Wafergate

Bill Clinton did the same thing, repeatedly. Priests cannot investigate everyone coming up for communion. Those who disobey church rules will have to face, whom, their maker? I doubt it. They will have to face their conscience, which is not a very demanding thing. Too bad God doesn't really send them to hell.

I personally disagree with my (Catholic) Church's position that denies Communion to Christians of other denominations. However it is inexcuseable that a head of government of a major country is apparently ignorant of a matter of protocol such as this. It would be even worse if he did pocket the host. You don't have to believe in the theology of another religion to avoid unnecessary actions that are bound to offend the members of that religion. Mr. Harper should have had the good sense merely to stay in his pew.

I grew up Catholic and now attend the Episcopal Church. Many of my friends and family are Catholics and I find myself in a Catholic Church several times a year. I always take communion - it's the body of Christ, not the property of the Vatican. Eat it, praise God, give thanks.

Always funny when two superstitions collide...it's a CRACKER, not a dead body part -- although it's a lot more fun to think of the PM casually putting a piece of Jesus (I'd like to think it was his earlobe) in his pocket . I love stories like this--especially when written with such reverence; note the use of initial caps for "Body of Christ". All in all, this story is nuttier than Sarah Palin eating Chinese chicken salad.

Harrylime is right on the money....just more fairy tale and pixie dust sprinkled randomly...What a waste of good empty space in an alleged news sight...

'All in all, this story is nuttier than Sarah Palin eating Chinese chicken salad.'....

I feel for Harper.
I never know what to do when attending friend's religious events such as funerals, christenings, and weddings.
I always feel like an intruder in someone's private space - like a bedroom or bathroom.
If you stand up when everyone else stands up are you taking something from the congregation, or being polite?
Is staying seated rude or derogatory?
When well meaning people encourage you to get up, join the crowd, get a little flat bread, what are you to do? Say you don't believe in their rituals? Or just play along?
W

Oh, the silliness of it all. You religious nuts and your cracker obsession topped with healthy dose of lies. It's a cracker and juice of a grape (either fermented or not, depending on your flavor of delusion), not some sky fairy's body and blood.

This is not the first time that the delusion has led people to craziness:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php

http://www.crackergate.com/

And then there are these notes from a graduate theology class at a large Catholic university:

"Communion/The Eucharist is not Jesus' physical Body and Blood since Jesus exists as a spirit (like all "passed" humans-if you are into this) and therefore has no physical form.

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

Bottom line: To many Catholics, the bread and wine blessed during the Catholic mass are simply bread and wine with significant traditional meaning. (and please by-pass the common/contaminated wine cup during communion.) Significant sanitary issues are present during Catholic masses. The common wine cup and the common holy water fonts are two of them.

"...canon law claims jurisdiction only over Catholics."

Not like US protestants, then, who appear to claim jurisdiction over everybody.

..and suddenly I again hear Professor Tom at the 88:

When in doubt, try playing it safer
Drink the wine and chew the wafer
2-4-6-8
Time to transubstantiate!
***
Tom Lehrer
"The Vatican Rag"

Oops. The same thing happened when I was a kid in Catholic school -- a non-Catholic new student followed us up to Communion during mass on some holy day or other, because he thought he was supposed to (he was one of only a few non-Catholics in our class). He took the host respectfully when it was offered, like everyone else, but he didn't know what it was, so he brought it back to the pew and asked us what he was supposed to do with it. Like good young Catholics, we were all horrified, and a kid-level theological debate started about what was to be done. Fortunately a level-headed nun saw the whole thing and calmly took the host from our confused classmate and brought it up to the priest. Scandal and damnation averted.

Look, this is all about respecting the beliefs of others, which is really just good manners (as opposed to the lack of manners and outright disrespect, or even bigotry, shown by some of the posters here -- what's the matter with you people? Did your mothers raise you to be a**holes or are you all just self-taught?). If you're attending a religious event or visiting a house or worship that's not your own -- like all those tourists who show up at the churches of Europe in tank tops and shorts -- you should read up in advance or ask your friends about what's expected, and follow it like a good guest.

If you're supposed to cover your head in a synagogue, be polite and do it. If you're supposed to take your shoes off or sit in a certain part of the temple/mosque/church, be a good guest and do it. If you're supposed to cover up your shoulders and your legs, be respectful and do it without complaining about how hot it is. And if you're a big shot politician attending a funeral, ask your staff for a quick briefing on the protocol of Catholic services and don't walk up to take Communion if you're not supposed to. If you can't comply, or are a boor and would rather not waste time worrying about the beliefs and feelings of others, then just stay away and save everyone the burden of your crappy company.

But we're all human, and we all make honest mistakes, and when that happens you just apologize (with some sincerity) and try to do better next time, like my friend back in grade school. Most reasonable believers will forgive you, for to forgive is divine.

If he takes it out of his pocket when he gets home he can have it with his cheese and other crackers.

Thank you DCPOST1. Well said, every word. It is about respect, something that Catholics don't seem to get.

You guys are kidding on this aren't you? Most of the comments here justify for me again why I never attend any kind of religious services and also why religion is dying a slow death in the United States as these kinds of things only play to the folks who don't think or who don't want to think.
Isn't there something else that's actually "important" to write about???

Does this warrant hysteria? I think not. The simple fact is that when one finds herself in any culturally different situation, one should be aware of the values, beliefs of those in that other community and respect them. Hence, as most of us know, it was not a good idea for the president of the US to joke with the president of Russia about our purchase of Alaska.

If one is looking for scandals, then one might consider the mass murder of Jews, accused by Catholics of "torturing the host"--I'm not kidding--or of "torturing a wafer," as Sam Harris puts it. (http://en.wikipedia.orgwikiHost_desecration)
This, of course, was simply another expression of Catholics' need to reassure themselves that theirs was the real deal. This brought them to torture and murder living humans.

Now that, eucharistically speaking, is a "scandal."

there is a post here by ccnl1 which I am paraphrasing as :
the Eucharist is not really the body and blood of Christ literally.

That's not what I was taught. I was taught that wafer was the actual real physical body and blood of Christ. Cannibalism, if you will.

you know, it's not like Christians eating matzoh. It's something very much more important and those not believing in it have no reason to partake.

I receive communion in any church I happen to go to including catholic and I am of no denomanation. Jesus is non denomanational also.

Regardless of one's religious beliefs (or lack of them), this reported situation and its aftermath reflect a larger problem in modern society.

A lack of civility and common courtesy has coarsened our culture. It has impaired our ability to have productive dialogue and interaction. When visiting in the home or place of worship of another individual, it is simply good manners to respect and obey their customs and rules.

It would be helpful to non-Catholics if the priest would make a brief statement of clarification for visitors. The bottom line on receiving holy communion is that, among other things, the recipient is making a public acknowledgment of being in full communion with the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church and acceptance of its authority. This goes beyond what one might believe (or not) regarding the sacramental nature of bread and wine in confecting the Eucharist.

Anyone else may remain in the pew, or may come forward with arms crossed over the chest to receive an ecumenical blessing from the priest in lieu of communion.

Most of the time when awkward situations arise it is a matter of ignorance of custom as opposed to any malice of intention.

you know, it's not like Christians eating matzoh. It's something very much more important and those not believing in it have no reason to partake.
======================
Really? It's not like eating matzoh? Err...duh...thanks for the edification. As I indicated in the first paragraph, I don't think the PM should have behaved as he did. That is not the point. That it should induce hysteria is the point.

Moreover, I maintain, the Eucharistic scandal, is the mass murder of Jews accused of "torturing the host," an accusation that continues among some Catholics and other Christians to this day in their antisemtic railings. Scandal.

Then there were those non-Jews who were massacred by the likes of Jewish Joshua et al.

"Biblical Atrocities

Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf.

Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.)

Joshua:

Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed.

Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors."

Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]
TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed.

Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed.

Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River.

Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon

Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes. 25,000 killed.

1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.

David:

2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles.

2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam.

2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim.

1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall.

2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties.

2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000.

2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans

TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Bible".

Now that speaking "kosherally" is a "scandal"!!!

My family's parish priest back home in VT has a nice, respectful, inclusive and most of all EASY solution to this issue. Before distribution of Communion begins, he simply announces that if you are not Catholic and therefore can't receive the Sacrament, to feel free to come forward anyway, cross your hands over your chest and he will give you a blessing. Uncomfortable situation averted, everyone is included. The true meaning of "Catholic."

I am a Protestant (main-line), an educational missionary in fact, working in a third-world public institution. Colleagues over the years have included a number of Jesuits who made it clear that we would not be refused at communion, although that would not have been their bishop's policy nor perhaps that of my own bishop (who recalls incidents of being treated as part of a religious sociological minority as a young man). I would not want to cause a scandal by going for communion from an unwilling priest, but if the priest is broad-minded enough to see this as my own profession of a more broader, common shared faith or if I am not known in the community to cause offense, I take communion. Otherwise I am the one offended for man breaking asunder what God has united.

Why is it a "scandal" so few Catholics take seriously the falsehood that a wafer is a piece of a dead body? I don't get it.

The Eucharistic scandal, is the mass murder of Jews accused of "torturing the host," an accusation that continues among some Catholics and other Christians to this day in their antisemtic railings. Scandal.

Among the many NT scandals is that depicting a "Last Supper," which as ccnl1 knows full well never could have happened. Not NT scholar worth anything, including Crossan, subscribes to it. Yet, for two thousand years, this and other NT scandals has been used to underwrite Catholic/Christian racism against Jews. Scandal.

I find the level of juvenile nastiness displayed by the anti-religion posters here extremely off putting. Presumably many of you are anti-religious because you think that goes with left wing causes (Though some of you no doubt think it makes you cool and rebellious. Like a 12 year who thinks smoking daddy's cigs out behind the wood shed makes him cool and rebellious.) Do you think anything Sam Harris has written will likely do as much good for the world as Benedict's latest encyclical? Almost certainly not. Will any of the nonsense Hitchens writes do any good for the world? Last I checked Colonel Blimp was on the wrong side of the Iraq war (and still refusing to admit it) whereas the Vatican was right from the get go. I mean I'll admit that while I admire a lot in the Catholic tradition I find the thoughts on transubstantiation and baptism more than a bit off (it's my Anabaptist upbringing I suppose), but that's no reason to make fun of people's beliefs.

Why can't the priest keep a supply of ordinary buscuits handy to palm off on non-Catholic consumers. We don't want ordinary people wandering around with a piece of Jesus' body in his stomach.

Its a good thing he didnt go to the Church of the Fur-Bearing Mammals, where they pass out small voles as part of their communion ceremony. You'd know it if you pocketed a vole! For those who operate a mythology-based belief system, it is their responsibility and in their interest to brief the unwashed masses, pagans, unbelievers and other effluvia how to act in the face of the One (or Many) True God(s); otherwise acts of unforgiveable ignorance such as this sordid event will re-occur. Maybe its best that the unbelievers all be seated in a separate section so they arent tempted to engage in something stupid, such as seeking to touch the Sacred Pork Chop or the like.

Aileen1 has it correct. Every time I've gone to a Catholic or Episcopal church, the priest tells the congregation that you can come forward and receive a blessing without receiving the host. So the Canadian PM should have done that, if he wanted to be ecumenical in honor of the deceased. Either the priest messed up and didn't give correct instructions, or else the PM didn't listen.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it works the other way also: Catholics are not supposed to consume any elements in a non-Catholic Communion service (or "Lord's Supper" service, as low-church Protestants call it).

I don't think anyone should get bent out of shape about it, though. God doesn't go around with a chip on His shoulder. You can't accidentally diss God.

Oh my. This is a trifle. To begin with, to assume the wafer is actually the body of Jesus and then put it in your mouth is insane, noi matter what the Bible says. Jesus was an intelligent man, he didn't mean it literally. By the way, those wafers are baked 2000 years after the fact - it's not the same bread, so it just has to be symbolic. Or you think Jesus in the heavens has nothing better to do than transform wafers into his body at every communion?

How can you even bother with this nonsense? This man (or whoever wrote the gospels) had some important things to say, and you occupy yourself with silly rules. I'll never understand church-going Christians - they always miss the point of their religion.

Here is the common argument: "Look, this is all about respecting the beliefs of others..."

It is indeed a courtesy to respect another's freedom to believe what they want (more accurately believe what they were taught), but neither mandatory nor laudatory to respect archaic beliefs in fantasy notions and trite rituals.

