COMMUNION AND THE FALLIBILITY OF MAN
For those of you scoring at home, I'm not Catholic. The difference between my church and the RC church is that the catholics make no pretense about being a 'Top Down" business model. My church is totally "Top Down" but they camouflage it sweetly by making us feel we play an important role in The Church's governance. It's a style thing.
But we Christians all have Communion. Communion is where we "come to" the Body and Blood of Christ. It's a physical sign that He has extended, and we have accepted, his sacrifice to gain us redemption. We all do the same thing. We have Communion. We embrace salvation and redemption. Then we go out and screw up again.....wash, rinse, repeat. Why? Because we're human and human beings are pretty much spiritual clods with the self-control of a gnat.
Unless I'm missing something, that makes the process of Communion that much more vital in "coming to" The Lord--because man is essentially incapable of sustained moral righteousness and needs constant exposure to his Redeemer. Are you following this? If you're not uncomfortable now, you don't get it. We'll have to put you into a slower group.
So what does "The Church" do with people who think "wrong"? Of course! It bans them from the one thing they need most to get closer to the The Savior, Communion. And who makes the decision to keep one imperfect man away from his Redeemer? Of course! Another imperfect man. How symmetrical! But it gets better.
Now, of course, there's a good reason for these "bans". It's.....um, er.......Well, it's not because they think "wrong" (Oh, no. That would be....uh, wrong). It's because it might upset the other worshipers. The Parish might become dyspeptic. Digression alert: Wasn't it Christ Hisownself who told the guy without sin to go ahead chuck the first brick or something like that?
So we don't ban you from communion, Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Durbin, because of what you think or how you vote. We ban you because you flunked the Congregation's purity test. In other words, an imperfect man who fundamentally requires communion is told by another imperfect man that he can't have communion and the REASON he can't have communion is that an unknown number of other imperfect men have communicated in some fashion to the second imperfect man that they will be imperfectly pissed off if the original imperfect man is allowed to approach the Body and Blood of the Redeemer. This is an endless loop of damnation for all of them, a plan guaranteed not to secure the desired result, the arrival at salvation for all of them.
Well, maybe this communion banishment thing is a first step away from "Top Down" management. Maybe that's useful. If it has any other useful result, I fail to see it.
posted by UMRBlog @ 04:02
22 comments
22 Comments:
I'm not a Catholic either, but I'll give my uninvited take on their family squabble. First off, you can't come at this issue with the Protestant understanding of Communion (i.e. Eucharist). It's a bigger deal in the Catholic church because they believe in trans-substantiation rather than just the symbolic act. For protestants the bread and wine is a part of the service, for catholics, it IS the service. So what about the issue of denial? The Catholic teaching has long been that someone in a state of mortal sin should not partake in the Eucharist. Going with their definitions for the sake of argument, is a yay/nay vote on abortion legality a mortal sin? If it is, then shouldn't anyone who votes for a politician who supports abortion legality also be denied? What about someone who works at a drugstore that sells birth control, which is also considered a mortal sin? Essentially, it seems if canon law were applied as rigorously to the congregation as it is to high-profile politicians then there would be two little old ladies getting communion while everyone else sat there. A second note, how can the priest be sure the politician did not just come from confession, and therefore is absolved of his sins? If the last vote on an abortion related issue was a year or more ago it seems he would have been to confession at some point.
Yeah, What he said....
TYFCB
Communion is not a "wash you clean" thing. That's not the point and never was. Communion is...communion with Jesus Christ, with the church (the Body of Christ), and "spiritual food", not spiritual laundry detergent.
In fact that's the whole point of "confession" and "spiritual direction"--and preparation to receive communion. You look at the things that need to be fixed, resolve to work on them, seek God's forgiveness, and THEN take communion.
So if you are making a public display of something sinful (whether its stealing from the offering tray or supporting abortions on demand), you are not in a right state to receive communion, and if you do, you are compounding your spiritual confusion AND making your sin even worse.
