The president of the Lutheran World Federation, Bishop Munib Younan has said before meeting Pope Benedict XVI that their churches should issue a common statement on Holy Communion to mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation that Martin Luther began in 1517.
“Our [the Lutheran federation’s] intention is to arrive at 2017 with a common Roman Catholic-Lutheran declaration on eucharistic hospitality,” Younan told the Italian Protestant news agency NEV the day before his December 16 audience with the Pope.
Umm..yes..well…that is not going to happen. “Eucharistic hospitality” aka full communion is the last and final step indicating complete union of two churches, not the first.
What is interesting is that Lutherans hold a view of eucharistic presence in some ways less ambiguous than Anglicans, and closer to Rome. (I presided once at a Lutheran seminary and was told not to use ‘feed on him in your hearts by faith…’). But the LWF also represents Lutherans worldwide who embrace what the Roman church would not countenance on other matters. So one wonders what is realistically being proposed here.
Add to the above that Lutheran bishops are not in apostolic succession (even “invalid, null-and-void” apostolic succession) and the chances of intercommunion become even more of a long-shot.
Well, of course, there could be a “Lutheran Ordinariate” by 2017 in which Lutheran priests are ordained in the Catholic Church and Catholics could then receive communion which they had consecrated. But somehow I don’t think that’s what the good Bishop had in mind. 🙂
I can’t think of an area in which Christianity is more divided than at the Lord’s Table.
Eucharistic hospitality. What a tantalizing phrase! Could it happen?
For Bp Younan to have come out and said this publicly before their meeting, put the Bishop of Rome in an awkward position of Rome’s own making. Kein Weg, mein Herr! Note in the full article that the Bp of Rome made no comment on the proposal after their meeting.
When Rome speaks of “full unity among Christians,” does Rome mean anything other than unqualified submission to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and the dogma and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church?
“unqualified submission to the authority of the Bishop of Rome”
This is ridiculous. The Catholic Church doesn’t require “unqualified submission” to the pope from Catholics. How can we have actual dialog with this kind of (ignorance? attitude?).
This is simply impossible from a Catholic standpoint I would think. Communion for Catholics is not just Communion with God but Common Union with other believers as well. Unless The LWF is willing to drop all its other serious doctrinal disputes with Rome, then no Common Union can be countenanced from a Catholic standpoint because it wouldn’t actually exist on any level other than some “Kumbaya, let’s pretend we’re all the same under our robes” kind of thinking.
I don’t know what you mean by “unqualified submission” but certainly:
1. Catholics will not receive communion that has been consecrated by someone that they do not believe is validly ordained, meaning (minimally) ordained by a bishop in the line of Apostolic Succession. Even that would be insufficient if the parties involved had been ex-communicated from the Church and stripped of their priestly/episcopal powers.
2. Catholics will ask other Christians who do not share the “dogma and doctrine” of the Catholic Church to refrain from receiving communion consecrated by a Catholic priest.
Now why are these offensive concepts? Communion is not “coffee and doughnuts” after Mass.
The Pope is not telling this Lutheran bishop that he has to “submit” to anything. The bishop is telling the Pope that by 2017 Lutherans and Catholics should be receiving communion together.
BTW, someone who was **baptized** in the Catholic Church cannot just walk in one day and start receiving communion. My youngest son will be making his First Communion this spring. He is expected to study for one year beforehand. He must then make his First Reconciliation (confession) before receiving communion. And all of this is in the expectation and hope that he will be confirmed a few years later.
So a Lutheran who had never studied Catholic doctrine, who had never gone to confession nor had any intention of doing so, who was not going to be confirmed or received into the Catholic Church could walk into a Catholic Church in 2017 and start receiving communion while someone baptized into the Catholic Church in the same situation as the Lutheran could not? I don’t think the bishop understand what the rules are for **Catholics** much less for non-Catholics.
#5 Ralph
[blockquote]Eucharistic hospitality. What a tantalizing phrase! Could it happen?[/blockquote]
Absolutely:
[blockquote] Church of England Canon B15A
1. There shall be admitted to the Holy Communion:
(a) members of the Church of England who have been confirmed in accordance with the rites of that Church or who are ready and desirous of being so confirmed or who have been otherwise episcopally confirmed with unction or with the laying on of hands except as provided by the next following Canon;
(b) baptised persons who are communicant members of other Churches which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own Church;
(c) any other persons authorized to be admitted under regulations of the General Synod; and
(d) any baptised person in immediate danger of death.[/blockquote]
Yes, Pageantmaster! Anglicanism does indeed offer Eucharistic hospitality to other Christians! (I think that’s one of the better things that we’ve done.) Kudos to Bishop Munib Younan for raising the issue with Rome!
