Generosity is the First Rule

Ryan Haber:

You said:

"It's funny to me how nuts it drives so many people, who do not believe what the Church teaches about almost anything, let alone about the Eucharist, who still resent that we don't want them receiving Communion without being in communion with us."

That is your misapprehensison that people are dying to partcipate in the Eucharist; they are not.

For the most part, the only people being excluded from the Eucharist are friendly and benevolent guests, or members of a wedding celebration, or mourners at a funeral; these are hardly people who are dying to participate in the Eucharist; they are merely well-meaning, well-intended people, caught up in the system of Catholic rules which they may not understand.

It is only human nature to feel insulted when you are excluded from something. This exclusion directed at friendly and benevolent people is a sign of "self-righteous superiority", which is a syndrome that many religious people suffer from, and is not necessarily a trait of Catholics, alone.

Are you not able to appreciate how off-putting this quality of "self-righteous superiority" is? Surely, you cannot be oblivious that this is at the root of alot of the problem.

For now, I would prefer not to meet. I have had many, many experiences with people trying to convert me, and such interactions always worry me very, very much. I am not as persistent or strong in person as I may appear in writing on this blog.

It is not necessary for you to show me how "good" Catholic people can be, or all the "good" things that the Catholic Church does; I am already aware of these things.

But these things are not relevant to the nature of religious doctrine, belief, or truth.

To me, belief comes from an "inner will" which is within each person, and impervious to external control or coercion. Therefore, it is futile to try and force someone to believe what their inner will cannot accept.

video.eksenim.mynet.com/smandar/vaybee_ne_ilginc/159544/

video.eksenim.mynet.com/wanted25251980/Kurt_adam/162382/

genero : son-in-law (italian)
citius : swifter

www.swift.ac.uk/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Swift

"...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Ember
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Eye
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choke_%28film%29
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanted_%28film%29

youtube.com/watch?v=35wwB607CQY
youtube.com/watch?v=GvB_1KoQDKg

youtube.com/watch?v=so7qya7WYY0
youtube.com/watch?v=yMZ3Mi1vT-w

youtube.com/watch?v=O7ftozVc3lI
youtube.com/watch?v=y5HrxAXvQ6A

..."

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/brian_d_mclaren/2008/07/the_search_for_christian_hospi/all_comments.html

i hope Pope Benedictus, or Queen Elizabeth or Bill GAtes or Williams Bush are ready for the court with a case of de-rugging a portuguese woman and a man in Anadolu.

but i already have the verdict. Israel, are you ready for Ankara and electromagnetics and Temple of Solomon? Turkish Army, Turkish Government, are you ready for my debts?

what is the difference between St Germain and St George in this case?

do you know that sheep are throated with knife over a sewage for the blood to be not around?

if it is not about either China or Ireland, but a case?

if it is not about China or Ireland?

if a group of men de-rug the carpet and cloth sewed, on a woman? what is it? rape? enslavement? re-marriage? education?

if a man with his stick and on his horse, kills the de-rug? is it a sew of a woman? is it a sexual relation?

or de-rock, in Israel, while we are talking about Phalestine and St George and St Germain and Israel?

Why the concern?

Baptism does not cleanse the soul since there is no original sin to cleanse i.e. the sinning parents did not exist.

Confirmation- Holy Spirit and his winged representations do not exist- The Trinity is more theological mumbo jumbo invented by early theologians who had too much time on their hands.

Eucharist- already put the myth box as being nothing more than low calorie wafers and inexpensive wine.

Holy Orders- All the NT passages supposedly setting up said priesthood have been judged by many NT exegetes as being bogus.

Reconciliation/Confession- All the NT passages supposedly setting up said sacrament have been judged by many NT exegetes as also being bogus.

Last Rites/Annointing of the sick - vitiated by the previous comments about said "sacraments".

Marriage - only sacrament established by the historical Jesus as per most NT exegetes- easy annulments vitiate most of its importance- e.g. Catholic woman married 18 years to a Catholic man (ex-seminarian). They had seven children. Woman was given an annulment after the husband left with another woman in the 18th year.

Lycia was a region in the modern-day provinces of Antalya and Muğla on the southern coast of Turkey. It was a federation of ancient cities in the region and later a province of the Roman Empire. Lycian League was the first federation in the world with democratic principles which later inspired the American Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycia
St Nicholas, PAtara, Golden City.

i know about St Francisco and the sewage, or is it de-rainage. the President also His Parents had been known as muslim, they were reading Quran, as far as i had heard two years ago. today i met a village in China "Liqian" where Roman Soldiers were in but genetically not proved, the village in the end of Gobi Dessert.

CCNL, CCNL, CCNL

you are in Denmark, arent you? allright, i have an hoffer to you, i shall talk about Hannah and Havvah, and God of Israel and Pasific Ocean.

if a man throws Quran into sewage, there comes a Green Light. it is a traidition that men marry with prostitutes to save them in Holy Light of Peace at Home, and maternity.

i had watched also in a Chinese movie. their house was by the trainway. she was at the hotels and the man was a bike-carry, she came home and he made lines oof blood on her spine as they are on a leaf, and then put medicine.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan,

B16 before becoming pope wrote a position letter to all bishops and cardinals bascically telling them to continue the practice of hiding the problems with pedophiliac priests. And you still think he has some connection to God??

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE0D61239F93AA35752C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/pope_benedict_pedophilia_in_church.htm

And you still parade atonement theology!!! Not good for rational thinking!!!

Atonement theology by Professor JD Crossan and finally some rational thinking about it:

(from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Anonymous was Bill Clinton, a few months ago. i hope you are Hillary Clinton, Anonymous.

Anonymous, i have been here on Washington Post for two years, and authors have heard about me. and i write according to names and subjects.

Professor Thistlethwaite, if You take some time for Cahit Arf, a world wide ordinarius professor on maths, i cannot explain how much wideness have his theories provided. i just want to drive Your attention to multi-layer speech, for ease and support in your studies. Your colleagues, especially in maths and linguistics, may explain further.

it may be incoherent for your locality. for world wide matters, it is another scope and vision where some other people from some other land may contribute and comprehend also, unless this is OnFaith is just for USA, is it?

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

In another post you commented the written media makes it difficult to convey nuance. Well said.

I do not believe that "Willis Elliot is such a wicked person," an opinion, you supposed in another blog, that I hold. His moral virtue has nothing to do with his inability to receive communion.

It's funny to me how nuts it drives so many people, who do not believe what the Church teaches about almost anything, let alone about the Eucharist, who still resent that we don't want them receiving Communion without being in communion with us.

I almost lost your last post in this blog under Interpreter Native's, um, contributions. Please believe that if I ever fail entirely to respond to a post, it is only because I haven't seen it for whatever reason.

"When I said that the Catholic Church was forged in a world that is now gone, I was referring to Medieval Europe, where everyone and everything was Catholic, and no one had a choice."

Right. I understood that. But that's not when the Catholic Church was forged. It was forged a thousand years before that, and She herself is the primary agency by which the Middle Ages were brought about - she mitigated the barbarian ravagings, slowed the barbarian vagrancy, tamed the barbarian warlust, fuedalized the barbarian society, educated the barbarians' sons, and unified the barbarians into a single civilization called Christendom. But She was around before the barbarians came to Europe, before Rome fell, before the Classical Age ended.

As for top-down rules, we live in a world filled with them. Did YOU determine what the speed limit was on your commute into work this week? Even if you did, you imposed it upon the rest of us. We vote in elections for who will impose top-down rules upon us, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that all of our rules come from grass-roots movements.

"The impression of "Catholic" God that I get... in a continual state of cross-referenceing all of the rules against the written lists of all the thoughts, actions, and deeds of every man, woman, and child that has ever lived."

That's a pity. It is an understandable impression, if your chief concern with the Church and chief entree into discussions with/about Her has to do with Her "rules."

But I assure you, that is not what God is like, not in my experience, and not as I was taught by the same Church.

You know, Daniel in the Lion's Den, if you'd like, I'd like to invite you to join me at the Missionaries of Charity hospice where I work sometimes. The sisters tend to patients with HIV/AIDS and other chronic illnesses, who otherwise wouldn't receive care. They've an amazing work there, and I think you'll see us with quite a different image of God than what can come across in an argumentative blog forum. Email me at withouthavingseen at gmail dot com, if you like.

"I realize, that this probably is not what you believe. But, it is a logical and thoughtful extension of the hints that Catholics give to me"

No it is not. It is the impression you take from the conversations you have with Catholics. But I bet if you asked them, "What's God like?" they'd either stare at you dumbstruck and wordless, or else give some really beautiful answers.

"is not convincing or plausible, at all."

Of course it's not. You're right to be repelled by such an image of God. It's just not our image, not the one taught in scriptures, not the one lived at Mass, not the one carried in most of our hearts. Well, maybe it is the one many of us carry in our hearts. It has to do with not knowing Him well, though. I suspect most non-religious people, whatever they say, also feel this way. It's exactly the way the devil should like us to feel - that God is looking for excuses to cast us into hell.

