Am I the only one whose blown a head-gasket around here?

I'm just linking to articles now.

-----

I don't have much else to say at this point, but will continue to follow the discussion.

quote:

"you are not one of us, and must eat from the visitor's table".

It's amazing how parochial people can be regarding some things, particularly Christianity. One of the most amazing books I've read recently, Freebird, is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. In one part of the book he talks about what god has in mind for us as opposed to what we may have in mind when we become involved in religion. As he said, many people have the attitude of "Lord, fix my drinking problem and get me a better job, please." And these things may indeed happen. And the person may then be content to stop right there. Many are. But as Lewis said, that ain't what god has in mind. The ultimate goal is our perfection. Nothing less. And that can mean radical change.

Maybe that Priest was just having a grumpy day, but if one truly grasps the core message of Christianity then the implications are truly mind boggling. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me. It's potentially like taking a seat in one of the bobsleds that you see in Olympic competition that race down those amazingly dangerous and winding courses. One minute you're standing at rest in the snow, the next you're racing at 100 miles an hour with nothing to hold onto.

Judge not, and all that, but I do so this time in hopes of enlightening. Life is a pretty scary thing so I'm not going to be too hard on those who stick their necks only 1/4 way out of their tortoise shells. Mine, frankly, is only 1/64 out, so I know what I'm talking about. But it's been my observation that many people don't go very deep into their faith. They don't want to. It would open them up too much. They want just enough for to give a veneer that they and others can see. To go deeper would demand (not ask, not cajole) that they change some very significant things in their life because once you let Christ in, there are some things that are next to impossible for you to keep on doing. You have to sort of back away again to keep on doing them�or, of course, not go so deep in the first place.

Being quite new to all this I say in all humility that this Christ stuff is not that hard to grasp, at least the stuff that I see as important. All the ritual, liturgy, Sacraments, churches and stuff I know are hugely important to most but I can't help thinking that instead of passing on the core message that they often just dilute that message and get in the way (that's my observation�I have no wish to argue this point). Your experience with the priest just gives further evidence of this to me. The forms of a religion are one thing, but the heart and spirit, particularly of Christianity, are so amazingly unique and loving that I think one REALLY has to work at it to bollix it up or miss it. There is only one Bible verse that I need to keep me in the right frame of mind:

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

And this quote is good as well:

Preach the gospel all the time and when necessary use words. � St. Francis

But I'm sure that priests, like fireman, cops, doctors, and nurses, see so much of the hardship and dark side of humanity that it is all they can do sometimes just to not frown. So if a priest is a little cranky you just never know what he had to deal with just five minutes ago. But being told that you are "not one of us"? That's a bit beyond cranky, if you ask me. But surely there is a deep and redeeming lesson even in his careless words�especially if there is a mystical body (there�that was put in there to satisfy Phil).

quote:

"This is still a developing Christology . . . "


Hey Phil, where did Brad get that word?

J.B.?

Technically, WC, I'd heard that word long before hearing JB use it. But I must admit that I have heard him use it. But that gentle and kind man has used a LOT of words, so it's not really saying much to say that one has overheard him use this or that word. You might just as well say that Noah Webster is the guy that you got the word from. But the deal-breaker in terms of a JB lineage is that "Christology" is but four syllables. JB would not break a sweat using a string of quad-syllable words. But had I surrounded that word on each side with a string of five or six syllables words, then you might have rightly suspected that I was parroting a much smarter person than myself.

So the short answer is that I got the word from elsewhere�perhaps from a review of "Jesus Christ, Superstar." The ontological underpinnings suggest an etymology so hefferflauntet as to leave me diplocardiacally nomothetic.

My head's pretty much imploded over here.

Nothing much more to say at the present.

mmm, yeah, uhuh.

Wish we were all in the same room.

Mmm, yeah.

I would probably have walked out several times by now. Yeah. Met w.c. on his way back in. Asked Brad what the heck he was talking about. Told Phil to stop phariseeing about with that blessed PowerMac.

Mmm, yeah, uhuh.

One more thing:

"And so I think the dismissal of this possibility of kinship is as much fraught with our own uncertainties and fears as it is with concern over the salvation of others whose experience suggests we are not completely unique in our claim."

That's probably true to some degree, w.c. But I can honestly say I have a hot burning jealousy for Christ when it comes to the worship of other "aspects of God". Perhaps this lunges into a kind of Pharisaical over zealousness at times. I'll keep an eye on that, but I enjoy the heat, if you know what I mean.

"So the short answer is that I got the word from elsewhere�perhaps from a review of "Jesus Christ, Superstar." The ontological underpinnings suggest an etymology so hefferflauntet as to leave me diplocardiacally nomothetic."

Exactly!


"I would probably have walked out several times by now. Yeah. Met w.c. on his way back in. Asked Brad what the heck he was talking about. Told Phil to stop phariseeing about with that blessed PowerMac."


Sounds like 2 for 1 night at the theology pub. "Wasted days and wasted nights."


