Eucharist
When Advent season began there was once again a bitter feeling of disappointment with evangelical ecclesiology. Rather than share the season with the church catholic my local assembly decided to use late November through early December to teach on the identity, vision, and mission of our particular group. There was something hyper-individualistic about this gesture that bothered me deeply. I continue to wrestle with what it means to be “catholic” although I am not “Catholic”. I want to be part of the church global during this season, and it seems my local place of worship has no such desire.
On Christmas Eve I went with my wife and mother-in-law to see the annual ‘Festival of Lights‘ at a local Catholic perish known as The Grotto. That evening we went to the 10PM mass. While I have roots in Roman Catholicism, and I even have a great Uncle who is a priest, I have been to mass only once. It was an amazing experience watching the faithful squeeze against the entry way before pouring into the building to find a seat. There was an upper deck as well, and it was full. We sang Christmas hymns, we recited the Nicene-Constantinopolation Creed, the priest gave a homily (which included more Scripture than many so-called “Bible churches”), and we saw the Eucharist being prepared. I watched in awe as they paraded the crucifix down the middle isle at the beginning acknowledging the paradox, as they burned beautiful smelling incense which created a physicality to the worship, and as they kissed the Scriptures before lifting it toward the pulpit. It felt holy.
My wife was not feeling well so we left before actually participating in the Eucharist. As I understand it one ought to be a confessing Big-”C” Catholic to join in the ceremony. I thought about participating even though I am not Catholic, because I am catholic. I wasn’t sure if that would be disrespectful, or if it is something I should do, whether Protestants and/or Catholics approved, because it symbolically would say that I consider myself in communion with the Catholics, even if they did not see themselves in communion with me.
I want to be catholic though I am not Catholic.
What do you say? If you are a Catholic do you welcome other Christians in celebrating Eucharist or do you think our differing understanding of the rite demands that we do not do it together? If you are Protestant/Anglican-Episcopalian/Reformed/Evangelical, et al., what do you think of sharing communion with Catholics?
December 27, 2010 at 10:02 am
The Catechism (par. 1400) says:
So the short answer is, no, you shouldn’t have taken communion at the Catholic Church. What individual Catholics think about it may differ from the Catechism but I think it’s more proper to ask what does the Church teach about this rather than what do Catholics think about it.
December 27, 2010 at 10:08 am
As Nick has rightly observed, it is not the *fact* of different understanding that says you should or should not participate, but the *nature* of the different understanding that says you *must* not participate. For the Catholic, the Eucharist is *only* for those who are in full communion with the Living Magisterium. And you are not.
December 27, 2010 at 10:31 am
Yeah, according to official Roman teaching intercommunion with Protestants is not possible. I personally would probably never covertly take communion at a Catholic parish because I don’t think it makes sense to “sneak” something that is supposed to be about the Lord’s hospitality.
I display my communion with all Christians by being part of a church that willingly opens its table to all, even if they chose to refuse the hospitality of the Lord’s table to some fellow disciples for reasons of their own. They’re always welcome at mine.
December 27, 2010 at 11:07 am
@Nick and Mike: Thank you for the observations. It appears from the Catechism does not totally severe fellowship, but it does prevent visible fellowship in the Eucharist event. They still understand non-Catholics as “ecclesial communities” which I assume means they still see us as legitimate Christians. I find this doctrine disheartening. I think it really crushes the deepest meaning of the meal which is our unity in Christ.
@Halden: I welcome Catholics to my table as well. I like you said that.
December 27, 2010 at 11:08 am
Unless you really believe that Christ is truly present — Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity — in the consecrated host. It would be better if you didn’t receive communion in the Catholic Church.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.
(1 Corinthians 11:27 -29)
Peace,
John
December 27, 2010 at 11:13 am
@John: Thanks for the input. I do think my great hindrance is the physicality of the body and blood in the elements. I am more than willing to confess Christ in present in the elements, but I settle with it being a mystical, pneumatological reality.
Can anyone tell me why agreement on this matter really matters? If someone is a Catholic I’d like to hear your thoughts on why it must be “understood” as the physical body and blood. If a Protestant took communion, while not believing this, yet let’s say it is true, why would it be dependent on one’s understanding and belief about what is occurring?
December 27, 2010 at 11:21 am
Taking part of the Eucharist at a RC church would depend on your understanding of it. I believe that some High Anglicans, Orthodox and perhaps even Lutherans would have some sympathy with the RC tradition and theology behind it and for them its not a theological issue.
For myself its more of a conscious decision; both not to offend nor be offended.. as I believe the LS is a more commemorative celebration than it is a metamorphic celebration.
