The Problem with Rituals

I believe(!?) even scientists are believers first, and scientists second. Their minds can only sift through that which they are capable of perceiving. But to remain a scientist, implies an active mind and spirit - still trying to challenge and redefine ones beliefs. We should all fight to be/remain scientists, don't you think? To the extent we give up the quest, we calcify; and stunt our potential for spiritual growth.

...where's my soapbox...oh, I'm standing on it...

Susan, I believe that the God we all perforce serve is neither petty nor small indeed! At the least, the collective posts 'On Faith' should prove, to those who already belive: God does indeed have a sense of humor. Alas, to "get it" you need to be a scientist.

I absolutely agree with the Rev. Dr. Susan Smith. There is no place in scripture that God speaks to the existence of denominations. These divisions among Protestants and Catholics have been created by a humanity that thrives on difference and eludes inclusivity and unity.

Hello Rev Sue:

My sentiments exactly--too often the ritual, the form gets in the way of the force of faith. Ritual for ritual-sake becomes a habit without a heart. Perhaps rules and rituals allow some to feel better about exclusive activity or being "right." Splitting doctrinal hairs at a funeral about communion is more than over the top--it is a frightening reminder that Pharisaic correctness is yet among us. The "church lady" character on Saturday Night Live I am told, was inspired by a very real church member. I believe the love of God is much more open and dynamic than we humans can always express. I too pray that God will smile on our efforts to be communities of faithful inclusivity rather than gated pews of exclusivity. Thanks always for your words that get to the crux of the matter.

Peace,
Ozzie Smith

Folks,
After I pointed out Susan Smith's connections to the Pastor Jeremiah Wright Branch of the UCC (yes, that Pastor Wright of Obama fame), DILD responds:

"Patricksarsfield,
Sorry you're such a bitter fellow. I don't think views like yours are particularly helpful or beneficial to anyone."

Hmmm....it's somehow "bitter" to point out a blogger's radical connections? Whatever.

E FAVORITE

You wrote, "Patrick - The Catholic church wasn't founded by Christ either. Jesus lived and died a Jew."

You are right in that Jesus lived and died a Jew but Jesus said, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against IT".

In the above statement not only was the Church founded by Jesus but He also laid out the whole mission of the Church.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Patricksarsfield:

Sorry you're such a bitter fellow.

I don't think views like yours are particularly helpful or beneficial to anyone.

Folks,
DILD writes (7/15 at 12:20 AM) writes this irrelevant red herring:

"You have a touch of paranoia. In the United States, we are all free to say what we like, about politics, religion, the Catholic Church, or anything else."

Of course Minister Smith CAN say anything she wants, but that does not mean that she SHOULD act in a way that disrespects another religion without being subject to chiding for her behavior. Smith is an irresponsible flamer who is as undisciplined as her ridiculous mentor Minister Jeremiah Wright (of Obama fame).

[Smith, in fact, is part of the Minister Jeremiah Wright Branch of the UCC Church. They both serve on the Samuel Proctor DeWitt Conference--a radical activist "religious" assembly, the last press release of which supported the Reverend Pfleger--and Jeremiah Wright wrote a foreword for one of Ms. Smith's books].

So, should Minister Smith be immunized from being criticized by me because of the First Amendment? Of course not. No more so than Minister Wright has been immunized from criticism in the national press, and ultimately in his own church. Even Parishioner Obama realized that he had to come out and chide Minister Wright for his outrageous nonsense once it saw the light of day.

Clearly, Jeremiah Wright may have had the right to say the outrageous things he said, but they should hardly be beyond criticism. The absolute lack of dignity in his antics is well exemplified by the fact that Wright even simulated fornication in the pulpit while badmouthing Bill Clinton for political reasons during a supposed sermon. Is that the kind of ritual that Ms. Smith thinks should be coming out of the wing of the UCC to which they belong? Could Ms. Smith really say that the hideous preaching we have seen come from Wright's mouth is "a ritual that invites anyone who wants to get close to God." If not, where are her blogs opposing Wright's nonsense?

