Canon Law and Jesus Christ

1 Cor 11:23-34 tells us what the Eucharist is and the dangers of partaking it unworthily!
Verse 29 says,"for anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement upon himself."
That means that 1: it truly is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus because a mere symbol cannot bring judgement, and 2: Sally commited grevious sin against God!

To you Catholic bashers, your denials of Catholicism is juvenile and utterly wrong. Look up Catholic.com for answers to your charges.

After reading M.Cathleen Kaveny's article on Communion and Canon Law I am heartened by your showing the importance of interpretation of scripture and canon law working together.
The area I would appreciate understanding more fully are what the reasons from canon law that AB Burke forbad a Sister of Charity to continue in Ministries that she served in the diocese as he was leaving that diocese for his new Vatican assignment?
J.Hurst

After reading M.Cathleen Kaveny's article on Communion and Canon Law I am heartened by your showing the importance of interpretation of scripture and canon law working together.
The area I would appreciate understanding more fully are what the reasons from canon law that AB Burke forbad a Sister of Charity to continue in Ministries that she served in the diocese as he was leaving that diocese for his new Vatican assignment?
J.Hurst

Paul C:

I'm a catholic but I believe there are legitimate questions about the passage on Matthew that you cite. A similar passage appears in Mark and Luke yet they mention nothing about Peter receiving the keys of heaven or the exclusive authority to forgive sins. John's gospel does not mention this event, but rather a post-resurrection exchange in which Jesus tells Peter to "Feed my sheep'.

Catholic priest's John P. Meier ("A Marginal Jew") uses multiple attestation as one of the 4 or 5 main criteria used to judge the historicity of an event in the gospels. His work has the Imprimatur of the Catholic Church. If we were to apply and allow ourselves to be guided solely by said criteria to judge the historicity of the passage in Matthew we might have to conclude that it did not happen exactly the way he tells it.

I believe this might have implications for the the division between Christians that Catholics need to address.

Are you sure Jesus said all of that?? Might want to read the books listed at earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html to do some "catching up" with the historic Jesus.

Paul C. -- Sorry, but I believe you are misreading the text. Here is some clarification for you:

The name Peter (Petros) a masculine noun means small rock or stone. In Mt. 16:18 is the first time it is used saying “I will build my church”, a future event when the Spirit is sent and the body of Christ is formed. Jesus said “ I say unto you ,you are Peter (Petros) and upon this Rock (Petra feminine noun meaning a massive rock) I will build my church.” First we see who the rock is, second we see it is Jesus building the church not Peter. it is Jesus who states I will build my church, he protects it and gives increase to it. When we think about a foundation for a building it needs to be reliable, this comes through testing. There is only one who the Bible speaks as the rock that cannot be moved, that is Christ. All one has to do is look at Peter and we find he was moved numerous times showing he cannot be the foundation of the Church. The church is built upon the rock, Christ.

Cathleen,

I believe your analogy is correct, but I would like to expand upon it.

Jesus said that;”..whenever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst..”
At that funeral, Jesus was there, communion did not bring him.

Jesus also said; “..do this in memory of me..”
Communion is intended to remind us of our commitment to follow him.

Therefore, I personally believe that catholic doctrine 840 is a bit off target.

The only wrong Sally committed was to disrespect catholic doctrine 840. But, she did not disrespect Jesus.

Mark

Medieval people had no choice but to believe all the ludicrous clap-trap told them by clerics.

But this is 2008, and we don't have to believe fairy tales, and childish magic tricks like turning biscuits into flesh and wine into blood.
Yuck! Grow up!!

"If we really believe that the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ," - then we are not thinking clearly, we are lying to ourselves, we are deluded.
Time to put away childish thinking, and become a sensible adult. Religion is at least two hundred years past its best-before date, and irrational thinking will get us nowhere.

Church Built on Christ NOT PETER:
You said:
When Christ said "on this rock I will build my church" He was talking about Himself, not Peter. So it is time Catholics stopped claiming to be the "one true church."