In saying this; I am all for interdenominational celebrations. I used to co-ordinate the local inter-church prayer meetings on a regular basis and one of our greatest prayer times was at the local RC church. And the priest taught me a powerful lesson in regards to Christians and Christianity should be celebratory in nature and therefore we should love a good party.
December 27, 2010 at 11:31 am
Brian: Again, while it might be interesting to note what individual Catholics think, I think for the answers you’re seeking you need to go to the Church’s dogma. And this is all found in the Catechism (specifically paragraphs 1406-19 for this question). The short of it is that it’s important because the Eucharist is seen as a real sacrifice. If the host is not transformed into the body and blood of Christ then one would have good reason to doubt the Eucharistic sacrifice’s efficacy.
December 27, 2010 at 11:31 am
Thank you for the observations. It appears from the Catechism does not totally severe fellowship, but it does prevent visible fellowship in the Eucharist event. They still understand non-Catholics as “ecclesial communities” which I assume means they still see us as legitimate Christians.
Exactly.
John’s comment demonstrates quite clearly how you would appear to the Catholic were you to partake of the Catholic Eucharist.
More broadly , Gros, McManus, & Riggs’ Introduction to Ecumenism is a helpful survey of ecumenism from a Catholic perspective.
December 27, 2010 at 11:36 am
Below are the guidelines from the USCCB:
As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.
For our fellow Christians
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21).
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).
For those not receiving Holy Communion
All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another.
For non-Christians
We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.
December 27, 2010 at 12:25 pm
@Nick: That is a good observation. Thanks for noting these points. It reminds me why I cannot make the jump to big “C” Catholic.
@Timothy: Thanks for this data. It does help me better understand. I am glad I didn’t participate, but I do wish things were different. I agree that our divisions are “sad divisions”.
December 27, 2010 at 1:20 pm
It has become a tradition of mine to attend a midnight Mass on Christmas Eve (technically Christmas morning, I suppose), but I refrain from taking communion for the reasons listed above.
That said, when I was vacationing in Italy, I did partake of the communion at St Peter’s, simply because the opportunity was too exciting to pass up!
December 27, 2010 at 1:46 pm
@Brad: I have pondered making a tradition of it as well. At least, I will go to a church that makes a big deal of Christmas the evening before Christmas, so I may try an Anglican church. I think Orthodox celebrate Christmas at a different time.
December 27, 2010 at 5:30 pm
@Nick, Mike, and John,
Good thoughts, based on the RCC itself, both doctrine and canon law. In looking at Orthodoxy, however, we have the same reality in the Eucharist, but the consecration is not complete until the end of the Epiclesis of the Holy Spirit. But the Eucharistic Prayer forms the whole: Thanksgiving, Anamnesis, Epiclesis – in one action of consecration. See Timothy Ware’s book: The Orthodox Church. His book is a good Western type description of Orthodoxy.
For the non-Orthodox, see the Antidoron (piece of bread) received after the Liturgy ends, it is from the same loaf as the consecration, which is blessed but not consecrated. It is the expression of Christian fellowship and love.
Perhaps someone from Orthodoxy could speak in a better expression here? Though I am somewhat familiar with Orthodoxy, I will not seek to express it from within.
December 27, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Hello Brian,
I think part of the problem for Protestants — and I once was one — is that they really don’t know much about the Catholic Church’s beliefs concerning the Eucharist. So they think that we are excluding them in an uncharitable fashion without good cause.
So if I might add to Nick’s advice, I would suggest that those interested read the CCC on the subject. Though I would advise reading paragraphs 1362 through 1405. Not just the In Brief section. (See below)
Peace.
John
ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm#1362
December 27, 2010 at 6:28 pm
@John: Thanks for providing the link. I do see that there are important differences. I would not see the Eucharist as a “re-presentation”, but a “representation”. I do agree that it is around the Eucharist that we see the unity of the church, but unlike Catholic dogma I do not affirm that it has anything to do with one’s doctrine of the Eucharist. I guess it is easier for me to desire unity that is visible in this sense because I could go into a Catholic gathering and take the Eucharist understanding it as more symbolism and mysterious pneumatological presence than actual, physical presence. But I can see that Catholics would not see my participation as valid.
I do wonder, if we “ecclesiastical communities” are in communion with Christ (1400) when we celebrate the Eucharist, how are we not in communion with Catholics who are also in communion with Christ?
December 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Brian,
Speaking on the manner of how the Lord is present in the Eucharist, John of Damascus writes: If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit . . . we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable.”
But of course for the Orthodox, there is a reality of change in the elements during the Liturgy itself, the bread & wine become ‘the body & blood of Christ’. But the Orthodox Church never seeks to explain (fully) the “manner” of that change. It is left really to the mystery of God!