Beliefs are artificial mind constructs, not aspects of reality. They never clarify how reality works, but only distort perception of it: whatever beliefs you hold seem to be true.

Mostly Christians (as Islamists, Jews, Buddhists, etc.) learned their definitions when very young. Surrounded by a culture that shared their religious beliefs, it is easy for the naive child to just absorb any belief structure -- and often dangerous to reject it. Peer pressure, parental punishment and ostracism are powerful forces in early life.

The problem is that the mind wraps around ANY set of beliefs, including science, interpreting events through the filter of the belief structure. Typically, you will ignore or disbelieve things that don't conform to your belief system and accept what does -- thus reinforcing the original beliefs.

If you want to better understand what's going on in life, you need to dispose of old notions like causal gods and banal rituals to appease them, not reinforce them. Such stories as this are absolutely silly. This column should be devoted to meaningful discussion of significant ideas, not trite tittering about wafers and valueless ritual.

Check out www.nehrer.net for a deeper look into more meaningful aspects of life.

ravitchn

You wrote, "Too bad God doesn't really send them to hell."

God has never sent anyone to hell, if one were to die and wake up in hell, so to speak, they will come to the realization that not only did they send themself there but that they also built it themself.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I'm a practicing Catholic who views the consecrated host (communion wafer) as sacred, and values highly how Catholics treat it accordingly during the Mass. However, at same time I think it's a mistake to treat the Canadian PM's action and that of the priest who administered the eucharist as a major problem or insult to Catholicism. I've known plenty of non-Catholics who when participating in a non-Catholic funeral mass were unsure what was appropriate for them, and were inclined to receive Communion because that's the practice in their own church and/or they didn't wish to insult their Catholic "hosts." I also imagine it was very awkward for the priest involved to have the Prime Minister in front of him with his hand out. The priest may not have even known the religion of the PM. -- Yes, the PM should have "known better" protocol-wise. No doubt he realizes that now and has apologized to Canadian Catholic leaders. But bottom line: I don't think his intent or that of the priest was to ignore Catholic tenets, and all of us, including the institutional Catholic Church and the Canadian Prime Minister, have more important matters to deal with.

DMM1 (above) you are correct. The concept of Christian 'communion' means exactly what the name implies. For a Catholic to, for example, receive bread and grape juice at a Protestant service would not be a truthful act, and it would also show a disrespect for the beliefs of the congregation being visited, by taking a dismissive posture toward their communion of believers.

When we make the choice to visit another's place of worship, we should also make the choice to show respect for their community. After all, regardless of our spiritual path, as fellow occupants of planet earth we should acknowledge the innate dignity and worth of all humanity, in both our words and our actions. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

To CCNL1:
You are not even a good troll. All that research, and you inexplicably forgot to mention the Flood (everyone in entire world killed except 8 people, not to mention all those animals), the Passover (every firstborn Egyptian human and animal), and the Great White Throne Judgement (everyone whose name is not written in the Book of Life is thrown into the Lake of Fire, for eternity).

So what does this prove? Only that the CREATOR feels it within His prerogative to do whatever He wants to do with what He has created. Why is that such a tough concept to grasp, or even accept? If you don't like it, you are perfectly free to go through your whole life telling God, "To hell with You." Except of course, that doing so will force Him to one day say the same to you.

If you don't believe any of it, then why are you wasting everyone's time with your silly posts?

This is not a major scandal. That said it was inappropriate. A rule of thumb for anyone visiting a church to which you don't belong... ASK FIRST before taking communion or participating in services more directly. Many churches have open communion. But some do not. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are quite strict about who may and may not receive communion. The PM probably acted in ignorance but with good intentions. Hopefully he now knows better.

On a side note it helps when churches with closed communion policies spell that out in the bulletin or on a sign posted by the door to the church. In my church (Eastern Orthodox) we have a short note in the church bulletin welcoming visitors and politely asking them to abstain from communion. The priest also makes an announcement right before communion to the same effect.

For those who do not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, that's fine. You are not obliged to believe anything. But politeness DOES require you to respect the beliefs of others when you are in their place of worship. If that's too heavy a tax on your conscience, then you should probably send your regrets and stay home.

spokanite

You wrote, "I personally disagree with my (Catholic) Church's position that denies Communion to Christians of other denominations."

I agree with you. "Christians", of all persuasions, seem to be rather "un-Christian" in some of the "rules and regulations" that man has set up as impediments.

Thank God that God is a Being of Pure Love and that all else flows from this Reality, even tho many would be hard-pressed to believe this, considering some of the vile garbage being spewed out in God's Name.

Of course there are some who choose themself to speak for God and then there are those that God chooses.

Catholic means universal and I have said if someone calls themself Catholic then they should also be catholic.

God's Plan which is unfolding before our very eyes is for ALL to be in God's Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

DAVID WATERS

You wrote, "For Roman Catholics, unlike their Protestant brothers and sisters, the bread and wine of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist are more than mere symbols."

There are some "Protestants" that believe that the Eucharist is more than a mere symbol.

By the way, the "Catholic" Eucharist is Jesus, the Holy Spirit revealed this to me on the 29th of January of 2000.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

To CCLN1:
I just re-read your post. Now it sounds like maybe you're being sarcastic. Actually, I hope you were, since that means there's one less idiot in the world than I thought! If I mis-interpreted you, sorry. Chalk it up to e-communication, fast typing, and a mischievous spirit on my part.

"We never throw Jesus out," MacCarthy said.

Well, anything ingested does come out. We won't have to worry about this scandal much longer, the world eventually will be Islamic, and no one offends that religion.

HOW MANY IDIOTS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?

I invite you who think this is a joke to try that same move at the vatican and you will quickly see what the two Swiss Guards standing by the Pope will do to you. This is serious stuff folks. This is all about respect. Ask any priest about this and he'll verify it.

It's really sad that here in the 21st century anyone would still care about something like this.

Just treat each other with decency and respect. Do whatever you like with the crackers. Do you really think an omnipotent being like God, were he or she to exist, would care what you did with a piece of baked wheat? What sort of petty imbecile do you take this God creature for?

As a Protestant Stephen Harper should have avoided the controversy by not presesnting himself to receive the Blessed Sacrament. Or, having chosen to do so, he should have crossed his arms over his chest to indicate to the priest that he is a non-Catholic. The priest would then have blessed him without giving him the Blessed Sacrament. That's the accepted practice in the Catholic Church. Harper should have found out the correct protocol instead of doing something that most Roman Catholics would consider sacriligeous and find offensive.

give it a rest. Maybe he'll eat it later for a snack.

Man made laws to benefit those men and some women who are able to manipulate or pay their way out of anything.In some cases the family name might be enough and the political connection to keep the acts against the church and its people out of the headlines.It took 40 years for some of the abused children to speak out so that what happened to them didn't get repeated or was it for money?The excuses and the greed are endless,there is always more to it then any of us are suppose to know so why even bother worrying about it,they will continue to get away with and be rewarded for their bad choices and behavior.

Hey, all you high-churchers out there:
Even for us low-churchers the bread and wine (juice) are not "merely" symbols, not like the $ sign is merely a symbol for "dollar." The bread and wine are more like the flag being a symbol for our country, our freedom, our war dead, our history, our duty, etc. Except much more so, because the bread and wine symbolize something much more important that what the flag symbolizes. One key difference though, is that most low-churchers consider the symbolism to be over once the service is concluded. So it would not be considered sacriligeous to feed leftover Lord's Supper bread to the birds, or trash them, or even turn them into croutons.

The final line in the essay really gets to the essence of this "scandal." For believers, the wine and wafer truly, really, really, substantively are the blood and body of Christ.
Whether you think that the eucharist is just "hocus pocus" (in fact, hocus pocus is a 16th century parody of the eucharistic ritual's "In hoc corpus..."), or symbolic, you grossly misunderstand what the Catholic sacrament is about.
What the Prime Minister was doing at the rail in the first place is to me a magnum mysterium. Can't people, even PMs, just quietly sit while others take communion?

The bottom line is err when in Rome, know how the Romans do and do ye likewise. That said, I doubt that the Canadian people, who are far more secular than we, are making nearly as much of this as OnFaith is.

I am not Catholic but I have been to many Catholic services. The respectful thing to do is simply stand in your pew and await the return of those who sought communion. I can't imagine what he was thinking.

Farnaz1Mansouri1

You wrote, "Among the many NT scandals is that depicting a "Last Supper," which as ccnl1 knows full well never could have happened."

Why, was he there?

You also wrote, "Not NT scholar worth anything, including Crossan, subscribes to it."

Just because someone is a "scholar" does not mean that they know what they are talking about.

You then wrote, "Yet, for two thousand years, this and other NT scandals has been used to underwrite Catholic/Christian racism against Jews."

Do you think that it is a "scandal" for God to have a "Plan" even if we might not understand it?

Do you think that ALL "Catholic/Christian" are the "racists" that you continually portray them to be with your words?

Whether you like it or not the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, Who is God-Incarnate.

Whether you like it or not the Jews are the Chosen People for the simple reason that God chose and formed them.

Whether you like it or not there are racists and bigots that occupy all of the different "labels" that people apply to themself whether by birth or otherwise.

Forgiveness is not contingent on the other person asking for it but on the person extending it, he, or she, who forgives is forgiven.

Unforgiveness is like a cancer eating away at one's heart.

God's Plan which God has had since before creation will come to Fruition and God's Plan is for ALL to be with God in God's Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. The seventh day has not yet dawned but it will.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Pagans have had a twisted fascination with the eucharist since time immemorial.

My take is that if they really believed in their heart of hearts that it's nothing but a wafer they'd ignore it rather than seek it out to desecrate and denigrate it.

Thomas Baum,

The Last Supper and the Trial could not have occurred for the reasons I have posted many, many times, replete with bibliography. CCNL has done likewise.

To say that the slaughter of Jews or any other group was or is part of God's plan is not something that this atheist can abide, and, frankly, I can't imagine what kind of thinking could give rise to such a conclusion.

To SLDUNCAN79: It's not about being cool or rebellious. It is about right versus wrong, fact versus fiction, evidence versus faith, and intelligence versus stupidity. My choice to mock you is not born from a desire to be cool or to make a political statement, rather I choose to mock you because your superstitions have caused the deaths and enslavement and misery of millions throughout history. Your superstitions and crazy beliefs are akin to the same religious insanity that spurred the terrorists of 9/11 -- murders based upon nothing more than writings in an old book; perhaps a different old book than the one you subscribe to, but a book just the same. If writers like Hitchens illuminate the world as to the silliness of your position and you choose to call them juvenile or launch ad hominem attacks on their weight, what does that say about you? No, SLDUNCAN79, I refuse to be marginalized by your assessment of my motives when it is you that lives a life supported by nothing more than the fantasies of men writing down stories from thousands of years ago before science and reason were born. If that's still off putting to you, then perhaps what you are feeling is the cold sting of reality breaking through your veil of absurdities. Welcome it!

I never really know what to do in the rare times I'm in church, even being there at all makes me feel like a fraud since I'm an agnostic but sometimes you have to attend, as in for a funeral service. Still Harper should have known better and he isn't very popular up here in Canada so it just adds fuel to the fire much like anything Bush did added fuel to that fire. It's the price a politician pays for making him or herself unpopular.

In public I make an effort to show respect for other people's beliefs but deep down inside, it's an incredible mystery to me how sane, everyday people who I actually know and work with believe that a piece of baked water/flour is the actual body of a Deity. That and believing that dying as a martyr (males only, of course) gets you 40 virgins and that an elephant is a Deity really puzzle me..........how is it possible that some of these folks are actually intelligent people? I don't get it at all. It's almost like "believers" are a different species or have a different genetic makeup because I really don't get religion at all.

As a protestant, if I had been in Harper's position I would not have taken communion to begin with. I thought it would be pretty self evident to a fellow protestant that catholics take the eucharist with a less symbolic and more literal meaning, since we had a bloody reformation over five hundred years ago to seperate that distinction in the first place!

Only God is God, not any church and its rituals. Arguing about whether the prime minister should or shouldn't have taken communion makes as much sense to me as people getting upset with a Lutheran minister praying for peace with a Muslim after the 9-11 bombing. Could we work toward some tolerance here?