In a nutshell, you quoted the wrong part of the story, UMR. It's not "he who is without sin", it's later when he tells the woman "go and sin no more" and in another story when he tells the young man "go and sell all you have and come follow me". That fellow went away disappointed, because he was very rich and didn't want to change his own behavior.
Durbin, Kennedy, etc. want the perceived "benefit" of being a Roman Catholic, but don't want to accept the teachings that have come down over 2000 years. Sorry, it don't work that way. You want to be in the group, you follow the rules. If you can't follow the rules, you probably should go elsewhere.
If they truly believe abortion should be ok, then they have to accept one of the consequences of that public declaration and also say "I recognize that this is contrary to the teaching of the church in which I was raised. I cannot reconcile this, and so I must leave that church since I cannot in good faith consider myself a member of a group where I cannot accept their rules."
Oh, and in response to the question "How does the priest know if the politician did not just come from confession"--what, is the politician just going to church anywhere? If he's going to his regular parish, the priest knows because the politician made his confession to that priest.
I know in the Orthodox Church, if I go to a different parish and ask to receive, I get quizzed a bit before I am given permission--it's a matter of the priest looking out for my spiritual well-being.
I understand that idea is tough for people not raised in a Roman or Orthodox ethos to comprehend--denial of the sacrament is not being cruel to the person denied--it's a) for their spiritual protection, since communion literally is communion with Jesus Christ Himself ("for He is like a refiners fire") b) in certain cases, a reminder to repent and "sin no more".
This probably made no sense, so I apologize. My head is pretty messed up these days--too much work and not enough rest. :)
The Christianist churches, Roman or Protestant, continue to perpetuate ignorance and nonsense about sexuality. Why? It's part of encouraging a self-hatred that then requires the intervention of the institutional church. It is ignorant, wrong and immoral, but it helps the institutional church justify its continued existence.
1145,
You've convinced me. I'll quit church, buy a peasant shirt and some negative earth shoes, toke up and become excessively promiscuous.....Hmmm. wonder if I can scare up the tuition?
1142,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I think your fatigue may have unblocked your analytical skills, not inhibited them.
I appreciate your point but it rather misstate mine. I was not saying that the communion itself was redemptive. My point was, if one believes Christ is "The Way", causing worshipers to become estranged from Him (His Body and Blood) is the least likely path to redemption.
Besides (and this morphs over into politics) committing a mortal sin and thinking "wrong" are not the same thing. The seven deadlies don't include "imprudent governance."
I really, really respect the way you layed yours out but I believe you're strawmanning my original point to begin with. Sin No More is aspirational. "I am the Way" is Gospel.
TYFCB, notwithstanding you have this simple midwestern Methodist boy over his haid now.
I prefer to see professed Christians at least try to act on their beliefs.
Supplying abortion on demand, government funded even, is not a mistake or weakness of the flesh, it is a continued premeditated action against his church's beliefs.
If Kennedy refuses the doctrine, after repeated confrontations (I'd assume he has had those), then why would the act of taking communion change him?
Communion is for "the believer". Because his public actions in support of abortion are so well known, it is indeed more of a "stumbling block" for his fellow parishioners, as he makes a "public farce" of the act of taking communion, in that he clearly does not subject himself to church "laws".
Faith comes by hearing, they say ... so Kennedy can continue to hear to the point he "believes".
Each church can decide where to draw their lines, but surely most would agree there should be some sort of standard set for who should be allowed to take communion.
I don't quite get your "come to" the body of Christ thinking. I see it more as an act of humility for those that have already "come to", as opposed to Kennedy, who has refused to "submit".
It has been a long time since I have taken or given communion, but I appreciate those that do it sincerely, not hypocritically.
Sorry, UMR, you don't automatically go hippie if you quit church and "church" doesn't automatically make you moral. Just like, appreciate and understand being human.
1424,
Now you've done it! You've goaded me into committing Theology!
You're right. I am trapped emotionally by the doctrine of "open table" communion. I guess, when he said "Take, Eat" He forgot to say, "Not You, A$$hole".
The problem I see in your reasoning is that you want someone (not necessarily yourself) to act as the "sincerity police" for who deserves communion and who doesn't. Since all mankind are imperfect and touched with sin, that call is WAY above our paygrade.
