R.I.P Justice Scalia

[Richard Johnson]

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.

Could have been worse. Might have been shyster.

[James_Gale]

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.

Could have been worse. Might have been shyster.

Nah.  Autocorrect only applies that name to lawyers!

[Charles Austin]

Yes, Fletch, all I bring to this (or any)  discussion is who I am, what I think I know, and how my experience touches on the topic. Do you, or anyone else here, bring anything else but who we are?
 What is the real point of your "me" posting?  At least people here know who I am, for all I know you could be a 14-year old in Bahrain or a mental patient in Pocatello.

[J. Thomas Shelley]

PLEASE!

Today is the beginning of the Lenten Triodion in the holy Orthodox Church.

Today's Gospel has great bearing on how this discussion has degenerated.

Let us be attentive.

The Gospel according to Luke 18:10-14

The Lord said this parable, "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

[Fletch]

PLEASE!

Today is the beginning of the Lenten Triodion in the holy Orthodox Church.

Today's Gospel has great bearing on how this discussion has degenerated.

Let us be attentive.

The Gospel according to Luke 18:10-14

The Lord said this parable, "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Very nicely put.  Much more Scriptural than "it's all about me".  It is always better to make it all about Jesus.

... F

[James_Gale]

The following does not prove one way or another how the Senate should respond to any nomination by President Obama.  But I'd love to hear the Vice President explain why 2016 is different from 1992 (aside from the obvious fact that the parties of the presidents and Senate majorities were then the opposite from today).

In 1992, as the Supreme Court ended its term, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden said this (here's a Youtube link) on the Senate floor:


"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever, until after the political campaign season is over.
And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.
I’m sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be committed to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."

[RDPreus]

It's nice to be able to agree with the Vice President once in a while.

 

[Steverem]

The following does not prove one way or another how the Senate should respond to any nomination by President Obama.  But I'd love to hear the Vice President explain why 2016 is different from 1992 (aside from the obvious fact that the parties of the presidents and Senate majorities were then the opposite from today).

In 1992, as the Supreme Court ended its term, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Biden said this (here's a Youtube link) on the Senate floor:


"It is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed.
The senate too, Mr. President, must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever, until after the political campaign season is over.
And I sadly predict, Mr. President, that this is going to be one of the bitterest, dirtiest presidential campaigns we will have seen in modern times.
I’m sure, Mr. President, after having uttered these words, some, some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be committed to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose as a senate to not consider holding the hearings until after the election. Instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me Mr. President, we will be in deep trouble as an institution."

Were I the Senate Majority Leader, when and if this is to come to the floor for debate, I would line the GOP senators in a queue, and have each of them use their time to read this verbatim, and then quietly sit down.

[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. Slusser agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

Whatever you and Eileen Smith were discussing, let me clarify the point I made with the support my family stories: real life involves so many variable, unusual or unique, factors that it makes little sense to lay down strict rules about who should officiate at a funeral. As with many pastoral issues, it doesn't have a slide-rule solution. Obviously a pastor has a right to control his sanctuary's use, but if he or she uses that in a closed way, regardless of the family's own expressed needs, he or she should be reevaluated.

Peace,
Michael

[Eileen Smith]

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. Slusser agrees with your proposition.

In response to your statement, why?

Whatever you and Eileen Smith were discussing, let me clarify the point I made with the support my family stories: real life involves so many variable, unusual or unique, factors that it makes little sense to lay down strict rules about who should officiate at a funeral. As with many pastoral issues, it doesn't have a slide-rule solution. Obviously a pastor has a right to control his sanctuary's use, but if he or she uses that in a closed way, regardless of the family's own expressed needs, he or she should be reevaluated.

Peace,
Michael

I believe the question from Pastor Kirchner was 'why' is it appropriate for an ordained family member to preach and/or preside at a loved one's funeral and I thought I answered it upstream.  But I have a habit of typing away and not hitting 'pos.'   Perhaps in another closely-related thread the answer comes in that the community that gathers for a funeral is not necessarily the community that gathers on a Sunday morning.  In fact, there may be times that very few, if any, of the 'regulars' are present.  In a most difficult time, the death of a loved one, the community, under the guidance of the pastor, works to be present with the family in their grief and attend to their needs even if this may mean that the pastor step aside to allow someone else to take a role in the worship.  The intimacy that comes with one who has such a connection to the family - and had such a connection to the deceased - may be healing of itself.  I'd suggest it is as appropriate as working with the family in choosing hymns and readings, if the deceased had not made wishes clear ahead of time.  Last year, a beloved member of our congregation died during lent.  It was somewhat unexpected and the family has known much tragedy, including the murder of their daughter and suicide of their son-in-law, raising grandsons who are not doing well, and their own health issues.  She really wanted a hymn that meant a lot to her -- with a number of alleluias in it.  We went with it.   Appropriate during lent, maybe not.  Appropriate in this instance - yes. 

On the other hand, we've had requests from family members to bring in readers outside the congregation to read or assist at communion along with hymn suggestions for baptisms - which do occur during the regularly-scheduled Sunday service.  On that we decline. 

[Michael Slusser]

  Last year, a beloved member of our congregation died during lent.  It was somewhat unexpected and the family has known much tragedy, including the murder of their daughter and suicide of their son-in-law, raising grandsons who are not doing well, and their own health issues.  She really wanted a hymn that meant a lot to her -- with a number of alleluias in it.  We went with it.   Appropriate during lent, maybe not.  Appropriate in this instance - yes. 

I spent a year as a member of a Byzantine Catholic parish. In the main Good Friday service, I counted 27 Alleluias (may have missed a few). Even during Lent, Christ is risen! We dour Westerners should lighten up.

Peace,
Michael

[Donald_Kirchner]

Perhaps in another closely-related thread the answer comes in that the community that gathers for a funeral is not necessarily the community that gathers on a Sunday morning.  In fact, there may be times that very few, if any, of the 'regulars' are present.  In a most difficult time, the death of a loved one, the community, under the guidance of the pastor, works to be present with the family in their grief and attend to their needs even if this may mean that the pastor step aside to allow someone else to allow someone else to take a role in worship.

Why?

[Eileen Smith]

Perhaps in another closely-related thread the answer comes in that the community that gathers for a funeral is not necessarily the community that gathers on a Sunday morning.  In fact, there may be times that very few, if any, of the 'regulars' are present.  In a most difficult time, the death of a loved one, the community, under the guidance of the pastor, works to be present with the family in their grief and attend to their needs even if this may mean that the pastor step aside to allow someone else to allow someone else to take a role in worship.

Why?

Why not?

[Charles Austin]

Because of this odd mania for the idea that the pastoral and sacramental ministry is perversely localized so that if you are not the local pastor, you should not exercise pastoral or sacramental ministry.
It is, I am glad to say, a minority view.⚒⚒

[Dan Fienen]

So long as it did not violate fellowship considerations, I personally would not oppose or be offended if the family requested an ordained member of the family conduct the funeral or participate in the funeral.  If we are not in fellowship with the church body that the ordained family member is ordained in, then I would suggest that they could do readings, or offer comments, but not preach.  Also, when the extended family had close ties to a neighboring LCMS church I have invited that pastor to participate in the funeral, although I still conducted it.  As much as is reasonable and possible, without violating long standing policy, I try to accommodate family wishes.

That said, I was very glad to let my mother's pastor conduct here funeral and preach for it.  I did not want to do more than be a pall bearer and be family at the funeral.  Others, no doubt, feel differently.