But it is not what God has revealed to us.

"Please don't say... manners don't matter."

I don't recall ever having said or written that in my entire life. I couldn't find it anywhere on this blog at least. I certainly don't recall having suggested anything "crude and crass" at a man's funeral. Did I? I cannot recall.

You're a very good prose writer, by the way. I'm being serious. You manage complete sentences, for a start, which is more than most posters here seem even to attempt. Thanks for your continuing posts.

GaryD,

What Church was there before the Catholic Church, may I ask?

Are you aware that as early as AD 105, St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, on his way to being martyred in Rome wrote a letter in which he called the Church "catholic," meaning "univeral"?

As for whether he meant what we mean, that is, not only "universal," but also specifically the Church centered in Rome, another martyr, writing at the same time gives his thoughts. St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, at about the same time received a letter from the Bishop of Corinth telling how he had been expelled from the Christian community there and threatened if he returned to the city. Clement wrote to the church in Corinth and, invoking authority as the bishop-successor to St. Peter, commanded the Corinthians to take back their bishop, or by failing to do so remove themselves from communion with the rest of the whole ("catholic") Church.

Tellingly, the Christians of Corinth took their bishop back.

You don't know your history very well, I think. You wrote: "The Catholic Church did not begin until the over weening Leo I some three hundred years after the church was originally founded." Presumably, you mean that Leo I lived sometime in the 300s. He was pope from AD 440-461.

"It was the Goal of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other reformers to return the Church to it's historic roots."

How should they know those roots? And why go back to them in exactly the same way as before? That's not even possible, because the world had changed. That's like an oak tree in summer wanting to go back to being an acorn in winter.

"to date has only gone further and further astray from the true faith."

Who defines the true faith?

You? Martin Luther? Why not the Pope then?
The Bible? But who interprets it? If its meaning is self-evident, as Luther claimed, why cannot his followers even within the Lutheran church agree on its meaning? Why could not Luther and his immediate followers?

"As a Protestant I don't have to accept any of the Johnny come latelies either. And for the same reason I don't accept the dictates of the Roman Church."

Protestants don't deny that the Pope is infallible, the final arbiter of the Christian faith. Rather, they think they are all popes, each the final arbiter of the Christian faith for himself - thus hopelessly relativizing the faith to their own tastes, preferences, and defensivenesses.

Interpreter Native ---

Maybe you'd like to get some professional help for your problem? You continue to post incoherent stuff on these blogs.

dear reader, if You would love to purchase or rent a house in Nicaea, or just for a journey, feel free to write to me, there are houses near the lake and the water refreshes with MArmara Sea from the bottom. jazz.intext@gmail.com

Professress Susan Thistlethwaite, i shall not make a joke for You. there was a portuguese girl in 1991, she has been accepted as a lecturer in the university she graduated.

in Portugal, children in the primary school do not learn how to write and read. they speak in the classes. in the middle school, they learn how to write and read.

reading and writing are with speech and address, have You ever printed on water, Professress? You really have on me. thank You OnFaith, for the faith in me.

President Bush, i greet You with the prayer of St Francisco Assisi, candidate Barack Obama has prayed also in his introduction on the website.

and gifts of St Nicholas that had sent this author to Portugal and USA, as a doctor, after 1991.

greetings from two branches of American freedom with Finland, Portugal, Egypt, St MArkus, UK, Holland, Endonesia, and Irish Scottish French New Caledonia Pasific way.

(kuvvetler ayrimi yasama yurutme ve yargi olarak degil de mason, sosyalist ve dindar olarak degismesi gerek, ve uc takima da Evrim Peygamberler TArihi Enoch Noah, Komunizm HAvariler ve Azizler ile Tarih, Misir Grek Iskandinav Anlatimlari ogretilmeli.)

i would love to learn, president Bush, whether Scottish have problem with St Nicholas. St Nicholas was in France. and i love Pasific Ocean.

Farnaz, except for a few thousand Bible scholars nobody (literally billions of Christians in two thousand years) has read the Bible in its original languages of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Yet billions of Christians have trusted/trust those who translated it from the original.

Anyone interested in understanding the complex mind and depth of knowledge of Farnaz might also want to read her posts in Susan Jacoby's threads especially of June/July 2008.

GaryD, the Christian roots were in Germany (Martin Luther), France/Switzerland (Calvin), England (Church of England et al)? Or the US?

GaryD, Martin Luther et al returned the Church to its historic roots??????

Farnaz, if it is necessary to read the Quran in the original. Yet literally millions of Muslims don't know Arabic. So they can't possibly be Muslims. Billions of Muslims who have lived and died in the past fourteen centuries weren't Muslims either because they didn't read the Quran in Arabic. The Arabic speaking Muslims who translated the Quran into other languages either weren't real Muslims or didn't know their mother tongue or the languages into which they translated even though they had been living in the country for decades.

For example, N J Dawood is an Iraqi Muslim who worked on the translation of the Quran into English for decades. He grew up in Iraq and was a scholar before he went to the UK.

This line of argument is worn out. The Greeks could claim nobody who has read their great work in translation could ever know anything about it. Ditto Chinese, etc etc. If translations don't count, then all the translations you have read of any work doesn't count either.

Farnaz, this is a discussion you ought to have with someone who buys into your theory that translations are worthless. The vast majority of Jews are also only reading translations of their Scripture and commentaries in Hebrew. The vast majority of literature and information in the world is transmitted only through translation.

An atheist has a better idea of what religion is simply because of a university degree? You don't understand religions. Read in Hebrew and Araimaic the background of all the famous persons in the Bible, about their university degrees before they were chosen by God for His work.

Wrong Patrick. The Catholic Church did not begin until the over weening Leo I some three hundred years after the church was originally founded. It was the Goal of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other reformers to return the Church to it's historic roots.

They succeeded unfortunately they had to leave the Roman church to do it as that institution whole heartedly refused to reform and to date has only gone further and further astray from the true faith.

As a Protestant I don't have to accept any of the Johnny come latelies either. And for the same reason I don't accept the dictates of the Roman Church.

CCNL, why don't you admit that you are a religion bashing atheist of some sort. Are you a Scientologist?

Farnaz, I have been unable to shake off the feeling that you are connected to Islam in Pakistan in a way that you do not care to admit.

Patrick J. Burwell,

Hmmm, only Jesus saves?? Give us a break!!!

Here is part of your Five Step Program to Eradicate your Three B Syndrome, i.e. being Bred, Born and Brainwashed in orthodox Christianity.

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/ simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current Crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current Crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

FARNAZ, you are wrong about Muslims reading the Bible. Even in the lifetime of Mohammad,, Jews and Christians objected to Mohammad rewriting their Scripture. The Biblical persons in the Quran are quite different from their original Scripture.

Mohammad was not a Jew. He did not live in Israel. His knowledge of the Jewish and Christian Scripture was from the people he met. There was no translation of the Bible in Arabic at the time. So he had to depend on what lay people told him.

Christians do not rewrite the Jewish Scripture. They simply believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish Scripture because that is what Jesus taught. He referred constantly to Jewish Scripture. Jesus taught in Jewish synagogues, He had only Jewish disciples and followers in His lifetime. Jesus was a Jew who lived in Israel.

Mohammad was an Arab pagan born in Mecca nearly seven hundred years later. Allah was the name of an Arab pagan god. Mohammad reformed Arab paganism to monotheism by borrowing from Jewish and Christian Scripture. He did away with the three daughters of Allah who used to be worshiped by Arab pagans. Mecca was the pilgrim place for all Arab pagans long before the birth of Mohammad.

Don't compare apple and oranges. Christianity was originally considered a Jewish sect.

Jews do not accept Mohammad as a Jew, but they accept Jesus as a Jew even if they do not accept Him as Messiah. Many thousands of early converts to Christianity were Jews. Christianity was spread to the Gentiles by Jewish Christians.

"We do not honor the gracious gifts of the spirit by putting up 'Keep Out!' signs. Indeed, we dishonor these gifts when we do that."

The problem with your preconception is that Church is for unbelievers or even "seekers". I don't speak for anything Catholic, as I don't consider them in any way a denomination of the Christian Church.
That being said, the Christian fellowship is for the Believers. The church is for the fellowship of the Saints, not for the lost.
Jesus went out to the street to seek the lost, and into the synagogues as well, knowing he was speaking to the Lost there as well. Only among the fellowship of Believers would He speak plainly; Only to the Believers did Jesus demonstrate communion; Only the to the Brethren did Christ speak of doctrine and the things of the Spirit.
Again, let me remind you that Jesus was Dogmatically Exclusive of all other religions when He explained that He alone is the Way, the Truth and the life; That He alone is the Way to the Father.
Howl and scream all you want but you will not change reality: Only Jesus Saves.
Patrick J. Burwell/OnlyJesusSaves.com
Evangelist@OnlyJesusSaves.com

Hi Dale,

Thank you for answering my question about why Jews can't take communion. Anon referred you to my posts on Claire Hoffman's blog on George Carlin. Here is the link, in case you're interested:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/06/george_carlin.html

Anon:

I'd like to communicate with you in a genuine and friendly way and will attempt to do so one last time. If you can reply, in kind, we can continue, if not, not. This will require good will and good faith, as well as respect on your part. Like me, you will post under your handle. You will also tell me directly if you have problems with things I've written, as you refer Dale to what I wrote on the Carlin thread. Otherwise, there really is no point, is there? Please let me know if you can do these things. I'll also be able to judge, of course, from the tenor of your post.