December 27, 2010 at 7:02 pm
@ Fr. Robert: As an Anglican, do you understand the elements to become the body and blood of Christ or do you say that Christ is mysteriously present, but not actually the elements? Is there much unity in the understanding of the Eucharist in Anglican circles?
December 27, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Brian,
Good question, but since the Anglican Communion is so open-ended now, there are several views. Mine have been in the past, really from both places. But, I can say that I have always tended to at least Luther’s view. But, having been raised RC, and then also High Church Anglican, or Anglo-Catholic. I have always believed in the so-called ‘Real Presence’. Now, as I have said, Orthodoxy seems the most consistent, but even more.. the most spiritual, mystical and simply biblical! (Lk. 24:30-31 / 1 Cor. 10:16, etc.)
December 27, 2010 at 8:03 pm
You should not, of course, take communion at a Roman Catholic parish, or a strict Mennonite congregation, or even a Closed Brethren assembly. If you are concerned about the sort of individualism that many Evangelical congregations display by their tacit refusal to walk in (liturgical) step with the broader Christian tradition, you should not be oblivious to the crass individualism that lies at the heart of someone’s forcible appropriation of the sacrament that has been fenced by one or another community of faith because of his or her perceived individual right to it — or worse, on the basis of his or her individual understanding of the meaning of the sacrament, even if it blatantly opposes the communal understanding of the sacramental community.
Regarding the “ecclesial community” language, it must be understood that this is a periphrastic way of speaking about bodies that call themselves “churches” but are not actually such from a Roman Catholic point of view. These “ecclesial communities” lack a valid episcopate (and therefore orders), and necessarily, also the Eucharist. Their faith and life is “defective” (i.e., incomplete), but however much or little they do possess is, in fact, derived from the fullness of the Church (with a capital “C”). From this follows that they share a sort of “imperfect communion” with the Roman Catholic Church — since, again, whatever they have, they have not of their own, but is derived from her. You may read a good, authoritative elucidation of these matters in the declaration Dominus Iesus, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in 2000.
As for us Orthodox, a couple of notes:
1) Most Orthodox Christians in the US celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25 by the New Calendar, which coincides with Dec. 25 on the civil calendar. However, a not inconsiderable number of Orthodox here, together with an absolute majority of Orthodox Christians worldwide, celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25 by the Old Calendar, which coincides with Jan 7. on the civil calendar. The change to the New Calendar among those who observe it occurred, for the most part, in the late 1920s, with two other local Churches following suit in the late 1960s and the early 1980s, respectively. The bare-bones historical reasons for this development are explained satisfactorily enough by Metropolitan Kallistos in his book The Orthodox Church, to which Fr Robert has alluded.
2) While Metropolitan Kallistos’ explanation of the antidoron describes well the almost universal practice in the West (and even in some places in the East), it should be noted that according to strict practice, not even the antidoron is given to the non-Orthodox. Indeed, even the antidoron should even be taken on an empty stomach, a discipline to which one cannot reasonably expect visiting non-Orthodox to submit themselves. I mention this only because I have certainly been to places in this country, most of them very loving and friendly, where the antidoron is however NOT distributed to the non-Orthodox (or even Orthodox who have not fasted from the eve before) according to strict practice.
December 27, 2010 at 8:05 pm
PS..Brian, As to Anglicanism, there are three places historically: High Church, Low Church, and Broad Church. The High Church and a few Broad Church people have taken the Catholic position on Sacraments, the Low Church.. some Calvin’s position, and some here also the Zwinglian.
*Sorry I was quick, I had a phone call.
December 27, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Esteban,
I was given the antidoron, as an Anglican years back (UK), but I was an Anglican priest and in an Orthodox/Anglican society. Perhaps this was an exception?
December 27, 2010 at 8:23 pm
We visited “Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral” in Portland a couple of Sundays ago. The thing I appreciate about it is indeed the sense of historical continuity that is present in the liturgy itself. Yet, most of the Liturgy (at least 3/4) was in Byzantium Greek so my Koine didn’t even really come in handy. I’m just mentioning this, Brian, because I can relate with the kind of “loss” you sense at your (I’m assuming) “Evangelical” home church.
As far as the Antidoron that both Fr. Robert and Esteban mention, Holy Trinity allowed some friends and I to partake of that when we visited them in the past (so maybe they aren’t as strict, although I did speak to the Priest and he did not consider me a brother in Christ).
Anyway, I wouldn’t mind visiting the Grotto, we were going to this year and it didn’t happen; next year.
December 27, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Bobby,
I have not always been treated so well with certain Orthodox myself. Especially when I indicated that I was a Reformed Anglican (in the past), mostly in the US, but they were a certain ethic group of Orthodox.
