fact I felt guilty for taking it because I did not understand it. I did not seem worthy of it. And to this day I am not certain I understand it. The only reason I would take communion today is if I were forced into it out of an inquisition or something--in other words I would give in out of moral cowardice. But there is no such inquisition today and to just approach it and take it in a thoughtless manner such as Sally Quinn seems to have done...

It seems Sally Quinn was not thinking about Catholocism at all and was rather thinking about the media event/funeral that it was...In fact we can say it was not about the body of Christ at all but the body of Tim Russert--something of a pre-Christian consume the remains of Tim Russert festival (as one poster here already pointed out). Not that I am trying to gross anybody out by cannabilism or anything. I am just trying to get at the event in total, anthropological terms. This question is a most deceptive one--hats off to Sally Quinn for posting it. I think if I were to take communion it would probably be in a similar circumstance. What does seem certain to me is that Russert's funeral and the actions of Quinn are a complex mixture of pagan, catholic and modern rituals hard to separate. The media worshipping itself with a shot of catholicism and more than a bit of paganism. This is the type of action which inspires a novel.

Dos and Don'ts? How about, for starters, respecting the liturgical and theological rules and traditions of the faith that invites you as a guest? How about not blythely disregarding the intent behind a sacred act? How about putting your own ego aside and letting the service be about your departed friend and not you?

CCNL, why don't you add to your handle, CCNL the atheist to remove confusion? Are you a Scientologist by any chance?

Moronis, Gabriels, magic underwear, golden/stone tablets, talking snakes, prophets i.e. forturne tellers, global floods, black stones, scapulars, rosaries, indulgences, wafer and wine, business cults fronting as religions, etc. have no place in modern society.

Maryanne, no need to overreact. Let God be judge and let it go. Sally was not being contemptous or malicious when she received the Holy Communion although she does not share the religious significance of the Sacrament. If Sally is an agnostic, how could she possibly pray for forgiveness to Jesus as you suggest? Don't make the mistake of overzealous Evangelicals and try to stuff Catholicism down Sally's throat. If you would pray for her, do it by all means. Don't try to force Catholicism on her. It usually turns people off. People find God when they themselves search for Him, and Sally is genuinely seeking. Be glad about that and praise God for it. The Holy Spirit will lead Sally.

**Jesus himself tells us in the Bible that "truly truly, my flesh is real food and by blood is real drink, unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you".**

...because Jesus (or the clever propagandists who made up the story) couldn't possibly have said anything that was literally true. Apparently divinity makes it impossible to speak metaphorically.

YAY for cannibalism! Long live cannibalistic rituals!!!! Could any tradition be more indicative of the primitive nature of the Christian religion?

I am distressed by Ms. Quinn's receiving the Eucharist because she knew that only Catholic's can receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus by partaking of Holy Communion. Had she been unaware of the Truths of the Catholic faith and made an honest mistake, we could understand and pray that she never do it again. But she knew it was wrong. She did it out of love and respect for Tim. Ms. Quinn is missing the point. What about Jesus? We Catholics do not receive the Eucharist because we respect a friend. We receive it because we truly believe that through transubstantiation the bread and wine change into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. She does not believe this (or else she would become a Catholic). Jesus himself tells us in the Bible that "truly truly, my flesh is real food and by blood is real drink, unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you". The Bible also tells us that if we unworthily receive Holy Communion, we bring condemnation on ourselves. Ms. Quinn caused a grave scandal by knowingly taking Holy Communion. And she showed no respect for Jesus Christ. I am also sure Mr. Russert would not feel good that she said she did it out of respect for him. I pray she understands, asks our Lord for forgiveness, and looks into learning about the Catholic faith. Then she can become Catholic and receive our Lord in the Eucharist daily. I do and could not live without Him.

Question: What are some do's and don'ts for observing the religious rituals of others?

Answer: Ask the people concerned in what religious ritual a non-adherent of that faith community is allowed to participate and in what they are not.

I also took communion in a Catholic Church when I was a protestant. I thought since I did it out of love for God it was OK. It wasn't. It was wrong. I know because I am a Catholic now and I know how special the Eucharist is. I pray, Sally, that you will study the Catholic faith so you will understand.

Anonymous you wrote (July 10, 2008 3:07 PM ):

"Soja why you always support powerful and elite?"

I'd be very grateful if you would provide examples from my comments in this forum since December 2006, that I support the powerful and elite. I'm eager for self-knowledge.

Just in case you missed it, I got the impression Catholic bashing is considered an elite activity by some. Since I happen to be a Catholic who is proud to be a Catholic and couldn't care less what non-Catholics think of Catholicism, I couldn't possibly have supported Catholic bashing from anyone no matter how powerful and elite.

As to Sally, I am convinced she is a genuine spiritual seeker. Sally is not perfect, but show me one person who is. Sally is on a lifelong spiritual journey and there is no way of knowing how and where the Holy Spirit will lead her. I looked at this incident as if it had happened at the Ashram of Dom Bede Griffiths. Remember I also stated that as a lay person I could not make the decision only a Catholic priest has the authority to make. In this case it is the priest who offered her Communion who made the decision not to refuse her Communion for whatever reason. It is simply not possible for a Catholic priest to verify eligibility for Communion before giving it. A Catholic priest must of necessity leave judgment in these matters to God.

