R.I.P Justice Scalia

[Charles Austin]

I need to post this publicly, because Mr. Johnson will not let me address him privately.
Someone did post the context of the comment from the late justice. You might do well to read an entire conversation before bleating out your snarky remarks.

[Michael Slusser]

I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

Who he? 

Peace,
Michael

[Donald_Kirchner]

I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

For the most part, I do think Father Slusser and I agree that there are instances where, it is appropriate, for an ordained family member to preside and/or preach at a loved one's funeral. 

Why?  There is a subtle difference, I believe, between the Sunday worship service and those events in our lives that take place outside of this Sunday worship.   Recently a baby was baptized in our congregation.  Her grandfather, an LCMS pastor, asked to preach.  The pastor and worship committee discussed this request and it was decided that baptism is a sacrament that happens within the Sunday congregational worship and, as such, the called pastor would preach.  At yet another baptism of the granddaughter of a long-time member wanted friends who were not members of the congregation to read.  We again said no - same reason.  There does seem to be leeway, however, with weddings and funerals.  Funerals, most especially, are a time when we try to work with the wishes of the family - for their comfort in a very difficult time - as much as is possible.

Looking for an answer...Why?

[John_Hannah]

It was indeed an excellent example of evangelical catholic witness to Jesus Christ! There is very little that I would quibble with. Grand conduct of the liturgy and brilliant proclamation!

Yes, it was very good Gospel message, even with the reference to indulgence, allusions to purgatory and praying for his purification....

I did notice it. That's what I would quibble about.   

Peace, JOHN

That being said, it was a funeral for one who was Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic church 

Indeed. That's why I said "very little" quibble and then only if pressed. That, of course is not likely to happen. A funeral is no place to carry out theological polemics.  This funeral was a magnificent witness to our shared faith in Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the body!   

Peace, JOHN

[Donald_Kirchner]

It was indeed an excellent example of evangelical catholic witness to Jesus Christ! There is very little that I would quibble with. Grand conduct of the liturgy and brilliant proclamation!

Yes, it was very good Gospel message, even with the reference to indulgence, allusions to purgatory and praying for his purification....

I did notice it. That's what I would quibble about.   

Peace, JOHN

That being said, it was a funeral for one who was Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic church 

Indeed. That's why I said "very little" quibble and then only if pressed. That, of course is not likely to happen. A funeral is no place to carry out theological polemics.  This funeral was a magnificent witness to our shared faith in Jesus Christ and the resurrection of the body!   

Peace, JOHN

An online forum is a place to critique. As I said, it was a very good Christ-centered homily. I did not hear, however, any direct witness, much less a magnificent one, to the resurrection of the body.

[Charles Austin]

They confessed the creed. That is a direct reference to the "resurrection of the body." The faith proclaimed is not all in the sermon. And the creed is pretty "magnificent" in its clarity and comprehensiveness, is it not?

[peter_speckhard]

I need to post this publicly, because Mr. Johnson will not let me address him privately.
Someone did post the context of the comment from the late justice. You might do well to read an entire conversation before bleating out your snarky remarks.

This is what people have been trying to tell you for years. You have a strange "need" to post things like the above, which did not need to be posted.

[Charles Austin]

So, Peter, when someone takes a cheap shot at me and I wish to engage them privately and when they refuse to receive my private comments, what recourse do I have to seek correction and reconciliation?

[Donald_Kirchner]

I do agree that it is very appropriate for a family member, who is ordained, to be invited to preach and/or preside at the funeral - even if it means that the parish pastor step aside.

I did not get the impression that Fr. Shuster agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

Who he? 

Peace,r
Michael

My apology, Father. My auto spell/correct on my tablet sometimes gets the best of me, and I don't catch the changes. E.g., it always changes Mundinger to Gunslinger and Slusser to Schuster.

[peter_speckhard]

So, Peter, when someone takes a cheap shot at me and I wish to engage them privately and when they refuse to receive my private comments, what recourse do I have to seek correction and reconciliation?

You have the recourse you took, though you flatter yourself when you say you were seeking reconciliation with your post. Nobody genuinely seeking reconciliation with his brother says, "You might do well to read an entire conversation before bleating out your snarky remarks."

My comment was on your deep-seated "need" to respond. I never said you couldn't post it. I said it didn't "need" to be posted. If it was a cheap shot you were responding to, then nearly all the other readers here would discern it as such, and the ones who couldn't weren't going to be swayed by your "correction." You seem to live in what can only be described as fear that you won't have the last word in any of the many highly personal echanges that seem to afflict your participation here. This causes you to post things that can't possibly have any positive effect on the thread, like the one I pointed out.

[Charles Austin]

And Peter, I dare say, that you are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes "positive effect" on the thread of discussion. As for lastworditis, I suggest you check the postings of certain others here, who, if I were to name them would indeed make this thread more cluttered than my Aunt Mabel's garage. Ever see an old stove, hunting gear, remnants of Delft china and loose Tinker Toys all in one place?
As for the personage in question, I might suggest that if you are supposedly ignoring my comments, and if your mailbox refuses to accept my responses, then do indeed ignore my remarks - rude as that may be - or at least have the kindness and common sense not to take the shots. 

[peter_speckhard]

And Peter, I dare say, that you are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes "positive effect" on the thread of discussion. As for lastworditis, I suggest you check the postings of certain others here, who, if I were to name them would indeed make this thread more cluttered than my Aunt Mabel's garage. Ever see an old stove, hunting gear, remnants of Delft china and loose Tinker Toys all in one place?
As for the personage in question, I might suggest that if you are supposedly ignoring my comments, and if your mailbox refuses to accept my responses, then do indeed ignore my remarks - rude as that may be - or at least have the kindness and common sense not to take the shots.

Do you think your public response to Mr. Johnson had a positive effect on the thread? If so, what was it?

 

[Charles Austin]

I don't know, Peter; as I do not set myself up as the ultimate person to determine what is "positive." It will come as no surprise to you that I do not find many of your posts positive; but I suspect that some do.
Here, as in life, every mot need not be bon. Nor need it be bon for every lecteur.

[peter_speckhard]

I don't know, Peter; as I do not set myself up as the ultimate person to determine what is "positive." It will come as no surprise to you that I do not find many of your posts positive; but I suspect that some do.
Here, as in life, every mot need not be bon. Nor need it be bon for every lecteur.

You can give your opinion without setting yourself up as the ultimate person to make that determination. I didn't ask for a definitive, objective and unarguable ruling from you on whether the post in question made a positive contribution to the thread. I simply asked what you thought on the subject. Why is that so hard to answer? Do you think your response to Mr. Johnson made the thread better, more informative, more likely people would want to read it, or anything else that might fall under the category of "positive?"

[Fletch]

Sing loudly:

It's all about me. 
My remains,
my hobbies,
my opinions,
my vacations,
my cats,
my funeral,
my expertise,
my humility,
me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me. 
And I can't even see, it's all about me.

... F