Stephen:

I think you said you've read, and enjoyed, Julian of Norwich's "Showings." I just purchased "The Classics of Western Spirituality" translation, which has a very detailed Introduction. Much of what you talk about re: conscience, sin, sovereignty, wrath and mercy of God, are taken up by this saint, who was actually quite a theologian. As I read the last few pages (I'm just midway into the Intro), I thought that some of our concerns are addressed quite elegantly in her reflections. If you don't have that particular edition, and are drawn to the idea, I'd suggest getting a copy. I found mine on Amazon.

Yes re: your devotion to Christ. For myself, even though I hold somewhat lenient views of God's providence re: created grace and His mercy for those who seek Him without explicit faith in His Son, there is still none other than Jesus for me, as far as devotion goes. In fact, there has appeared non-Christian expressions of the Divine in my meditations, but they clearly serve Christ who is beyond, but not inimical to, their place in the created order of things. Some of these are archetypal, as in Hindu imagery related to K's unfolding, with another being a feminine character from another religion altogether; so they are fallen creatures themselves, created through the second person of the Trinity.

Re. the ongoing rumblings about "open Communion," please do check out this article, linked to above.

I'll exerpt a few relevant sections:

quote:

a Protestant may be given permission to receive the Eucharist, but only if he or she:

1. has a serious spiritual need (ie, is dying or under persecution);
2. is unable to receive in his/her own church for a long time;
3. is living a genuine Christian life, not a life of sin;
4. agrees with Mother Church's teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; -and-
5. gets permission from his/her own church to receive Communion in another.

Unless all these circumstances are met, a Protestant cannot receive Communion in a Catholic church. The Church is not being mean, snobbish or exclusive; she does this because, as we have seen, the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our unity in Christ. Christians who are not in perfect union with us cannot receive Communion with us, nor can those who have a dispute with us. As a sign of unity, the Eucharist cannot be used as a means toward a unity which does not exist (yet - hopefully we will be reunited someday!).

Also:

quote:

So the practice of excluding some people from Communion is a Biblically based, ancient Christian discipline observed by both Catholics and Orthodox, as well as many Protestants. It is neither recent nor arbitrary nor unreasonable. Rather it reflects the mind and heart of the early Church, as they were taught by the Apostles.

My first thought on this is that the only unity that really matters is that of the Lordship of Christ - one Lord, one faith etc. We are one in Him. The only basis for unity and fellowship is Christ as head of the body. All other doctrinal disputes are mere phaffing around. And as for a Biblical basis for exclusion, I just can't see it. Seems to me like the Catholic church has some worrying control issues. Having said that, there are plenty of Protestant groups who are just as exclusive. I really don't like it.

From Phil�s "Closed Communion" link:

quote:

Unless all these circumstances are met, a Protestant cannot receive Communion in a Catholic church. The Church is not being mean, snobbish or exclusive; she does this because, as we have seen, the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our unity in Christ. Christians who are not in perfect union with us cannot receive Communion with us, nor can those who have a dispute with us. As a sign of unity, the Eucharist cannot be used as a means toward a unity which does not exist (yet - hopefully we will be reunited someday!).

Stephen said: The only basis for unity and fellowship is Christ as head of the body. All other doctrinal disputes are mere phaffing around. And as for a Biblical basis for exclusion, I just can't see it. Seems to me like the Catholic church has some worrying control issues. Having said that, there are plenty of Protestant groups who are just as exclusive. I really don't like it.

On the one hand, much like driving up to McDonald�s and ordering a Whopper, you would have no distinct church (or Church) without standards and rules. And the point of standards and rules is that we conform to them because whoever made the rules knows better than us and the rules will get us by until we have a deeper understanding and either accept the wisdom of the rules or transcend them in some way. So I don�t chafe at rules, per se. But this part definitely rubs me wrong:

The Church is not being mean, snobbish or exclusive; she does this because, as we have seen, the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our unity in Christ. Christians who are not in perfect union with us cannot receive Communion with us�

To me this screams of style over substance, form over function. Granted, I don�t fully understand or accept the significance of the Sacraments. But I still have a somewhat open mind in this regard. But could we be looking at them wrong if following something that can eventually become, at least to some, a habit, a heartless ritual, even a mindless compulsion, is considered more important than basic tolerance, gentleness, compassion and generosity? That�s my beef. I just don�t see how it serves the Christian ideal if one is fussy and even stingy about things that are but rituals? Granted, I do understand that I�m speaking from a perspective that does not attach that much importance to the Sacraments. But like I said, I�m trying to keep an open mind. But I surely will put my vote toward the idea that the mystical Body of Christ is best joined by one�s generous and loving behavior rather than by pedantically keeping the rules�dare I say like a Pharisee?

The only basis for unity and fellowship is Christ as head of the body. All other doctrinal disputes are mere phaffing around.

So, then, it doesn't matter whether one believes in the Trinity, is in sin, is married to 12 wives, doesn't believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, etc. . . I'm sure this is not what you mean to say, Stepehn, and I know that you're aware of Paul's caution about "eating and drinking" unworthily.

I wish it were as simple as "believe in Jesus and live in love," but from the first, the Christian community has had to deal with a wide range of questions pertaining to what constitutes membership in the Body, how one is prepared for such, who can receive baptism, what is proper preparation for such, etc. It's just inevitable. One can view all this as being "exclusive," or one can see it as safeguarding the integrity of membership in the Body of Christ.