Over the years I've seen atheism move with such momentum and evangelism, it's as if it has created its own religion in and of itself. I find it so ironic when atheists use the same intolerance and zealotry against believers of religion that they shun in "religious fanatics". Labels aside, it's the same nastiness all around folks, it doesn't matter what's "right or wrong". Who gives a s*** if somebody believes they're drinking the blood of man who has been dead for almost 2,000 years? If they're not hurting you or imposing themselves on you, why impose on them? Just be nice to your fellow human beings for the sake of being a decent person, weather you believe in a religion or not, mkay?

I'm a Catholic. First, the priest could have instructed non-Catholics about what to do before administering communion. Alternatively, in light of the PM's obvious confusion, he should have asked the PM if he was Catholic. He then could have given a blessing without administering communion or embarrassing the prime minister. ON the other hand, the prime minister, being prime minister, should have had his staff inquire as to the proper protocol, which would have been either to remain in the pew or to approach with his arms crossed against his chest to receive a priestly blessing.

The insulting comments here about religion generally and Catholicism particularly are not necessary and are signs neither of superior rationality or of sophistication. They're just insults.

"The insulting comments here about religion generally and Catholicism particularly are not necessary and are signs neither of superior rationality or of sophistication. They're just insults."

Wow, nothing gets by you does it? Of course they're insults. And yes, they are necessary. It's rampant child molestation by Catholic priests, excused by people like you, that isn't "necessary". You and your ilk are all enablers - face it. And you worry about whether one of your phony symbols wasn't honored properly (of course, you decide what's proper) by a freethinker? Get some perspective. Talk about superior rationality and sophistication! What a pompous fool you are. Pray for help, you need it.

What the PM did is called "host desecration" and it is a capital offense.

Oh, wait, it's not the 12th century anymore? OK, then never mind.

First of all he should not have gone up for communion. Technically, he is a guest and doesn't qualify for communion.
If you don't know what to do, do nothing. If you are going to church outside your faith, find out what happens so you won't commit a faux pas.

When I was in Catholic school, priests put the host directly on our tongues at our weekly masses, the better to keep the body of Christ out of our dirty little hands.

I knew there was some kind of design on the thin disk, and wanted to see it, but the host in those days broke down into a glutinous blob immediately upon touching your spit. To remedy this, I kept the white circle dry in my mouth by propping it between my teeth (gently, for it was Jesus's body!), and then after mass I pretended to cough and slipped it into my blazer pocket so I could take a close look at it later.

On the surface of the the little piece of paper-like bread was the pressed relief of a lamb with a sword through its gut, a common Catholic icon.

Another time I got a glimpse of a host, there were just Roman letters on it. Some of us kids went on vacation with a priest, and the vacation included a Sunday, when the priest pulled out a stainless steel cylinder, about the size of an Airborne tube, packed with hosts which he blessed before giving its holy contents to us during a makeshift lakeside mass. While the priest was down on the dock, I sneaked into his room and peeked into the tube. This is when I discovered that all hosts didn't have the lamb on them. His had some letters stamped on them.

A few years ago, I visited a Christian bookstore to shop for a book for my Protestant cousin's first child. Surprisingly, there was a Catholic section to this store. Ha! I didn't think those Christian stores even considered Catholics Christian. Oh well, the store was selling packs of 30 or so hosts (unblessed, of course), to anyone! They were wrapped in plastic cellophane and packed into a box the size of a (you guessed it) box that an Airborne tube comes in. I couldn't believe the hosts weren't controlled by any authority, like a "BOC."

Did I buy a pack? What do you think? I did, and ate them in little piles of 10; it was like biting into a sweet phone book. Still the disks had that melt in your mouth make-up.

Do you think I'm creepy? Maybe, but I like to think that I'm curious. I'm the kind of person who appreciates a good ghost story, but who is too skeptical to believe it.

"BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it works the other way also: Catholics are not supposed to consume any elements in a non-Catholic Communion service (or "Lord's Supper" service, as low-church Protestants call it). I don't think anyone should get bent out of shape about it, though. God doesn't go around with a chip on His shoulder. You can't accidentally diss God. Posted by: dmm1 "

Well, it gets more complicated depending on the intended meaning of the food consumed.

If you are at a Seder, (provided the Jews you celebrate with permit it, as you are almost certainly unclean and therefore NOT supposed to be there) because the meal is to be a remembrance, you partake of their sacrificial meal but you probably aren't out of bounds. In Protestant services, it might depend upon the rubrik of the Church, and whether the food is for fellowship or for Sacrament. If the meal means you are accepting their authority, perhaps you might better not.

So which Church is which? Does that Lutheran pastor consider Eucharist sacrament or fellowship...

And the press has nothing better to do than complain when a Protestant doesn't get it right at a funeral Mass?

His protocol specialist should have briefed him. If he was paying attention and followed instructions he probably didn't pocket the host. Unless, of course, he had with him a pyx and...

Come on people, don't you have ANYTHING netter to do. Leave us Catholics to our peculiarities. It isn't as if you really don't know any better.

True Christianity actually means people with wisdom. They have a wise God and Father and therefore they are wise children of God.

People who call themselves christians and yet believe that these wafers are true body of Christ and not just a symbolism of the WORD OF GOD are giving true Christianity a very bad name.

They also believe that "holy" water has the ability to clean sins and not a symbolism of the Holy Spirit which cleans the soul.

They are not the Children of God. You can call them as followers of STUPIDITY.

And so are the atheists here who don't know the diference.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum

You wrote:

"Of course there are some who choose themself to speak for God and then there are those that God chooses."

So, which are you?

Don't worry, be happy.

Peregrine Bartleby Rumplestiltskin Solus

ohmyGOD THERE ARE SOME AMUSING COMMENTS HERE-I HAVE TO SAY, I LAUGHED MY ARSE OFF, READING THEM!

TELESONIC-CANNIBALS!
LL-We never throw Jesus out," MacCarthy said.
Well, anything ingested does come out-(SO TRUE! BWA HA HA)!

ELWOLL: "If he takes it out of his pocket when he gets home he can have it with his cheese and other crackers."

THANK YOU ALL, FOR THE GOOD LAUGH! BODY OF CHRIST, INDEED!

A Catholic priest, whom I highly respect, said that we do not transform the wafer; the wafer transforms us. When practicing Catholics go to Communion and the priest says "The Body of Christ", we say "Amen". When we say Amen and accept the wafer, it is transformed. If this gentleman was not a practicing Catholic, or Catholic at all for that matter, the wafer would not have been transformed, correct?

The author suggests that "few Catholics- [or Protestants]-clergy,lay or politicians-take communion that seriously".What gross ignorance! It really puzzles me that people like Waters and his condescending colleagues become engaged with religious issues when they can`t contain their contempt for those who have spiritual convictions.

As a Canadian, much as I loathe Stephen Harper as a politician I am inclined to give him a break on this one. Non-Catholics do not and probably cannot fathom the daftness of transubstantiation. Its just medieval mumbo-jumbo for most of us. Mr. Harper has plenty to account for in his obdurate political performance. But this incident can be put down to poor staff work in failing to tell him what to do to complete the requisite performance. Its quite likely, even probable, that his immediate coterie does not include a single Catholic. Stevo did not want a cracker. End of story I would hope and trust.

But if unreconstructed Catholics want to vote against Harper's party in the next election, so much the better. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or so it is often said.

dcpost1:

Er sorry, no. Catholics lost any chance at sympathy when they quietly accepted the criminal assault and harassment of a student and later sent him and other sympathizers death threats:

"Cook, who was raised Catholic, said he decided to bring the Eucharist home after a church leader tried to physically pry it from his hand. Cook broke Church rules by failing to consume it immediately during communion and then removing it from his mouth once seated. ... Cook said he just wanted to show the Eucharist to a friend he brought with questions about Catholicism before consuming it."
http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html

The only thing you "deserve" is derision, mockery, and ostracism back to cult status.

What kind of cheese goes best with your whine and Jesus cracker?

Pathetic.

spidermean2:

Your mom called. She wants you to take her underpants off her head and said this is the last warning she's giving you.

sorry, religious folks, but it's just pretty hard for a lot of people to take your fairy tales seriously. it's not about common decency - it's about the fact that people are realizing that religion is ridiculous and unnecesary.

"....it's a scandal from the Catholic point of view."

But priests molesting little boys and Bishops and Cardinals hiding them is not.

The table of Christ is His table not the Church's. The invitation to it comes from Him, not the Church.

When I go to a Catholic Church by invitation of family or friends for weddings, baptisms, etc. I walk out during their "communion" and turn my back to the Priest or Bishop serving it. When it's over, I go back in.

It's like being invited to a friend of a friends house but being told you can't eat or drink anything. Christ-like indeed.

I can't say that I really like Harper nor did I vote for him, but this article surprised me when I heard about it in the Canadian news and then here in the Post. What surprises me is that with all of the mistakes (putting it nicely) that he has made as PM, I can't believe that this story has made international headlines!

Personally, I can't imagine him putting the wafer in his pocket out of disrespect. (Supposedly a video of the incident was inconclusive). Maybe he decided to start dieting at that very moment (timing has never been his forte)!

Equally, I'm surprised that the Priest offered him communion if it was inappropriate for him to receive it. I'm sure the Priest knew that the PM wasn't Catholic.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I have no problem cutting him some slack this time.

FYI the funeral he as attending was not just any former Canadian government official, but it was for Romeo LeBlanc, the former Governor General of Canada (appointed Head of State representing Queen Elizabeth II).

And the "Upper Crust Award" goes to:

"Our mothers taught us to think rationally, not to believe weird stuff. We used to believe in Santa Claus and Transubstantiation, but we eventually grew up."

Posted by: telesonic | July 9, 2009 7:44 PM

I was born within 200 miles of the place where Moses, Jesus and Mohammad preached and flourished. Here is a free advice; leave it and move on. They are all history. What the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims do now are of no connection to their founders. We in the west are fascinated by natives when they do their primitive ritual thing but oblivion that we do the same. Forget the messages of the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran. If god wants you to do something now, he or she should tell you his wish now, and not send you a message 2000 years before you’re born. Believe me, I know god and he isn’t here.
Your rabbis, preachers and imams have no connections to him, or her, or it. Follow your needs and ignore those of the chiefs.

And DMM1,

You noted:

"To CCLN1:

I just re-read your post. Now it sounds like maybe you're being sarcastic. Actually, I hope you were, since that means there's one less idiot in the world than I thought! If I mis-interpreted you, sorry. Chalk it up to e-communication, fast typing, and a mischievous spirit on my part."

Yes, I was being sarcastic.

A synopsis of the conclusions of many contemporary historic Jesus exegetes to include those of Professor Crossan concerning the Catholic (Luthern and Episcopalian )Eucharist can be found at:

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

Two excerpts showing different conclusions:

"Gerd Luedemann
At the same time, Luedemann concludes that the portrayal of Jesus celebrating such a ritual on the night before his death is not historical."

Professor Crossan concluded the same as did the majority members of the Jesus Seminar.

vs.

"John P. Meier of Notre Dame-

When discussing the saying on Drinking Wine in the Kingdom of God (Mark 14:25, Meier [Marginal Jew II,302] notes that "the historicity of a final farewell meal held by Jesus with his disciples is generally accepted by scholars across the spectrum, since its existence is supported by both the criterion of multiple attestation and the criterion of coherence."

Maye someone should ask God how what he thinks.

http://www.contactgod.com/

CCNL and washpost, have you guys thought what infinity means? Try it. It may work wonders and cure your idiocy.

What nonsense!!!!!! Why don't you discuss the necessity of passing health care for all instead of this idiotic garbage? I am so sick of these so-called religious fanatics destroying this world with this blabber. Wake up and face reality!
C 1943, Maryland

The bigotry and nastiness shown in some of the comments here just astounds me. You think you're proving how enlightened you are, but all you're doing is painting with the same broad brush and making the same sorts of blinkered, emotional, fear- and hate-driven judgments you accuse religious people of making. Such views aren't driven by wisdom, or concern for humanity, or a more evolved set of beliefs.

If you can't express your views without coating them in scorn and derision, you're the one with the problem. Worse, you're feeding the same cycle of ignorance and hate that you claim to be standing against by "taking on" religion.

The dehumanization, the mockery that is aimed not at getting a laugh but at marginalizing those with whom you disagree, the decision somewhere back there in the corners of your mind that it's perfectly OK to be an a**hole to people just because their views or beliefs may be different from yours -- that's how the fundamentalist "us" versus "them" crap always starts.

But you don't have to be a believer or a person of faith to be a fundamentalist.