Anonymous:

Anon: Farnaz, I'm used to hearing from Muslims that it is impossible to "really" understand Islam without reading the Quran in Arabic. Even the translations by Muslims who are native Arabic speakers and have worked for decades on the translations don't count. Yet there are over a billion Muslims around the world and most of them have never read the Quran in the languages they speak leave alone in Arabic.

Farnaz: I'm in complete agreement with those Muslims who say it's necessary to read the Quoran in Arabic. For me, this was simple, as my native language is Farsi to which Arabic is extremely close.

Here is just one reason why it is so important with respect to the Quoran. The word for "Jerusalem" occurs nowhere in the orignal of the Quoran. NOWHERE. Yet, in translation, it appears frequently. If you'd like my thoughts on this, I'll give them to you.

Anon: Now you come up with the same logic for Judaism. But it doesn't work because Christians have been working on the original Jewish Scripture for two thousand years.

It helps immnensely to be a believer to understand religions in general. It helps to be a Christian to understand Judaism. Christianity includes Judaism and goes beyond it in terms of God's revelation. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of Christian scholars who have read the Jewish Scripture in the original and commented on it from a Christian standpoint. Christians read the Jewish Scripture as a regular part of their worship.

Farnaz: Most Christian scholars, some of whom have read the Tanakh in Hebrew and Aramaic (it's principally written in Hebrew) do, as you say, understand it from a Christian standpoint. A Christian understanding of the Tanakh is radically different from a Jewish standpoint. To use your languagage, it doesn't take much to know that this would have to be the case. Radically different.

Those who read it translated from the Greek, will find such constructions as God "walkin" in the Garden of Eden. In the Hebrew God doesn't walk. HaShem is not a person. The best Hebrew translation to English would be that of R. Steinsaltz which goes something like the presence of HaShem was felt in the garden. Note well: HaShem equals "the name." That alone, should tell you something about the differences between the two religions.

Sorry, one does not need a university degree in Judaism to understand the RELIGION.

A university degree is certainly not necessary to be an adherent of Judaism. Study of the Talmud is necessary. There are Jews such as I was who went to Talmud study every week, sometimes two or three times a week. Such study is conducted in a house of learning or in a synagogue. We are the people of the book.

Beyond the Talmud, one must study the sages such as Maimonides!

Just as Christians see Judaism from their standpoint, Musliams see Christianity from their standpoint. Using your logic, they could say to you that Muslims have been studying Christianity for fourteen hundred years. Muslim scholars read the Bible in the original. Christianity is simple, etc.

INTERPRETER NATIVE - your Turkish is very good.

"Melungeon left the building, please take your seats"

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

I hope they can separate the magical from the
mundane - for all of our sakes.

boru da ustunuzu basinizi pisletmeden kullanin.

TRT bile aciklayamiyor filmleri, ben aciklamisim ne var? Meclis bile aciklayamiyor, ben aciklamisim, ne var? Ordu bile aciklayamiyor, ben aciklamisim, ne var? neye yarar?

bir tek tertemiz Ahmet var. gerisi sizin olsun.

kime gidecegimi bilmiyorum, kimseye de gitmeyecegim. adima Bursa postanesine MONEY GRAMM cikartin, WESTERN UNION cikartin, posta adresime numarasini yollayin. suraya bakin ya, polsiler oluyor ben burada agliyorum, neden? ilgililer arasi ilgisizlige agliyorum.

sicilimi bana aciklamadan benim hakkimda hukum vermeyin. para yollayin borcumu kapatayim.

ordunun askeri muayenesinden, Sevgi Guney'in yaklasimina, Ankara'daki Hacettepe'de olanlar ve 1991 sonrasi Ankara'daki elektromanyetik uygulamalari aciklamadan 2000 sonrasi icin bana hukum vermeyin.

hic kimse beni affetmez, her tarafin isine yarar yaramaz herseyi anlattim. her tarafin durdurdugu karsi ciktigi kabul ettigi taraflar var. ben cekileyim ne yaparsaniz yapin. bir tek para istiyorum ya, 60.000 YTL o kadar!

bir radyo biraktim evde, onu da kapatirim, yeter ya. konusmayayim, parami odeyin birakin. benimle konusup bir soz isteyin ya! herkes bir kenarda isini yurutuyor, benimle niye gorusmuyorsunuz!

be ne yapayim ya hayat bunlari getirdi, maarif'i said nursi'si, bursasi hacettepe'si ne cahit arfi ne tadi kaldi ne anlami birakin ya, bana niye eziyet ediyorsunuz, tesekkur edin, beni birakin!

aranizda halledin beni birakin!

ne Kralice ile Sabanci desteklesin, ne Koc gozetsin durdursun, ellemeyin ya. ne Bush ile gorusurum ne Papa ile ne Putin ile, birakin ya.

istemiyorum ya, sizinle birsey yapmak istemiyorum, ne hukumetle ne orduyla ne ahmet necdet sezer ne bilkent ne demirel! ben gezegenlerden siir yaziyorum, saglikla ugrasiyorum, birakin beni ya!

ozur diliyorum ya, beni birakin gideyim, bana para yollayin borcumu kapatayim ya!

masonluk merkezlerinden MArmaris'te oturan Kenan Evren'in benimle derdi Sibel Can ve DHKP-C PKK Ankara Universitesi KEnan Evren iliskisinden baska neymis soyler misiniz? bir de Buyuk Meclis'te Susma Cezasi verenler borcumu odese de basimi kurtarsam? baska cozum gelmiyor mu akliniza!

as far as i have heard, Hillary Clinton is in a center, in government. Williams Bush sent planes to take people to Guantanamo, people who shot policemen in Istanbul Embassy took a nurse to heal one of shooters, but no one comes here or takes fruitful people to USA. is there any disease in Turkey? why are all remote?

who did murder an Armenian journalist praise the party and party leader who was taken to London and met Prince Charles and Queen.

what is the problem? the attorneys should give the Generals of Ergenekon with WHITE GLOVES with electromagnetic energy applied and all of the Generals shall speak, no need for prison.

did Queen Elizabeth give a list to Muhsin YAzicioglu and his party members to shoot or American Embassy in Istanbul? Turkish Newspapers in Turkey name Williams Bush as "bin LAden" nowadays, "reverse action".

someone should say His Holiness that i am a prisoner here. what should i apologize for? for what i tought? for the illiteracy and hidden agenda of masonry and governments?

for the contradiction and interfaceless disconnection and conflicts between authorities in Turkey that are sustained to have a frequency to keep busy and available to employ? for i try to heal all of these?

did Guler Sabanci in guidance of Queen Elizabeth order and pay for the shoot of policemen in American Embassy? who is next, Queen Elizabeth? this author and poet that You supported for the future of shining Turkey under Your guidance and government with Guler Sabanci? to heal people who have gone crazy because of Israelian and Russian remote applications? because he interfered with the world trade center file? with the stick of His Holiness? You did everything and You are keeping in prison!

did You order the policemen in Embassy to be shot against the WHITE GLOVES generals arrested? order VODAFONE for their safety in public, out of prison, to be questioned in freedom, the next may be Abdullah Ocalan also.

when shall we have a peace on this land! when shall this masonry religion war come to an end? the problem is "the house belongs to whom", isnt it? could You argue to use the wealth for all on Earth, but not one land-owner, how shall You explain to Katastrophe?!

Ryan Haber

When I said that the Catholic Church was forged in a world that is now gone, I was referring to Medieval Europe, where everyone and everything was Catholic, and no one had a choice.

Now, this top-down legalistic imposition of belief does not work.

The impression of "Catholic" God that I get from Catholics is of a Heavenly or Celestial Lawyer, sitting in a gigantic Elysium Lawyer's Office, with millions of law books spelling out every imaginable word, action, and deed, on what is legal, proper, moral, and good, for every possible circumstance that might ever occur, and that God is in a continual state of writing more and more rules, and in a continual state of cross-referenceing all of the rules against the written lists of all the thoughts, actions, and deeds of every man, woman, and child that has ever lived.

I do not see anything wrong with wanting to re-think this conccept of God.

I realize, that this probably is not what you believe. But, it is a logical and thoughtful extension of the hints that Catholics give to me of what they believe, and it just somehow, is not convincing or plausible, at all.

So, eat the wafer, or don't eat the wafer. I think it is bad manners and in poor taste to have this arguemnt over a dead man's casket.