I find it strange that people can say in a sense: "how can God come down and be taken into these dirty little bodies"?

The answer: God is not a prude...the devil is.
God made us, top to toes, and when he did, he declared it 'Good'.

our bodies are good...holy...made in HIS image.

It would be the devil who is most inflamed at the ludicrous notion that the All Holy God of the Universe would deign to be our heavenly bread and drink...indeed.

And such a God he refuses to serve.

Dina

When a Catholic priest holds up the Eucharist and says "the Body of Christ" and you receive it (with or without saying Amen), by your actions you are saying indeed I believe this is the Body of Christ. If you don't believe it and you take it, then you are acting contrary to your own beliefs. (Unlike a mouse who does not act contrary to his belief when he nibbles on a consecrated host) Anyhow, this is not a good thing. We all need to strive for greater purity in our actions. I urge you Ms. Quinn to just act according to your beliefs at this time. If you do not believe something, do not confuse yourself or others by acting in a contrary manner. The Eucharist is so sacred to Catholics because it is such an awesome gift. The idea that God could humble himself so much (even beyond becoming a human person) as to offer His Whole Self in what by all appearances is just bread and wine is such an extraordinary concept that to believe the priest can effect such a change takes an enormous leap of faith. (In fact, the one and only time recorded in Scripture that Jesus lost disciples was when he proclaimed this truth in John 6--some disciples found this teaching too hard and left. John 6:66). As Catholics, most of us respond to this immense gift like Peter and the apostles who, when asked by Christ if they too wanted to leave upon hearing that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, answered: "To whom shall we go, Lord, you have the words of eternal life". In other words, they did not understand how this could be but believed anyway. With God all things are possible. As difficult as it is for mere mortals to do this, I think we ought to withhold judgment on your motives in this matter, Ms. Quinn. But it doesn't hurt to ask for forgiveness. Afterall, we normally ask for forgiveness when we do something out of ignorance or misunderstanding that we ought not have done regardless of our intent, do we not? If you are accustomed to praying, I urge you to take this matter to prayer and God will guide you. He loves straight talk and sincerity and prayer from the heart. My condolences on the loss of your friend.

I'm sure Ms. Quinn didn't mean harm.

But her equating her innocent desire for consolation in her grief to the open rebellion of such Fallen Catholics like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi is disingenuous and I wonder what her point is in the first place.

And lets not even touch on what the implications of a proud sociopath like Bill Clinton receiving the God of Universe into his decomposed soul. It was blasphemous at best.

Do you think God is mocked?
That he is just a "fair thee well fellow"?

No...he is HOLY, and he came to us in Christ and humbled himself even to the cross to save us!

People who believe that they can say 'Lord!Lord!" all the while they propose it is good and right to kill innocent human beings in the womb, who are another "temple of the holy spirit" are fools!!

God is not mocked, he is patient. Remember the parable about the wheat and the weeds, how they will grow together till the harvest.Matthew 13:24-43

As for Ms. Quinn, she has much to learn about the most holy God of the Euchaist that she speculates so loosely about. If it’s just a symbol, then to hell with it....if it's not, those who take it and don't recognize the body are taking death onto themselves.

I think Mr. Russert, may he rest in peace, would want his good friend to be fully received in the church before she receives again.

Dina

Again, specific to the topic: The orthodox Catholic/Lutheran/Episcopalian Eucharist is a nice symbol of the life of one simple preacher man. Physically it is nothing more than a low calorie wafer.

Get over the hype of religious symbols and the world will be a happier and safer place!!!!

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ONEHOLYCATHOLICANDAPOSTOLICCHURCH : “THE EUCHARIST’
July 10, 2008 3:23 PM

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section4

“The permanence of Presence, of the Eucharist is limited to an interval of time of which the beginning is determined by the instant of Consecration AND THE END BY THE CORRUPTION OF THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES.

If the Host has become moldy or the contents of the Chalice sour, Christ has discontinued His Presence therein. Since in the process of corruption those elementary substances return which correspond to the peculiar nature of the changed accidents, the law of the indestructibility of matter, notwithstanding the miracle of the Eucharistic conversion, remains in force without any interruption.”

Once the Host begins to decompose the Divine Presence leaves and the Host reverts back to its original nature of bread and wind. The presence of Christ is determined to remain temporarily in the Human Soul. Christ and the Soul are in spiritual unity in the same respect that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit though in a more intense presence of supernatural grace..

IRT
But I also hold as precious that my God is so humble as to meet me in these simple things, fully knowing that I will invariably convert what is divine into crap...even while the One-who-is-divine continues through the Holy Spirit to convert me to life from all the crap I bring into this world

ANS:
There is no such thing as Devine Crap. Any food absorbed by the body decomposes immediately upon entering the mouth and acted upon by the digestive juices. Christ’s presence does not stay when the Host decomposes.

What do you make of a non-catholic partaking of holy communion in the Catholic church? How should a person approach religious rituals in general?