Instead, in her very preachy column supporting Ms. Quinn, Wright's associate Susan Smith has now communed with God and determined that God doesn't give a hoot about Catholic Communion. She had a right to say that perhaps, but I have the right to criticize her. I now would go even further. I find it ridiculous that a member of the Wright Wing of the UCC like Ms. Smith would have the nerve to comment on the rituals of another church.

I agree with much of what you wrote, Sally.

However, if there is one true God, there is one absolute truth as well.

You wrote:

"On the other hand, a ritual that invites anyone who wants to get close to God has to make God smile"

There is only one "ritual" that allows us to get close to God and that is the "bridge" -- Jesus Christ -- that allows us to restore our relationship with God.

John 3:16 tells us that God sent his ONLY begotten son into the world so that we might have eternal life. There is only ONE way to make God smile -- there is only one bridge to reach God --and that is to accept His free gift of salvation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Patricksarsfield:

You have a touch of paranoia. In the United States, we are all free to say what we like, about politics, religion, the Catholic Church, or anything else.

And the Catholic Church is free to conduct its church services any way that it wants to. I assume that the Catholic administrative hieracrchy doesn't want to drive even more people away by enforcing strict "eucharist qualification" rules. They could be more strict, if they wanted to, and filter out more people to reject; but that is not your business, as a Catholic lay-person, is it? Isn't that the way it works? You don't tell "them;" "they" tell you.

For the most part, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and agnostics are not seeking to "infiltrate" Catholic Church services and disrupt or disrespect any Catholic custom or belief. But sometimes, "outsiders" do make their way into a Catholic Church, as guests, and at weddings and funerals, and Catholics must figure out how to handle the presence of guests, without getting so angry at each other and at non-Catholics, such as Sally Quinn, who are not trying to be disprespectful, but whom also do not wish to be disrespected.

Because, please, remember, once again, this is twenty-first century America and not Medeival Europe.

As a Presbyterian minister myself, I am somewhat shocked at the disrespect you show in your opinion to the Roman Catholic Church. While you may well be right that God did not make denominations, the one in question (Roman Catholic Church) is not yours, and thus you have no right to barge in, or to encourage someone else to barge in, and do with it what they please.

Also, your comments are full of all kinds of assertions without basis: "A ritual that makes anyone feel ashamed or frightened or worried cannot be pleasing to God." Says who? You? Well, how do you know that? Where did you come across that bit of revelation?

"On the other hand, a ritual that invites anyone who wants to get close to God has to make God smile...I am pretty sure God didn't care that Sally Quinn took communion at Tim Russert's funeral." Again, I would like to know where you came across that tidbit, so that you feel that you can speak for God.

Folks,
E writes:
"Patrick - The Catholic church wasn't founded by Christ either. Jesus lived and died a Jew."

Huhh? Jesus didn't found a Church? You missed the New Testament. This is too stupid for any reply beyond a cite to the New Testament as a whole. To be a bit more specific: look up Matt.10, Matt. 16, Matt. 18 Matt. 28, John 21, Acts Chapters 1 through 28, and the letters of Peter, Paul, James and John in particular.

video.eksenim.mynet.com/piyanist0684/Yanlis_meslek/76195/

Patrick - The Catholic church wasn't founded by Christ either. Jesus lived and died a Jew.

Folks,
It appears that the anti-Catholics,protestants, and others of all stripes just will not give the Catholic Church the right any other religion has to regulate its own rituals. It is none of any other religion's business that the Catholic Church wants to restrict the receipt of communion to Catholics.

Good manners would compel Ms. Quinn, Ms. Thistlethwaite, Minister Smith, and the others who say things like --whatever the Catholic Church thinks, God wouldn't give a hoot--to just back off and say: stupid mistake on Sally's part, she apologizs and recognizes the wrongness of her conduct. But the entire energy of the "On Faith" Blog at this moment seems aimed at stonewalling Catholics' right to an apology. One contributor after another is coming on board to agree that Catholics ought to lighten up and recognize that Gods doesn't take the Catholic Mass seriously.

