Truth told, it's not really about God; instead, it's a commentary on a weekly column I read in my local newspaper. The name of the column is The God Squad". It is co-written by a Catholic Monsignor and a Rabbi.
The title, while cute from the marketing standpoint, disturbs me because it feels to me as though these two fellows have decided they have a direct line to the ear of God. And, each week as I read their column, I grow more and more disturbed at their rhetoric, which spews out of them with as much fanaticism as, well...the over the top Islamic fundie crap I read.
Today's letter was from a woman who grew up Lutheran and married a Catholic man. If you've ever attended services at both of these churches, the format of the service is remarkably similar. After all Martin Luther *was* a Catholic priest before he broke away from the Church and started his own.
Lutheran churches offer open communion to anyone who cares to participate. Catholic churches, on the other hand, usually do not promote open communion, instead reserving it for those who are either Catholic, or fit the criteria.
More about the criteria in a moment.
At issue with the woman was her feeling of being left out when she attends Catholic services with her spouse. She feels that communion is between her and her God, and should not be an "issue" with the Catholic clergy. However, if you've grown up Catholic, you are probably aware of the rules and regulations for receiving communion. In short, you must be in a state of "grace" with God.
As far as I know, the Catholic Church is the only one who places a restriction on who can receive communion. Other Christian religions take it for granted that those attending will receive. Pagans freely share their cakes and ale with non-Pagans. (For those of you who are not Pagan, cakes and ale is the term used for communion.)
The answer to the woman, the aforementioned criteria, just blew me away.
They replied:
"'The key point in determining which non-Catholic Christians can receive communion in a Catholic church hinges on their understanding of the Eucharist. If the person believes that the bread and the wine are not actually the body and the blood of Christ but are merely symbols of Christ's presence, or sacrifice, or hope, then they are not allowed to receive it.
This makes sense because the Eucharist is not being offered up to the congregation as a symbol of anything it might want to imagine, but as the essential affirmation fo the Catholic belief in the mystery of transubstantiation by which bread becomes body and wine becomes blood. The difference is not, as you imagine, just "the clergy and the building" but a different belief about a defining Christian ritual and the coming to union that is the essence of communion.'"
Oh, come on. I went to Catholic school for eight years and the presentation was that Catholic communion was merely a symbol (get that? a SYMBOL) to represent the body and blood of Christ. It was not meant to infer that you were taking a chomp out of Jesus' forearm, nor cutting a vein and indulging in His blood. We were not meant to sway in our seats with religious zeal, swooning over the cannibalistic frenzy. Instead, as I was taught, the symbolism was to carry us through till the next chance for communion to keep ourselves living a good life, remembering that we should follow the way of peace and love as Jesus set forth.
I'm glad the nun who brought communion and the Last Rites to my Mom didn't follow the guidelines set forth by the pompous columnists. She anointed Mom, and gave communion to her, then to Robert and I, allowing us to share in Mom's deep faith and the very last thing she wanted before she crossed over.
And, yes, Robert and I went to communion at Mom's funeral as well. We didn't do it because of transubstantiation. We did it to honor Mom and her deep faith, for her faith was a big part of who she was. God didn't strike me down for that which those members of the Catholic clergy would have; in fact, the feeling I felt deep inside was of approval and thanks for choosing to honor her.
A religious ritual is nothing more than symbolism, no matter what transpires within the framework of the service. What transpires within the individual is what is important; the ritual, while usually thematic in some way, will affect everyone in the way that is right for them. It can't, and shouldn't be such a prescribed pattern that results are predictable on a large scale. Oh...but then I seem to keep forgetting that many religious authorities would like us all to be followers. It's easier to control the masses if we all follow the prescribed route.
I didn't go to communion at any church for many a year, because I was under the spell of the teachings of the Church. I attended services at different times, for different events, but drew the line at receiving communion. And, quite frankly, I missed being a part of that ritual and what its symbolism meant to me. But then, on a field trip to another church for a singing competition, (my son was in a boy choir for a few years), one of the non-Catholic mothers asked the priest conductor if she could take communion at the service. His reply? "If you feel in your heart that receiving communion is the right thing for you, then, by all means, please do."
Voila! A man of sense! And, all of the chaperones, Catholic or non, trouped down and received communion. And there were no lightning strikes by a wrathful God for disobeying the "rules".
So, when I read things like the "God Squad's" reply, I grumble. It's time to embrace our individual faiths and learn from each other; learn to work together within and in spite of our individual style of worship. But, I am afraid we won't see such a thing in my lifetime. All I can do is try to teach my perspective while giving as much honor as I can to the faiths of others. But, that doesn't mean I'll go belly up in fear of arbitrary rules that make no sense.
And, that's my soapbox rant of the moment.
6 comments:
Spot on - Only thing I'd disagree with is in degree. The God Squad - I don't believe - hasn't been telling folks to go strap on bombs and blow up non-believers. Denying someone a particular ritual is a bit different than exhorting them to go out and kill women and children. And Non-Muslims are banned - ENTIRELY - from even setting foot in Mecca.
That being said, these yahoos sound like nuts. I like what you wrote and how you wrote it - I too have been offered communion in a Catholic service and refused, as I felt it would be disrespectful to their faith as I didn't share in their belief. They understood that and respected my choice.
I'm always shocked to find nuts like this running about. Makes you wonder why their God hasn't struck THEM down...
Orion
Amen Kate! My thoughts, your words.
O, I would have done as you and respectfully declined for the same reasons.
During my m.i.l.'s funeral they had communion. I declined as i'm not Catholic and it was accepted gracefully.
To each their own. Not everyone believes or thinks the same way and thats as it should be. Why that is so hard for some to understand is beyond me.
All three of you have made the point I was trying to say. You've all been to Catholic services and have chosen, or would choose, not to receive communion. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.
Communion should be a very personal thing between the individual's god/dess and themselves, and not some arguing point over the belief or not of transubstantiation.
If a person has strong feelings about wanting to receive communion in a particular church for their own reasons, they should be able to without getting horrified looks from other church members, nor should they be lectured by the clergy over the deal.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available in it's full text on-line. You are mistaken in your understanding of Catholic teaching about the Eucharist.
The Catholic Church does teach (in spite of your errant grade-school teachers) that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. It is by consuming Him that we become one (communion) with Him.
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."[199] In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."[200] "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."[201]
second paragraph on this page:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/euch2.html#presence
Thank you for dropping in and commenting, Judy. While I don't doubt the validity of the written word on this subject, the truth of the matter is that the Church I grew up in did not teach that way; perhaps that was that particular era, but I really don't think things have changed so much. Regardless of the formal written word, or how it is taught, the important thing is how the individual receives the symbols of blood and wine into themselves.
I'm glad your reality of the Church works well for you. I respect that mightily. My faith allows me to respect yours even as I find great peace in my own.
Post a Comment