Your view of abortion policy and legislative morality bleeds back into what appears to be an outcome-determinative model you set up for communion eligibility.
Your view's not uninteresting but It seems circular to me.
I knew this was a tough topic when I put it up. TYFCB and for your sincere reply.
Here is Bishop Tobin speaking for himself.
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27551753/factor-exclusive.htm#q=bishop
Even Jesus didn't invite all his followers to that first communion. (Though I know of no text where he declared "not you, asshole".)
Of course I think Judas was there, but he might have been deemed unworthy ... and things didn't turn out so swell for him.
The reason the Bishop gave did not seem to include that it might upset others, as you mentioned.
If no men in the church can decide on any standards, you don't have much of a church. "It's your thing, do what you wanna wanna do" is the 60's man ... Christian doctrine has some rules, and men are called on to confront those that disobey, especially those within the church.
Of course someone in the church has to act as the "sincerity police" ... much of the epistles are about reproof and correction of wrong behavior.
I don't know of any real clear instructions for who takes communion, so I'm not saying your open communion is deemed wrong ... but why judge the Catholics for their version? There are other means than communion intended for reconciling, like the bishop talking directly to Kennedy.
1927,
I very much appreciate this discussion.
As to your first point, everybody present in what was at the moment "his house" was, in fact, invited to participate.
On the "Other worshippers experience" see the Durbin experience in 2007. I was not writing solely about any one politician or person, for that matter.
Of course a worship community or any community, standards. I was talking specifically about EXCLUSION from a sacrament. That's different from standards simply for participating in the community.
Reproof and correction are considerably different from exclusion from the essence of worship experience.
I just don't see where exclusion from communion for the exercise of governmental power is part of Catholic doctrine, as open communion is doctrine in my church.
The "do your own thing" crack is setting up a strawman, I didn't build, just so you can knock it down.
Do appreciate your views, even if saying I "knocked" the RC church was a bit of cheap shot.
TYFCB
As a lifelong Catholic, I've yet to meet a priest or hear of a bishop who, no matter how pious or learned they may have been, had the ability to read minds or look into the farthest recesses of another person's heart. Isn't it God's power and prerogative alone to judge us for our thoughts and the motives behind what we each did and did not do over the course of our lives? The condemnations of Kennedy, Durbin and other "liberal" or mostly Democratic politicians are for the most part based on s "straw man." They have not supported abortion on any up or down, yes or no vote. Their offense is to recognize that the right to choose is the law of the land and a constitutional right. The consequences of this recognition and their attempts to reconcile their beliefs and programs to this right are arbitrarily called "supporting abortion" without regard to beliefs, motives or reasons. Many on the pro-life side of this controversy refuse to accept that Roe v. Wade was the correct legal result, just as the supreme court's decisions on the death penalty are the correct legal result. The condemnation of Patrick Kennedy would ring less hollow if some bishop had ever refused communion to a politician who voted to continue the death penalty. During the last national election, I read an advertisement urging Catholics to vote on the basis of "non-negotiables" like human cloning and stem cell research, without any mention about a war started on the basis of lies, resulting in the death of thousands of young Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian men, women and children. How can anyone not believe the bishops and the Catholic Church as an institution have forfeited any moral authority they could bring to the political arena by following the lead of the political hypocrites and manipulators. The phrase "fallibility of man" really sums up both sides of this controversy and also provides the answer. The gospels tell us how Jesus came to meet, associate with and save sinners, not to condemn, judge and punish them. We mere fallible humans would be better off following His example and leaving the judgments to God. JAD
JAD
I'm so glad we're usually on the same side.
TYFCB
Didn't Jesus have many other followers while he was alive? Yet he only had the "inner sanctum" at that communion. Some would say the first usage sets the standard. If you say they were his "house", or household, then perhaps Kennedy had stepped outside of the house, or was so judged.
There is also a later verse that suggests every man decides for himself ... though I see room for another to judge, which would maybe be the role of a pastor.
now you did it ... made me look up some verses :)
http://kingjbible.com/1_corinthians/11.htm 11:27-32, for those playing along at home.