Please don't say that at a time like that, when a man's imortal soul is at stake, manners don't matter. Because they do matter. Being crude and crass at the moment of a human being's most extreme grief, does indeed matter, very much.

i love MATT as a name, student and teacher are in one name. did Venus pass over me two hours ago? the subject of the article and the first paragraph of the article of the professress reminded me "Where is MAtt" : )

www.wherethehellismatt.com

i have talked much.

could His Holiness and Her MAjesty take a Journey from Europe to China on Trans-Sibirian Trainway?

we dont want government, we want family!

this is jazz.intext.googlepages.com/vesairvesait.txt

could His Holiness invite Her MAjesty to a Journey to PAsific Ocean and Mediterranean Sea?

book covers shall be simple, white, title on the spine, author and date of publishment on the first page.

any intelligence service, any hidden service shall be open to public to provide with balanace and interface.

any authority shall leave what they have in their minds and possessions, to public authorities to be processed and delivered to common system of people. all shall be rendered and inherited.

all shall be open to public, mastered and perfected, simply mature to be open to public and service.

one shall not be against one another. masonry shall not act against religious offices. there is not only one authority, i had explained, this is hospital for a certain period of time on EArth.

Communism and Evolution shall be explained in religious offices. if masonry goes further with the rules and sources of these two sub-systems, then they shall explain, as it is in software programming at the head of the prograame lines.

we need a system that all are in order. there shall be interfaces, the languages shall be in common and registered.

to avoid confusion, His Holiness must notice and announce MAsonry, Government, Israel, Russia, England.

this shall be on world media also. there shall be clear explanations and attention marks, for masonry, for religious offices, authors, governments, all shall be explained and marked as historical places and museums in the maps.

this is also for John McCAin, in His addresses and speeches, and governmental applications.

there shall be differentiations in the news and newspapers and televisions and mobile phone trademarks and on goods.

His Holiness

this is urgent, in the relations, there shall be a mark for whom His Holiness is addressed by. there shall be a mark whether they are masonry or other authorities and organizations.

if the problem of His Holiness is with Israel, then it is Israel. if it is with Islam, then it is with Israel, not Turkey. there shall be differentiations in the news to have clearity.

Turkish Government, Turkish Masonry, Turkish ısrael, these shall be stateted in case of relations. we dont want this to be a source of confusion.

for a certain periof of time for passage.

if any one asks "foot-step fee" for Your visit to Mersin Tarsus of St Paul, then You shall begin to explain

1. who is asking for the fee? masonry? turkish government?
2. His Holiness shall explain which party His Holiness addresses to, masonry or government?
3. His Holiness shall ask for precautions and explain if His Holiness does not pay the "foot-step fee" and moves in Turkey and then accidents and murders occur.
4. if St Paul is in Tarsus, then His Holiness in His CAlmness visit TArsus, or His Holiness shall be able to be in keep Tarsus in His Heart other than Prayers.
5. if masonry in Russia or Turkey or England, threatens or warns His Holiness, then His Holiness shall heal the case, with Israel and other authorities.

any authority, Pope Benedictus, Queen Elizabeth of a certain age, shall stop manipulating and government in eager, but shall leave to peace and union again on this Earth.

and this shall be their gift, or any time they may come here to have their packages.

we, the new generation on EArth, didnt cause any problem on Earth, You shall heal the problems You have caused.

You shall explain Scientology, because You did, not this generation in Turkey.

You shall explain MAsonry, because You did, not this generation in Turkey.

You shall explain in the years ahead of your lifetime, to solve any problem with any authority to have peace and comprehension on Earth.

George Bush, not Williams Bush, George Bush, the ex-one, like Axe of Rex in ETI Crax in Eskisehir of MAsonry, You cheated, You didnt educate, You did hidden, You didnt do sacred. because of You children and parents of your own family died and suffered. You didnt keep the truth for every one You have met.

You shall pay atonement and compensation. You shall explain and pay compensation for Solomon Temple in Ankara after 1987, Chernobyl of Tupolev and Challenger with liquid fuel of Reagan, the hydrogen and electromagnetics, You shall explain to correct the MAsonry, to make not any more faults, to have the compass precise for the ship, the EArth. it is with stars and planets, not with earthly ceremonies and rules.

anonymous, have you read my message about Gurdjieff? maybe it is not apperant on the website.

dindar bir insandi kendisi.

dusurdugunuz borcu kapatin da ne bok yerseniz yeyin. ben kendi ekmegimi kazanirim namusumla.

demisti herhalde Vahdettin.

and i have ead about the joke of John McCain about cigarettes imported by Iran "the way they kill themselves", meat in wine, onion in salt, woman in words.

and maybe the reason why the last Ruler in Ottoman Empire Vahdettin left the land, or moved to the main land, on board of a English ship is St George.

Farnaz, I'm used to hearing from Muslims that it is impossible to "really" understand Islam without reading the Quran in Arabic. Even the translations by Muslims who are native Arabic speakers and have worked for decades on the translations don't count. Yet there are over a billion Muslims around the world and most of them have never read the Quran in the languages they speak leave alone in Arabic.

Now you come up with the same logic for Judaism. But it doesn't work because Christians have been working on the original Jewish Scripture for two thousand years.

It helps immnensely to be a believer to understand religions in general. It helps to be a Christian to understand Judaism. Christianity includes Judaism and goes beyond it in terms of God's revelation. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of Christian scholars who have read the Jewish Scripture in the original and commented on it from a Christian standpoint. Christians read the Jewish Scripture as a regular part of their worship.

Sorry, one does not need a university degree in Judaism to understand the RELIGION.

Farnaz: "Later on, when her family, including the priest, my colleague's brother, gathered together, we discussed my decision. While, sadly, my colleague expressed some disappointment, her brother respected my decision, in fact said it was the best, the only one, I could have made given the circumstances."

July 9, 2008 10:53 AM

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

Farnaz, sorry. That was my fault. I for some reason thought the priest and your colleague's brother were two separate persons.

this is the reason why Iran is in dispute with Turkish Republic, masonry and Ataturk, also the first rulers and governors and teachers of Turkish Republic.

yes, now in the Armenian File, around 1915, VAtican, England and MAsonry, with Gurdjieff in Armenia and Germany must be in hand to have a wider vision.

Dale, I suggest you also read her posts on Susan Jacoby's and Claire Hoffman's (George Carlin) blogs.

Just as it isn't necessary to have studied Christian theology to understand Christianity, so does one not need a special degree in Jewish studies to understand Judaism. An atheist cannot understand religion which requires faith. An intellectual knowledge alone does not constitute understanding of a religion. There is more to religion than that. Unaltered Jewish Scripture is part of the Christian Scripture. So Judaism is not such a big mystery to Christian. Christianity was known as a Jewish sect in the beginning.

ANONYMOUS,

in these ten days, when i had been writing under the article of Pamela Taylor, i had received a facsimile, it was a photo of a couple, the woman had a bikini, or at least her breasts were covered, hugging her husband around his neck and they were both happy and cheerful, they were both looking at me, it was like a summer postcard, via facsimile. it was before morning.

www.classicsnetwork.com/showcreativeprint.asp?IDNo=1342

in Turkey, any one knows the Four Riders of Heaven. Elijah, Jesus, St George, St Andreas.

having talked about Gurdjieff, George Gurdjieff (Kurt-Jevv, Guard-Jew), i may say George Wolf-Jew, for St George is with Victory "V" but "w" is "u+u".

Prince Charles had come to visit Ephesus and Mevlana Rumi. i have met websites in relation with Gurdjieff and British Foundations, also in Scientology and attached to Madam BAlavatsky,

the energies of these two names are not high. apart from those of MAdam BAlavatsky, or of MAsonry, there are those Four Riders of Heaven, from Bible or at least in the public folk life that have high energies.

the centers of Mevlana Rumi had been closed after the Turkish Republic by Ataturk. Ataturk, the Ottoman Rulers in 1800s, even one of Rulers of Islam in ottoman Empire, translators of world literature and religious dictionary, were all in MAsonry.

and the date of Gurdjieff is around the beginning of the 20th century, till 1946. and in these years had been the Armenian File.

Anonymous:

I know she's an atheist. I read all her posts on this thread. Of course she can know about Judaism
whether or not she's an atheist. What do you mean? She probably didn't start out as an atheist. Did you read her posts? She's obviously studied Judaism and knows a great deal about it.

You missed her point. Her question about communion concerned observant Jews, and my answer is correct. For your information, Jews do not accept Jesus. How can they take communion? That's what she thought and was asking you about. You seem confused.

DALE, Farnaz is an atheist. Her ethnicity does not matter.

FARNAZ, as an atheist how can you claim to understand any religion, not just Judaism?

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.

Farnaz:

I can answer your question about Jews taking communion. It's what you think. Since they don't accept the divinity of Christ, they shouldn't take communion. You did the right thing. Too bad Sally Quinn didn't.

Talking to themselves again

Anon: Farnaz, you did not mention that the brother and the priest were the same.