And one other thing -- anger at individual Catholics (or individuals of any particular faith) who've done terrible things in the name of their religion, or even anger at the Catholic Church for its failings in recent years or over the centuries, doesn't make it OK to be an a**hole towards all Catholics or people of faith. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book -- characterize everyone associated with a particular group according to the traits of the worst among them, and then condemn the whole group as an unacceptable class that's beyond the pale. That's what's going on in a lot of the posts here. It happens all the time -- the last century is littered with the wreckage of where that tactic leads. And we call its practitioners by various names, but at heart they were, and are, all just, well, a**holes.

"Bill Clinton did the same thing, repeatedly."

Proof? And not just some anti-Clinton website, either.

Geeze, Clinton has been out of office for almost 10 years now. Give the Clinton-hating a rest already.

MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, HE HAD NO BEEN TO CONFESSION FIRST AND WISHED NOT TO THEN TAKE THE HOST UNTIL AFTER HE HAD BEEN TO CONFESSION LATER.

MAYBE HE WANTED TO SPLIT IT BETWEEN HIM AND A SIGNIFICANT OTHER FAMILY MEMBER LATER.

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT ONE IMMEDIATELY EAT THE HOST. AFTER ALL, NAPKINS WERE NOT THEN AVAILABLE.

No Jew at any time in the history of the world would have equated wine with blood, flesh with bread. The prohibition against ingesting any blood of any creature, the prohibition against ingesting the blood of animals is ancient, preceding JC, if he existed, by centuries. See the Tanakh/OT.

The Passover meal had been formalized by the first century. If JC existed, if he were a Jew, he would have observed Passover. He would have profaned neither the observance nor his faith with wine/blood, bread/flesh pronouncements. It was this matter to which I was referring earlier when I mentioned the Last Supper and the Trial which did not, could not, have occurred.

ceflynlynne writes;
If you are at a Seder, (provided the Jews you celebrate with permit it, as you are almost certainly unclean and therefore NOT supposed to be there) because the meal is to be a remembrance, you partake of their sacrificial meal but you probably aren't out of bounds.
==========================
"Unclean"?? Anyone may join Jews at a seder, anyone. The same is true of any meal at any time. Anyone can participate in synagogue services.

ceflynlynne:

Continued from previous post:

The meal is not "sacrificial." Judaism is not salvific at any level, in any respect. The meal is commemorative.

Haretz claims Canadian PM harper is a Jew!

Could that explain why he did not comsume it?

Sacrifice/Salvation....

hariknaidu:

"Haretz claims Canadian PM harper is a Jew!

Could that explain why he did not comsume it?"
====================
Do you mean "Haaretz"? If so, please provide the link as I have seen nothing in it supporting what you write.

In fact, Harper is an Evangelical Christian.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2008/09/10/why-stephen-harper-keeps-his-evangelicalism-very-private.aspx

Any religion that thinks its adherents are consuming human flesh on a weekly basis has even more problems than pedophilia.

Hey -- a little snack for later -- what's wrong with that?

Hey -- a little snack for later -- what's wrong with that?

Is that Jesus in in Stephen Harper's pocket or is he just happy to see me?

People who believe that a wafer is Jesus' body are either:

1. Too dumb and gullible to reason with
2. Symbolic cannibals

What's more incorrect and offensive in this situation? The event itself? The article? The comments that follow?

Here's just a few suggestions.

1. Everyone, including the PM himself, knew who he is and what he was doing. To stretch out one's hand or tongue is a clear indication of the intent to receive Communion. At that point the priest or Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion - a lay person) has no choice in order to avoid scandal. If the PM didn't know any better, someone on his staff ought to do a little protocol work.

2. The author's themselves demonstrate a gross lack of knowledge of Catholic practices and terminology. It is astonishing to me how such ignorance can find its way into a major newspaper. Besides its harm to the credibility of the newspaper, it shows a deep disrespect for the Catholic faith - and the millions of Catholics like me who share Catholic beliefs. "Wafergate"???!!!!!!

3. The bigoted comments that follow? Again, why does a major newspaper allow this to occur? There is no other religion, denomination, ethnic, racial or national group upon whom this garbage would be inflicted without screams of (warranted) protest.

I expect an immediate and genuine apology from the Washington Post and Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn.

I am a craddle Catholic.

It is the priest's fault that Protestant P. M. Harper received Catholic communion.

Why?

Harper is a high profile figure and the priest had to have known Harper is not Catholic.

It was the priest's responsibilty to deny him Catholic communion.

(For my sola scriptura separated brethern .... John 6: 51-75. Many other verses appearing in M, M, L, J.).

The following appears in the inside cover of "Today's Missal" found in every pew of every Catholic church.

"Guidelines For the Reception of (my insert .... Catholic) Communion."

"For our fellow (my insert ..... non-Catholic) Christians."

"We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping (capital letters mine) *WITH CHRIST'S DESIRE FOR US 'THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE.*' (John 17:21). (Interesting prayer ....... Christ to the Father).

Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life and worship, *MEMBERS OF THOSE CHURCHES WITH WHOM WE (Catholics) ARE NOT FULLY UNITED ***ARE ORDINARILY NOT ADMITTED TO HOLY COMMUNION.***

Eucharist sharing in *EXCEPTIONAL* circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan *BISHOP* (not a parish priest .... he doesn't have the authority) and the provisions of canon law (canon 844-4)." ................. it goes on from there.

Bottom line: Not Catholic? Don't receive Catholic communion.

TBSHULER,

It must be a strange feeling when a person feels their superstitions have been disrespected.

Maybe if you didn't believe in fairytales, you wouldn't feel this way.

Sincerely,

The Washington Post

Of course it doesn't matter. But if religious nutjobs want to make a big deal out of it, fine with me if they go after another conservative.

The writer makes the usual incorrect Catholic assumption that there is one Protestant Church. There are many children of Luther (and Hus and Wycliffe etc) with different views of the Eucharist. The Lutheran and Episcopal churces believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and invite ALL BAPTISED CHRISTIANS to participate. The Calvinist churches believe in the actual presence of the Holy Spirit while recognizing the physical state of the elements. It is only the Baptists and evangelicals that believe it is only a commemoration. They are like the gun nuts who only read the second half of the second amendment; they only read a part of the scripture on the holy supper. Catholics also only read part when they, for much of their history and even today in many parishes, only have communion in one kind.

When I was a Lutheran pastor we had a new convert to the faith: a former Roman. He was astonished to see, one day following the Eucharist, that one of the Altar Guild ladies was using a Dirt Devil to clean the Jesus-crumbs up off the floor from the breaking of the bread for communicants.

He thought the church would cave in to know that Ida was in front of the altar sucking Jesus up in the dust bag.

A quick review of Lutheran sacramental theology was in order. Jesus ain't there if the congregation ain't there. Since they were all in the fellowship hall having donuts then Jesus wasn't in the bread.

This is all so much 'crust'. I think it's hysterical that the PM got a 'to-go' encounter , a 'take away' communion with the Lord of heaven and earth.

Lord, save us from ALL your followers.

Funny thing about tolerance and diversity. It works both ways. Non-Catholics must respect the Catholic teaching, if they are going to hope Catholics to respect theirs.

And for the umpteenth time, would those lacking in faith PLEASE refrain from making snide comments on this "On Faith" blog?

How is it that the institution of Pedophilia even has the gall to administer the Eucharist? This is a non-issue. A greater sinner ministering to a lesser offender. This institution is worse then Hitler’s empire. It has it own holocaust: the slaughter of young boys!
Respectively Submitted!

Not to get into the religious rights and wrongs of this event, but it was my understanding that the priest "came to him" as one of the dignitaries in the first pew. I've been to Catholic masses where I stayed seated while the rest lined up for communion, but if a priest were to approach me and offer communion I would likely have taken it unless quickly advised to do otherwise by a nearby Catholic.
In my liberal protestant upbringing, communion was for everyone. While I'm not a fan of this Prime Minister, I think that Father Brian overplayed this mistake with his comments - intent should have been the main focus here. And I'm sure there was no intent to offend and likely it was a fear of offending that caused the PM to take the wafer in the first place. So relax already!

"(The wafer) is not a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, but is in fact the body and blood of Christ," "We believe we are holding Jesus in our hands, so to put Jesus in your pocket or to put Jesus on the ground (is serious). If it falls on the ground it has to be consumed. We never throw Jesus out,"

I was raised Catholic, and frankly even as a little kid, I was kind of freaked about "eating Jesus". I remember reading in National Geographic about cannibals. I remember being taught by the Sisters that cannibalism was a mortal sin. From that time on I feared Communion because I considered myself a cannibal, "eating Jesus", and that I was doomed to hell. No one ever brainwashed me into these thoughts. My innocent mind figured it out on its own, and I dare not ever raise my concerns to the Sisters or the Priests, because of my fear of heresy, another mortal sin! So, I went to Communion with this "sin" of hating Communion, for which I did not Confess and do penance, which compounded my "sin" because I then received Communion again with unrepented sins, etc., etc., etc. So, you see, I was "saved" by the Protestant notion that Communion is symbolic. I still think it is creepy to actually believe one is "consumming" the body and blood of Jesus! Looking at history, transubstantiation was not a strict doctrine until the 12th Century or so. It has given me comfort to know that for half of Christiandom, people did not believe in this doctrine. And this was one of the Protestant issues, that is to overthrow the "recent" doctrines of the Roman church, which had no backing in Scripture. Communion for me is the remembrance of and heeding the command of Jesus to become like Him, as symbolised by His Body and Blood, to "take on" His Form, His Principals, His Love, His Spirit, and then to minister in the World. I'm sure that the idea of "eating Jesus" comes from the pagan concept of cannibalism, eating the flesh of your forefathers or your vanquished enimies, in order to take on their prized attributes. The Roman church was very much into absorbing the pagan rites and rituals into doctrines, in order to convert pagans, for politcal and economic reasons, and for expansion of the Empire. Early Protestants, having been "enlightened" by the rationalism provided by growing scientific methods, saw these pagan-like doctrines as the sham they truely were. It still creeps me out to think that Catholic children are still taught to "cannibalize" Jesus!

As a Protestant attending Catholic weddings, I've found that some priests simply pretend that everyone in the church is a Catholic, while others go out of their way to exclude non-Catholics. At one wedding I was at in the 1990s, the priest made an announcement that non-Catholics were excluded because to do otherwise would "suggest a oneness that does not exist." It was quite jarring at an otherwise happy occasion. I prefer the traditional Episcopalian welcome to all to commune because it is "the Lord's table" and not a denomination's.

It's a cracker. It probably contains trans fat. I don't eat crackers either, unless I can read the list of ingredients. I don't think that the eucharist is exempted from biochemistry.

"Does it matter" is the caption for the story of whether or not the prime minister of Canada pocketed a Communion wafer. Give me a break! Talk about taking up newspaper space with complete trivia. This caption or "Who cares?" should be applied to the entire, daily "On Faith" section. Amazing to find this in a paper of the Post's stature.

I'd be interested in knowing if Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper just stuck the wafer in his pocket, or if he wrapped it in a handkercheif first. Sticking unwrapped food items in your pocket isn't the most sanitary thng to do, and it certainly makes cleaning clothes harder.

What would people say if it turned out that Mr Harper took the consecrated host back home and placed it in a holder for presentation and contemplation? All of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot.

Of course he could have stuck it in a plastic baggy and brought it back to be analyzed for any differences between a consecrated host and an unconsecrated one.

I've been a practicing catholic and a eucharistic minister for many years. I have never once refused someone a host or the cup; even if unsure of their "status". I've had little children who obviously have never had cathechism and first communion follow their parents up and request the host, and unless their parents pulled them away, they received it.

One point to consider is that if the host represents, either literally or figuratively, Jesus the Christ; and the act of receiving and consuming it represents the literal or figurative acceptance of Jesus, or his teachings, or his way of life or even of the blessing and grace of God, into the person consuming the host; then it is the epitome of hypocrisy for any catholic to refuse it to anyone. As several priests have told me over the years; 'everyone needs all the help they can get', and 'any way that brings people closer to Jesus is the right way'. Anyone in the Roman Catholic church who says differently, be they a deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal, or even the pope, would be wrong.

The biggest point is the mass is a ritualized dinner where people share food and drink in rememberance of Jesus and his teachings. Refusal to eat at a dinner you have been invited to is universally, the world over, rude and unacceptable behavior. On that basis alone, Stephen Harper is deserving of all vilification and condemnation by everyone in the world.