I can only respond to this question by first stating that the religion I grew up in was Catholicism and that second even as a boy I felt it wrong to take communion unless "you were supposed to". I always felt wrong about it because I never understood why exactly. And this feeling remains with me to this day. In fact I have never been able to become fully Catholic and able to take communion with a good conscience. The same with dropping to the knees in prayer. I have always felt like a hypocrite. I really do not think a person should enter into a sacred ritual unless taking it very seriously. This strikes me as worse than criticism of religion from outside or laughing at a religious ritual. A type of moral cowardice? We would expect a person under a tyranny to enter the sacred rituals of the tyranny out of fear of being noticed, and we would call this moral cowardice, so how much more so when we are not living under a tyranny? The only exception I have to this problem of whether to partake of religious rituals if one does fully believe let alone share in the faith is in the nature of scientific experimentation. I would like to know if partaking in rituals before fully believing is likelier to result in true conversion than withholding from rituals until one truly believes. This question is perhaps most important when considering a ritual such as the Catholic Communion. If the body of christ placed on our tongues has truly become the body of christ, should not all people be encouraged to partake because the magic of the transubstantiation will convert people like few other acts can? But how many people approach religious acts from such a scientific viewpoint? Would it not be purer to withhold from religious rituals if one cannot approach from a truly experimental viewpoint? Of course the believer prior to having experienced ritual has no such problem. But then again how many people enter into anything fully before having experienced it? Are not children everywhere brought into religion before fully understanding? The key seems to be whether adult or child to approach with a questioning heart.

With all due respect for those individuals who have posted here:

The fact of the matter is (Msgr. Barr) that the Eucharist is itself a gift from God and what actually takes place is a mystery. You (nor the Roman Catholic "doctors" of our shared heritage) can explain what happens in terms which will satisfy those who are unable to see with "eyes of faith". Thus, as a Protestant who often is in attendance at a Mass, I have received the Eucharist in faith that God is not offended; i.e., your understanding of this "mystery" can not be better than that of anyone other Christian.

Secondly, there is (to me) an amazing lack of belief that the grace of God may have been imparted to Sally Quinn and "moved" her, by virtue of whatever "feeling", to go forward and receive. I dare say that more folks have come to Christ by way of friendships, "feelings" and rainbows than by "classes" and doctrine.

Finally, the practices of all faiths should be respected. However, given my statement above, I think that the Christian principle to invoke here would be to "judge not...". Let's leave that to God.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANDREW :
DEAR ANONYMOUS,
JULY 10, 2008 8:05 AM
"EINSTEIN”

Scientists:
It is true that some of our greatest scientists believed in a god. This is nothing more than an interesting fact. I would however like to ask you to be intellectually honest and remove Einstein from your list below.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.” - EINSTEIN

ANS:

“Evil is the absence of God.
This statement has been attributed to others before Einstein; its first attribution to Einstein appears to have been in an email story that began circulating in 2004. See the Urban Legends Reference Pages for more discussion.—Wikipedia “

I only said he believed in a God, not that it was a personal one. Einstein believes in a God who is the Creator of the Universe who is only revealed to man through His Creation.

Einstein apparently believed in a God that is of superior reason. And, we learn this by Einstein’s awe of the Beauty and Majesty of the World. Moreover, he believes that anyone who thinks that the Universe is its own cause is blind or dead to all Reality.

Hence, he writes, “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” However, he didn’t believe in an afterlife.

However, Einstein never believed in any religion. “The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.”

Einstein
“He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead.

To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts, and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.

Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)“

Monsignor Eric R. Barr:
The columnists would never think of offending Moslems or Jews in this way---why such disrespect for Catholicism?

This is a monsignor in the Catholic Church? Jesus, Mary, and Uncle Joe. Maybe you should find another day job Mr. Barr.

As an ordained pastor in the Lutheran tradition, I am taken by a comment that looked at the irony of Christian believers who receive the Eucharist as Jesus' true body and blood, only to digest their Lord and process into fecal matter the One in whom they meet the Most Divine.

This is true--it is perhaps a most holy point of Holy Communion.

I affirm with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters that this simple (often cardboardy) bread and cheap wine become the very body and blood of Jesus. I affirm with Orthodox Christians that the "how" of this sacramental union is a mystery.

But I also hold as precious that my God is so humble as to meet me in these simple things, fully knowing that I will invariably convert what is divine into crap...even while the One-who-is-divine continues through the Holy Spirit to convert me to life from all the crap I bring into this world.

As to non-Christians receiving the sacrament, I am torn between a severe commitment to honoring my God and a heavy instruction to feed the hungriest sheep. At its core, however, Holy Communion does not depend on my faith (or on Sally's, or on believers’, or on outsiders’), but on the faithfulness of God to the world that needs to be fed. Knowing that Judas dipped his hand into the bowl with Christ, I struggle with whom I might rightfully turn away.

A sovereign God who is willing to die, to be a friend of sinners, to live homelessly, to be left behind as feces after having been masticated...this is a God who knows the Cross, a humble God who might be approached by outsiders with respect for such divine love before being approached by the same as saints in faith.

I'm rambling...but this so vital to the good news: the Eucharist is not a symbol the glory of God to be defended, but the embodied loving humility of God to be shared (and because of this, therefore to be shared in faith).

Soja why you always support powerful and elite?

I think it's very disrespectful to receive communion when you know it's a violation of the Church's official position on the matter. You were encouraged in what you did by some Catholics, but all that shows is that some Catholics are disobedient.

The Church is not ours to do with as we please. It's God's. Some do choose to do with it as they please, but that doesn't make them right in doing so.

The reasons non-Catholics are not allowed to receive communion, as I understand them, are:

First, because we believe the Eucharist is truly Christ's Body and Blood. We cannot have people partaking of Christ's Body without recognizing it for what it is, so that they can treat it with the reverence and respect which are due. (1 Cor. 11:29.)

