I feel compelled to write how strongly I disagree with Melinda Henneberger's article, "How Sally Quinn Made Me A Better Catholic". To avoid disagreements in findings of fact, here is my summary of the article: Sally Quinn, having received Communion in a Catholic service, misunderstood the religious significance of the act and made improper comments about the Communion bread and wine. Ms. Henneberger believes this reinforces and justifies the Catholic practice of denying Communion to non-Catholics.

I must say how poorly this correlates with my own experience. I am, and am proud to be, a member of the Episcopal Church, the American branch of the Anglican Communion and a church once referred to as "the American Catholic Church". While we have some disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church, our faith does recognize the possibility of transsubstantiation -- especially in that branch called variously "High Church" or "Anglo-Catholic". Yet even conservative Anglicans who believe in transsubstantiation are regularly denied Communion in Catholic churches... unless they are ready to convert fully to Rome.

It would be nice if the Catholic Church's issue were really about the faith, and the act of taking Communion. Unfortunately, it is not; it is about the powers of the Catholic hierarchy to dictate policy and doctrine. I can be -- and have been -- denied Communion, not on the basis of my beliefs on the Real Presence, but due to questions about Church governance that are (to my mind) irrevelant to my personal faith. Disagreement, even admonishment, are perfectly reasonable responses; but the Catholic Church appears from the outside to be more interested in the pursuit of purity through exclusion than salvation through evangelism.

Catholics visiting my home church, meanwhile, are perfectly welcome to partake of the bread and the wine. Amazingly, we won't subject Ms. Henneberger to a twenty-minute Catechism quiz before we display to her some common Christian amity.

So, you find it intellectually honest to follow Henry VIII? We, on the other hand, and as you well know, stick with the Pope, his Bishops, his Priests. Still we can understand how attractive, and needed, our sacraments are, even to the Heretical. An unfortunately perjorative term that actually means "selecter" (Heresis) in the Greek, the non-Heretical (the Roman Catholics) would be those who simply do not presume to choose their own set of commandments and precepts. It's all relative, isn't it?

I like the irony of a Catholic attempting to slander an Episcopal over the associations with Henry VIII, in light of the corruption of the Papacy throughout much of Church history.

What I have a hard time understanding is why it bothers you so much if The Catholic Church has rules about it's own practices?

You are perfectly free to have, and it sounds like you are very happy with, your association and commitment to the Episcopal denomination. You seem to feel a very real confluence with your understanding of communion and that offered by the Episcopal Church. That's great! You seem very sincere in this, and I believe that your Parish and your Church would, indeed, welcome Ms. Quinn and Ms. Hennengberger (and even ME) to the rail for communion. That is very lovely, very lovely indeed. Very communal, very ecumenical.

But why does that practice necessitate your animosity toward another denomination's difference?

Cannot any church develop rules and regulations to which it holds participants? If not, why not? If so, then why not The Catholic Church?

You know, no one in The Catholic Church would subject any person to a 20 minute Catechism to quiz someone before displaying common Christian amity. That kind of sarcasm just doesn't make your position very understandable to me.

The Catholic Church has a 6 month Catechism of Preparation for Adults that leads them to the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is a voluntary program of instruction entered into by one's own volition and can be stopped at any time and one is under no obligation ever.

The Catholic Church also provides hundreds of thousands of hours of common Christian "amity" and charity in the form of volunteer hours in prisons, homeless shelters, to migrant workers, victims of domestic violence and other needs in communities all over the world. I won't go on to list the many Catholic Charities that provide hunger relief, medical supplies, economic and community assistance around the world. Many churches do the same. I'm sure it can be said of the Episcopal Church as well. To me, THAT is common Christian amity and charity.

What you seem to be asking is why doesn't The Catholic Church practice Episopalianism?

Well, isn't it obvious? The Catholic Church is NOT The Episcopal Church! Why should they be the same - they are, by choice and by nature, two different entities. Can you not be a happy, satisfied member of your church without at the same time deriding the practices of another church?