Yes, the Orthodox can be themselves very different, in places. No perfection in the visible Church, even the Orthodox! But, I love their doctrine and Christology of Christ! And I loved Timothy Ware’s expression (letter) of his conversion to Orthodoxy! They are certainly ‘the Church’.
December 27, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Bobby, In case you and others have not seen this?
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/ware_conversion.html&date=2009-10-25+23:19:43
December 27, 2010 at 9:47 pm
@Esteban: What do Catholics, and presumably Orthodox, see as the greatest downside to being part of so-called “ecclesiastical communities” that are not part of the capital “C” Church? Is there any sort of eschatological difference? In other words, other than the lack of visible unity, what would be said to be the worst thing about being either non-Catholic and/or non-Orthodox?
December 28, 2010 at 4:23 am
Brian: I’d imagine the worst thing would be not having the fullness of truth and being heretical in some way, shape, or form. From either Orthodox or Catholic perspectives all Protestants are necessarily heretics. That can’t be good.
December 28, 2010 at 8:32 am
@Nick: True, that isn’t good. Heretic seems so strong though, no? I was browsing over Vatican II last night and it seems a bit vague as regards Protestants/Reformed/et al. I didn’t glean from it the idea that we are heretics, but I guess that may be their perception.
December 28, 2010 at 9:00 am
Brian,
From my perspective and understanding, Roman Catholicism would call many or certain Protestants, ‘Separated Brethren’, since Vatican II. But many or most Orthodox would call Protestants “heterodox”, which for them means inclining toward heresy and unorthodox, simply.
Pingback: What is Wrong with “Ecclesiastical Communities”? « Near Emmaus
December 28, 2010 at 9:14 am
@Robert: Thanks for weighing in. I wonder what the implications of being ‘Separated Bretheren’ or ‘heterdox’ is. I have continued the discussion here: http://nearemmaus.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/what-is-wrong-with-ecclesiastical-communities/
December 28, 2010 at 9:20 am
PS..Creedally, I would agree with the Orthodox, that the majority of Protestantism is inclined toward heterodoxy! Sadly, the way the Ecumenical Councils are treated by many Protestants, Evangelicals, etc. is simply wrong. Or with neglect. But, the area of ministry and episcopacy is also flawed. Which was Nick’s point.
December 28, 2010 at 9:31 am
@ Fr. Robert: Why did you personally choose the Anglican community and not the Orthodox community?
December 28, 2010 at 9:42 am
Brian,
Well since I was Roman Catholic first, then Anglican.. and only then, in time close to Orthodoxy. And my theological education has been Western. And as I have mentioned, there are ethnic problems with Orthodoxy in my opinion. So I have remained an Anglican. But, this last Advent and Christmas has been full of the reality of Orthodoxy to my soul! Also my age, but I could see myself Orthodox in either the UK, or the US. God and time again will tell!
December 28, 2010 at 9:59 am
@ Fr. Robert: If you did make a change would you try to be an Orthodox priest as well or would you move toward being a lay person?
December 28, 2010 at 10:28 am
Brian,
Fair question. I have to admit, that I love being a priest and pastor-teacher type. And I do have many people and friends in my pastoral situation (even though I am semi-retired). But, I am 61, 62 late in 2011. So I am not sure? That really however would not be the deciding factor, but my wife’s health, etc. However, if I were younger that would be a no brainer…Orthodoxy all the way!
I should note that I was asked (well over a year ago now) to consider the new Roman Anglican-Catholic rite. But, that was not really a lasting one & issue. I cannot follow the papal doctrines (that I grew up with, and followed as a boy and teen, and even a 20′s young man. My first degree was as a Roman Catholic, and a BA in philosophy).
I could be a layman personally, I like the idea of being more monastic like myself, though very happily married. Again, God’s time, will and providence! Oh to be in your shoes again!
December 28, 2010 at 10:44 am
@ Fr. Robert: Youth does have its benefits, but I think the decisions remain difficult. What you have that I do not have is a history and perspective. Sadly, one can only get that after making many, many decisions, both good and bad. I guess I will just embrace the journey.
I, too, cannot embrace many papal doctrines. There are things about Orthodoxy and Anglicanism that I like, but I am not sold out to either.
December 28, 2010 at 11:02 am
Brian,
Yes I learned long ago, that our choices are so very important! And indeed our Christian spirituality should always be central with our theological mind. We can, as you say.. only “embrace the journey”. And our God is always with us! But God is certainly, but mysteriously synergistic in His sovereignty! (Phil. 2:12-13)
December 28, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Hey Brian, I’m late chiming in, and really can’t add anything of academic uniqueness to this discussion (an interesting one already), but wanted to share my experience. I appreciate both the way we (Evangelicals) remember and celebrate Christmas, as well as those more orthodox — and I have plenty of criticism for both overly-ritualized liturgy and overly-spiritualized expository.