Farnaz: "Later on, when her family, including the priest, my colleague's brother, gathered together, we discussed my decision. While, sadly, my colleague expressed some disappointment, her brother respected my decision, in fact said it was the best, the only one, I could have made given the circumstances."

July 9, 2008 10:53 AM

Anon: FARNAZ, you are referring to Jews as an ethnic group, not Judaism as a RELIGION. The religion of Judaism is simple to understand and is far from a mystery. But how Jews define themselves as an ethnic group is complex. The two must be differentiated.

Farnaz: To "understand" the rudiments of Judaism one must (a) read the Tanakh, most would say in Hebrew and Aramaic (there isn't too much Aramaic),
study the Torah, (b) Study, with various partners, under supervision, the twenty-one tractates of the Talmud (ideally in Aramaic, permissibly for most, in the Steinsaltz Hebrew),(c) Study the great thinkers: e.g., Maimonides, the Vilna Gaon, for most, R. Nachman, etc., etc., etc.

Have you done this? And are you still studying Talmud? Do you find it easy?

Again, please don't tell me what Jews think.

3. Are you going to answer my question? How can Jews, who do not accept the divinity of Christ (none of us do) take communion?

Anon:

1. I'm using caps because you don't seem to understand me. You keep repeating that the priest wanted me to take communion. I didn't take communion, and he thought that was the right, the only thing I could do. Why is the priest heretical?

2. I understood you to mean that Jewish ancestry didn't count. In fact that's what you said. My question to you is how can observant Jews, who don't accept the divinity of Christ, take communion?

3. Please do not tell me what Jews think. You're not Jewish, obviously not knowledgeable about Judaism, and clearly know not the first thing about either what we think or the diversity of our opinions.

4. CAPITALIZING MY NAME, JAC = SHOUTING.

Can you answer my questions?

FARNAZ --

ALL CAPS = SHOUTING

Farnaz, there are many ethnic groups which consider themselves very special. The Jews consider themselves special because they felt chosen by God in a special way. But without belief in the God who revealed Himself to the Jews, it is no different from any other ethnic group who feel special for different reasons.

FARNAZ, you are referring to Jews as an ethnic group, not Judaism as a RELIGION. The religion of Judaism is simple to understand and is far from a mystery. But how Jews define themselves as an ethnic group is complex. The two must be differentiated.

Farnaz, you did not mention that the brother and the priest were the same.

Anon:

How can Jews who do not believe in the divinity of Christ take holy communion?

ANON:

Again, you misread me. HER BROTHER THOUGHT IT

RIGHT THAT I NOT TAKE COMMUNION. HE THOUGHT MY

DECISION WAS THE ONLY ONE I COULD MAKE. HE DID

NOT THINK I SHOULD TAKE COMMUNION. WHY DOES THIS

PRIEST SEEM HERETICAL TO YOU?

...................................................

RECONSTRUCTIONISM: MOST JEWISH DENOMINATIONS

RESPECT THE WORK OF MORDECAI KAPLAIN AND RESPECT

RECONSTRUCTIONISM. SINCE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT

KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT JUDAISM AT ALL, NOT JEWISH,

YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY I CAN'T TAKE YOUR OPINION

SERIOUSLY.

FARNAZ, reinvention of Judaism to include atheism is what you call it: REINVENTION. It has nothing to do with Judaism the RELIGION.

There ARE ignorant lay Catholics, and there are probably weird heretic Catholic priests of the type you encountered if he was disappointed you didn't take Communion. You are an atheist. In a religious setting the fact you may or may not have Jewish ancestry doesn't count. An ex-Catholic (eg Victoria the blogger on this forum) who has become Muslim is a Muslim and is no longer allowed to participate in Catholic rituals like the Holy Communion.

Anon:

3. Only a weird heretic Catholic priest could express disappointment that an atheist refused to take Communion at a Catholic Mass.

Another comment on this. Setting aside atheism for the moment, how could it be appropriate for an observant Jew of any sort to take communion?

1. Since when does Judaism as a religion also include atheism?

2. Which real Catholic would feel joy at an atheist receiving Communion, which to the atheist is meaningless? Only a *completely ignorant* Catholic could feel joy at the meaningless gesture of another at a sacred ritual which is integral to the Catholic belief.

3. Only a weird heretic Catholic priest could express disappointment that an atheist refused to take Communion at a Catholic Mass.

Anon:

1. Reconstructionism allows for atheism. There is a great deal on the web regarding its founder, Mordecai Kaplan, an extraordinary theologian. I'm not a Reconstructionist, but would be interested in a discussion of Kaplan. Perhaps, you could look into Reconstructionist Judaism, and we could discuss it.

2. I didn't really understand why Kathleen thought it was important that I take communion. I still don't. A few years ago, the same thing happened with another colleague, but she wasn't as insistent as Kathleen. Again, I'm not Catholic, so maybe you could explain this to me.

3. You misread my comments on her bother entirely.
He said the opposite of what you wrote. I will again paste my comments on what he said. Please read them more carefully this time.

Later on, when her family, including the priest, my colleague's brother, gathered together, we discussed my decision. While, sadly, my colleague expressed some disappointment, her brother respected my decision, in fact said it was the best, the only one, I could have made given the circumstances.

FARNAZ:

With respect to Judaism, what makes matters even more complex for the potential communicant is that Judaism, in some of its branches, allows for atheism, while Catholicism does not, and that Judaism allows for no merging with the divine as communion in some sense represents. (Kabbalah is a partial, not complete exception to this rule, but is, in no sense, analogous to communion.)

I cannot say what the church should or should not permit. What I can say is that as an atheist, my taking communion would mean nothing to me and might give friends a moment of joy. As a Jew, it would make me quite uncomfortable.

Not only would I be crossing a line that Judaism does not, but I would feel that I had not acted in good faith with the church.

For these reasons, when the matter came up, and come up, it did, I chose not to take communion, explaining as gently as possible to my Catholic friend why I thought it would be improper for me.

Later on, when her family, including the priest, my colleague's brother, gathered together, we discussed my decision. While, sadly, my colleague expressed some disappointment, her brother respected my decision, in fact said it was the best, the only one, I could have made given the circumstances.

Perhaps, we ought to give some thought to the "scandal of particularity," define it more precisely, and determine when "particularity" is fitting.

July 9, 2008 10:53 AM

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

1. Since when does Judaism as a religion also include atheism?

2. Which real Catholic would feel joy at an atheist receiving Communion, which to the atheist is meaningless? Only a *completely ignorant* Catholic could feel joy at the meaningless gesture of another at a sacred ritual which is integral to the Catholic belief.

3. Only a weird heretic Catholic priest could express disappointment that an atheist refused to take Communion at a Catholic Mass.

E Favorite writes to DITLD: "Also, regarding responding to posters here. It can be very rewarding, but I don't feel there's an obligation to respond if the interaction seems off in any way."

DITLD is a man in his fifties. He can make his own decisions based on his own judgment. A little humility is due on the part of E Favorite.

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!!!!

Daniel itld - thanks for getting back to me. It occurs to me that non-catholics or more likely to find themselves in a Catholic church than vice-versa - given all the cathedrals in Europe.

Also, regarding responding to posters here. It can be very rewarding, but I don't feel there's an obligation to respond if the interaction seems off in any way.

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

"Catholicism was hammered out and foreged into existence in a world that is now gone "with the wind." It struggles in a democratic world of multi-culteral diversity, where many people mingle, in a way that is unnatural from a Catholic perspective."

Partly true and partly not. Certainly, the time period of AD 35-150 or so is long since gone. But the Mediterranean of that period was every bit as much multicultural as is anyplace on earth now - even Washington, D.C., where I live.

As for what we'll do when our churches have emptied - we'll like as not cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, the Church worldwide is only growing. There are more baptisms in China, Vietnam, Uganda, and a host of other countries than apostasies in America or Europe. In any event, because France or California (say) chuck the Faith doesn't mean that the Church is going to do likewise. John 6 is instructional on this very point. After Jesus speaks at length concerning the Eucharist, great bands of his follows start leaving, saying, "These teachings are hard - who can believe them?" Jesus asks the apostles, who would become pillars of the Church, "Will you also leave me?" To which Peter "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

Jesus did not change his teachings because they were unpopular, or even when they infuriated others. His Church can hardly do differently.

Vicious enemies of the Church, irritated former Catholics, confused onlookers, and condescending wellwishers have long been predicting that the Church would fizzle out with time. We have survived them all, and expect that we shall continue to do so.

DITLD:

Check myself in what way?

Be less rude, less critical.

Check myself, in what way?

I am not sure that I recognize you. Are you Spiderman?

DITLD:

I'm not just referring to this topic. You've been this way for awhile. Check yourself.

Anonymous

I am no different than I have ever been.

Sometimes people have up days and down days. Each question, and the combination and content of the comments causes each iteration of this thing to unfold in a unique way. You wouldn't want it to be the same all the time, would you?

If we have ever had any dealings with each other, and you found these dealings difficult, I apologize.

Sometimes, people say things in writing that are a little more harsh and means-spirited than they would say in person.