#6, please forgive my ignorance. In stating, “The Catholic Church doesn’t require ‘unqualified submission’ to the pope from Catholics,” do you mean to imply that an individual in Anglican or Lutheran Holy Orders could cross over to the Roman Catholic Church and be in Holy Orders without submitting to the authority of the Bishop of Rome? I certainly have Roman Catholic friends (laity) who do not at all agree with Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine on a variety of issues, yet they consider themselves faithful Christians who DO go to Mass, and who DO receive communion.
#8, Communion is wine and bread DURING Mass. A sharing in fellowship of the blood and body of OUR Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Latin: “communio.” Greek: koinonia. I personally have never met an Anglican who thinks for a moment that communion is anything like “‘coffee and doughnuts’ after Mass.” And, to imply that my Bishop and my parish priest (Episcopal Church) are not in Holy Orders – well…you’re entitled to your opinion of that.
Anglicanism, as pointed out by #10, does not express animosity (I dare not say “hatred”) towards other Christians by denying them fellowship and common sharing at Christ’s Holy Table.
I’ll end by stating that I stand by my utterly ridiculous opinion that Christianity is nowhere more divided than at the Lord’s Table, and by adding my utterly ridiculous opinion that this is a shameful state of affairs!
A blessed Advent 4, and Christ’s Mass to all.
Ralph — I didn’t mean to imply that Anglicans (or anybody else) thought that Communion was “coffee and doughnuts after Mass.” I made the comment to distinguish between the kind of “unqualified” Christian fellowship which admits everyone (coffee and doughnuts) and a specific sacramental communion which has very strict requirements for CATHOLICS THEMSELVES to be admitted to.
Lets forget every single other thing and just look at the confession thing alone. If you haven’t gone to confession, you can’t receive communion. Wouldn’t that rule out 99.9% of Protestants right there? And if you haven’t studied in an “official” program for the designated period of time, you can’t begin receiving communion. So that rules out everybody else who has taken some kind of Catholic instruction. How could it be that the Catholic Church would admit Protestants who have not met these requirements to communion while barring Catholics??
I get that the Church of England does not recquire either confession or having gone through a period of study. (The requirement above would seem to require a period of study for members of the Church of England but not for anybody else! So a Baptist in “good standing” could come in and receive communion in an Anglican Church notwithstnding their understanding of that sacrament.)
“hasn’t” taken some kind of instruction
Ralph,
Christians give “unqualified” submission to Christ. “Submission” (what does that mean, exactly? Is that the best word?) to the Bishop of Rome would be qualified… by the content of divine revelation… by Christ… by the doctrine of the Catholic Church… by the fact that one’s actual ordinary is not the Bishop of Rome… by Canon Law… by a myriad of things, all of which “qualify” the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
The classical Protestant “meme” of a papal tyrant who can command irrationally without respect to the content of the Faith is really tiresome.
#12 Catholic Mom
[blockquote]I get that the Church of England does not recquire either confession or having gone through a period of study.[/blockquote]
Well, actually, confession of our sins is an important part of preparation for Communion in the Church of England under both our 1662 service and the more modernised Common Worship liturgies and is followed by absolution from the priest prior to the celebration of the eucharist.
We welcome with joy all communicant Christians from Trinitarian churches to CofE communion services, as we hope in the future to share with one another with joy in the Lord’s table in glory, and should you wish to do so Catholic Mom, Drew Na and others, you are most welcome to join us at the place we should be, at the feet of our Lord and sharing together at His table as He has instructed us to do.
Since Roman Catholics must submit their reason to the magisterium , I tend to agree with Ralph and conclude that this results in unqualified submission to Rome.
Catholic mom, am I correct in assuming that you are able to take the Eucharist at an Orthodox Church?