At the same time, there was something beautiful about the liturgy at the Christmas Mass (even though about 50% of the liturgy was not in my language). I enjoyed it. In ignorance (after reading the input of others), I even took communion. I took it on a universal level of sharing at the Lord’s Table with fellow believers and followers of Jesus, and on a personal level as one who was remembering the Lord’s Body. I didn’t think of all the requirements, professions of creeds, or even particular theologies (nor was this explained for us rookies). I have been at the Mass several times before and passed on participating, and this year I didn’t plan to — but when the time came, and after the readings of Scripture, I really desired to participate.
It was enjoyable. I left reflecting with my wife about what communion is all about. Thinking about the Story, and deeply grateful to God for the reality of the Incarnation.
When I say I appreciate liturgy, I guess I mean I appreciate reflective scripture reading, songs that echo the reading and teaching, the solemness and reverence at the moment. The cadence of this form of celebration is different, and it’s uniqueness was what was likely attractive.
That said, I am quite happy in my Protestant, even Evangelical ways. I appreciate the Evangelical’s intentionality of keeping the Gospel and Jesus at center focus, and continuing to find a relevant voice to the world around us. I also find the folksy, parable-speaking, law-breaking Jesus to have more in common with a church that camps out in the ashes of its city, rather than the stained glass of its fortresses. That’s not to take a cheap shot at those in the Orthodox tradition, as much as explaining why I am much more comfortable with non-Orthodox practices.
December 28, 2010 at 1:04 pm
@James: While I am sympathetic toward the type of Christianity with which you find comfort one of my reasons for still being a bit dissatisfied with evangelicalism, as is, would be that I don’t think it is as easy as what seems to be “rebel-against-the-establishment” language. Yes, Jesus stood against the religious establishment of his day, but this was not for the sake of doing so just to do so. He really saw YHWH’s judgment upon the corrupt leadership of Israel as somehow coming through his person.
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox hierarchy claim to be loyalist to Christ. Therefore, it is not as easy to see them as I think Luther tried to see them. They see themselves as being physical manifestations of the Kingdom that Christ established. The Apostles, though with less pomp and circumstance, saw themselves the same way. Christ’s government is more than just ideas, which is why I seek to be “catholic”. Christ’s government is the church.
Where I do side with you is in realizing, at least as I see it, that the Lord reigns through his Spirit first and foremost, and not the episcopate. While I respect the episcopate I do not think the the work of the Spirit is limited to it. Nor do I agree with Catholics and Orthodox that somehow the rest of us are hobbled Christians. While Catholic and Orthodox theology has a lot with which I can agree, I, like you, do see Christ as sometimes blurred behind what should be secondary issues, such as the nature of the Eucharist.
December 28, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Brian,
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The hierarchical, political power of the system is set-up for failing in the same way the groups that Jesus rebuked. The clergy/laity separation, holiness-from-afar and liturgy in unknown languages (though we can both relate with hearing “other tongues”) is only a few of the stumbling blocks for me. This is true of many Evangelical churches as well.
Without launching into a long Church History tangent, neither do I agree with “rebelling against the establishment for the sake of rebelling against the establishment.” And Jesus’ rebuke to the religious elite was more than just a symbolic parable of judgment upon the whole of Israel’s leadership.
I’m thankful for the Protestant Reformation, as well as for the many Ecumenical movements and “coming together.” The Church (with the Capital “C”) is neither “Catholic” nor “Protestant.” It is all of those who are called by His most Holy name.
But, yes, you spoke my heart well when you said: “… I do see Christ as sometimes blurred behind what should be secondary issues, such as the nature of the Eucharist.”
The Not Very Reverend,
Rev. James
December 28, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Brian,
“Hobbled Christians”, wow.. this seems to be indeed what has become of Western Christianity! Even the best of the Reformation/Reformed does not seem to be of “Catholic” heart & mind? I love the Reformers! But I don’t see their “spirit” in the Western Church per say. And the “Eucharist” can never be a secondary issue! Indeed the Church has been hit hard by postmodernity! As an Anglican I morn for the Western Church! Look at Great Britain, and Islam seems to be in the ascendancy! Over-reaction? I hope so, but I think not! Sorry for all the exclamation marks.
Just real sadness when I look at the West, and my own homeland.
