One thing that I've heard said as a "general positive" about the Catholic church, is that its found pretty much everywhere. Meaning, an American on far away shores can walk in essentially receive spiritual uplifting in a manner that he would generally understand and agree with. It is essentially shelter as I've heard higher ups in the organization describe it. (Baptists and other denominations are unable to effectively offer this role, there are very few if any traditional Baptist anything in many parts of the world).
Which surprises me when I hear American Catholics tend to want to divide up the world into us/them and disrespecting their house. It would be eminently hard to live up to a shelter function in say Paris, if the Priest and his congregation spent their time interrogating a Lutheran American on the way in to the pew to resolve his viewpoints on Catholic dogma before they accept him in the services/Communion in his time of need.
In fact its directly contradictory. I understand that Sparky is not exactly a crashed WWI fighter pilot back on his way home from the Front in Grand Island, but if you aren't going to grill folks from far away out of Christian charity and fellowship, why would Sparky deserve such attention? Just for kicks?
I believe I specifically said above that I would not say two words to Sparky. HuskerO agreed. And nobody is advocating some kind of "grilling" or the establishment of communion police. I believe we also made that clear. So you are attacking a straw man here. Furthermore, my comments about hypocrisy were not directed at you. They were directed at someone else who was very clear in his denunciation of a view with which he disagreed on the very sure grounds that God was on his side.
I have no problem with how you have approached this discussion. You have not called anyone a name like "stuck up Catholic" and so on. You have also made (I think) a cogent theological argument for your views. I agree with some of what you argue (the shelter argument is actually a long standing Catholic view) but disagree that as long as we are all Christians of some kind then what does it matter? But even here, while I disagree, I think that is a forceful argument that has to be answered because the ultimate commandment from the Lord, which we do all share, is that we love one another.
To me the issue of us/them or respectful/disrespectful is a red herring. The issue is ultimately rooted in different theological notions of what the Eucharist is, and, flowing from that, different pastoral approaches to liturgical practice. The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics, going back to the practice of the earliest churches, have held for centuries that the Eucharist is a sacred mystery to be reserved for those who share the same full communion of faith. So where there is no full communion of faith there can be no shared Eucharist. There are exceptions (the shelter concept) but that is the gist of it. Even most Protestants shared that view until recent times as you would never have seen intercommunion between Lutherans and baptists for example.
This has now changed among Protestants as a more egalitarian and democratic spirit has taken hold, as well as deminational relativism (as you put it well: God comes first) so intercommunion is now commonly practiced and the view of exclusionary communion viewed as harsh and lacking in Christian charity and hospitality.
I think this is mistaken on theological grounds that I really don't want to go into here as I type on my iPad with my tiring finger. Ha. But I will conclude by simply saying that Sparky and the elderly man at his wife's funeral are men of deep Christian conscience and conviction. And if they make the decision in the depth of their conscience to receive communion in a Catholic Church, I would not dream of saying a word to them unless they asked me for my opinion.
Peace