I cannot imagine the Catholic Church agreeing to intercommunion with the Lutheran Churches, if for no other reason than the simple fact that the Catholic Church does not recognize the Lutheran Churches precisely as particular “Churches.” In the judgment of the Catholic Church, the ecclesial communities of the Reformation “have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery” and therefore “are not Churches in the proper sense” (Dominus Iesus). I seriously doubt that many Lutheran pastors would agree to be (re-)ordained to the Presbyterate in order to render their Orders valid in the eyes of the Catholic Magisterium, and in the absence of such ordination, the Catholic Church is not going to permit its members to receive Communion in Lutheran parishes.
This is so silly that I am somewhat surprised it has garnered 16 comments. Rome does not do “Eucharistic hospitality.” For them (like the Orthodox) communion is not merely a feel good sacrament or sign of fellowship. It is the sacramental reception of the actual Body & Blood of Jesus Christ. It is also a sign of full agreement on all defined matters of faith and doctrine. Since the decrees of Vatican I are regarded as dogmatic, and said decrees proclaimed both the infallibility of the Pope and his Universal Jurisdiction over the entire church, I would say that it does indeed imply the necessity of full submission to Rome.
And then their is the problem that Rome does not recognize Lutheran sacraments and orders excepting baptism and marriage. And for their part Lutherans (unlike Anglicans) have never even made the claim to Apostolic Succession.
Here’s the bottom line. If you want to take communion in a Catholic Church, you need to be Catholic. This is a non-starter.
I see the usual know it alls have turned up to tell us what the Catholic church believes, even when they are not part of it. The bishop is making a call for eucharistic welcome, and encouraging others to take up that call; it is up to them whether they wish to or not, and one of the things they would have to do in taking up that call is to forgo their use of the Lord’s supper as a mechanism of control, but that is of course a matter for them, but it is not a “silly” suggestion.
Re # 19
Pageantmaster
[blockquote] I see the usual know it alls have turned up to tell us what the Catholic church believes, even when they are not part of it.[/blockquote]
I am a former Catholic. But my affiliation is neither here nor there. If I have erred in anything I wrote kindly point it out.
[blockquote]…and one of the things they would have to do in taking up that call is to forgo their use of the Lord’s supper as a mechanism of control…[/blockquote]
Translation: The only thing that needs to happen for this to work is for Rome to become Protestant.
Re: #19,
Catholic Mom is a Catholic; so is Fr. Kimel; and so am I. I think we know what we are talking about — and Fr. Kimel is right (as is John ad Orientem).
Justin Martyr’s question:
“Catholic mom, am I correct in assuming that you are able to take the Eucharist at an Orthodox Church?”
contains an ambiguity. The Catholic Church does not necessarily object to Catholics receiving the Eucharist in an Orthodox church (or, analogously, in a Polish National Catholic parish) if true necessity requires it and if scandal (“indifferentism”) is not given thereby, but it can hardly be said to encourage it, especially as the Orthodox strictly forbid any and all non-Orthodox to receive or be given communion in Orthodox churches, and it would thus be extremely offensive for Catholics to present themselves for communion in any Orthodox church (as well as embarassing, for if they were asked “are you Orthodox?” and replied “no, Catholic” they would be refused communion and turned away from the chalice than and there).
Re: #19
Well, I am Catholic and while I may not be infallible in my knowledge of things Catholic, I feel pretty confident about the opinion I have expressed above. One can marshall a lot of evidence to support the belief that the Catholic Church will never allow its members to receive communion in Churches that, in its eyes, lack a validly ordained Episcopate. One can marshall next to no evidence to support the other possibility.
Simply consider the cases of Episcopal priests who have been ordained in the Catholic Church via the Pastoral Provision: they have all been ordained absolutely and unconditionally, even though many of us can point to the “Dutch Touch” at some point in our Anglican ordination pedigree. The Catholic Church simply will not tolerate sacramental “uncertainty” on this point. If Anglican priests must be ordained unconditionally before they can be permitted to celebrate the Catholic Mass, on what basis can anyone entertain the possibility that the Catholic Church will recognize both the validity of the ordinations of Lutheran pastors and the validity of the Eucharists at which they preside?
And please remember: the Catholic Church does recognize the validity of Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox ordinations. It’s not just a matter of “control.”
I think we may be losing the bigger picture here. Bishop Mounan was proposing a great and generous gesture to mark the 500th anniversary of the Lutheran protest. That specific proposal seems overly ambitious and impossible to accomplish within the span of six short years.