No, no, you've missed my point. I'm not calling Catholics to abide by Episcopal standards, but by their own. On further reflection, I think the main thing that bugs me is the repeated calls for Christian ecumenicism that the Vatican has promulgated in my lifetime. If the Catholics wish to keep themselves separate from the rest of the body of Christ, that is indeed your business. There are certainly plenty of Protestant sects that do the same. However, it is hypocritical to turn around and call for greater Christian unity at the same time. That sort simultaneous pull-and-push is contradictory and gives credence to the argument that "ecumenicism" is a code word for "conversion". It also implies that Catholic pride at their own rites is dependent upon defining themselves as better than other denominations -- the "heretics", as the heckler above stated.

Paradoxically, there would be little need for any of this if Rome and Canterbury could get their act together about recognizing each other's ordinations. I've read the position papers of the churches, and it seems clear to me that politics, not theology, is the barrier to such recognition.

(By the way, I apologize for the sarcasm. The Episcopal Church has much the same sort of preparative course as a run-up to Confirmation, and I really was quizzed as a child about the significance of the bread and wine before being allowed to partake.)

altar rail for Communion in just about every Episcopal Church in the USA that I know of. Some of the more 'fundie"-leaning break-off churches that are returning to a more conservative basis might not allow it but most Episcopal Churches, including my own (remember, I am NOT the real Speaker Pelosi who I believe is a practicing Catholic) welcome "all baptized Christians" to partake of Communion.

Too bad the practice is not reciprocated. I do wonder why you, as a poster, seem to have this habit of confronting other posters when they are simply are trying to talk to or with you?

It's a noticeable pattern in your posts -- to 'stir it up,' even when not called for, or appropriate. It's also not very Christian, frankly.

Peace be with you,

SN

p.s. Indeed, most Anglican Churches in America, i.e., Episcopal Churches have very serious and well-organized charity & community outreach efforts. You might start by checking the website of St. John's Cathedral ("In the Wildernness" as it was so named in the 1860s) in Denver, Colorado, as a typical example. We have nothing as well-organized as along the lines of Catholic Charities but we have a deep, broad & wide-ranging, hugely sincere commitment to community service, both globally & locally. Note especially, the "Stephen Ministers" and their role serving those congregants who are home-bound; most of them, suffering from AIDS in the case of Denver's Cathedral. We also have gay & Lesbian clergy and it has been my particular personal happiness to know, listen to sermons and readings by, worship with and take Holy Communion from, female (both hetero- and homosexual) and gay male deacons and priests.

You should give it a try sometime; it's amazing what living in the 21st Century can do for one. Peace, SN. (I did not detect anything in the original poster's tone such as you are imputing to him/her, btw.)

I can't imagine how you have ascertained any "pattern" in my posts. Stalking me, are you?

My foray into the Frays was through the portal of The Politics Fray - which, by its nature, seems confrontational and stirred up. With or without me. I do not presume to have caused a ripple at all in those waters.

As for here - I've not posted much but I do feel that getting to the point of a question or discussing differences is the purpose. For me at least - I have an active and full life off the computer for hanging out, being friends, agreeing and so on. I find The Fray stimulating and interesting - but mostly it is discursive.

It is also a place to articulate my thoughts, share them with others, and expose myself to someone else's thoughts and beliefs. For the most part, I find many people on here delightful.

You'll just have to pardon the fact that I do not like you or LaurieAnnM or Gatewood. From the three of you (and a few of your pals such as mercadia and jeqal) I have been called all sorts of vulgar names, accused of being someone's "sock puppet" and told repeatedly that I'm stupid, a dork, unwelcome and unworthy of posting.

So, I don't talk to you. If I feel like it I will confront some inane post of yours. But I'm not in the least bit bothered by your inaccurate, shallow interpretation of who and how I am.

If you should ever wonder why I don't reply to your posts refer again to this one, as I shan't repeat it.