Second, because to us the Eucharist is a sacrifice. We can't offer the sacrifice in union with people who don't believe any sacrifice is taking place, or that it's wrong to offer sacrifice. Doing so makes a mockery of the sacrifice.

Third, because we can't have people receiving the Eucharist if they have unabsolved mortal sins on their souls. Since non-Catholics are not admitted to Confession (or any other sacrament save baptism), they can't have their mortal sins absolved. Receiving the Eucharist without having your sins absolved would be a terrible sacrilege. Even Catholics are not allowed to do that. Inviting non-Catholics to commit sacrilege does them a great disservice as it's a danger to their own souls.

If the question is what is the etiquette of observing rituals, it might be useful to consider what the function of a ritual is, in fact.
Is it not to engender a specific state of consciousness? Like a mantram, when said with focussed intention, brings about a specific change in consciousness, might it be a physical enactment of a mantram.

The point, then, could be that rituals are serious business. There is an esoteric fact which states that all is energy, and all energy follows (is directed by) thought. In a few words, your thought matters eventually...it or they create or change you and your environment for better or worse.

Those who enter into rituals for fun or not thinking deeply about what they are doing are probably not doing any harm except for the potential criticism of others. However, if one knows the real power of ritual and mantra, one proceeds carefully.

If you believe what the Catholic Church believes, that the Holy Eucharist is the true flesh and blood of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, who died for the sins of all and rose from the dead, so that all might be saved from death and live with Him in joy and peace for all eternity, then why not be received into the Church? If you can't and don't believe that the true gift of Christ, in flesh and blood, is in the sacrament of the Eucharist, then why partake of it?

The Holy Eucharist is not just a symbol - it is a symbol that effects what it symbolizes. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is not just a community ritual - it is a communal oblation towards the One who sacrificed His life for us and redeemed us on Golgotha.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANDREW :
DEAR ANONYMOUS,
JULY 10, 2008 8:05 AM
”THE LAWS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT”

IRT:
And you are worried about souls in a Petri dish?

ANS:
Yes, the embryo is a human being. I am very concerned when human life is indiscriminately and intentionally taken without regards to the sanctity of life and with reckless abandonment of the Natural Moral Law, done with unmitigated gall and forethought, violating the inalienable rights of all humankind.

“Many internationally-known geneticists and biologists have testified that human life begins at conception. In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question: When does human life begin? Following are testimonies from two of the doctors who testified:

1. Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

2. Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

"The Father of Modern Genetics" Testifies

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

Dr. Lejeune said, "Recent discoveries by Dr. Alec Jeffreys of England demonstrate that this information [on the DNA molecule] is stored by a system of bar codes not unlike those found on products at the supermarket...it's not any longer a theory that each of us is unique."

Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery and, in addition, received the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world's highest award for work in the field of Genetics.

He practiced his profession at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades (Sick Children's Hospital) in Paris.

Dr. Lejeune was a member of the American Academy of the Arts and Science, a member of the Royal Society of Medicine in London, The Royal Society of Science in Stockholm, the Science Academy in Italy and Argentina, The Pontifical Academy of Science and The Academy of Medicine in France."

If you are not bothered about the murder of innocent human beings, like the murder of the unborn, the defenseless then you should be because it demeans the sacredness of human life.

The deprecation of self-worth created by the Sexual Revolution and culminating in the Culture of Death is personified in the tragic consequences that are occurring in our society today. The legalization of abortion and euthanasia are implicit major causes of the cheapening of human life.

More so, our Court has allowed the murder, not only of the unborn, but also the murder of innocent invalids and the infirm who can’t defend themselves.

Hence, we see a very conscious but defenseless Terri Schiavo, put through a very agonizing death of starvation and dehydration justified by the testimony of an adulterous husband who was shacked up with his concubine who bore him three children.

Schiavo lay there for 14 days in extreme agony before she died, thanks to Dr. Humane Death and the auspices of the Hemlock Society, even though Schiavo’s parents had pleaded to care for her.

Hence, we have the shooters of Malls and schools, who lost all sense of value of human life, who went on killing rampages and self-destruction.

Then there are the rapes and murders of little children, crazed mothers, or fathers killing all their children, or husbands murdering their pregnant wives. We see an inordinate amount of kidnappings, rapes, and murder of college students.

Moreover, we have the sale of the body parts and raw flesh of the aborted remnants of the unborn sold on the commercial market for cosmetics at something around $500/lb. In addition, the preservation of these aborted children's organs are also sold for transplants.

You might read the words off former Planned Parenthood president Mary Calderone:

"Abortion is the taking of a life. Late-term fetuses are being dissected and their parts sold for huge profits. Only 2 percent of late-term fetuses have any abnormalities. They range in age from 4 to 7 months. Sometimes the babies are born alive, and the doctor must break their neck or beat them to death or put them to drown in the garbage with her mother's blood." Can this be acceptable?

Mark 7:24-37

http://www.thewitness.org/article.php?id=1119

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
ANDREW :
DEAR ANONYMOUS,
JULY 10, 2008 8:05 AM
”THE LAWS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT”

IRT:
I hope not and one of the reasons why is because your god recommends death as suitable punishment for a disobedient child. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Mark 7:9-13, Mathew 15:4-7)

ANS:
God gives life and God can take life. It is His to give and to take. Moreover, God does nothing that is unjust because even though He is Mercy, He is Justice itself.