December 28, 2010 at 1:52 pm
@James: I tend to agree that absolute power absolutely corrupts, but again, I think it is more nuanced than that. For instance, if I would have been a Christian in first century Corinth who denied what seemed to be the “absolute” apostolic authority of the Apostle Paul, I would have been in the wrong (in my opinion). So while I agree that Rome has made major mistakes (like the example you used of a Latin Mass), I don’t want to seem like my disagreement with the Papacy is simply because I am worried about one person having too much power. It has more to do with that I do not see the See of Rome as necessitating the authority it claims, which even the Orthodox would agree.
Also, to be fair to both Catholics and Orthodox, I don’t think either affirms hierarchy for the mere sake of hierarchy. Both see it as the necessary evolution of apostles to bishops merely being continued today. That seems to be the weakest link in my own ecclesiology, because while I affirm, with you, that the true church may very well be the invisible church (i.e. “those called by his name”) I think early bishops like Polycarp and/or Ignatius were rightful successors of the governmental authority of the early church. I guess, thus far, I have avoided episcopal authority on the basis that I see bishops, like apostles, as necessary for a stage in the life of the church, but not for all times and all places, per se. I assume any Catholic and/or Orthodox theologian worth their salt could pick me a part on this subject though.
@ Fr. Robert: What would see as being the “spirit” of the Reformers? What would that look like today?
December 28, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Denying Paul’s authority would have been an error. Then again, Paul went to great pains of establishing his legitimacy, and stooping so low as to make his case to the “commoner” on multiple occasions. His apostleship was built on humility. Nor did Paul make himself the ‘head of the church’ or the ‘sole authority’ (Acts 15, for example).
Regarding episcopal authority, or even church leadership, I definitely think some of the terms for “bishop,” “overseer,” and “shepherd” were interchangeable and hard to distinguish in the Text. The historical evidence, preserved for us by the RCC and outsiders, shows a congruent organizing, and less local church autonomy, but I’m not sure that’s what was intended.
Anyhow. Enjoyed our discussion and the comments here. Had to chime in since, ironically, I actually participated in the Eucharist at the Mass.
December 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Fr. Robert,
Why is the Eucharist itself (which, as you know, was a shared meal centered on remembering) to be exalted above Jesus himself, or even to be brought to the same level of importance?
Also, what do you see as the “spirit of the Reformers?” vs. the spirit of today’s “Spirit of the Western Church?” And even though the earlier reformers, and later Protestant leaders have a larger gulf of commonality, why should we conclude that the continuing direction is/was wrong?
And finally, is post-modernism inherently a bad thing — or even more inferior to other historical moods?
December 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm
@James: True, Paul was very humble for being an apostle. And I think your statement about the “head of the church” would jive well with Protestants and even Orthodox who see the Bishop of Rome as claiming too much power.
December 28, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Brian,
As the FV people see the loss of the “Church Catholic” and the sacramental life therein. Calvin certainly tried, note his last section in his last form of the Institutes, “CH. XX Means of Grace: Holy Catholic Church”. This has always been one of the weakness of the Reformed Church, i.e. the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and the visible nature of the Church.
December 28, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Brian, I haven’t read ALL the comments but i certainly know how you fee. as a former anglican I find myself longing to return to the more liturgical tradition. Fortunately our church sits in between the two and would be more than happy to follow the lectionary and church seasons. Having said that I often find churches that try to be catholic (that are not) kind of cheapen the whole thing (does that make sense?)
Whenever i return from my yearly retreat with the Jesuits I find myself longing to become a monastic…but I’d REALLY miss my wife and the kids!
December 28, 2010 at 2:28 pm
@ Fr. Robert: I agree that the lack of a “visible church”, and the minimization of the sacraments, is not positive. I am not sure what the answer to this is.
Also, James had some good questions for you that I think you missed. Scroll up a few comments.
@Mark: True, it does seem that semi-Catholicism is an attempt to have the best of both worlds without obtaining either! I don’t think you should become a monastic for two more reasons that your wife and kids: (1) your caffeine addiction would have to go and (2) I don’t think you can blog from a monastery.
December 28, 2010 at 2:48 pm
@James,
First, your theology and doctrine of the Eucharist is defective already, as your said questions. The Eucharist is itself the very presence of Christ Risen! (Lk. 24: 30-31) So we cannot play the Eucharist against Christ, when HE is the very presence of and in it. And as to the Reformers and the Reformation, the constant weakness is the lack of the visible Church Catholic. And this continues unto this day!
AS to postmodernity, this easily speaks to itself and what it has produced, not the value of Bibilcal tradition, nor the Biblical theology and apostolic life and spiritual witness.
December 28, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Thank you, Fr. Robert, for responding.