I just don�t see how it serves the Christian ideal if one is fussy and even stingy about things that are but rituals? Granted, I do understand that I�m speaking from a perspective that does not attach that much importance to the Sacraments. But like I said, I�m trying to keep an open mind. But I surely will put my vote toward the idea that the mystical Body of Christ is best joined by one�s generous and loving behavior rather than by pedantically keeping the rules�dare I say like a Pharisee?

Brad, I think what's at stake, here, isn't merely a ritual, but one that entails the ministry of a Sacrament that communicates the real presence of Christ. I don't think it follows that the Church is being unloving by refusing the Sacrament to people who either aren't Christians or who don't believe what the Church teaches about the Sacrament. The article also noted that the Sacraments aren't to be used to "promote" unity; that's where dialogue and other ecumenical endavors come in.

Also, that some Catholics might receive the Sacraments mindlessly and habitually isn't a good argument in favor of open Communion. It does point out the need for Catholics to be more mindful of what's going on, here.

I guess the question I have for those in favor of open communion with Catholics is - - if you really believe what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, want to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, and are upset when it's refused you, then why not become a Catholic and be done with it?

Phil said: One can view all this as being "exclusive," or one can see it as safeguarding the integrity of membership in the Body of Christ.

I think that�s absolutely the countering point that needs to be integrated into all of our thinking. But from my point of view (and goodness knows I�m not trying to persuade anyone over to my point of view�I�m just trying to understand for myself), it sure seems to me that certain things are done to safeguard the power of the Church and priesthood. That said, if that is necessary as a greater good in preserving the Church then an "ends justifies the means" argument could be made. But I can�t help thinking that much of this ritual is just to keep the Church relevant and in power. Their franchise, so to speak, seems based on handing out Sacraments. That is their "currency". Their currency at one time used to be exclusive access to the Bible until Martin Luther changed that.

I guess what I�m about or after, one might label Gnostic, but I really don�t think so. I don�t think that coming to an understanding of Christ is impossible outside the Church. In fact, I would say that, depending on one�s circumstance, it might actually facilitate one�s entrance into the body (however that "body" is defined) by doing so.

But to extrapolate from one�s narrow point of view to the whole is fraught with danger. Had I grown up in a pious Catholic family with a friendly and faithful Father Flannigan just down the road, my attitude would surely be different. But I grew up around petulant Protestants. The very living opposite of life, liberty and love was to go to church where it seemed all the energy was drained out things. There must have been a body of Christ somewhere, but I wonder if it was rather present as a corpse instead. Churches are surely needed to pass on doctrine, but despite whatever gimmicks they come up with to keep themselves relevant, I still think that the life of Christ is lived via one�s spirit, not cold rules. I think churches should remember this. And people such as myself should surely remember Phil�s words: One can view all this as being "exclusive," or one can see it as safeguarding the integrity of membership in the Body of Christ. It�s always a question of balance, I think.

Brad, I think what's at stake, here, isn't merely a ritual, but one that entails the ministry of a Sacrament that communicates the real presence of Christ. I don't think it follows that the Church is being unloving by refusing the Sacrament to people who either aren't Christians or who don't believe what the Church teaches about the Sacrament.

Yes, Phil, I understand that my reticence includes an issue of belief as well as an issue of propriety. But I will say that even if I fully believed that Christ was actually present in the Eucharist in a way that was unique that I might find even more reason to be lax about handing out this Sacrament since it would seem to be a great blessing to do so, particularly if one is giving it to those who might need it most. But it sure seems to me that to become sticklers on this whole point of the Sacrament perhaps reveals motivations other than just preserving the integrity of membership in the Body of Christ.

"So, then, it doesn't matter whether one believes in the Trinity, is in sin, is married to 12 wives, doesn't believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, etc. . . I'm sure this is not what you mean to say, Stepehn, and I know that you're aware of Paul's caution about "eating and drinking" unworthily."

Sure, but the reality is that me and a million other Christians do believe in the Trinity, aren't married to 12 wives etc, aknowledging Christ as our Head and yet still we can't break bread with each other. I can't have communion with you, Phil! That sounds crazy to me. And, by following the commandments of Christ to the best of our ability, we are demonstrating that we are, or would be "eating and drinking" worthily, while expressing the Lordship of Christ in our lives. This service to the Lord over rides any "questions pertaining to what constitutes membership in the Body, how one is prepared for such, who can receive baptism" etc.

"One can view all this as being "exclusive," or one can see it as safeguarding the integrity of membership in the Body of Christ."

Ofcourse, it's necessary to safeguard the integrity of the Body, but how many Catholics are going into mass and taking communion after a night of drunken debauchery or what have you. And still there are those leading obedient lives who are excluded. Evidently the Church isn't doing it's job. I know its impossible and pretty abhorrent to moniter every individual who passes the wafer over his lips, and far be it from me to judge, but you get my point.

And BTW, that question about the Trinity is as good as any to put to a Hindu claiming to have found God, hence my insistance on Christ's role as the Son in the former discussion.