Yet our churches should begin thinking and working towards some great gesture that shows to the wider unbelieving, cynical world that Protestants and Catholics are prepared to overcome our unhappy divisions, with a frank recognition on both sides that neither of us has been without fault in the past. In the particular case of Roman Catholicism and conservative Lutheranism (e.g., traditional Swedish Lutheranism of the past), the differences between our churches are not entirely irreconciliable.
To #14:
[b]The classical Protestant “meme†of a papal tyrant who can command irrationally without respect to the content of the Faith is really tiresome.[/b]
Oh really? … So the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is expressly found in the revelation contained in Sacred Scripture? It is clearly and generally found in the patristic writings of the Church’s first millenium? It’s reasonable to hold that Mary was both without sin and also in need of redemption from sin? It was not tyrrany for the Pope to insist in 1954 that Roman Catholics must believe in the Immaculate Conception with the same degree of faith (as [b]doctrina de fide[/b]) that they believe in the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, or the Resurrection — evidently just because the Pope said so?
To tyrannize and terrify consiciences is the worst kind of tyrrany.
I think this thread shows a deep divide and misunderstanding about the very nature of Catholicism. This bishop’s suggestion is not just a “generous proposal” that may take more than a few short years to implement. In fact virtually NONE of the barriers that stand between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church exist between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and there is still not inter-communion because both the Orthodox and the Catholics understand intercommunion to mean corporate union. If intercommunion with anybody does occur during my lifetime (and it probably won’t) it will be with the Orthodox. If it ever happens with the Lutherans, the Catholic Church, by definition, will have ceased to exist. Or the Lutherans will have become Catholic. This is such a fundamental basic concept of Catholicism that it is just painful to see that folks like the bishop don’t grasp it.
#2 AO
[blockquote]I am a former Catholic. But my affiliation is neither here nor there.[/blockquote]
Well, that certainly got your attention.
[blockquote]Translation: The only thing that needs to happen for this to work is for Rome to become Protestant.[/blockquote]
No, but it would require some reflection, and reform.
#21 Fr Kimel
[blockquote]…on what basis can anyone entertain the possibility that the Catholic Church will recognize both the validity of the ordinations of Lutheran pastors and the validity of the Eucharists at which they preside? [/blockquote]
Well, one could start with Holy Scripture, Luke 22:19; and 1 Corinthians 11:23-24, if that isn’t too ‘protestant’ of me.
[blockquote] It’s reasonable to hold that Mary was both without sin and also in need of redemption from sin? [/blockquote]
Mary was without sin because God redeemed her from sin from the moment of her conception. But lets not go down this road.
Not that it matters terribly much but the teaching of at least the COE concerning who may canonically receive the eucharist was formally more or less identical to that of the Catholic Church until the early 70s.
Don’t the Lutherans permit lay eucharistic presidency in some circumstances?
#25: I appreciate the sincerity and thoughtfulness of your contributions.
However, too often Roman Catholics conceive of the aim of ecumenical dialogue as the institutional absorption of sister churches into the Roman Catholic Church. For them, their church is the only “one and true Church.” This is why, for example, when Roman Catholics become disaffected and alienated from their church, they cannot move to other communities of faith closer in doctrine to the positions they themselves hold in conscience. To the dismay of Roman Catholics and to the frustration of Protestants, these disaffected people insist on calling themselves “Roman Catholic” when they have obviously become something else … Episcopal, Unitarian, pagan, what have you.
Is it possible that Roman Catholics could ever conceive of cooperation with other churches, respecting their differences and without intending to annex them? If not, then ecumenical dialogue is really intellectually dishonest and pointless.
You also said …
[b]Mary was without sin because God redeemed her from sin from the moment of her conception. But lets not go down this road. [/b]
Because it’s so important as an outstanding example of papal tyrrany over individual conscience, let’s do. Obviously, it’s contrary to reason and plain sense to speak of the Virgin Mary as without original or actual sin throughout her entire personal existence (“from the instant of her conception”) and yet still needing redemption as a sinful human being.
#24: “Well, one could start with Holy Scripture, Luke 22:19; and 1 Corinthians 11:23-24, if that isn’t too ‘protestant’ of me.”
Actually, it’s very Episcopalian and inclusivist of you. But more to the point: Bishop Munib Younan knows as well as anyone that what he is proposing is a non-starter. It ain’t going to happen, because it contradicts deep Catholic convictions about the Church, Episcopacy, and sacramental validity. It’s silly for Protestants to expect either Catholics or Orthodox to surrender their ecclesiological convictions about what it means to be Church.