What point were you intending on making with the Luke 24:30-31 citation? Very much literally, in this part of Luke’s account, Jesus was present with them. I can’t quite connect the dots between that account, and a dogmatically-announced proposition that when remembering the Lord with the communion meal Jesus is literally present, in the sense that the Eucharist, is in fact the Risen Christ himself (rather than Christ’s presence experienced during this remembering).
There’s much I don’t know, and you’ve stated my view of the Eucharist is defective, but I don’t see enough evidence to believe otherwise — even though I admit that it could be. Christian Communion (meal sharing) is a beautiful experience and part of both our tradition and way of living. To exalt beyond that I simply find going beyond what is there. For me, it’s a simple matter of semantics and preference. But obviously for others, it’s a matter of grave heresy.
Are the sacraments not pointing to Christ, rather than literally Christ himself? Are not all means of worship pointing to Christ rather than Christ? Isn’t the continuity of “remembering” one that reaches back into antiquity, and something any Jew would be familiar with?
Regarding the lack of a visible church, I’m not sure who this frustrates more — us or Jesus. The Church is not an invisible ekklessia, we are visible by the three ways shown in John’s Gospel: love one for another, abiding in His Word and producing good fruit (works). The Church as an LLC, official organ, etc is not as important as a more transcendent Church. That goes without saying that I’m often perplexed and grieved that there are so many divisions among the Body on so many issues. Some profess the need for ecumenicism, but only on their narrow terms — which doesn’t so much speak for unity.
On the contrary, I’ve found post-moderism to be a valuable vehicle to help spread the Good News. Despite the nemesis of Pluralism, the openness to The Story is as ripe as ever — and the organic Church even has a natural relationship to the communal, earthy, social-justice loving secularist today. I think if we look at other historical moods, we can find both positive and negatives in each. I think post-modernism has been made a larger target than it need be. Sure, this generation may not be the most loyal to tradition, but it certainly has a desire to be loyal to the teachings of Jesus. I value history, and am not ignorant enough to think my own ideas are not shaped in so many different ways by historical tradition. But once again, history is a reality that should point us to Jesus, and not the Christ himself.
If you could, please help me understand more on the topic of why my view of the Eucharist is defunct. I am sincerely curious. I understand the differences in groups that hold to it as exclusively symbolism, some literally Christ and then many opinions in the middle. Why is this a theological hill worth dying on?
Blessings,
James
December 28, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I’d have to agree with James here. I do not see Lk. 24.30-31 as a valid proof text for the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Jesus is holding the elements. This passages leans more toward Reformed readings. Even a Zwiglian reading makes more sense of it.
That said, I will add that I do think Christ is present pneumatologically in the sacrament. The elements are not he, but he is there in the Spirit.
I’d agree with James on postmodernism as well, but my thoughts on how postmodernity can be valued are already well established and not worth repeating here.
December 28, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Brian, @James
Not to see the Eucharistic doctrine in Lk. 24:30-31, would be to miss the Risen Body and Presence of Christ…for the Lord is “known” most perfectly “in the breaking of bread”. This may be proleptic somewhat (as to their..the Apostles Doctrine Acts 2:42), but it is certainly Post-Resurrection. The whole doctrine and study of the Eucharist certainly reveals both the Death & Resurrection of Christ, (1 Cor. 11:26).
December 28, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Brian, HAHAHA, but the monestry/retreat centre I visit has internet, TV, Coffee and is one of this states best and oldest wineries….(not that I really drink wine)
December 28, 2010 at 5:04 pm
When I was a Benedictine (years ago), we had two meals a day, and one on Sunday. But after my first tour with the Royal Marines, it was nothing! Then later I went back with the RMC’s. God kept me thru it all!
December 28, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Fr Robert> As I said, Metropolitan Kallistos describes what is nearly the universal practice in the West (and some places in the East) — and which you yourself experienced, as did Bobby. In many places, this is neither the exception not a concession, but the way things are normally done. Now, whether this practice is correct or desirable from an Orthodox point of view is up for debate, but I thought I’d mention the strict practice simply because people tend to visit Orthodox Churches with certain expectations which they have picked up from a variety of sources, and I’d hate to see anyone hurt or offended because they were not offered the antidoron!
(I still recall how a friend of mine, upon visiting an Orthodox Church, had decided that the empty throne to the side of the iconostasis had to be an “empty chair” for the invisible but present Christ. She was shocked and horrified to learn that it was, in fact, the Bishop’s throne — how a could a mere man sit on Christ’s seat? It took her a while to realize that the source of her shock was that the reality did not meet her expectations.)