The Civil Laws dictated in the Old Testament were for the Jewish people at a time God was establishing a covenant with the Jewish people and his discipline was harsh to show the Jewish people that God wasn’t playing around.

The Jewish people were immersed in sin and iniquity and God was molding them into His chosen people who would be the beacon of his laws and precepts and promulgate them throughout all mankind.

Hence they are not applicable in today’s society, nor were most of them applicable after the New Testament.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm

"Divine Law is that which is enacted by God and made known to man through revelation. We distinguish between the Old Law, contained in the Pentateuch, and the New Law, that was revealed by Jesus Christ, and is contained in the New Testament.

The Divine Law of the Old Testament, or the Mosaic Law, is commonly divided into Civil, Ceremonial, And Moral precepts. The Civil legislation regulated the relations of the people of God among themselves and with their neighbors.

The Ceremonial regulated matters of Religion and the Worship of God; the Moral was a Divine code of ethics. In this article,

In the Old Testament the Moral Law is contained for the most part and summed up in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:2-17; Leviticus 19:3, 11-18; Deuteronomy 5:1-33).

The Old and the New Testament, Christ and His Apostles, Jewish as well as Christian tradition, agree in asserting that Moses wrote down the Law at the direct inspiration of God.

God Himself, then, is the lawgiver, Moses merely acted as the intermediary between God and His people; he merely promulgated the Law that he had been inspired to write down.

This is not the same as to say that the whole of the Old Law was revealed to Moses. There is abundant evidence in Scripture itself that many portions of the Mosaic legislation existed and were put in practice long before the time of Moses.

Circumcision is an instance of this. The religious observance of the seventh day is another, and this indeed, seems to be implied in the very form in which the Third Commandment is worded: "Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day

The prohibition of making images to represent God contained in the first commandment, all the precepts of the Decalogue are also precepts of the natural law, which can be gathered by reason from nature herself, and in fact they were known long before Moses wrote them down at the express command of God.

This is the teaching of St. Paul — "For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law [of Moses], are a law to themselves: who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them" (Romans 2:14, 15).

Although the substance of the Decalogue is thus, both of natural and Divine law, yet its express promulgation by Moses at the command of God was not without its advantages.

The great moral code, the Commandments, the basis of all true civilization, in this manner became the clear, certain, and publicly recognized standard of moral conduct for the Jewish people, and through them for Christendom.

It was indeed imperfect, if it be compared with the higher morality of the Gospel, but, for all that, it contained nothing that is blameworthy. It was suited to the low stage of civilization to which the Israelites had at the time attained; the severe punishments which it prescribed for transgressors were necessary to bend the stiff necks of a rude people.

The temporal rewards held out to those who observed the law were adapted to an unspiritual and carnal race. Still its imperfections must not be exaggerated. In its treatment of the poor, of strangers, of slaves, and of enemies, it was vastly superior to the civilly more advanced Code of Hammurabi and other celebrated codes of ancient law.

It did not aim merely at regulating the external acts of the people of God, it curbed also licentious thoughts and covetous desires.

The love of God and of one's neighbor was the great precept of the Law, its summary and abridgment, that on which the whole Law and the Prophets depended.

In spite of the undeniable superiority in this respect of the Mosaic Law to the other codes of antiquity, it has not escaped the adverse criticism of heretics in all ages and of Rationalists in our own day."

having thought about it for a minute- i am wondering how sally can be so completely unaware of the importance the sacrament of communion actually is to cahtolics and what it represents-

it is, first and foremost , a SACRAMENT- a sacred union with the divine by the supplicant.

even a 7 year old child (when children in catholicism reach the age of accountability) can discern the sanctity and significance of the act-

can sally really be so totally clueless about what partaking of the consecrated wafer means and represents to catholics all over the world?

apparently so-

and is this someone who should be the moderator of a religious blog?

This trend has been going on among some Catholics for some time. At Christmas Eve Mass, many folks who go to Mass once a year take communion.

On a wider scale, barriers to exclusive rewards have been coming down everywhere. The key is to discriminate between what is the respectful thing to do, and what is disrespectful, if for no other reason than it takes a long time for people to change their habits and views. Church is a manmade institution, and therefore breaches of conduct matter from the human standpoint. But there is no doubt that the walls of church dogma are coming down and thank God for that.

Soja - you make a lot of sense with your post. Bede Griffiths represents the contemplative side of Catholicism, so in my view the emphasis would be on the spirit rather than the letter of the Law (read dogma or doctrine) - since the essense of Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general has been expressed as communion with the Divine, and love of one's neighbor through deep spiritual empathy (agape rather than eros), strict adherence to a conventionally narrow interpretation of ritual might well be missing in the ethos of a contemplative or meditative order e.g. their orientation toward universal compassion and communion with the Holy.

I must emphasize my complete lack of belief in the idea of salvation by proxy - which is for the outer circle of believers. The inner circle always strives for direct knowledge of the Absolute.

Can this be accomplished by ingesting a symbolic wafer, or does it take a bit more work than that?
This points up the large differences between exoteric religion for the many, and esoteric practices for the few - the intrepidly devout that are after real Gnosis.... or as David Hume says, real knowledge based on first-hand experience. Mystical traditions through the ages have always taken this approach to the sacred.