Anonymous

I am no different than I have ever been.

Sometimes people have up days and down days. Each question, and the combination and content of the comments causes each iteration of this thing to unfold in a unique way. You wouldn't want it to be the same all the time, would you?

If we have ever had any dealings with each other, and you found these dealings difficult, I apologize.

Sometimes, people say things in writing that are a little more harsh and means-spirited than they would say in person.

DITLD,

Your comments have been rather unfriendly lately, even aggressive. I don't know what's gotten your panties all in a bunch, but you ought to watch it since it makes dealing with you difficult.

Patricksarsfield

I guess I am a little shocked at how profoundly you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. That is a problem with writing; no matter how clear you think you are, people still seem to misunderstand.

I was not comparing Catholicism to Protestantism. I am not sure how you got that idea. There is actually no such thing as "protestantism" but a collection of Protestant Churchs, which are all very different.

When I mentioned diversity of belief, I was thinking about atheists, agnostics, freethinkes, as well as Muslums, Bhuddists, and Jews, and of of course, all of the many subdivisions and sects within all of these.

That is what I was getting at. I certainly wasn't trying to say Protestants are better than Catholics; I think you "read" that into my comments.

E Favorite

I said that I had attended 50 Catholic Churches. Maybe that is an exageration. Maybe it is 25. It is some number too large for me to remember exactly. And this over a period of about 20 years. That is not so many, is it?

Over the years, I have had several close friends who were Catholic, and my nieces are Catholic. Whenever I may be with one of these people, it sometimes casually comes up, would I like to go with them to church? So, I just say ok, why not? And I go.

(But if I ever ask about trans-substantantiation, all I hear are the sound of crickets.)

In Rome, my traveling companion, who was Catholic, invited me to church. It was early evening. There were only 8 people in the congregation, and I was not even a parcipant, so there really only 7. It was kind of pitiful and sad.

What will they do when no one comes at all?

That is a question that I would like to ask the Catholic commenters here, who see so worried about what seems to me, minor legalisms.

DITLD - you make some valid points regarding the confusion engendered by Catholicism in this 'ecumenical' day and age....the fact is, Benedict is laying the 'traditional' law down for Catholics worldwide, so this could be one source of the confusion. 'Liberal' Catholics may have to hunker down a bit these days.

As to the 'sexuality' part, one of Catholicism's most admired saints and mystics, St. Teresa of Avila (16th century C.E.)seemed to give off distinctly erotic vibes when she was enraptured by her visions of Jesus, and so forth. I suppose spiritual congress is altogether different than the kind we know here in the material world...nevertheless, her reports after the fact were rather titillating. She was not the only female saint so enthralled with her own piety.

There were clearly divine compensations for taking a vow of chastity back in the day when the risks to life and limb were so much greater - saints, sinners, and the ever-present promise of being burned at the stake for heresy must have added a certain headiness to being a high profile 'Doctor of the Church' back when Vatican interests ruled the land....being a very clever saint, Teresa managed to die of old age....or should I say, natural causes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djivan_Gasparyan

Victor Hampartsumyan, astronomer physics professor, "speaking in the language of stars", musician.

Danny Thomas? St Jude? philanthropy? Jazz Singer?
you mean a lot to me, Anonymous.

ANONYMOUS, Mesrop Mashtots,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Mesrob

if they close my way, i shall open their way. and we shall be through.

INTERPRETER NATIVE - I do admire two Armenians...Danny Thomas and George Gurdjeiff.

I only know those two......

DITLD,

Your comments have been rather unfriendly lately, even aggressive. I don't know what's gotten your panties all in a bunch, but you ought to watch it since it makes dealing with you difficult.

INTERPRETER NATIVE - please post all comments in Turkish...they will make more sense that way.

Armenians are doctors, medicinemen and astronomers, they are men of truth and frankness.

English Masonry is not healing, quite the contrary in dispute under the hat.

i shall be with Armenians though English and Armenians are two branches of our grand family.

under these planets and on Earth, i shall always call the truth, whomever the authority is.

Orhan Pamuk, Nobelized by King of Sweden or by another Council, had talked about Armenians with an attitude, that we met contrary to the words of King of Sweden and Council of Sweden.

so words of Orhan Pamuk have not any validity where truth is spoken. His translations or comments have not any soundness where we have been writing.

if someone offers my funeral to be in his country, it is not a wish for my death but friendship and welcome.

whether i want to come or not.

Patrisk - are you saying that Jesus did not live and die a Jew?

The interesting thing about these comments is that the most reasoned analysis is presented by Farnaz, who claims to be Jewish. The last line of his post says it all.

to His Holiness please,

PAtriark BArtholomeos does not know the truth about me, He is in relation with Rahmi Koc, Army and Electromagnetics. He has put sentence on me, i have been suffering because of Rahmi Koc, Army and PAtriark BArtholomeos.

we have been suffering because of mobile phones. we want our skins safe before 3G electromagnetics commence. they use it for sentence and justice measures without policy for humanity. i ask 3G electromagnetics not commenced in Turkey. Antalya Side 3G Masonry in stead of 3W in Europe Phoinecia is another case. when shall Queen - Scotland war come to an end?

i ask PAtriark to be sent to where He calls as "my country", as far as i have read in His article it is not Turkey. i ask His Holiness here, "ya devlet basa ya kuzgun lese", i ask His Holiness to appoint Him wherever He likes to.

PAtriark BArtholomeos has not been fair in His relations with the public, i ask whether He has been dirty in His service during His relations with MAsonry in Turkey with Rahmi Koc and Army.

does His Holiness know about 1991 electromagnetic Temple of Solomon project, folk in Bodrum and Ankara enslaved, in Bursa Izmir Manisa procedures applied, according to Bible and Israelian Texts? i was in Ankara then at university ( Mehmet Akif Ersoy is in the campus ) where French Ottoman MAsonry and Religious Government had been in dispute against each other?

As the Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite lists off her itinerary of religious participation, she makes the point of how enriching the experience was for her.

But now she wants to tell the Catholic Church what the rules should be in regard to people like Sally Quinn taking communion.

In case the Reverend Thistlehwaite doesn't know, the Catholic Church regards the communion host as Body of Jesus Christ.......not some symbolic gesture. Clearly, if Sally Quinn wanted to respect her friend Tim Russert, she might start by respecting his religion. Communion is not just for show.

I'm not a Catholic, but I would go out of my way to respect a religion before I go in.

"call Thomas, in case of emergency, wherever you kneed, He knows the wounds"

As the Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite lists off her itinerary of religious participation, she makes the point of how enriching the experience was for her.

But now she wants to tell the Catholic Church what the rules should be in regard to people like Sally Quinn taking communion.

In case the Reverend Thistlehwaite doesn't know, the Catholic Church regards the communion host as Body of Jesus Christ.......not some symbolic gesture. Clearly, if Sally Quinn wanted to respect her friend Tim Russert, she might start by respecting his religion. Communion is not just for show.

I'm not a Catholic, but I would go out of my way to respect a religion before I go in.

i shall prepare a banner for Cal Thomas
"Cal Thomas, in case of emergency, wherever you kneed"

there are addresses where seeds rush to grow with. there are addresses where animals rush to be with.

i had watched a movie named "POWDER", in 1996 i was at university in Ankara then, of MAry Steenburgen, Lance Henriksen, Sean PAtrick Flanery.

being albino reminded me Aphrodite in the Shell, windless but with thunders, is it a reference to St John in Didim?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=10wa5RRuDUQ

it is a matter of quality, not quantity. where else have the Priests enjoy the taste that Pope Benedictus in Selcuk in His Visit had?

how would You greet Tim Russert? that is the matter of quality.

Efavorite,
You write somewhat off-point:

"Patrick says "[Catholisicm] was forged when its Founder forged it: in the First Century AD. He ascended into Heaven at that point."

Jesus lived and died a Jew. There's nothing in the Bible or Catholic theology to refute that."

Read your Bible again. Jesus founded His Church and looked for the Apostles to preach His Gospel all over the world and not just to the Jews. Matt. 16:18 et seq.; Matt. 18:17 et seq.; Matt. 28: 18-20; John 21:15 et seq.; Acts 10: 1 et seq.

Folks,
After reading Anonymous's 5:33 AM post today, I re-read Prof. Thistlethwaite's post. I was struck by this paragraph:

"I was very troubled by some of the ungenerous comments made about Ms. Quinn’s post regarding her participation in communion at the funeral of her close, personal friend, Tim Russert. It is clear from the many who have written about Mr. Russert’s untimely demise that his Catholic faith was a central part of who he was. Ms. Quinn’s post was plainly about going the second mile to honor, at his funeral, even the beliefs of her friend, beliefs with which she does not fully agree."

This is so disingenuous; she wasn't honoring his beliefs by receiving communion "transubstantiation notwithstanding"! If a visitor does not believe in what the dead person believes, then attendance at the funeral alone is second mile enough.