If this had not occured at the funeral of the former Governor General, who represents the Queen as Head of State in Canada, it matter would be non-starter. I think the Toronto Star, a Liberal newspaper, broke this story so perhaps there is a political bias involved here, designed to hurt Harper.

My wife is Catholic, but I'm not. When we go to church, she goes up for communion and I stay in the pew. It's not a big deal. If Harper wasn't going to eat the host, then he shouldn't have gone up to the altar in the first place. No one forced him to, and if anyone asked why he didn't go he could explain that he's not Catholic and did not feel it was appropriate.

As a Catholic, I am disgusted and appalled at the PM's behavior. However, I am even more shocked and offended by the incredible number of ignorant, insulting and stupid comments made by some other readers. Anyone who doubts whether prejudice against people of faith exists in this country should ask himself whether such comments would be appropriate were the subject say, an African-American or a gay person, and similarly offensive comments were allowed to be displayed on this website. I think we all know the answer is a resounding "No." Clearly Catholicism doesn't merit the same sensivity as many other liberal pet causes, and more's the pity. At the end of the day, it just provides me more evidence of the liberal bias in the media. No, the Washington Post did not write the offensive comments, but it refuses to remove them. And THAT'S where the bias lies.

In my point of view, it is unnaceptable that a chief of a state like Canada is not able to respect all those basic protocol principles. The prime minister should have been aware of that. I think that it is not a question of religion.

Most folks commenting on this story seem so quick to take offese that nobody has paused, before making their comments, to think about the context of this story or where the story has come from.

For example, the Prime Minister was attending a funeral. In the video he looks lost, perhaps grieving, I don't know, but he certainly doesn't look like a guy who is out to give offense to anyone. He made a mistake. Give him a break. His mistake doesn't prove anything about the doctrine of the Catholic Church or the degridation of manners and respect or the Holocaust or any of the other non-issues people of this post bring to their comments.

Then, there are the priests, bishops and scholars that have been quoted in the story. If someone commits a breach of manners in your house, then isn't it equally bad manners to point that out? A good host, a proper host, a respectful host would attempt to bring as little attention to the matter as possible, to get past the situation and get on with more imoportant matters.

Finally, who brought this story to the attention of the media? I assume it was not the Prime Minister. Was it the officiating priest who administered Communion? Was it another parishoner at the funeral? And why was the story brought? I doubt we would be disussing this story if someone who wasn't a known politician had commited the breach.

If this story says anything about our society, I think it says that people should take a step back, breathe, and give others the benifit of the doubt before they start casting their personal judgements around the internet.

Even after taking Catholic theological classes in school it still escapes me how taking communion can be wrong if it is done so with a clear conscience. Wrong in whose eyes? God does not deny Himself to man. But men seem more than eager to deny other men to God.

Harper was there to commune with others in honor of the life of the deceased. His intent was more noble and more in keeping with Christian values than those who attend church thoughtlessly out of habit or use such attendance as a hypocritical display of their virtue and piety.

It is presumptuous and vain for those criticizing Harper to expect him to know the minutiae of Catholic theology. One gets the feeling he was there for the funeral not the mass. Would Catholics have preferred it if he was present for the funeral but then realizing there was going to be a mass had walked out? THAT would be more newsworthy than this. Is that really what Catholics would have preferred? For non-Catholics not to attend? For the nation's leader to absent himself because of a religious ceremony? I don't think so, unless Catholicism has become an insular sect that cannot engage with outsiders.

This topic has now probably become more of a football for anti-Catholics than Catholics.

To err is human, to forgive divine.

Catholics pick and choose what is scandalous to them like their evangelical Huckabee counterparts pick and choose which verse of Leviticus they will drag out to judge and condemn others and which they will conveniently ignore.

They want to make a melodrama out of a mistake at a funeral but condemn anyone who points out the pedophilia that still in their clergy as bigoted. Apparently, they think Christ loved hypocricy as well.

I thought that the article raised an interesting question, but was quite surprised by the level of vitriol in so many responses. I guess Catholic bashing is OK.

Perhaps most intersting of all, is the number of people who somehow feel threatened by others' religous beliefs with respect to the Eucharist. It is not enough to say "I don't believe it". Rather, they feel they must denigrate those who do. I have a hard time believing that snide comments would be made about Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish beliefs because that would be politically incorrect.

schaeffz:

Interesting story. Glad you are at peace. However, even in the symbolic theory, one has to ask: Why would Jesus institute a memorial which even tended to *look like* cannibalism? It's like creating a rite in which we simulate a sinful thing, but don't actually consummate the sin (e.g., a liturgy which looks like an orgy but doesn't involve actual sex). Makes no sense. Better to recommend that we just silently meditate on something.

In view of John 6, and the strangeness of the incarnation itself, I think the argument is strongly in favor of something more than a mere symbol. Real cannibalism is unlawful because it's a combination of murder, superstition and usually idolatry (with the added repugnance of desecrating a human body). None of those applies to our relationship to Jesus.

coloradodog:

You sound like a nut. The % of perv priests is in line with society and other professions. It's only newsworthy because they are priests. Perhaps one day we'll hear about pedophiles in the US military or among public school teachers, if it will sell newspapers.

"If JC existed, if he were a Jew, he would have observed Passover. He would have profaned neither the observance nor his faith with wine/blood, bread/flesh pronouncements."

-------

Interesting. One would have expected the others at the table to react stronger, if Jesus breached a traditional taboo.

'Wafergate' is repeated at nearly every Catholic wedding.
Weddings always bring out a diverse crowd, including many non-Catholics. When the entire congregation is invited to come up to receive Communion, the social impulse to join the crowd undeniable. A person who remains in the pew is left out and fears that others will see their nonparticipation as a sign that 'something is wrong.'
For decades now, intelligent priests have taken the step at events, such as funerals and weddings, where they know there are significant numbers of visitors who may not be Catholics -- They announce, or place in the programs, that all are invited to approach the sanctuary at communion, and that only Catholics in good standing should receive the host while all others are warmly invited to accept a pastoral blessing.
This is usually accompanied by the suggestion that Catholics approach with their hands cupped to receive the host, while non-Catholics approach with their arms crossed, their palms resting on their shoulders.
It's simple advice, it works and everyone participates meaningfully in the ritual without offense.

The great offense of Harper and 'Wafergate' is that he is a leader of government of an entire nation -- he has an entire staff are dedicated to diplomatic and social protocol. This was a particularly easy issue to foresee, as the funeral is a ritual, and all parts of the event are known well in advance.

His protocol staff certainly mapped out in advance where his car was to be located and where in the cathedral the prime minister was to sit. Knowing that it was a Mass of Christian Burial, why didn't they map out Harper's movements during the entire event? It seems they did not, OR Harper did not take their direction.

In any case, an example of world-class social incompetence. One, that is routinely and easily prevented as weddings across North American millions of times a year.

And I am still wondering what those three patriarchs - McCain, Rick Warren (!) and Obama - guys are doing in the headline next to the words UNDER GOD.

Why is the picture there? What does it mean?

To TBSHULER: Plural nouns do not take apostrophes.

Matthew_DC,

Your "others-do-it-too-so-it's-OK" argument is lame.

How many pervert priests ever went to prison? How many were excommunicated? How many are still hidden by Cardinals?

The difference between pedophilia in other organizations and the Catholic Church is that the leaders of most of the other organizations don't prance around in $10,000 red dresses claiming tho be "The Shepards of Christ to the Little Children" while hiding perverts.

When the Catholic Church starts excommunicating and imprisoning your pedophiles and accomplices then I will feel sorry about your lost wafer if, indeed, the PM deliberately pocketed it as is hysterically claimed without positive proof.

The Canadian PM can have all the wafers he wants by ordering them by the caseload from any good church supply company. If he wants them *blessed* however, he'll need to take them to a priest along with a really good argument for what he's doing with them in the first place.

This is hilarious!

"(The wafer) is not a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, but is in fact the body and blood of Christ."

Okay . . . then let's do a DNA test and see how that turns out. I bet that an DNA test would show that the wafer is nothing more than a humble cracker!

Get real folks! This is the 21st century - not the Middle Ages.

I am not Catholic, but I have a lot of Catholic family. Whenever I've been to funerals or marriages at a Catholic church, the Protestant portion of the family, myself included, simply refrains from getting in line, much like we also refrain from kneeling because it isn't part of our faith. At events where it is understood that there will be a mix of faiths, no one is offended if people decline to participate.

I don't believe in transubstantiation, but I know that Catholics do, and I quietly avoid participation in the eucharist as a result. I didn't think it was really that complicated an issue, but I guess I was wrong.

Hey, Mister Prime Minister! Is that our Lord and Savior in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

Ba-da-boom.

People who call themselves christians and yet believe that these wafers are true body of Christ and not just a symbolism of the WORD OF GOD are giving true Christianity a very bad name.

They also believe that "holy" water has the ability to clean sins and not a symbolism of the Holy Spirit which cleans the soul.

They are not the Children of God. You can call them as followers of STUPIDITY.

And so are the atheists here who don't know the diference.

Yeah!

It's not like he dropped a book on the ground, and woops - it turns out to have been a koran...

That would mean bloody riots!

Oh - but those are ok because it's not those icky, stupid Christians complaining.

The bigotry inherent in you people's lowered standards for non-Christian religious followers is astounding.

The PMs protocol staff needs to buy a copy of "How to Be a Perfect Stranger"

http://www.amazon.com/How-Perfect-Stranger-Essential-Religious/dp/1594731403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247234070&sr=1-1

"How to Be a Perfect Stranger" is the ultimate reference on how to act and what to expect when attending a religious service at any of the most common religions in America. Would you know what to do if a Hindu invited you to their infant's naming ceremony? What if a Christian Scientist family had a death in the family and you were invited to the funeral? Or what if you were invited to a Latter Day Saint, African American Methodist Episcopal, Lutheran, or Mennonite service, would you know the appropriate dress and order of service? All these questions and more are answered in this book.

coloradodog:

I don't want you to feel sorry about the wafer. This whole story is over the top and non-newsworthy. But I think the linking of the two issues sounded utterly bizarre, like someone either with an ax to grind or too much sex on the brain.

Pedophilia is the same no matter where it happens and it's shockingly prevalent in society. I feel contempt for some of the senior church people who facilitated this, but I also believe there is divine retribution for such sins. Those who deserve to be punished, will be punished in the end, even if human detection and punishment is imperfect in this life. That consoles me, but maybe it doesn't work for you.

The Eucharist is the central component of the Catholic Faith. It is believed that at the moment of consecration by the Priest it becomes the Body of Christ. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that doctrine, consider it superstitious or not, it is a tenant of faith amongst a community of believers and should be respected, just as we should respect all religious choices in our human condition of free will.

If the Eucharist was consumed by the PM, no big. If it was not consumed and it was taken it should be returned as it is sacred and is the Body of Christ for those who believe.

If you believe it to be true, it is true.

If you choose not to believe, that's your choice and it's respected.

"...Anyone who doubts whether prejudice against people of faith exists in this country should ask himself whether such comments would be appropriate were the subject say, an African-American or a gay person, and similarly offensive comments were allowed to be displayed on this website. I think we all know the answer is a resounding "No." Clearly Catholicism doesn't merit the same sensivity as many other liberal pet causes, and more's the pity. At the end of the day, it just provides me more evidence of the liberal bias in the media. No, the Washington Post did not write the offensive comments, but it refuses to remove them. And THAT'S where the bias lies. LINGUIST 64"

Linguist, I'm a high-church Episcopalian who also finds himself wincing at many of the comments posted here--but I have to disagree with you on this. In my experience, non-Christians in America experience FAR more prejudice than they dish out (though that could simply be because they are a minority, albeit not nearly so small a group as many Christians seem to assume).

As for your claim that other forms of bigotry are not (as) accepted, I can only say that you must not regularly visit discussion sites. Sadly, hateful, ignorant comments of all stripes (homophobic, misogynistic, racist, etc.) ABOUND online. To blame the W. Post for not censoring them is to impute guilt by association, which is neither reasonable or helpful.

Bottom line: Those of us who aspire to follow Jesus Christ, however short we fall of His example, need to be less concerned about those (like PM Harper) who give inadvertent offense--and MUCH more concerned about our own conduct.

I guess I'm struck by two things: one, that apparently no one spoke to this high-profile leader about the protocol within the Catholic Church, and two, how judgmental a lot of people seem to be about Catholic belief and practice.