Most practicing Catholics are convinced (either actively or passively) that conventional Church rituals and dogma are the end-all and be-all of their faith....and resultant beliefs.

I discovered this first hand at the age of 17, when priests were unable to answer many of the questions I had concerning the 'mysteries' of the faith.

Although not a practicing Catholic for nearly 50 years now, it has been clear to me through many years of research that engaging in contemplative and meditative practice greatly enhances the chances of the practitioner reaching their spiritual goals - when compared to that same outcome through a mere reliance on fixed and largely unengaging rituals. I don't see this as true participatory faith.....but it is afterall what's available to most of the faithful.

If Sally Quinn wants to eat those miserable little wafers and drink that cheap wine, that's her business.

As Professor JD Crossan says, Jesus practiced and preached an "open commensality".

Too bad many orthodox Christian groups lost sight of this!!!!

If somebody is not sure of where she stands, she tend to try other methods.

Sally Quinn, a non-catholic, going to communion just shows her ignorance.

A lot of people claim to know God but in reality, they are still searching to know God.

A biscuit turning into a body of Christ (transubstantiation)? Billions of people in this world are that IGNORANT.

Five minutes after they ate that holy biscuit, it will turn to feces. HOLY FECES.

The bread Christ was referring to was HIS WORD. His Words, the bible, is the bread of life and not some idiot biscuits.

I consider Sally to be a genuine spiritual seeker, who is doing her utmost to foster interfaith dialogue and more spiritual values in politics while at the same time trying to prevent religions from being corrupted due to partisan political involvement. Religions ought to remain a free and independent voice to inform politics without this worldly corruption.

I have great admiration and respect for Sally (Quinn) for the great work she and Jon Meacham have initiated through this blog. The deep impact is already beginning to show and it will continue to inspire the US and the rest of the world for decades, even centuries to come.

So what do I think of her receiving Holy Communion at the funeral Mass as a mark of deep love and respect for Tim Russert? I'm a liberal Catholic, but I'm not a Catholic priest to express any real opinion on the matter. But I can say from my experience in the Catholic church: from a strictly administrative point of view, it is impossible for a Catholic priest to verify if a non-Catholic is receiving Communion or not. When a Catholic receives the Holy Communion without being Catholic, it is a matter between that person and God. I would let God be judge of that. I thought Sally's gesture was genuine and as a liberal Catholic I'm happy for her to participate in the communion as her mark of love for Tim Russert during his funeral Mass. But as a lay person I have no right to make decisions about who may or may not receive Communion.

From my experience of having spent several weeks at the Christian Ashram of Do Bede Griffiths over several visits, non-Christians and atheists would go to communion at Mass. If Father Bede was aware of non-Catholics and atheist spiritual seekers like Sally receiving communion, he expressed no objection. He didn't ask them to produce the equivalent of a "Catholic Communion eligibility Passport" or identification card. Fr Bede was a person who strongly believed in leaving judgment to God and preferred to err on the side of too much love and too much inclusiveness.

I consider Sally to be a genuine spiritual seeker, who is doing her utmost to foster interfaith dialogue and more spiritual values in politics while at the same time trying to prevent religions from being corrupted due to partisan political involvement. Religions ought to remain a free and independent voice to inform politics without this worldly corruption.

I have great admiration and respect for Sally (Quinn) for the great work she and Jon Meacham have initiated through this blog. The deep impact is already beginning to show and it will continue to inspire the US and the rest of the world for decades, even centuries to come.

So what do I think of her receiving Holy Communion at the funeral Mass as a mark of deep love and respect for Tim Russert. I'm a liberal Catholic, but I'm not a Catholic priest. But I can say from my experience in the Catholic church: from a strictly administrative point of view, it is impossible for a Catholic priest to verify if a non-Catholic is receiving Communion or not. When a Catholic receives the Holy Communion without being Catholic, it is a matter between that person and God. From my experience of having spent several weeks at the Christian Ashram of Dom Bede Griffiths over several visits, non-Christians and atheists would go to communion at Mass. If Father Bede was aware of non-Catholics and atheist spiritual

I have heard of Catholic services where non-Catholics were invited to take communion if they wished. These were usually things like weddings where there would likely be a number of non-Catholics attending. I myself was a bridesmaid once upon a time at a Catholic wedding where they did a full mass. I was told at the time (by the bride who was the same age as me - 19) that I was welcome to take communion but it was not required. I opted not to, mainly because I wasn't really sure of its meaning and didn't want to be disrespectful. (I also have never agreed with some of the Catholic churches teachings.)

There was also a time in my life where I was a member of a Christian Orthodox church (went through the baptism and the whole nine yards as a convert). I don't believe our priests would have ever given communion to someone they didn't personally know to be Orthodox.

The trouble with Christianity is that every church views the Eucharist from a slightly different perspective. Many of what is called open Communion some few do not.

Myself I tend to side with the few. Because of that whole "eats and drinks judgment upon themselves" thing.

Carolyn:
Do you need to yell?!

I have found the use of a "spell check" and "grammar check" on Microsoft Word particularly useful when I remember to use it. It saves some awkward moments, and I regret when I've hesitated to use it.

And yes, I'm one of those who would suggest that "God and Jesus" (both?) might be welcome to hang out at school, but the lessons they teach might not be particularly helpful in a mathematics or language arts or physics or chemistry class.