What Ms. Quinn did and what Ms. Thistlethwaite is encouraging others to do is to disregard the beliefs of Catholics, both the quick and the dead. Is that "generosity" as Protestant Minister Thistlethwaite claims or is that just another way for one religious competitor (Thistlethwaite) to call into question the beliefs of another religion?

Protestants have been attacking the Catholic Eucharist ever since Martin first decided he wanted to break his vows. Susan has just found another way to do it.

Patrick says "[Catholisicm] was forged when its Founder forged it: in the First Century AD. He ascended into Heaven at that point."

Jesus lived and died a Jew. There's nothing in the Bible or Catholic theology to refute that.

SBT: Ms. Quinn’s post was plainly about going the second mile to honor, at his funeral, even the beliefs of her friend, beliefs with which she does not fully agree.

???

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

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

Generosity is the first rule. Indeed! Please remember that rule before you post your next anti-Catholic essay Professor Thistlethwaite.

yesterday, i did see the light-graph of President Medvedev Anatolyevic and President Williams Bush, in G-8 Hokkaido Island Japan, on a newspaper while they were on chairs one by one, around a table for meal, shaking hands, bright with their hearts on their faces, Medvedev's legs under the table and Bush's legs wide open as they are two-bias.

on a TV channel this morning, during breakfast at the hospital cafe, orange juice and three cheese-parsley cook, i did see the advertorial as "Big Ideas for a Small Planet".

i have been meditating with "s-ain't" and "s-mall" in these days while i am in Bursa the capital of Iznik Nicaea. i learned about G, other than Saint George, and i didnt learn about S, other than the sticks of priests in Egypt before Moses.

i watched the light-movie of Sally Quinn with Ashley Judd "thanks God, i know the way out of hell",

as far as i recollected, if elders eat, it emanates to all. if elders do, it emanates to all. for this reason i check what radiate from Ceremonies, Gatherings and Governments.

and sometimes i feed-back how they taste and smell for them to have their proper essences and spirits. but sometimes, not several times.

Prof Thistlethwaite, as a non-Catholic you are not qualified to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. It is not even clear whether Tim Russert, a staunch Catholic would have felt comfortable about a non-Catholic receiving communion without fulfilling the prerequisite of the Catholic church.

Express your personal opinion by all means, but do not express it with fingers pointing to the Catholic Church which has the right to its rules regarding participation in its rituals. Even Catholic children are not allowed to receive communion before they have received it first after necessary learning.

Folks,
Daniel writes:
"The Catholic Church has so many problems, that it gives me a headache to think about them all....It is a conflict in people's lives, when they want to invite their friends and aquaintances to church, only to have it all turn into an extremely uncomfortable and awkward social moment. It is sad, actually. Whenever I have attended a Catholic Mass, I usually end up feeling sorry for my companions or hosts.

Catholicism was hammered out and foreged into existence in a world that is now gone "with the wind." It struggles in a democratic world of multi-culteral diversity, where many people mingle, in a way that is unnatural from a Catholic perspective."

Hmm...Worship as more or less comfortable social moments. How protestant. As to when Catholicism was forged, it was forged when its Founder forged it: in the First Century AD. He ascended into Heaven at that point.

Was Protestantism forged in a more culturally accepting time? Hardly. Anglicanism was forged by two English monarchs (Henry and Elizabeth) who were autocrats that would tolerate no dissent from their dictates. Likewise, Luther put himself in league with the German autocrats who put down religious dissenter Thomas Munzner and the peasants who raised the Peasants' Revolt of 1524. Likewise, Calvin ran his city of Geneva as a theocracy. He killed dissenters too.

So how did Protestantism come to be considered "multi-culturally diverse"? Necessity is the mother of invention. Each church of Protestantism faces the awful fact that it has no claim to being the Church Christ founded. So, each component of Protestantism has to accept all other forms of Protestantism because none of them can make a true church claim. None was founded by Christ.

At the same time, though, all Protestantisms have to stay on the attack (the protest) against Catholicism, precisely because it CAN make a true church claim. While Baptists insist that their own particular baptism is necessary even if a person had been baptized previously, Catholicism gets attacked because it restricts its communion to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Just another application of "best defense is a good offense," I suppose.

So, Daniel itld - what brings you to all those Catholic churches?

Yet there remains that whole eat and drink judgment on themselves thing. To allow those who are not Christians to partake of Communion may well be to condemn the to more suffering than they already have coming. On top of that according to Ezekiel their blood could well because in your role as watchmen you did not warn them.

Given that letting just anyone partake of communion could well be an act not of love but of cowardice that ultimately worsens the lot of all concerned.

No matter how you cut it or look at it or analyze it, the Catholic/Lutheran/Episcopalian Eucharist/Communion is still a low calorie wafer with or without a sip of inexpensive wine/grape juice.

Symbolic? Yes indeed!!! Free to all who want to participate no matter the belief or lack thereof? Yes indeed!!!

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

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

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

But you were never "herded out" of a Catholic Church?? Yes or No???? Details if yes.

I have attended a full Catholic Mass and didn't take the Eucharist. I neither was offended in the least that I couldn't, nor did I feel unwelcome there. The Catholic Church has every right to stipulate the conditions and the meaning associated with taking the Eucharist. Not "casting your pearls before swine" often means that you prevent the pearls from being lost. It is not "my" eucharist. If the Catholic Church believes they are the only authorized church to administer the eucharist, then it is not mine to take. Rather it is for the Church to give.

First of all, I do not care what other people believe or what their relgions may be. But I cannot help but notice confusion and difficulties all around. The Catholic Church has so many problems, that it gives me a headache to think about them all.

For example, there is a conflict between trying to be nice, courteous, respectful, and Christian, on the one hand, and on the other hand, telling people to "get the Hell away from us!" It is a conflict in people's lives, when they want to invite their friends and aquaintances to church, only to have it all turn into an extremely uncomfortable and awkward social moment. It is sad, actually. Whenever I have attended a Catholic Mass, I usually end up feeling sorry for my companions or hosts.

Catholicism was hammered out and foreged into existence in a world that is now gone "with the wind." It struggles in a democratic world of multi-culteral diversity, where many people mingle, in a way that is unnatural from a Catholic perspective.

And communion as some kind of subliminal sex? I don't think anybody is going to buy into that.

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel,

But you were never "herded out" as per your first commentary?? Stay the next time, the end of Mass has typically some great blessings and music!!!!

Autonomous,

"However, to define these cloistered rituals e.g. Holy Communion, through the use of sexual allegory is a rather interesting Freudian conjugation of the faith!"

Freudian or not, I didn't make it up. It's all over the Bible. Notably, it appears in St. Paul's writings, and most explicitly in Ephesians 4-5, where he specifically likens the relationship between Christ and the Church to that between a groom and his bride.

"On the other hand, not all Catholics would be so concerned or so authoritarian in their approach to outsiders"

What's it got to do with authoritarianism? Susan Jacoby's recent post about the importance of attending to the specific meanings of words comes to mind.

"and in fact, an equally large number probably don't really understand the doctrine of Transubstantiation regarding the Eucharist, or the many other 'mystically based' doctrines upon which Catholicism is founded."

Entirely beside the point.

"I further suspect many Catholics do not deal with the formality of confession as a preparation for Holy Communion"

Hardly a formality, and the failure of many to realize that doesn't change the fact. Confessing before communing is like spouses apologizing after a fight, before going to bed. Sex is meant to strengthen a marriage, but isn't meant to replace apologies as needed.

"Protestants broke with many of these beliefs during the Reformation, and now consider Communion to be purely symbolic - anyone with honorable intentions should qualify to participate by virtue of their good 'faith'"

Then let them participate IN PROTESTANT COMMUNION SERVICES, or like Protestants, just make up their own.

"and it's not as though non-Catholics are invading Catholic churches in droves and covertly sneaking into the Communion line."

Well, that's what Sally Quinn did, and that's precisely what we are discussing. But, for the most part, I think you are right. It is more the result of those invited by Catholics, but without clear boundaries laid out, who do not know what they are doing. Malfeasance like that displayed by Quinn is less common, I should think.

"What could be more honorable?"

Respecting the wishes of one's host is more honorable than sneakily subverting them, and then brazenly bragging about it publicly afterwards.

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

"Ryan Haber and Mary Cunningham may know all about the "rules" but they are not my friends and aquaintances inviting me to Catholic services; I am invited by people who know less about their own relgion than I do, and actually in no position to explain it to me."

Alas, you've hit a nail on the head. We've a MASSIVE catechetical crisis in the Church right now. It can be summarized simply. Many, many Catholics have received poor catechesis, and/or retained little of what they received. This crisis explains and includes the well-meaning gesture of some very nice Catholics who invite their non-Catholic friends to receive Holy Communion at our altars.

"But I do not have respect for the lack of generosity, and the small mindedness of your customs, which you seek to justify, with arguments that I cannot taker seriously."

You might think that we are ungenerous or small-minded. That might be fair enough. My own parish (St. Martin of Tours, Gaithersburg, MD, USA), which is very traditional with respect to its devotion to the Holy Eucharist, also runs a soup kitchen, food distribution, English and citizenship classes, domestic/family counseling, and other social services. Not to mention the eagerness of many, many parishioners to be helpful to others who find themselves in tight situations. I've seen it dozens of times.