The protocol thing just seems like it should be part of the day-in, day-out operations of working as prime minister. On the second point, as a Catholic, while I don't expect non-Catholics to share my beliefs and views - how could I do so reasonably? - I like to think that they might nonetheless respect them. After reading some of the comments, I was a bit disappointed to find out that this isn't always the case.

Part of the fault lies with the particular church which didn't make things clear in a discreet way. The idea of open communion on some occasions and the wide of use of extraordinary ministers (on an ordinary basis, so nothing extraordinary about it) leads to confusion within the Latin Church. They could clear this up by sticking to the rules and stopping open invites. Most non-Catholics don't want to receive anyway, so it's not as if it's going to cause tension.

Go into an Eastern church (Catholic or Orthodox) and the whole set up tends to keep non-Catholics from receiving. It used to be that way in Latin churches, but they're going through a fuzzy phase these days. Hope it ends soon.

"As a Catholic, I am disgusted and appalled at the PM's behavior. However, I am even more shocked and offended by the incredible number of ignorant, insulting and stupid comments made by some other readers. Anyone who doubts whether prejudice against people of faith exists in this country should ask himself whether such comments would be appropriate were the subject say, an African-American or a gay person, and similarly offensive comments were allowed to be displayed on this website. I think we all know the answer is a resounding "No." Clearly Catholicism doesn't merit the same sensivity as many other liberal pet causes, and more's the pity. At the end of the day, it just provides me more evidence of the liberal bias in the media. No, the Washington Post did not write the offensive comments, but it refuses to remove them. And THAT'S where the bias lies.

POSTED BY: LINGUIST64 | JULY 10, 2009 8:53 AM "

Though I agree there are some disrespectful comments here towards religion, there are many that are simply pointing out the absurdity of considering a wafer to be the actual body of Christ. Traditions are wonderful things, but to believe that the eucharist is more than a symbol, or that the books of the bible, written by mere men, are the be all, end all word of God, defies what I believe to my God given Gift of logic. To compare to offensive comments made about gays being unnatural because some MAN wrote about in a book 2000 years ago is not the same. Please stop painting everyone as liberal who disagrees with you, whole different ballgame.

As a practicing Catholic, I think part of the problem is people don't really understand Catholic Church practices. If you were not raised as a Catholic and didn't attended mass regularly you would not know that when a priest consecrates the host the host becomes as Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His Body that He was offering under the species of bread thus making it sacred. That’s why most Catholics, although this is falling by the wayside, traditionally will not eat before mass as to fast before receiving the Eucharist. Eucharist is so sacred to Catholics that some parishes have Eucharistic Adoration where the exposed consecrated hosts or Eucharist/Blessed Sacrament is placed in a ciborium and has to have 24 hour perpetual adoration. Because it is difficult to maintain 24 hour adoration, most Catholic Churches place the Eucharist/Blessed Sacrament in reserve inside a tabernacle so the faithful can pray in its presence without the need of volunteers to be in constant attendance. Also, like other Christian denominations you are not automatically given the right to accept to the Eucharist until you have been educated in the Rite of Communion and then you receive your First Holy Communion during a church ceremony. Typically this happens for third graders in Sunday school. Adults that wish to receive communion, have to go through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. It takes about six to eight weeks and is usually done during Lent. Catholics do have more rules when it comes to communion and what it represents and who can accept it. Because it is a central part of our faith and we believe that we are in the presence of Jesus. Not everybody knows that Catholics believe that and communion to them is a just the receipt of a wafer. In the case of the Prime Minister the Priest conducting communion should not have given it to him. Was it an odd moment when the Prime Minister asked to receive it from him, yes, I'm sure the priest was surprised and not too sure how to refuse it to him. The real problem was the Prime Minster put the host in his pocket and that is a big no no for Catholics. I am however a 1000 percent sure the Prime Minister meant no harm by it and maybe realized he shouldn't have taken communion knowing what it means to Catholics and he was not entitled to consume it. Catholics do have more rules as they strictly follow church teachings going all the way back to Saint Peter. Not everyone understands them and sometimes there is confusion. Communion should always be taken seriously no matter if you practice the the faith of the service you are attending or not. Chruch beliefs vary from one denomination to another so its always good to know what is expected of you during communion.

Thank you DCSTEVE1, well stated

"Why do you believe what's in the Bible?"

"Because it's the words of God."

"How do you know that?"

"Because... eh.... it says so."

The very tenor of this article shows how much religion influences government. The hushed tones of reverence which are afforded religious symbolism, especially of the abrahamic variety, belies the heinous global-scale destruction that adherents to the abrahamic religions are committing daily. I wish more people would lift the veils of religiousity and see these cults for what they are.

Dear CCNL1:

The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on transubstantiation is the official teaching of the catholic church and this teaching is backed up by a careful reading of the KOINE Greek in the New Testament.

The word used by Jesus Christ, GOD and man, for "eat" is the same word used - to gnaw on a bone.

The disciples - all except the Apostles walked away from our Lord because they thought Jesus was crazy when He said - Eat my body and drink my blood. It was meant literally and it was taken literally.

Now Transfiguration was not and never has been an acceptable interpretation of the 12 miracles that accompany the Eucharist.

For Luther, who came up with this rather silly doctrine, the bread and water become the body and blood of Christ but only temporarily during the mass.

Luther then advocated that it was ok to throw the bread and wine out and even feed it to the pigs.

But the position you are advocating that most Catholics believe at the end of your writing is John Calvin's position which is that the Eucharist is just a symbol of the last supper.

It does not matter what Catholics think or what public opinion is - the question is what is the Eucharist and what is the official teaching of the church.

And on those last two issues you seem to be confused.

"Communion/The Eucharist is not Jesus' physical Body and Blood since Jesus exists as a spirit (like all "passed" humans-if you are into this) and therefore has no physical form.
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 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 transubstantiation.
[Note: both Episcopalians and Lutherans believe in the real presence of
Jesus in the Eucharistized bread and wine.]"
Bottom line: To many Catholics, the bread and wine blessed during the Catholic mass are simply bread and wine with significant traditional meaning. (and please by-pass the common/contaminated wine cup during communion.) Significant sanitary issues are present during Catholic masses. The common wine cup and the common holy water fonts are two of them.

I was glad to see that Canada was doing the front page of the WPost. But really, it is for such a trivial matter. The WPost could put its front page to much better use. I'm telling you, there are interesting things for the US to know about Canada, some to be inspired from.

Though I agree there are some disrespectful comments here towards religion, there are many that are simply pointing out the absurdity of considering a wafer to be the actual body of Christ. Traditions are wonderful things, but to believe that the eucharist is more than a symbol, or that the books of the bible, written by mere men, are the be all, end all word of God, defies what I believe to my God given Gift of logic.

Posted by: job22 | July 10, 2009 10:14 AM
*****

I see your point about the fallibility of human beings, but just about every faith tradition I know of buys into the idea that God is at work among people - which is why, to take one examle, scriptures are described as being divinely inspired. You may not agree that this is so, but for people of faith, logic is just one of many ways that helps them come to understand the world and God.

As an overall point, disagree with the Catholic teaching if you really don't believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but what good comes from depicting Catholics as know-nothings or anti-intellectuals? Even apart from the fact that it's incendiary and leads to nothing constructive, it's also manifestly untrue, as the Catholic tradition is grounded in a rich intellectual life.

Hey, Nanook here, from Canada. Now this is my kind of discussion. Yes, our esteemed Dear Leader (who George W. affectionately refers to as 'Steve') did indeed pocket the host. What else could he do? You see Steve is a true fundamentalist thumper, a solid believer that every single, solitary word in the Bible is absolutely truth sent down from God Almighty Himself, that he (and other dogmatic, paunchy white guys like himself and their Stepford wives) is the keeper of the One And Only Truth, and that those idol-worshiping Catholics are simply heathen pagans who have lost their way. For Steve to have slipped the host into his mouth would have meant eternal damnation (instant, even) and it surely would have burned a hole in his nasty little right-wing soul. We Canadians are relieved that Steve pocketed the host, in fact in Canada we encourage host-hoarding, particularly among rabid evangelical banshees like our beloved Prime Minister, from whom all blessings flow. I understand his children have taken this foreign object to their fundamentalist Christian school for show and tell. We have declared this to be cute. See ya, eh?

To the Catholics that take offense over some of the comments here, there is a good reason why we post them:

Some of us can't believe that fellow citizens believe in such drivel.

Maybe if you didn't believe in such nonsense, people wouldn't spend their time insulting your superstitions.

C'mon, what you believe is pretty darn stupid, its as much of a garbage religion as Islam, Mormonism, or any other Abrahamic religion.

C'mon, what you believe is pretty darn stupid, its as much of a garbage religion as Islam, Mormonism, or any other Abrahamic religion.

Posted by: kenk3 | July 10, 2009 10:42

*****

This is America, and I'm grateful that we have the freedom not only to believe what we want to believe, but also to express it.

Having said that, it seems to me that you're not engaging the issues here, you're dismissing the beliefs of billions of people with the casual phrase 'garbage religion'.

Let me take it in another direction: How does my believing in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist do you any harm? If you don't believe, fine, but from what I can tell, in your view, my beliefs don't add up to anything anyway. So why the derisive tone, I wonder?

A correction has to be made. If you are a Christian than you are catholic. Notice I used a small "c". Protestants are catholic. catholic means church universal. Roman Catholics - note upper case R and C, as I am denoting a particular religious denomination vs. Protestants - note upper case "P" denotes a denomination. The difference is that there are many different sects of Protestantism, whereas there is only one recognized sect of Roman Catholicism.

BTW - Protestants do know how to take communion. We have communion in Protestant Churches, we just don't have it at every service. Yes! we celebrate the Eucharist ritual. More than likely the PM casually popped the wafer into his mouth and moved on. This is a non-story.

TomD3 wrote: How does my believing in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist do you any harm?

Nanook here, from Canada. Since my Prime Minister has caused this kafuffle, let me field this one. I have no problem with your beliefs. I do, however, have a problem when right-wing, fundamentalist hate-filled Christians do everything in their power to demonize and discriminate against others who do not believe what they believe - take gay people for instance. In America, hating gay people is a way of life. Christian Americans believe their religion gives them the right to deny basic human rights to groups who don't toe the line. That's the problem we have with your beliefs. And that is exactly why you beliefs are complete wrong - no God anywhere would ever condone the evil that is done by Chrstians every single day in his name! Hold on to your belief; keep you evil to yourself! See ya, eh?

bobdog3

Just a note: you're conflating my belief in the Eucharist with 'hating gay people', which first of all doesn't make sense, and second, doesn't accurately portray how I feel about my fellow human beings, reagrdless of their orientation. As to the point about 'denying basic human rights', well, that gets more complicated and involves public policymakers; in other words, it's not simply the province of a few people of a particular denomination who make decisions about who gets what kind of treatment.

TomD3 wrote: How does my believing in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist do you any harm?

1. George Bush won 55% of the Catholic vote in 2004. 55%!

2. Catholic doctrine states that its better for people to die of AIDS than use condoms.

3. Catholics help prevent women from getting abortions in many states, even in cases of rape or incest.

4. Many Catholics have some loyalty to a foreign state (The Vatican) and are therefore not 100% loyal to the United States.

5. Most Catholics are against euthanasia, the fight against the right of people to die with comfort and dignity.

I can go on and on.

Wake up Catholics, you've been brainwashed into believing an incorrigibly idiotic religion!

kenk3

1. George Bush won 55% of the Catholic vote in 2004. 55%!

And Obama won about 55% in 2008. So what conclusions can we draw?

2. Catholic doctrine states that its better for people to die of AIDS than use condoms.

It says nothing of the kind. Please, be better informed.

3. Catholics help prevent women from getting abortions in many states, even in cases of rape or incest.

This is true, but you're missing something important: the Catholic Church sponsors several programs to help women who have been abandoned by their husnamds or partners and are scared. They provide housing and resources for these women during trying times.

4. Many Catholics have some loyalty to a foreign state (The Vatican) and are therefore not 100% loyal to the United States.

First of all, though the Vatican is a foreign state, it doesn't operate like most, with no military and the entire focus being on its role as the headquarters for the Roman Catholic Church. Also, you are presuming that having loyalty to the Vatican precludes loyalty to the U.S.