And the last I remember, God IS Jesus IS the Holy Spirit (alas, the Holy Spirit just gets left out so many times during conversations--you know that Trinity thing...) Mormons would disagree, as would others, but I assume you're Evangelical Christian.

Carolyn, look at the "A" on your keyboard. Just to the left (your pinky finger side) there's a button called "Caps Lock." Press that button and then don't press it again, please.

Oh, and "their" is the possessive you're after. Schools need to pay more attention to things like grammar and spelling, and not worry about religious instruction. There's no shortage of people who are willing to believe iron age fairy tales, but the people who know "their" from "there" and "your" from "you're" are a rarity, especially amongst believers. What else don't they know, I wonder...

The idea of symbolic cannibalism as a way of imbuing oneself with the qualities of the deceased has a long and honored tradition amongst many tribes of mankind. If Sally Quinn wants to be a better journalist I think she has the right to accomplish it any way she wants.

I CAN NOT BELIEVE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT GOD AND JESUS BACK IN OUR SCHOOLS AND GOVERNMENT,IT HARD FOR ME TO THINK ABOUT ANYONE GOING THREW LIFE WITH OUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST IN THERE LIFE

It is a fact that Sally Quinn, if I have my facts correct, was converted from Athiesm while eating coffee and doughnuts.

And it is a fact that her "self-faith" journey allows her now to pick and choose whatever fashionable religious modes that catches her interest.

Her insight into what religion, faith and loyalty actually are now matches those of our current leaders.

Maybe she is going to run for office?

She has all of the endearing qualities.

For Monsignor Eric R. Barr:

"The columnists would never think of offending Moslems or Jews in this way---why such disrespect for Catholicism?"

Is this a joke? I suggest you read some of the panelists' past essays, particularly Arun Ghandi's January 5th essay, and Quinn's response to it. Next, you might go to the Vatican web site, and examine its statements of regret regarding its past actions and attitudes toward Jews and other minority groups.

Jews are fair game for the media in this culture and have always been, and, as you should well know, not only for the media. According to your blog, you are:

"the Vicar for Clergy and Religious for the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois and PASTOR (emphasis mine) of two rural parishes."

I hope that you do not preach the sort of hypocritical nonsense you've posted here, competitive victimology, to your flock. Hopefully, you will read some of the comments on this thread and learn from them.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Non-Muslims make statements and ask questions about Islam based on the actions of the practitioners of said religion. Islam's track record is poor to awful so you get what you sow.

BTW, we are still waiting for the answers to the following survey/poll:

Do you believe -

1. In "pretty/ugly wingie" thingies?

2. That the long-dead Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words now listed in the koran?

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life?

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7 800 year-old feud between Sunnis and Shiites give significant credence that suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran?

5. That having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy?

6. And that the condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed???????

While I can sympathize with any atheist who feels compelled to enter into a religious building - even if they are there solely to make a public display of their respect for the recently departed - I disagree with Sally's taking communion.

Communion is not an appetizer, a small pick-me-up or a benign ritual. It is a public act of confirmation that one believes that the death and resurrection of Jesus were actual events, and that you are celebrating that belief in communion with fellow believers. For an avowed atheist to partake of this ritual - even if only to not make a scene or rock the boat - is unseemly.

It isn't up to the clergy to know the religious beliefs or sect of everyone coming to the communion rail. THAT is knowledge that is held by the individual. I would hope that each individual would have the courage and conviction to stand by their beliefs. If you don't believe that you are partaking of the body and blood of Christ, then how can you possibly take communion?

I doubt very much that Sally would have been in for self-flagellation or snake handling, had those activities been part of the funeral service.

Maybe it's just me, but as an atheist, I do not and will not partake in such rituals, for my own edification as much as for showing respect for the rights of the believers to practice their religious rites. As a non-believer, communion is not intended for me, anymore than praying in the direction of Mecca is intended for me.

For an atheist to partake of communion exhibits disrespect for both Xians and oneself.

I'm not Catholic but I've taken communion. Easter Eve services in Rome, and it was wonderful.

Observing the rituals and customs of different religions is not the same as within different denominations of the same religion.

As a Christian, communion was given to us by Jesus, and I boldly take it in any house of Christian worship. Earthly leaders and doctrine police can sit and watch; I don't answer to them.

When I'm on someone else's holy ground, I follow their rules.
When I enter a Mahikari dojo, I remove my shoes.
When I was invited to a Seder that was to be followed by a potluck, I did not bring my signature crawfish etouffee, nor did I bring pork chops, yeast rolls, or cheeseburgers.
At the many Catholic weddings, christenings, and funerals I have attended, I sit, kneel, and stand respectfully when the congregation sits, kneels, or stands. I don't know the words to all the responsive portions of the service, so I remain erspectfully silent. When communnion is offered, I stand if needed to let others pass, then remain in my seat until it is finished. Not because I don't feel worthy, not because I'm afraid I'll be struck dead, not because I believe I'd be eating human flesh. Just because I'm in someone else's holy place, so I abide by their rules.
When we held our house blessing ritual, I spelled out on the invitation that it was a Pagan ritual, but that one need not be Pagan to participate. My intent was to make sure that no one found themselves in a situation where they felt spiritually uncomfortable. Participants included a couple of Catholics, a couple of Episcoplians, a couple of Pagans, a couple of Unitarians, and a couple of Kamikumite. And it was beautiful.