Lutherans do not believe that the historic Episcopate is constitutive of the visible Church. Catholics do. Lutherans do not believe that a valid Eucharist requires a celebrant who has been ordained by a bishop who has been ordained by a bishop in the historic succession. Catholics do. That’s all there is to it. You can quote Scripture till you are blue in the face. Catholics aren’t going to become Protestant just because you think you’re right about this. And the Catholic Church isn’t alone in this. The Orthodox aren’t going to budge either. Bishop Younan knows this. Why he has chosen this moment to ask the Catholic Church to do something he knows it cannot do is anybody’s guess.
Re # 29
Excellent post.
[blockquote] The Orthodox aren’t going to budge either. [/blockquote]
You can take that to the bank.
I wasn’t going to comment again, but since Pageantmaster is carrying on, and since the Elves haven’t started clawing at us yet, I just can’t hold back. I’ll have to bring that up (silently, of course) at the corporate confession on Sunday.
#14. Watch out for the word, “meme.†It was coined by Richard Dawkins, and it has a specific meaning. As for “papal tyrant,” was it an Anglican bishop who condemned Galileo for promoting heliocentrism, and who made his life a foretaste of hell? There are many, many more examples throughout history, and we all know that. I won’t tire you by going on.
To some others, I’d ask who is it who prayed, “I thank thee, my God, that I am not as other men are�
#21. There was never a need for the “Dutch Touch†in Anglicanism. And there still isn’t.
#22. The catechism of the Roman Catholic Church has more than a few teachings that are difficult to find in Holy Scripture or in the early patristic tradition. Scraping away at the barnacles of Scholasticism has been a difficult process from the time of Calvin onwards. #25 reminds us that for Rome, it’s My Way, or the Highway.
That being said, we hold MUCH MORE in common that we hold differently. That’s why Anglicans are also catholic.
Re # 28
jhp
[blockquote] Is it possible that Roman Catholics could ever conceive of cooperation with other churches, respecting their differences and without intending to annex them?[/blockquote]
That would depend on how you define “cooperation.”
[blockquote]If not, then ecumenical dialogue is really intellectually dishonest and pointless.[/blockquote]
That is a fairly profound observation on a really serious topic well worth some sober discussion. (Disclaimer: I am not a fan of what generally passes for “ecumenism” these days.)
Some of the above (for instance: “unqualified submission to the authority of the Bishop of Rome,” and “If you haven’t gone to confession, you can’t receive communion”) lacks generosity and seems blatantly polemical. The discussion so far doesn’t get to how RC teaching is administered locally. In some places this is permissive; in others, restrictive. In my own region the Episcopal Church diocese is conservative, and the RC diocese is liberal. The way the following RC canon is interpreted locally is what matters. And like in baseball, it ain’t a ball or a strike until the umpire says so. In this case, the Diocesan determines how the canon is applied.
“If the danger of death is present or other grave [b]necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop[/b] or the conference of bishops, [b]Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full Communion with the Catholic Church[/b], who cannot approach a minister of their own community [b]and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith[/b] in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 § 4).
One further comment. I saw John Paul II give communion to the prior of a Protestant monastery (It was on YouTube), and I believe he sent Cardinal Kasper to preside at the man’s Requiem Mass. But I would agree (however many pastoral exceptions have been extended), that there are many obstacles (especially concerning the episcopate, and orders in general) to overcome before we see Lutheran-Roman Catholic inter-communion.
#27. driver8
Excellent point! The LCMS certainly allows lay presidency at the Eucharist. Deacons are also allowed to preside. Our local LCMS parish has elders preside at the Eucharist once a year when their pastor is on retreat. Not sure about the ELCA in this reagard but then just about anything goes with them these days!
#28:
Fiddlesticks! The Catholic Church believes that the Church of Christ really does subsist in the Catholic Church. In other words, it doesn’t believe that it’s just one of many denominations. You may not like it, but that’s just the way it is.
During the past 40 years the Catholic Church has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to ecumenism, i.e., a commitment to the visible re-union of the Church–and it has maintained this commitment despite Protestantism’s abandonment of lingering commitments to catholic faith and order–but this commitment to ecumenism has never meant the abandonment of the Catholic Church’s self-understanding to be the Church in which the Church of Christ subsists. I suggest you carefully read Unitatis Redintegratio and Dominus Iesus. The Catholic Church is not a Protestant denomination, and it has not practiced ecumenism as a Protestant denomination.