In fact, though, the Catholic Religion is one God can take seriously, because it is a Religion that means what it says. I had the pleasure of attending a Catholic wedding yesterday. One thing that struck me is that the Catholic Church is the only religion today that expects its people to mean what they say when they promise to remain with one another for the rest of their lives. What a powerful thing: to mean what you say!!

This is a key difference between Catholic ritual and the ersatz stuff that people like Minister Smith may choose to offer up. The Catholic Church means what we say. About marriage and about Communion. The other religions may not mean what they say; so in their book, anyone can get a divorce despite what they promised and anybody can receive their communion because it ain't a big deal. The Communion they offer isn't the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Okay, I don't disagree with their assessment of their communion, but we mean it when we say that Catholic Communion is the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and we expect it to be treated reverentially.

Rev Smith, you have every right to offer Communion to anyone in your Church. But please do respect the religious feeling of others. Just as people have a right to decide how guests invited to their house should behave, so does the Catholic Church. It is a good idea not to judge others. It is certain that atheists and agnostics would feel much better in your church. The Catholic Church is not complaining, merely requesting that its rules be respected. Surely not too much to ask?

Folks,
I was surprised to read Minister Smith of the very mainline UCC (despite its also being Pastor Wright's church) write:

"All this is to say I don't think God gave a hoot that Sally Quinn, a non-Catholic, took communion at Tim Russert's funeral."

What is Minister Smith's basis for claiming knowledge of the mind of God? She does not cite to any Scripture, she just makes up stuff aimed against the Catholic Church.

What is the Catholic Church to Ms. Smith: a competitor and one that is doing a lot better attracting a flock than the infinitesimal sized UCC. According to 2007 statistics, the UCC has 1.2 million members while the Catholic Church has about 67 Million adherents in the US, fifty five times as many.

And when one considers that the UCC arose (in part) out of the Congregationalist Church which got its start as the Established Church in three of the thirteen colonies, it is clear that the UCC has not been able to attract a flock, even if it has Ministers like Ms. Smith who snottily attack other churches' ritual decisions.

So what is Minister Smith really saying about the other far more successful Catholic C
hurch: that the grapes she cannot reach are sour anyway.

Thomas Baum:

First off, God is unreal. It doesn't matter what anyone believes, what is True is True whether someone or no one believes it.

Someone made a comment about Susan Smith talking childishly and not religiously about making a comment about God smiling. I like to think of it as indoctrinated-faithink rather than childish.

God is fiction and cannot care about how we treat each other.

Doesn't it seem foolish dismissing others for not believing in absurd nonsense when the existence of God is just an ancient superstition?

From some of the comments on some of these sights, it sometimes sounds like "the classroom idiot" is alive and well in some and as I said, it doesn't matter what "Label" someone calls themself, whether atheist or theist or whatever.

Personally, I stopped believing in God after I grew up, now I know that God is a primitive idea from the infancy of our species, and that God cannot be a Trinity and that God cannot be a Being of Pure Love, otherwise he wouldn't slaughter millions every year in Tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes and tornadoes and volcanoes and famines and incurable diseases and ethnic cleansing and war, pestilence and cruelty. Love is not an attribute of God otherwise the world would be a better place. For most people on this planet - life is hell.

As I have also said, God is a figment of ones imagination, and it helps to be gullible, scared of death, and highly superstitious.

Social work is taking care of widows and orphans so by what I have said about social work, one does not even have to believe in God to have true social work.

I would also like to say: Tinkerbell wins, Godzilla loses, a tie is impossible, as in the natives shall be undressed and thrashed with a wet bootlace. and the dead shall rise up and say, "Enough Already with the bullsh@t"

We are responsible for what we do whether we believe in fairies or not.

See a shrink.