5. Most Catholics are against euthanasia, the fight against the right of people to die with comfort and dignity.

You're definition of euthanasia is a convenient one that allows figures like Dr. Kevorkian to hold sway

And really, to say we've been brainwashed is insulting - let's just leave it at a difference of opinions. After all, we live in a plurlaistic nation where no one denomination is the majority - or ever will be, I would guess.

To: TomD3.

Nanook and his sled here. Your firm belief that a piece of paper is somehow magically transformed by a mortal priest into the body of Christ is, well, a little loopy actually. But hey, it's America. You can chew on a dog treat and call it Jesus if you want. Religious dogma of all denominations excludes those who do not believe exactly as they do, and if you think that's okay, then enjoy yourself. Personally, I think that any God would want us to love one another at all times, in spite of our many differences. I don't believe any God would hate the way that Christians do. But then, I am not religious; I don't have intolerance ingrained in my very soul. So long from the North.

"(The wafer) is not a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, but is in fact the body and blood of Christ," Neil MacCarthy, director of communications for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, told the National Post.

I would love to see the factory where these are manufactured. What a mass of contradictions this country is. What nonsense this "Body of Christ" stuff is.

"The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on transubstantiation is the official teaching of the catholic church and this teaching is backed up by a careful reading of the KOINE Greek in the New Testament. "

A 21st century review of this statement results in the following conclusion:

Christianity really should be named for the five voodoo doctors aka P, M, M, L and J with their changing of wine into blood and bread into living tissue and the raising of at least two dead people. The name "Voodooianity" captures it best??

bobdog3

Personally, I think that any God would want us to love one another at all times, in spite of our many differences.

*****

I agree 100%, no qualifications.

"Pope Benedict XVI prefaced his visit to Cameroon and Angola by saying the "scourge" of HIV could be made worse, not better, by the distribution of condoms."
-----------------------------------------
Perhaps the PM went up anticipating a blessing, rather than being offered the wafer. In which case, the priest made an error. In the end, it's a symbolic piece of unleavened bread. If God is everywhere and present in all things, then this particular wafer isn't any more or less holy than anything else.

aileen1

You wrote, "The bottom line on receiving holy communion is that, among other things, the recipient is making a public acknowledgment of being in full communion with the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church and acceptance of its authority. This goes beyond what one might believe (or not) regarding the sacramental nature of bread and wine in confecting the Eucharist"

When I receive the Eucharist, it is with the knowledge that the Eucharist is Jesus.

Jesus said, "All power and authority has been given unto Me", I take Jesus at His Word, He is the Author of Life and He is the Authority in my life, not the Pope. Jesus is also my Brother and also the Brother of every other human being that has ever been, is or will be.

Jesus also extended the invitation to "Come follow Me", the invitation is not to follow Peter or any of his successors.

As I have said before, I used to believe that the Eucharist is Jesus but now I know and have known since the Holy Spirit revealed it to me.

Christianity is not a religion even tho it may be a religion to some but it is a relationship.

God answered my belief with a confirmation.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"If JC existed, if he were a Jew, he would have observed Passover. He would have profaned neither the observance nor his faith with wine/blood, bread/flesh pronouncements."

-------

Interesting. One would have expected the others at the table to react stronger, if Jesus breached a traditional taboo.

Posted by: asoders22
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IF Jesus breeched? Err if I'm not mistaken, Christians make use of the Tanakh, which they label the "OT." The taboo against ingesting blood is quite clearly spelled out there, and that taboo persists in Judaism to this day. Kosher meat contains no blood. NO BLOOD. No Jew for thousands of years would have equated symbolically wine with blood, bread with flesh.

As for "the others at the table," if there was a JC, if he was a Jew, and if there was a last supper, ah, yes you would have expected them "to have reacted more strong[ly]," as in heading for the hills, desert, wadi, the next plane out to Philadelphia, where, like WC Fields, whose existence was foretold, they would prefer to have been.

Farnaz1Mansouri1

You wrote, "To say that the slaughter of Jews or any other group was or is part of God's plan is not something that this atheist can abide, and, frankly, I can't imagine what kind of thinking could give rise to such a conclusion."

First off, God gave us free will and if it were not completely free then it would not be free at all. Man has shown his propensity for violence and cruelty many times and in many ways thru the ages.

Second, God's Plan is that ALL be saved and be in the Kingdom, not that we won't go thru judgment because we will, that is why I have said that God becoming One of Us is part of God's Plan.

If we did not have free will, complete free will, then we would be nothing more than puppets on a string, maybe fancy puppets but puppets nevertheless.

Giving someone free will with the stipulation that they use it only in the right way, so to speak, is not free will.

Something to think about: Do you think God, whether you or anyone else that may read this believe that God Is, really cares for the way that we treat each other?

I think that God very much cares from both a Creator's and Created's point of view.

We treated Jesus terribly and we treat each other rather shabbily at times too, don't we?

Reality is reality, this is not a dress rehearsal.

As I have said: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack there of and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

HarryLime

In reply To SLDUNCAN79, you wrote, "then perhaps what you are feeling is the cold sting of reality breaking through your veil of absurdities."

I imagine when the "veil" is lifted from your eyes and you get a glimpse of "Reality" you will be in for quite a shock but don't worry because God's Plan is way beyond better than what a goodly amount of people believe and/or want.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"(The wafer) is not a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, but is in fact the body and blood of Christ," Neil MacCarthy, director of communications for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, told the National Post.
I would love to see the factory where these are manufactured. What a mass of contradictions this

------ The host becomes the body of Christ once it is consecrated by a priest during mass. That's why only a priest can consecrate. If mass was being conducted by a deacon, he would have to use already consecrated Eucharist that is kept in the Tabernacle because they are not allow perfrom consecration. Before the consecration, it is a piece of unleavened bread which is baked by companies like Cavanaugh in which the very demanding and strict canonical standards of the Catholic Church have been applied to it's production. If you are not Catholic you would never know that and might be confused.

PSolus

You wrote, "Thomas Paul Moses Baum
You wrote:
"Of course there are some who choose themself to speak for God and then there are those that God chooses."
So, which are you?"

Time will tell.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Matthew_DC,

My concern is not judging pedophile priests or pretending to know God's judgment for their actions. God's laws are God's and not civil laws. Like some others, I do not claim to know God's judgment from cherry-picked scriptures. I have no idea, nor care to know God's judgment for, or never did have any intention of reporting or suing the "Priest" who molested me at 14 as an easy-target, non-Catholic, un-Baptized "creature" participating in CYA with my Catholic friends who I stuck together with in the unbearable ethnocentric intolerance of Mormon Utah (save your prayers for him and your Church, thank you.

My concern is the Church's politically motivated attacks on Obama and Harper while having total contempt for civil law by looking the other way at pedophilia in the clergy and hiding criminals pedophiles, some of whom they know are fugitives from US Justice like Father Nicholas Aguilar, who has not been imprisoned less alone excommunicated or denied practicing as a Priest in Mexico.
(Cardinal Rivera claims he "doesn't know" where Aguilar is, but people report the "Padre" still practicing Mass in the Mexican State of Puebla)

Latest update:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/rive020909.htm

There is truly a double standard for Catholic clergy pedophiles and run-of-the-mill pedophiles who go to prison or worse if they get caught. The Church, like Dick Cheney thinks that it can "get around the law."

Why should the Catholic Church have it's cake and eat it, too, when it comes to meddling in politics and government?

linguist64

You wrote, " At the end of the day, it just provides me more evidence of the liberal bias in the media. No, the Washington Post did not write the offensive comments, but it refuses to remove them. And THAT'S where the bias lies."

Do you think that "removing the offensive comments" would mean that they cease to exist and never did exist?

Freedom of speech is just that, it is not the freedom to say whatever you like as long as you don't offend someone else.

When God gave us free will, it was not "conditional" free will which would not be free at all.

By the way, Truth is truth not because people believe it to be true but because it is true.

Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", if you think about it, it is not contingent on how others treat someone but how that someone treats others.

I welcome all comments myself whether I agree or disagree, what good is a bunch of "yes men", so to speak, saying what they think others "want to hear"?

Last year when the Pope came to this country and the USCCB website asked some questions on it, I replied, none of my replies were printed, is that how you think a website should operate?

I have met God, Who Is a Trinity and a Being of Pure Love, but I can understand why some would not want to have anything to do with what some people's "conception" of God is.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

You wrote:

"Time will tell."

You don't sound as sure of yourself when you answer my comments as you do when you answer others' comments.

Have I shaken your faith?

Don't worry, be happy.

Peregrine Bartleby Rumplestiltskin Solus

How can ANY human believe that an ingested wafer is actually the body of a dead person, and ingested wine is that person's blood?

That type of nonsense is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!

PSolus;

Delightful comment. I laughed out loud.

Dear God, aren't there more vital matters of government that we might be discussing? Surely communion is ultimately between the person partaking in it and God, whether that person is Protestant, Catholic or whatever. These people need to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS!

I am spiritual, not religious. But, when I am at religious ceremonies, Bar Mitzvah, Bat Mitzvah, Catholic Wedding Mass, etc. I always participate to the level of my beliefs, and always show respect for the beliefs of others, which is what I think the Prime Minister was doing.

If the whole body and blood of Christ thing is something that Jesus, being a Jew, would never have done and that none of his disciples would have participated in, also being Jews, where would this have come from? Was it part of Roman or Greek Pagan practices? And if so, would Jesus have been familiar with it and incorporated into that meal as a radical departure from Judaism? Or was it incorporated into the Gospels at some point later, and if so, by whom?

I seem to remember Joseph Campbell saying something about there being some form of communion among religious practices in many parts of the world, sometimes in the form of actual cannibalism rather than a symbolic ritual.

How can ANY human believe that an ingested wafer is actually the body of a dead person, and ingested wine is that person's blood?
That type of nonsense is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!
-------
One fifth of the world's population believes in transubstantiation and it’s a 2000 year old belief that shows no signs of changing any time soon. If you don’t believe in it that’s fine but what good comes from depicting the billions of people that do as nonsensical?

fr the article:

>...But Monsignor Brian Henneberry, vicar general and chancellor in the Diocese of Saint John, says there are two issues: First, if Harper did pocket the wafer, "It's worse than a faux pas, it's a scandal from the Catholic point of view." Second: "If the prime minister is not a Catholic, he should not have been receiving communion and if he comes up it places the priest in an awkward position, especially at a national funeral because everyone is watching," he told the Telegraph-Journal....

"Monsignor" needs to get a life and come into the 21st century. I left the misery synod church because of their ridiculous "closed communion" idea.

coloradodog:

You should have filed charges. I would have. I'm not going to shower prayers upon you. Heh.

I follow your other comments. Out of respect, I keep the Eucharist separate from politics and scandals.

I don't care if you oppose the GOP wing of the US Catholic Church. Except for their anti-abortion stand, I oppose them. But this is far removed from the topic of this thread.

Matthew_DC

OK, I understand you. Peace out, man.

Ironically, in reading the many posts, it seems that the most shrill dogmatists are those who don't believe in transubstantiation. Perhaps it is the misunderstanding of the term. we don't believe that the bread and wine physically change so that we physically taste flesh and blood; rather, we believe that their very essence changes so that Christ is actually present in the bread and wine.

While this is a central belief of Catholicism and cannot be proved by a scientific examination of the host, neither can it be disproved. Those who choose not to believe are free to do so; however, their inability to prove their point has had the unfortunate result of reducing the discussion to ad hominem attacks on those who believe.

I can't understand either their absolute certainty or the apparent threat posed by the belief.

It takes a tremendous amount of faith to be so certain of their atheism. We seem to have a few fundamentalist atheists on this thread.

LaurelYves, you wrote:

"If the whole body and blood of Christ thing is something that Jesus, being a Jew, would never have done and that none of his disciples would have participated in, also being Jews, where would this have come from? Was it part of Roman or Greek Pagan practices? And if so, would Jesus have been familiar with it and incorporated into that meal as a radical departure from Judaism? Or was it incorporated into the Gospels at some point later, and if so, by whom?

I seem to remember Joseph Campbell saying something about there being some form of communion among religious practices in many parts of the world, sometimes in the form of actual cannibalism rather than a symbolic ritual."
=========================
THere is a considerable amount of scholarship on the connection of Eucharistic Christianity to mystery religions of the region (not Judaism).

See, e.g., The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook of Sacred Texts, by Marvin W. Meyer (not Jewish)

You can skim through this at the Amazon web site. Search in the book for "Eucharist."