This is a great misstatement of what the Bible actually says. Here is the actual reading :

Matthew 16:15-19:

He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Clearly Jesus WAS talking to Peter (which means Rock) in this reading. This bible passage clearly states that Peter would be in charge of Christ's church on Earth. I don't see how you could read it any differently. This does not mean that Peter and the Catholic church stands between the Jesus and the individual. In fact, the Church's goal is to HELP people reach God by sharing the deposit of faith.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no many comes to the Father but through me." He never said no man comes to the Father but through a priest, a pope or the Catholic Church.

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but throught me." He never said no man comes to the Father but through a priest, a pope or the Catholic church.

When Christ said "on this rock I will build my church" He was talking about Himself, not Peter. So it is time Catholics stopped claiming to be the "one true church."

Peter was not a pope -- he was married and had children. Peter was not perfect and never claimed to be.

It is Christ who is to be worshipped. Christ should be the center of all our worship, not Peter or any of the other "saints" of the Catholic church. Any one who is a follower of Christ, who has accepted his free gift of salvation, can partake in holy communion. PERIOD.

The continuing problem here is what did the historic Jesus really say and do.

Did he establish the Catholic Church via Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark 8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

According to many contemporary historic Jesus and NT exegetes (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Frederiksen- members of the On Faith Panel), he did not since these passages fail to meet historic requirements of attestations and stratums.

Did he establish the sacrament of the Eucharist?

(1a) 1 Cor 10:14-22
(1b) 1 Cor 11:23-25
(2) Mark 14:22-25 = Matt 26:26-29 = Luke 22:15-19a[19b-20]
(3) Did. 9:1-4
(4) John 6:51b-58

Again, according to many contemporary historic Jesus and NT exegetes (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredericksen- members of the On Faith Panel), he did not since these passages fail to meet historic requirements of attestations and stratums.

A good review of the what is really known about the last week of the simple preacher man's life:

From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

Jack,

You obviously don't get it. Are you Catholic?

Jack,

You obviously don't get it. Why don't you join a protestant church?

Jack, let me put it this way. If I had written such a self-rationalizing opinion piece about someone else's religion and submitted it to Quinn as an editor, I think her professional standards would have precluded her allowing it to be posted as responsible commentary.
After all this whoop-de-do about something that she should have known to keep to herself, it will be hard for me to take any part of this blog as seriously as I once did.
By the way, that was me, not Victoria. I am Catholic and fairly judgmental. She is Muslim and more polite.

Victoria, I would be offended too by Quinn's bragging about receiving Communion. But don't you see it's your decision to interpret what Quinn wrote as bragging. There are other more charitable choices you could make.

Jack,
It is absolutely not our place to judge anybody elses's soul. I'm much less offended by Quinn's taking communion than I am by her choosing to brag about it.
B-man,
You are right. Quinn should have respectfully kept this to herself and the rest of should have ignored her.

Back to Reality and what they teach in graduate theology classes at some large Catholic universities (Notre Dame?):

"Transubstantiation is still a Catholic doctrine, but it never meant a literal transforming of bread and wine into the physical body and blood of Jesus. "Substance" in medieval philosophy referred to the essence of a thing
and was not reducible to material appearance. Transubstantiation is a way of expressing belief that Jesus Christ is SOME HOW present in the consecrated bread and wine in a special way. Some theologians believe that "transignificantion" would be a better term today than transsubstantiation.

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

Cutting to the chase: The Eucharist in either form are great symbols but scientifically it is simply a low calorie wafer and inexpenive wine.

Then there is the true history of the simple preacher man but that is for another day but I am sure it is being discussed in the theological halls of Notre Dame.

This entire "cracker" discussion is insane. Please people, wake up and get a life.

"Christ’s fundamental desire to overcome all barriers in drawing suffering people to his love and mercy"
While Jesus does call all who are humble to His Mercy, He will also throw all those who have refused to obey Yahweh, and rejected the Mercy of God, into Hell and the Eternal Lake of Fire.
How then should you accept one who has clearly refused to obey God; one who clearly rejects God's commands, violating the First Commandment and Second commandment to do so; how then can you allow such an apostate to receive communion?
Use righteous judgment, those who are entrusted to serve the body, as do not allow heretics in the fold.
This call to rejection of all heresy and apostasy being clearly what leadership, and the body in general, must do, one must look to the apostasy of the Roman Catholic system in it's idolatrous worship of Mary and the Saints, among many others heresies, as well.
In other words, heretics may not call apostates heretics without making themselves a target as well. Wise judgment is needed by all and this may only be found at the foot of Jesus Himself and in the Bible, which points to Him in every way as the author and finisher of faith in God.
See to yourself first and then, once judged aright, see to the body with that same standard.
Patrick J. Burwell/OnlyJesusSaves.com

Catholics know they're supposed to avoid judging the soul of another, but I think that may have happened in a number of these comments. Kaveny did not do that and found good reasons in Catholic theology for taking a charitable position on Quinn's action. ... A comment on the "nauseating feeling": It seems to me that could well be a quite reverent reaction to receiving Communion, especially if trips to the altar are not a habit. God can overwhelm one in any number of ways.