As an evangelical Christian, I would agree with Susan's statement, "I don't think God gave a hoot that Sally Quinn, a non-Catholic, took communion at Tim Russert's funeral. God didn't make denominations."
However, from what I have read of Sally's beliefs, I think the statement, "I don't think God gave a hoot that Sally Quinn, a non-Christian, took communion at Tim Russert's funeral" would be more accurate, and with this staement, I think there is an issue. With the death of Jesus, a "New Covenant" was created between God and anyone who believed in him. This covenant replaced the old covenant between Abraham and God long ago. When a covenant is made, there needs to be a symbol of the covenant. For the old covenant, circumcision served as the symbol. For the new covenant, Communion serves as the symbol.
Thus, taking Communion is in essence a statement that one has placed their faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, and serves as a moment for the believer to remember and reflect on what their Lord did for them on the cross.
I cannot answer whether Sally Quinn should have taken Communion at Tim Russert's funeral, for I do not know her heart. I can say, however, that if she has placed her faith in Jesus Christ but is not Catholic, God wouldn't give a hoot if she took Communion that day. If though, she is neither Christian nor Catholic, then she, as well as other non-Christians, should have recognized the sanctity of the moment for a Christian and respectfully declined.

First off, God is real. It doesn't matter what anyone believes, what is True is True whether someone or no one believes it.

Someone made a comment about Susan Smith talking childishly and not religiously about making a comment about God smiling. I like to think of it as child-like rather than childish.

God cares and He also cares about how we treat each other.

Doesn't it seem that belittling others for not believing what one believes whether that is believing that God is real or believing that God is not real is rather childish?

From some of the comments on some of these sights, it sometimes sounds like "the classroom bully" is alive and well in some and as I said, it doesn't matter what "Label" someone calls themself, whether atheist or theist or whatever.

Personally, I stopped believing in God after I met God, now I know that God is real and that God is a Trinity and that God is a Being of Pure Love, Love is not an attribute of God but is His Very Being.

As I have also said, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and that it is important What you do and Why you do it and What you know.

To put it mildly, we can and do get so rapped up in rules and regulations and rituals that we can lose sight of God and what is important in this life whether we believe in God or not.

True religion is taking care of widows and orphans so by what I have said about True religion, one does not even have to believe in God to have "True religion".

I would also like to say: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, as in the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise.

We are responsible for what we do whether we take responsibility or not.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=2babaa605a308fd53c50

www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f8f090aabf9f2ae85df8

phi? magnetic flux? golden ratio? logaritm?
Ellah? Solomon? Peace? shell?

here is the problem with rituals,
language and words,

if we know it is communication, if we dont it is sometimes a great problem.

cheese and olive. woman and dress.
wine, bottle and underwear. these must be public.

video.eksenim.mynet.com/erayege95/Dunyanin_En_Hizli_Giyinebilen_Kadini/151211/
video.eksenim.mynet.com/cafeses/Polisandan_super_reklam/160932/

video.eksenim.mynet.com/ibrahim_gungor1976/Bakin_Sirtaki_Nasil_Dogmus/156880/
video.eksenim.mynet.com/teknisyenarif/yanan_alevi_elle_tutmak/139691/

video.eksenim.mynet.com/sserkan_16/TAVLADA_ZAR_BOYLE_ATILIR/160970/
video.eksenim.mynet.com/cloopx/Boyle_Ayakkabi_Boyacasina_Can_Kurban/155060/

video.eksenim.mynet.com/rigelouis/Adidas_Impossible_is_Nothing/119329
video.eksenim.mynet.com/cafeses/Kenwood_super/160934

video.eksenim.mynet.com/fikri77/temizlik_bu_reklam_azdirir/159608/
video.eksenim.mynet.com/volkanes/Boga_Kadini_Burcunun_Ask_hayati/161019

salmonella-thyphi? Europa? Solomon? thymuse gland? Aphrodite? Didim?

I have to agree with E Favorite whose general stance on the fiction of the Bible is foundational to questions dealing with religion. As E Favorite has repeatedly and directly indicated, it is the obligation of clergy to inform their congregations of the falsity of sacred texts.

Along the lines E Favorite expects R. Steinsaltz to follow for Jews, and says she has made clear to Christian/Catholic clergy, one would hope that Ms. Smith is informing her congregation of the fact that there is no evidence, archaeological or otherwise, for the historical existence of Jesus, Paul, et al, that the only source for a historical Jesus is the highly dubious Josephus, that if there were a Paul, he was always Paul, never Saul, since said Paul's Judaism is unlike any Judaism that ever existed at any time.