That's just the problem with organizations of all kinds - the devil is always in the details!

You know,

it suddenly occurred to me that we have an abundance of world-wide challenges, a sincere huge endeavor to come together as citizens of the world to face the environmental warming issues, the plagues of illnesses and the devestation of poverty across the globe,

...and we're asking whether it's okay for a non-Catholic to take communion at a Catholic service?

MONSIGNOR BARR- you asked-
"The columnists would never think of offending Moslems or Jews in this way---"

here are some of the "respectful" questions asked by the columnists regarding Muslims-

you'll notice their similarity to the heavily loaded 'have you stopped beating your wife' query

Do you think Islam is a VIOLENT religion?

What does Islam really say about violence, religious freedom and the role of women?

Pope Benedict XVI is in Turkey this week. What did you think of his remarks about Islam at Regensburg, and do you think he, and the Christian church in general, can help Muslims take on their more VIOLENT and EXTREME elements?

A journalism student in Afghanistan has been sentenced to death for distributing an Internet article that was considered an insult to the Prophet Muhammad. Do Islamic beliefs PRECLUDE FREEDOM OF SPEECH? What about other faiths?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that English law must accommodate some aspects of Islamic law, or shariah. Do you agree? Should U.S. law make room for shariah?

John McCain's spiritual guide, televangelist Rod Parsley, calls Islam a "FALSE RELIGION" that should be "DESTROYED." Should McCain renounce Parsley? Will Islam be an issue in this year's U.S. presidential election?

Pope Benedict's recent baptism of a well-known Italian Muslim has prompted criticism in much of the Islamic world. Has Benedict done enough to build bridges to Islam?

i think they're kind of equal opportunity insulters

Churches are private clubs... If you want to attend their functions, you should be prepared to play by their rules. Don't like the rules? Then create your own club.
Sure some of the rules may seem silly to outsiders... as do the rules of the local Moose lodge, Elks, Rotarians, and Masons, but if you want to enjoy the club's benefits, you simply have to pay their dues.

Specific to the topic: The orthodox Catholic Eucharist is a nice symbol of the life of one simple preacher man. Physically it is nothing more than a low calorie wafer. Get over the hype of religious symbols and the world will be a happier and safer place!!!!

i've visited temples (buddhist and hindu), and synogogues (not services) and a variety of different flavors of christian churches-

i always ASK what is the respectful behavior-

it is about sensitivity to and respect for others beliefs- not belittling or demeaning their worship by unconscious mimickry-
and staying in the background- common sense and basic good manners-

my mosques has hosted countless interfaith visitors- every week as a matter of fact-

i approach the ladies and welcome them the same way we sisters welcome each other- with a kiss on each cheek- telling them beforehand in case they are not up for such personal contact-

if i sense any level of discomfort- i offer my hand instead- but these ladies are there with already opened hearts-

they always show a curiosity about, and ask if they are required to wear a scarf-
i always assure them that in no way are they required to do so- some ladies like to do it for the experience and the sense of inclusion- or their own personal reasons-
so i have a supply of pretty clean scarves available for them- helping them to put them on and adjust them is part of the warmth and fun of the experience-

there are no chairs in the mosque prayer space- but we provide chairs for our visitors to be comfortable in-

their comfort level is our priority- we appreciate their interest and outreach towards us-
they always ask how we pray- we go through the motions and explain it to them- sometimes some of them will want to do it with us-
if they do, we stay with them-

sometimes, someone will ask if we are worshipping the devil, or if they have to pray to ALLAH-
of course not- to both- they are welcome to however they want to meditate or pray-

as my grandmother used to say- the truth and good breeding will out-

What is it about "respect" that Sally and the other columnists do not understand? This isn't their Eucharist and the overweening pride that comes from the attitude that Catholics should just "get over it" is breathtaking. Communion means "in union with". When someone steps forward to receive they are saying, "I believe what this Church believes." Sally and the columnists simply do not believe. To elevate personal freedom above the sacred beliefs of others is truly offensive. To think that we can just sample at the buffet of world religons and pick what we want and taste what we want is naive, shallow and ultimately sacriligious. It betrays a cynicism about religion, viewing faith as a personal quirk of an individual or group.

The columnists would never think of offending Moslems or Jews in this way---why such disrespect for Catholicism? The prohibition that keeps non-believers from receiving is as old as Christianity itself. The early Christians would not even let pagans see their worship rituals unless they converted. Now, we welcome non-Catholics out of hospitality but we expect them to exercise some common sense. If you really want to receive, GREAT! Take some classes, get some knowledge, convert your heart and do what so many have done over the years--enter the Catholic Church. You will be welcome to receive the sacraments. But if not, then, please, pray with us, but do not pretend to "be" us.

The critique will be that we are exclusionary. There is some truth in that. Baptism and the Eucharist do set us apart--not to proclaim that we are better than everyone else, but, rather, that we are called to a different witness and lifestyle based on our belief in Jesus Christ and the Church he founded.

As you respect all the other religions of the world, please respect us as well.

Topic is not about what Sally Quinn does.She is an example.

Question is about for *observing the religious rituals of others*.

i haven't even the remotest interest, nor opinion about what sally does.
but she must be very very important if she went to tim russert's funeral.