Viejita,
You write:

"I am disappointed that Kaveny seems to be honoring the whims of a celebrity over the traditions of the church."

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo, another of the "Catholic" bloggers on this site who has come to Ms. Quinn's defense, made a very telling admission about why he and Ms. Kaveny would want to support Ms. Quinn's outrageous posts on this matter: Ms. Quinn is his (and her) "boss, in a sense."

As I mention above, these offical bloggers are much like the talking heads on TV/Cable, they are looking to make names for themselves and taking on the "host" personally is not a good idea. Vice-versa for the host; he/she will pull his punches with his regular guests to some degree even if the guest is on the other side of the fence. Notice how Sean Hannity pulls his punches with his talking heads, such as Clinton Adviser Lannie Davis. Well, it is the same thing on this blog.

Having read her pseudo-religious musings in the past, I'm not sure Quinn is capable of doing anything but trivializing the Eucharist. She certainly seems to be enjoying the opportunity this incident provides for some heavy duty self-promotion.
I am disappointed that Kaveny seems to be honoring the whims of a celebrity over the traditions of the church.

Folks,

Ms. Kaveny's post is a perfect example of what gives lawyers and professors and would be regular contributors to blog sites and talking head shows such a bad name. By taking this tortuous position that twists around even the plain language in the back of most missalettes, Ms. Kaveny has gotten herself some "blog creds" with people like Sally Quinn.

Who knows, beyond this blog, she may even be able to get on CNN, CNBC or the networks now as an "expert" on Catholicism who can be counted on to say the right thing about the Catholic Church.

Panelist writes:

"In short, while Sally Quinn violated canonical requirements in receiving communion at Tim Russert’s mass, she did not do so with the intent to trivialize the sacrament."

You have to be kidding...

Sally Quinn has shown bias and disrespect towards Catholics in many of her pieces on this site and others.

Her violation of Holy Communion was in full knowledge (she is the head of a religious blog, after all!) of her actions.

This was a passive aggressive and grave slight that she has explained away rather than apologize for.

She did exactly do what she did to trivialize the sacrament, and cause scandal.

Let's grant her predisposing factor about her false notion of communion, from her protestant experience of receiving bread and wine symbolic of Jesus "I had only taken communion once in my life, at an evangelical church. ... Oddly I had a slightly nauseated sensation after I took it, knowing that in some way it represented the body and blood of Jesus Christ."

A "nauseated sensation" is hardly an expression of reverence of the symbol. With how much less reverence could she receive the actual body and blood? She knows its different than just bread and wine (that's the intellectual level at which we decide someone who is otherwise faithful is fit to receive communion). So, she knew what it was.

Let's look on: "Last Wednesday I was determined to take it for Tim, transubstantiation notwithstanding."

So, we are to assume that she is comfortable enough with the concept of 'transubstantiation' to call it what it is, then ignore it intentionally, and do it with (literal) malice aforethought. It's not too much of a stretch to think her 'determination' was with an eye to writing the article she did, which was _designed_ to cause scandal. (Paraphrasing the point of the article: Hey, look, guys, I received communion, and it was no big deal, God didn't strike me down or anything, Tim would be proud of me for bucking the system!)

While we cannot judge the state of another's soul, we should and must "discern the spirits". Her's were not the good ones, by any imagination.

Please note John 13:26-7 "26 Jesus answered, "It is he to whom I shall give this morsel when I have dipped it." So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 Then after the morsel, Satan entered into him." Jesus knew full well what Judas was going to do, and gave him to eat anyway: if you fail to see the similarities to Quinn's sacrelige, you seem to have missed the point, of her story, and Judas'.