There are many other books and articles and more, no doubt, are on the way. :)

Wait a minute. Are you saying the Priest didn't know the religion of the Prime Minister of Canada?

Why did he offer him communion when he obviously knew he wasn't Catholic?

Methinks this could be another O'Reilly Catholic political set up like inviting Obama to Notre Dame.

Farnaz,

Thanks for the book recommendation. It looks like an interesting book. Our county library carries it, and I've just put it on hold.

Laurel,

"Thanks for the book recommendation. It looks like an interesting book. Our county library carries it, and I've just put it on hold."

You're welcome! :)

Before getting library books, take a look at the "eucharistic" information posted at:

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=FdOn0Ih6ebMC&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Crossan+Eucharist&source=bl&ots=iKVf2sMUiL&sig=arKaFzBrkksp7GugGS7XGBG7C-I&hl=en&ei=1BxYSs3gO9CytweF6bHdCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4. (search engine available)

Check Google on-line books at books.google.com/books and use the search engine for other "eucharistic" subjects and books.

The Meyer book is fine. There's nothing wrong with libraries. It's high time you visited one yourself.

Btw., you're a little late in this thread getting on board with contemporary thinking about the origins of the Eucharist. As elsewhere on this blog, your good faith comes into question.

"The host becomes the body of Christ once it is consecrated by a priest during mass. That's why only a priest can consecrate. "

Where in the NT does Jesus say that a priest (or that there should be a priest at all, for that matter) can consecrate anything? So many fantasies. The whole darn hierarchy within the churches is man-made - with emphasis on "man", as in male. Were I a Christian, I wouldn't care about any of it.

Well, it is an illusion, but liberals have their own illusions. Knowing perfectly well that some people are smart, some are not, some are tall, some are not, some are honest, some are not; knowing all these things, the dogma that everyone is equal remains because it is too difficult to give it up. Personally, a dogma is no different from a child's pacifier - it gives comfort and it does not have to be rational.

PSolus

You wrote, "You don't sound as sure of yourself when you answer my comments as you do when you answer others' comments.
Have I shaken your faith?"

You seem to be one that does not believe that God Is, I am one who knows that God Is.

As I answered, time will tell, and that is that time will tell that I have met God and that God is a Trinity and that God is a Being of Pure Love.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"The host becomes the body of Christ once it is consecrated by a priest during mass. That's why only a priest can consecrate. "
Where in the NT does Jesus say that a priest (or that there should be a priest at all, for that matter) can consecrate anything? So many fantasies. The whole darn hierarchy within the churches is man-made - with emphasis on "man", as in male. Were I a Christian, I wouldn't care about any of it.
------
According to the gospels during the Last Supper Jesus told his twelve apostles "Do this in remembrance of me". He made Peter the head of his Church as in Peter was the first Pope and the rest of the apostles were to go out and spread the word. They were the priests. The Catholic tradition goes all the way back to the Last Supper they have never changed it. Yes, they were all men but they were men chosen by Jesus. They devoted their lives to him and his Church. That is why the Catholic Church still has priests. The consecration of the Eucharist is so sacred to Catholiccs that only priests can perform it because they have proven like the original twelve Apostles they are devoted to only serving God and his Church. For 2000 years Catholics have followed the same practice going back to the exact way Jesus did at the Last Supper. The practice of consecration at a Catholic mass goes back to Jesus himself.
As far as it being written like section 1. article a. Only Ordained Priests are allowed to Consecrate. You know the bible was not written for modern man's desperate need of specificly written out rules so they can get around them. If you dont understand Catholisism and why things are done a certain way ask a Catholic or stop by a local Catholic church. They would be more than willing to help answer your questions. I doubt some of the people who post on here would do that seeing it is so much easier to critize Catholic practices then actually understand them or go find out why thing are done a certain way but you never know.

rohitcuny

You wrote, "the dogma that everyone is equal remains because it is too difficult to give it up."

Being equal does not mean being the same.

You also wrote, "Personally, a dogma is no different from a child's pacifier - it gives comfort and it does not have to be rational."

You wrote about being "rational", think for a moment, no matter what you believe, that God became One of Us with all of the limitations of being a human and let Himself be treated the way that Jesus is depicted in the bible being treated, is that "rational"?

Also think that then Jesus extended the invitation to "Come follow Me", does that sound like an invitation that is "rational" considering that Jesus flat out told us to remember how He was treated and not to be surprized if our treatment might be just as "shabby"?

Jesus also said, "Treat others as you would wish to be treated" in total disregard for how they actually treat you, is this "rational"?

Is it "rational" for someone in a combat situation to throw themself on a grenade to save others?

There are many instances in life where being "rational" is a sorry way to live one's life.

Belittling other people does not make one "taller". From some of the comments on different postings, it seems as if that is what makes some people tick.

It also does not seem to matter what "label" one applies to oneself either.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"(The wafer) is not a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, but is in fact the body and blood of Christ," Neil MacCarthy, director of communications for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, told the National Post. "We believe we are holding Jesus in our hands, so to put Jesus in your pocket or to put Jesus on the ground (is serious). If it falls on the ground it has to be consumed. We never throw Jesus out,"

This is enough to make us vomit. Mr. Jesus Lovers, Neil MacCarthy and others, are all "lost" beyond any Secular-Law and any Secular-translations. Does Blessing "Water" makes it holy? Blessing "Wafers" makes it a god-incarnate especially the 'Flesh & Blood" of a dead man (if such a person/character/Rabbi ever existed) as if a spiritual-vitamin or cure for Sins or Curses?

OH, may The-Real-God, if any, forgive the Vatican folks and such "Eucharist" Consumers also known as "Symbolic Vampirism" and "Symbolic Cannibalism" practice/participation in organized RITUAL acts!

Discusting indeed!

With search engines, Google Books, Wikipedia, the on-line Encyclopaedia Britainnica (etc.), on-line dictionaries/translators, inexpensive second-hand books, Answers.com, and state libraries moving aggressively onto the net (e.g. http://www.powerlibrary.org/interface/power.asp), "brick" libraries are becoming outdated. We now are in age of the Net Library!!! Enjoy!!!

The Roman Catholics do not need approval from outsiders to tell them what to believe. No matter how people may find their Eucharistic ritual to be disturbing it is still their belief and no one else’s. Communion is reserved for the faithful of that community of believers who think that transubstantiation is real. For that reason I think communion should not be part of a public gathering especially an event like a funeral where all kinds of people gather to pay respect to the deceased. That way no one is forced into an awkward position they don’t want to be in. Moreover, going to a funeral should not be an occasion where one feels left out or forced into a situation of unnecessary embarrassment. Refraining from including the communion ritual in a funeral should not be problematic; as far as I know communion is for the participants only with no apparent benefit to the deceased.

"(The wafer) is not a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, but is in fact the body and blood of Christ," Neil MacCarthy, director of communications for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, told the National Post. "We believe we are holding Jesus in our hands, so to put Jesus in your pocket or to put Jesus on the ground (is serious). If it falls on the ground it has to be consumed. We never throw Jesus out,"
This is enough to make us vomit. Mr. Jesus Lovers, Neil MacCarthy and others, are all "lost" beyond any Secular-Law and any Secular-translations. Does Blessing "Water" makes it holy? Blessing "Wafers" makes it a god-incarnate especially the 'Flesh & Blood" of a dead man (if such a person/character/Rabbi ever existed) as if a spiritual-vitamin or cure for Sins or Curses?
OH, may The-Real-God, if any, forgive the Vatican folks and such "Eucharist" Consumers also known as "Symbolic Vampirism" and "Symbolic Cannibalism" practice/participation in organized RITUAL acts!
Discusting indeed!
--------
Catholics don't believe that they are consuming the body of a Jesus when he was human. Think about it. That goes against everything Jesus was about. Jesus would never have allowed anyone to cause physical harm to themsevles or to others. He wants us to love each other not cause harm to one another. That is why Catholics bless unleavened bread and wine and Jesus as in the Holy Spirit becomes present in them. It is meant to feed your soul with his love not your stomach. It is mean so you are united with God and he is present in you. He wants to be present in our lives.
As far as questioning if things actually become holy after they are consecrated there is no evidence out there that suggests they are not. Think about it 2000 years and no one can prove Catholics wrong.
Also when you say "as if a spiritual-vitamin or cure for Sins or Curses?" Christians don't believe holy water takes away sins. Holy water is present when you walk into a Church to bless yourself before and after mass but it does not take away sins.

If you are not a religious person that absolutely fine, but don't disrespectful to people that do believe and compare a 2000 year old religion that 1.1 billion people on earth currently practice to such horrible things as you did. Also, if you are going to post a critical opinion about a religious faith please try and be accurate. You believed Catholics were celebrating eating human flesh and that is simply not true. If you are unsure about why things are done a certain way and it seems wrong to you, you should reseach it so you are under a full understanding of what is meant by their practices before you go and post a critical opinion of it.

ukba wrote:

The Roman Catholics do not need approval from outsiders to tell them what to believe.
_______________________

Agreed as long as the Church looses its contempt for civil law by hiding, aiding and abetting pedophiles in its clergy, stops bullying US policy by threatening US legislators with threats of no communion, registers all its "Ambassadors"
(priests, bishops, cardinals) of the Vatican as foreign agents in the US, and stays the hell out of politics like its O'Reilly set up of Obama by inviting him to Notre Dame and possibly generating this hysteria about Harper.

With the a$s kicking their intolerant counterparts the evangelical Huckabees got last November, Republican Catholics are becoming the new American Taliban and that is the business of us "outsiders"

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

You wrote

"You seem to be one that does not believe that God Is, I am one who knows that God Is."

Yes, I have no faith to lose, and you know it. [Thanks, Bob]

"As I answered, time will tell, and that is that time will tell that I have met God and that God is a Trinity and that God is a Being of Pure Love."

You have implied, on several occasions, that you have been chosen by your imaginary buddy to speak for him; I'm just trying to get you to reveal exactly how this works. Is there a PowerPoint presentation with talking points involved?

Don't worry, be happy.

Peregrine Bartleby Rumplestiltskin Solus

ukba

You wrote, " For that reason I think communion should not be part of a public gathering especially an event like a funeral where all kinds of people gather to pay respect to the deceased."

This is fine that you "think" this way but no one is forced to attend a funeral and by the way who are you or anyone else to tell others how they "should or shouldn't" live their lives, which death is a part of.

As far as "paying respect", how about respecting the wishes of the deceased?

You also wrote, "Refraining from including the communion ritual in a funeral should not be problematic; as far as I know communion is for the participants only with no apparent benefit to the deceased."

First off, it is not just a "ritual".

Second, even if someone else does not have the same "beliefs" as the deceased, don't you think that at least acknowledging that the deceased had whatever "beliefs" they had would be "paying respect" to them?

Third, you can have whatever "beliefs" or "non-beliefs" that you want, but that does not give you or anyone else the right to tell others what "beliefs" to have or how to live those "beliefs", as long as they do not force themself or their "beliefs" on othere, would you agree or disagree with this assessment?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IheartUSA1

You wrote, "Catholics don't believe that they are consuming the body of a Jesus when he was human."

Maybe you should read what Jesus had to say about it.

If you remember Jesus instituted the Eucharist on Holy Thursday which happened to occur before Good Friday, this may give you a clue about what the Eucharist is about. Jesus did say, "Come follow Me", does this "clue" give you an idea what following Jesus may entail?

You then wrote, " Jesus would never have allowed anyone to cause physical harm to themsevles or to others."

Seems to me that Jesus allowed "physical harm" to come upon Himself by other people or do you have a "different" version of the bible?

Jesus also said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do".

This seems just as appropriate today as it did back then, does it not?

Remember, Jesus extended the invitation to "Come follow Me".

The "watered-down" version just does not cut it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PSolus

You wrote, "You have implied, on several occasions, that you have been chosen by your imaginary buddy to speak for him; I'm just trying to get you to reveal exactly how this works. Is there a PowerPoint presentation with talking points involved?"

First off, I have never "implied", I have said that God chose me.

Don't worry, you will know when you know.

God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes and as I have stated before, I am just a messenger, I am not God.

I do not need to know all of the details and for that matter I do not know all of the details, I am just here to tell the world that God's Plan is for ALL.

We will all go thru judgement, as I have said before, Divine Mercy and Divine Justice are two sides of the same coin.

I try to be simple and direct in what I say and it seems as if some wish to dialogue whether or not they have a "belief" and there are others that don't.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.