I did say you were judging the Catholics for their version ... but aren't you? The bishop gave his reasoning ... I don't see it as a flippant action, but a thought through convention. Volumes could be written to discuss it, but they have long held that communion is not "open".
I don't know who establishes what a "sacrament" is, and what the conditions are for partaking in them. But if there are standards in participating in the community, why not have standards for a "deeper level" of participation? It just seems to be a difference in church structure, established by man with no direct Bible instruction.
"Do your own thing" ... I'm just referring to the need for standards ... you say the sacrament is different ... OK then, but that is particular to your belief, not the Catholics, as another anon. stated earlier.
Like in baseball, it is important for the umpire to at least be consistent, and it seems they are, and you are. Both can function well, as I see it. The bishop made his position fairly clear I think.
thanks for the discussion
JAD's is an excellent statement that puts to shame my snotty comments at 11:45 and 3:01 yesterday. Right on, JAD! I'm reading a detailed history of the Reformation right now and, yes, Jesus got lost in the church thing after about the 2nd Century.
"And the young man went away very unhappy, for he was very rich."
The story where Jesus tells the rich young man that the way to salvation is to sell all he has and follow does not have a happy ending (as far as we know).
The young man was apparently a good man, seems to have been willing to do much to achieve salvation--except...
He wouldn't change. Christ required a change. So the young man went away sad. Talk is cheap--action is proof. Wheat and tares (I know, mixing my parables :).
Durbin and Kennedy have chosen to take a moral stance in opposition to the Savior and the church they purport to obey (we'll put aside the whole notion of putting their government service ahead of their faith). They aren't willing to change their behavior--so they have been told they should consider not receiving communion. As far as I know neither is actually inhibited, but sometimes its best not to receive while you work through something.
And there's no need for psychic powers for priests with Durbin and Kennedy. They are openly in defiance (and thus, sin), and breaking the rules is a no-no.
Worse, if they're unwilling to follow the rules in something as (relatively) simple as faith and belief and church membership, why should anyone believe they will follow the rules anyplace else when it is inconvenient?
UMR, I always enjoy discussing with you. Even if we don't agree, it is always enlightening and an enjoyable experience. We should go out for a beer sometime--if you're going to Miracle on 34th Street at QCT, look me up (you won't be able to miss me--my hair is white currently, just a hint :).
0658,
The "lot of followers" comment is a little historically misplaced. On that particular night, StubHub would not have sold any additional tickets to that event. Context: hunkered down, leper colony lite.
I'll give you the Bishop re Kennedy gave a more coherent version than Durbin's priest in '07 (.i.e., it might piss somebody off). But the model is still Jesus (at least I hope it is.) and was a non-exclusionary dude. Exposure to Him and his teachings certainly had an effect on Saul of Tarsus. What if Saul had been banished from the Lord and the Word because he was a bad, greedy man.
The more you do of what you're doing, the more you get of what you've got.
TYFCB
To All,
I expected mouthbreathers muttering about baby-killing in response to this topic. What I got was some sensitive, intelligent comments that tested my theory and kind of restored a waning faith in the blogosphere as a place to exchange ideas, real ideas.
Thank you all.
It's an interesting topic, and touches very clearly on different ways various groups view their faith, the Savior, the church, et. al.
That we can talk about it respectfully and find interest in each others' comments, especially those that challenge our own understanding, is evidence that--by the grace of God--this group of people at least has their heads on more or less straight.
One note--exclusion from communion in the Roman and Orthodox (as well as some Lutheran and Anglican) views is NOT an exclusion from the services of the church since there are far more services of the church than just communion.
In the first three centuries (and for quite a while after in the East), anyone at all could come in for the Liturgy of the Word, hear the Epistles and Gospels, hear the preaching. But before the communion service, those who were not members would have to leave since they had not yet taken the step to become members of the Body of Christ and the one thing a Christian should want to avoid is to become a stumbling block and occassion to sin for a brother or sister--and encouraging someone to receive communion before they are ready and prepared is a serious spiritual error.