Brian> The “greatest downside” would be twofold: being severed from the visible Church, and not believing and confessing the fullness of the Christian faith. Christ has established One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and this Church is visible; therefore, one must be joined to it. Likewise, the fullness of the Christian faith has been once for all revealed to the saints; therefore, one must believe it whole. From the vantage point of “eschatology,” you will find that the standard Orthodox response is one of agnosticism regarding those who are outside the visible boundaries of the Church. God will have mercy on whom will have mercy, and certainly no one (living or dead!) is beyond his reach. But since this lies within secret counsel of God, it is better in the end not to speculate about his work beyond the boundaries of the Church.
There is a fine book that addresses this question with remarkable acumen and sensitivity, and yet from an uncompromisingly traditional Orthodox point of view: The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church, by Patrick Barnes. While the book is now sadly out of print, the author has made it available online here.
December 29, 2010 at 8:09 am
Esteban,
It has been several years for me, since I have been in close fellowship with the Orthodox. Though I have some close personal friends that are Orthodox. So I know that Orthodoxy again is ethnic, and it just depends upon where one might be at. The British and American Orthodox can be a bit more open, but again, this depends upon the group, etc. As I have said, I have had my own rather rough experience is certain Orthodox, but this was their own theological belief and practice. Just as any other non-Orthodox Church in which one might experience (note some of the conservative Reformed). So this really does not affect my deep respect and love for the fulness of the Orthodox Church. Since I am an Anglican, and have had some close relationship with some Orthodox, I am I hope always true and positive to my best experience therein.
Only time and God’s good providence will show me my way personally.
December 29, 2010 at 8:30 am
@Esteban: Thanks for providing the insight.
@ Fr. Robert: I am not saying this or that about the Eucharist, but simply that Lk. 24.30-31, written post-resurrection, does nothing to indicate that the elements in Christ’s hands were considered to be literally his actual body and blood.
December 29, 2010 at 9:14 am
Brian,
I just quoted Lk. 24:30-31, since it has obvious “Eucharistic” overtones, and is in the Post-Resurrection. To gain the fulness of the Eucharistic Theology, one must look at both the Holy Scripture and the early history of the Church. Here Orthodox theology shines well in my opinion! Check out their teaching on the subject.
December 29, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Perhaps instead of Luke 24:30-31 you might try John 6:
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52* The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
Or, as referenced the other day:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the [*body and blood of the Lord*]. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without [*discerning the body*], eat and drink judgment against themselves. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
(1 Corinthians 11:27 -30)
Peace,
John
December 29, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Indeed John 6 is so profound in Eucharist Theology! Certainly this chapter parallels the Passover and Exodus story also. This might be the most spiritual and mystical connection to the Holy Eucharist in Scripture! And from the voice of Christ Himself!
December 29, 2010 at 8:27 pm
As with Lk 24 it doesn’t seem to me that Jn 6 or 1 Cor 11 necessitate a literal reading any more than Jesus saying if your right hand offends you it should be cut off from the body. It could be read that way, but there are many sayings of our Lord that could be read in a wooden fashion, like the cutting off of one’s hand, that ought not be wooden.
Pingback: The Apostle’s Creed: The Minimum for Christian Fellowship? « Near Emmaus
December 30, 2010 at 11:00 am
Hello Brian,
I suppose you could look at it that way, but on the other hand:
59* This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caperna-um. 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61* But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62* Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63* It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64* But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65* And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68* Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
Peace,
John
December 30, 2010 at 11:02 am
@John: I am not sure how the rest of the narrative demands something like transubstatiation. Can you explain?
December 30, 2010 at 11:21 am
John 6:6O-61 is the issue! “Does this offend you?” Certainly our Lord’s words are “spirit and life”, but the “sacramental” eating and drinking is demanded of the Lord (53-56, etc.), herein is “belief”. And it is certainly much more than metaphorical meaning!
December 30, 2010 at 11:40 am
@ Fr. Robert: I can see where Jesus would have used this strong language in order to determine who was offended. It would appear that the purpose of such a test is not to see if people are taken back by some form of cannibalism, but rather to see if true followers would continue to follow Christ even when they don’t understand him or he says some things in parables and metaphors designed to expel the crowd while retaining the pure hearted.
December 30, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Brian,
This was certainly part of it, and in John’s Gospel are “the signs” (John 2:23) and spiritual reality. And this chapter.. John 6, we simply cannot get around the Eucharistic “sign”. But, here also the sign leads us also into the real spiritual and certainly “sacramental” life of Christ. The “feeding” upon the flesh and blood of Christ, certainly comes thru accepting and feeding upon the dogma of the incarnation. But, with the “Fathers”, it seems the literal is the most spiritual in John 6. See, if you have access, Cyril of Alexandria’s writings on John 6. And note too John’s Gospel is the great Christological Gospel; the Spiritual Gospel!