You might feel that we are ungenerous, as Prof. Brooks Thistlewaite has implied to some extent, but I think the worldwide record of the Catholic Church (e.g., 27% of HIV/AIDS patients receive their primary care from Catholic agencies, according to a recent Time Magazine report), you will see that we are doing our best to be generous.

I, for one, and as far as I can tell most of my brothers and sisters in Christ who practice the Catholic religion, really, sincerely believe the things I have stated, that you brush off as arguments to cover a lack of generosity.

"As I said before, if you feel this way about it, then why not just ban people, period, from the Catholic Church, who are not Catholic? That would certainly be alot easier, and more preferable, for people like me."

But there's no need to. That's like saying, in our mind, if I invite a girl over to my house so I can get to know her better, I must also invite her into my bedroom; or that if she should invite me in, she must do the same. It's nonsense. We all of us regularly invite others to our home to share with them, and when they are in, we share with them on our terms.

"I actually believe that the problem here is not with "outsiders" such as myself, even though I was raised in a Protestant Church which is very closely related to Catholicism. I think the problem is between and among Catholics, in their little civil war that is being waged within the Catholic Church, and we outsiders, are mostly just innocent bystanders."

Well, the well-publicized infighting in our Church right now has certainly exacerbated a number of things. But before the infighting erupted, say, in 1950, I assure you that there would have been a uniform consensus among regular massgoers. In fact, at that time, the two components of the Mass now called the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, were called the Mass of the Catechumens (those interested in learning more about the Catholic Faith) and the Mass of the Faithful (baptized, practicing Catholics). Then, as now, as in our ancientest times, only baptized persons in full union with the Church were permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist.

All others we encourage to pray with us, and with our Blessed Lord, that one day we all might be, in Him, one.

For some orthodox believers Catholicism is a closed membership - outsiders should not be so presumptuous as to imagine that they qualify for participation in closed sacred rituals.

However, to define these cloistered rituals e.g. Holy Communion, through the use of sexual allegory is a rather interesting Freudian conjugation of the faith!

On the other hand, not all Catholics would be so concerned or so authoritarian in their approach to outsiders - and in fact, an equally large number probably don't really understand the doctrine of Transubstantiation regarding the Eucharist, or the many other 'mystically based' doctrines upon which Catholicism is founded.

I further suspect many Catholics do not deal with the formality of confession as a preparation for Holy Communion - but rather rely on the sincerity of their own inner intentions as a sufficient state of readiness.

Protestants broke with many of these beliefs during the Reformation, and now consider Communion to be purely symbolic - anyone with honorable intentions should qualify to participate by virtue of their good 'faith' - and it's not as though non-Catholics are invading Catholic churches in droves and covertly sneaking into the Communion line.

I don't think Sally Quinn was trying to get away with anything here at Tim Russert's funeral mass -merely participating in a formal goodbye to a close friend in his own chosen religious setting.

What could be more honorable?

For CCNL

I have probably attended services in about 50 different Catholic Churches, including in France and Italy. I have been a guest of many hosts, who, I assume, thought it would be polite and generous to invite me.

Always, when my host, whoever it is, takes communion, we leave, before the end of the servicie. I assusme it is out embarrassment and the awkwardness of the moment, because it always is awkward. I do not know, for sure, why we leave; perhaps, I should just say once, I would like to stay until the end.

I know more about the doctrine of transubstantiation than most, if not all, Catholic people that I know. I know many "devout" Catholic people who have never even heard of transubstantiation. Yet, I am unfit. What's the deal with that?

This is the problem with an authroitairan, top-down relgions instittution, which has lost all of its coercive power.

Ryan Haber and Mary Cunningham may know all about the "rules" but they are not my friends and aquaintances inviting me to Catholic services; I am invited by people who know less about their own relgion than I do, and actually in no position to explain it to me.

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!!!!

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

You were "herded out" of Mass before communion? I have been to and served on the altar at many Catholic funerals and weddings with many non-Catholics in attendance and still attend Mass on Sundays (with a very different take on the ceremony being now a "Crossanized" Catholic) and have never, never seen anyone "herded out" or ask to leave Mass before it was over. Name of parish where your "herding out" occurred????

This is a tough question, for me, as a Jew, to respond to. The difficulty tells me,in part, that there may not be a single universal answer, at least insofar as the potential communicant is concerned. As for the position of the church, to restrict others from taking communion goes to what some theologians call the "scandal of particularity," and by the same token, to say that because one is not a Catholic she/he should not take communion is to endorse that "scandal," which she/herself may gravely question.

With respect to Judaism, what makes matters even more complex for the potential communicant is that Judaism, in some of its branches, allows for atheism, while Catholicism does not, and that Judaism allows for no merging with the divine as communion in some sense represents. (Kabbalah is a partial, not complete exception to this rule, but is, in no sense, analogous to communion.)

I cannot say what the church should or should not permit. What I can say is that as an atheist, my taking communion would mean nothing to me and might give friends a moment of joy. As a Jew, it would make me quite uncomfortable.

Not only would I be crossing a line that Judaism does not, but I would feel that I had not acted in good faith with the church.

For these reasons, when the matter came up, and come up, it did, I chose not to take communion, explaining as gently as possible to my Catholic friend why I thought it would be improper for me.

Later on, when her family, including the priest, my colleague's brother, gathered together, we discussed my decision. While, sadly, my colleague expressed some disappointment, her brother respected my decision, in fact said it was the best, the only one, I could have made given the circumstances.

Perhaps, we ought to give some thought to the "scandal of particularity," define it more precisely, and determine when "particularity" is fitting.

Ryan Haber

I respect "your customs" only in the sense that I am polite. But I do not have respect for the lack of generosity, and the small mindedness of your customs, which you seek to justify, with arguments that I cannot taker seriously.

As I said before, if you feel this way about it, then why not just ban people, period, from the Catholic Church, who are not Catholic? That would certainly be alot easier, and more preferable, for people like me.

I actually believe that the problem here is not with "outsiders" such as myself, even though I was raised in a Protestant Church which is very closely related to Catholicism. I think the problem is between and among Catholics, in their little civil war that is being waged within the Catholic Church, and we outsiders, are mostly just innocent bystanders.

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

You may think it "religious silliness" for a girl not to have sexual relations with every man that walks down the street - I don't know.

In reality, though, it is not silly. Sexual relations are intended by God to be the consummation of a pre-existing union between persons. Sexual relations are the means and manifestation of completing that pre-existing union. More could be said, but that suffices for present purposes.

It is so with the Holy Eucharist as well. It is meant to be the consummation of a pre-existing union, based on a professedly and actually shared mind and conformity of wills and moral living. That's why it's called "communion," which means "complete union," and it is the means and manifestation of the complete union of Catholics with each other and with our Lord.

That's why it mustn't be shared with people who don't share that union.

I hope you wouldn't be offended if, at nightful, your hosts didn't invite you into their bedroom with them, but rather showed you to your own. That's the best analogy I can think of. You might not like it, or reject it, or think it silly - but it's what we believe, and you are most welcome in our home if only you will respect our customs.

For my part, I thank you heartily for having done so already.

In my adult life, I have been a guest at a Catholic Mass many, many times. I have been hosted by a very large number of friends, aquaintances, and relatives. It has always been made clear to me, that because I am not Catholic, I cannot participate in "communion."

It always strikes me as a little ironic, and disingenuous, that it is ok for everyone to shake my hand, and say "peace be with you" so long as I remember not to participate, in the main, and most important, part of the service.

Not only have I never participated in Catholic communion, but I have never even stayed in the church to the conclusion of the mass, as I am always hearded out at communion time.

I think this practice is unfriendly, and ungenerous. I think I might rather be seated in some "quarantined room" and just watch on closed circuit TV, or even banned; it would make everything socially less awkward.

In a Catholic Mass, I always try to be polite, but I have never been particulary impressed by the practice. To me, it is a little harsh.

I do not see anything wrong with Sally Quinn's behaviour at Tim Russert's funeral; for crying out loud, the man is dead, in his coffin; couldn't the religious silliness let up for just five minutes, out of respect for him?

Prof. Brooks-Thistlewaite,

It really hasn't much to do with generosity, or who owns the sacred. As you pointed out, people ought to wait to be invited before entering someone else's house.

The Catholic Eucharist is in our (Catholic) house, and whether we own the sacred or not, it is ours to offer to whomever we please on whatever terms we choose. If it is what we claim it to be - that is the Sacramental Body of Christ entrusted to the guardianship of the Mystical Body of Christ - then all the more reason for us to be very careful. If it is not, if it is just a nice symbol, then why should others care or want it so much as to be disrespectful and boorishly abuse our hospitality in order to get it?

It's really that simple.

You are right, though, that we ought to be generous and charitable, especially in rebuking bad behavior, and moreso in treating incautious missteps.