Of course that points up our differences on the nature, purpose and depth of communion.
My point though is that everyone was welcome to come and see and worship. But you had to have "taken the next step" and prepared to approach and receive the Body and Blood of Christ.
Lots of worship opportunities in Orthodoxy, BTW. Vespers, Matins, Divine Liturgy, saints days, memorial services, thanksgiving services, various holidays, shoot you could go to church durn near every day and never have a service that included communion :)
One final offering, from the Orthodox perspective--an excerpt from a discussion on open communion by Fr. John Breck of the Orthodox Church in America. Note the words about disobedience, which I would expect are not far from the Roman understanding--and which lie behind the inhibition of Kennedy and Durbin from receiving communion.
-----------------
"No Orthodox Christian receives Holy Communion in isolation. We are incorporated into a universal community of persons, both living and departed, whose common faith and practice unite them in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our existence in the Body of Christ, our ecclesial identity as Orthodox Christians, is such that we represent the Church in all that we are and do. If I defy the ordinances of my ecclesial tradition and receive communion in another Church, or as a priest welcome a non-Orthodox believer to receive the Eucharist in my parish, I am acting in violation of my own tradition, to which I have committed myself before God. And because of my solidarity with all other members of the Orthodox Church, I am implicitly involving them in my act of disobedience.
"The real issue, however, is not one of obedience or disobedience to rules and regulations. If the Orthodox preserve the sanctity of the Eucharist as a supreme obligation, it is because of the often stated truth that communion in the Body and Blood of Christ is the very end or fulfillment of Christian existence. It can not, for example, be reduced to a means by which to achieve "Christian unity." (In any case, Church history has made it clear that sharing of Communion among Churches of conflicting theological teachings never results in lasting unity.)
"The Eucharist is life itself. It is the life of Christ that enables us to live our life in Christ. To participate in the Eucharist as we are called to do requires our acceptance of a doctrinal attitude and commitment that is specifically "orthodox," grounded in the Scriptures and transmitted through the ages under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It requires as well acceptance of an ascetic discipline, which includes personal prayer, liturgical celebration, fasting, confession of sins, and acts of charity: the ingredients of a life of repentance and of an ongoing quest for holiness. And it requires that we honor our particular "ecclesial identity," together with submission to ecclesial authority represented above all by our bishops: persons canonically ordained and established, who are called by their actions and teachings to preserve and transmit the truth of the Orthodox faith while maintaining a bond of unity within the Body of Christ. A unity grounded not in power but in mutual respect and fraternal love, shared by all members of the Church.
"From this perspective, "open communion" -- the welcoming of non-Orthodox to share in the Eucharistic celebration -- is simply not possible without undermining the very meaning of the sacrament. This implies no particular judgment on the Eucharistic services of other Churches. It acknowledges rather that for the Orthodox, the Divine Liturgy is what the name implies. It is both the means and the end of Christian existence, an existence which arises from Orthodox faith, ongoing repentance, ascetic discipline, ecclesial identity and works of love. To those who accept this "Orthodox Way," the Eucharist offers a true participation in the very Life of the risen and glorified Christ, just as it offers the forgiveness of sins, the healing of soul and body, and a foretaste of the heavenly Banquet in the eternal presence of God."
Thoughtful presentation on "open table" or "open communion" as a concept.
It is still difficult to get around the idea that a fallible man is making a determination on the worthiness of the would-be participant. One fallible man deciding the worthiness of another.
TYFCB
Certainly these men are fallible ... but that is what the church has to work with. The Bible does call on men to perform the task of confronting their brothers that are causing harm, and we see far too little of that.
Very few of our politicians put their professed Christian beliefs ahead of their corrupt activities. "Show me the money" reigns supreme. Men of power don't get confronted enough, whether by their minister or their fellow parishioners, as I see it.
Man is fallible, but sometimes even a real ass can see what another is blind to, and offer guidance, as the Baalam story exhibits.
Courts are full of fallible men also, but it is what we have for now ... we don't just give up on them and go with anarchy ... yet.
Post a Comment
<< Home