Ms. Smith, one would hope, is also informing her congregation of the inconsistencies of the Gospels and that the Sanhedrin never met on Passover, etc.

If Ms. Smith is doing as E Favorite demands, then what concern could she possibly have about who eats a wafer? If not, I will echo for Ms. Smith, E Favorite's hopes for R. Steinsaltz, that Ms. Smith learn from E Favorite's (future) comments on these matters.

I don't want to steal E Favorite's thunder, so I'll stop here. I will leave it to E Favorite to remark on the "Q" Gospel, etc., which, she says she has discussed on Christian clergy's threads.

My own position on the Eucharist? When in Rome, know what the Romans do. As I posted on Ms. Thiselwhaite's thread, if participating in a ritual neither violates the potential participant's beliefs nor the the position of the religion, there is no problem. Otherwise, there surely is.

Good Thinking, Bobby Pitkin, and I don't doubt Susan and other clergy have entertained the thought that god is man-made, especially given their extensive academic knowledge of religion.

I think I understand their need, as christian authorities, to couch ideas in religious terms, but it does bother me to hear an intelligent person like Susan to speak in what to me seem like childish, rather than religious, terms.

Making god smile indeed.

If Sally Quinn's motivation was pure of heart then those who would use a classification of her beliefs to criticize her are guilty of demeaning and divisive behavior. Don't most believers trust God to discern intent in human behavior?

And it is a good idea for religion bashing atheists to go to Protestant churches every Sunday, partake of their communion and free lunch afterwards.

You know what makes more sense Susan? Maybe there is no God. Did you ever think of that?
Well think about it for a moment. If there is no God, then your confusion regarding the lack of consistency among believers is better understood.

It amounts to everybody meaning something different when they talk of gods, due to the likelyhood that he is just a creature of our imaginations.

The more I think about this likelyhood, and the more my curiosity leads me to read books by Dawkins and Victor Stenger, and other scientists and philosophers currently entering the God debate, the more I'm inclined to think that God is something we probably made up thousands of years ago, when we didn't know any better.

And now we should know better, don't you think?

Respectfully, BB.

Where is Ryan Haber?

He usually show up at these things.

Susan K. Smith says: “A ritual that makes anyone feel ashamed or frightened or worried cannot be pleasing to God.

On the other hand, a ritual that invites anyone who wants to get close to God has to make God smile”

Nice sentiments, but how can you possibly know that? To me, your words make much more sense without inserting an invisible supernatural being in the mix:

“A ritual that makes anyone feel ashamed or frightened or worried has no human value and should be avoided.

On the other hand, a ritual that invites anyone who wants to get close to other people is good.”

See – we don’t really have to “please” an invisible being and make him “smile” to make sense and know what’s right.

During my lifetime, My Baptist minister announced to out chuch that he lost his belief in God and would now be selling car ins. My Catholic priest didnt even know my name when I requested a meeting with him. The Mormons have stalked me thru 2 staes and 4 cities and know more about me than the FBI possibley could. Im going to hell for drinking coffee and smoking ciggarettes.Once a penacostal preacher told me a message from god that gave me chills because he told me things only God could have known. Needless to say......these are some of the reasons im so turned off by organized religion. Besides, Im so tired of people blaming God for the things humanity has allowed. If we can afford billions for wars, lets feed the children first ok?????

Well said. This is an excellent message. We Americans want to be free to believe and worship as we like. It would be a much better world if we could all respect the freedom of others to do the same. What makes me lose patience with religions is the way in which demoninations and sects -- to say nothing of individuals -- feel justified, even santimonious in trying to limit others' freedom to express their religious beliefs in a personally meaningful way. Of course, I am referring to religious expression that does no harm to anyone else. War in the name of religion is to me the stupidist of ideas. I believe that religion is in the end a personal relationship with the divine and I do not know of any divinity that wishes to destroy humanity.

I agree with you Rev Smith, because the God we serve is an all knowing God, he has the authority to judge not man. The problem of the world today is we do the judging like we have the power to judge. This is why there is so much hatred and not enough love in understanding one another no matter what faith.