So what is a denomination? Consider this analysis by George Weigel:
[quote]A denomination is something with no fixed form, but rather a structure that can be changed at will by its membership; the Catholic church has a form give to it by Christ, and that form involves certain truths (e.g., the sacraments) and certain structures (e.g., the office of bishop) that are not susceptible to change. That Christ-given ‘form’ stands in judgment on the local embodiment of the Church; the local Church doesn’t stand in judgment on it.
A denomination has other features that are, to put it gently, in tension with classic Catholic self-understandings. In a denomination, bureaucratic process is often more important than clear and binding doctrines. In a denomination, porous and shifting boundaries do not present serious problems because group-maintenance is the highest value and ‘being non-judgmental’ is crucial to keeping the group intact. In a denomination, effective moderation of the ongoing discussion about ‘who we are’ is the most sought-after quality in a leader. None of these attributes of the American denomination has very much to do with the Catholic church as it has understood itself for almost two millennia.[/quote]
The Catholic Church may, of course, be completely wrong in its understanding of what it means to be Church. But until it changes its mind and becomes a Protestant denomination, it is unreasonable to ask it to act as if it were a Protestant denomination. And that is exactly what the Lutheran bishop, and apparently some members of this forum, is asking it to do.
#29 Fr Kimel
Well unlike you I have never been an inclusivist Episcopalian, being a member of a real Anglican church and one who has never been tempted to disavow my church [or had I been ordained as well as confirmed to be as fickle to my promises as to deny that], but I think your dismissal of the words of Our Lord really rather rash, if not foolhardy. I would be rather more humble and fearful of dealing with what He has revealed to us, in preference to a more recent Catholic invention, dating all the way back to.. in some cases at least the last century.
I am not proposing that Catholics become Protestant, but there are real questions raised by the Bishop. Ordination issues aside, there are real questions about how a church can accept the baptism in water and spirit of a Christian in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet categorically deny them the Eucharist which Our Lord instructed us to observe, and I think you should perhaps engage with these points. No one expects “either Catholics or Orthodox to surrender their ecclesiological convictions about what it means to be Church”, but to engage with the issues of eucharistic welcome, and in particular to be willing to go back to the Bible texts to do so with at least equal weight to the recent pontifications of the Church, if not as I believe should be done, greater weight.
I also note the chimes of approval from #30 who also seems to think that he speaks for the Orthodox churches, as well as his former Catholic church – fortunately ecumenical discussion between our churches has the capacity and the charity to rise above the knee jerk reactions of former Anglicans on these blogs.
As I see it, the Bishop raises a serious issue, which is deserving of thoughtful engagement, discussing ecclesiological convictions by all means, but looking at whether in this context of reception of other Christians at Catholic communion, or vice versa, whether these are matters of true doctrine, or matters of institutional control and convenience.
Re # 37
Pagemaster
[blockquote] I also note the chimes of approval from #30 who also seems to think that he speaks for the Orthodox churches, as well as his former Catholic church[/blockquote]
Again you imply that I am misrepresenting the teachings of either or both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. And again I ask you to please be specific rather than just casting around general aspersions. Where am I making false statements regarding the teaching of either? I am not infallible and have been corrected in the past. If you think I am wrong than fine. But please back it up with some specifics.
On a side note I find it interesting that a Protestant is disputing a Roman Catholic priest and former Catholic and current Orthodox layman on the teaching of their respective churches. I must also take exception to your Ad Hominem attack on Fr. Kimmel’s character which I found frankly shocking. I gather in your worldview one is not permitted to recognize heresy and separate oneself from it.
#37 AO
[blockquote]I am not infallible and have been corrected in the past.[/blockquote]
Yes, I regularly read such comments here.
[blockquote]On a side note I find it interesting that a Protestant is disputing a Roman Catholic priest and former Catholic and current Orthodox layman[/blockquote]
Not sure I would refer to myself as a protestant, but I am a member of the catholic AND reformed Church of England and am very comfortable discussing and perhaps as you say disputing on what is an Anglican blog with anyone.
[blockquote]on the teaching of their respective churches [/blockquote]
Not actually the main thrust of my argument which has been on the issue of admission to the Eucharist in churches. You and Fr Kimel have raised what you claim is the ‘teaching’ of your churches, in reply to which I quoted the words Christ used, which have not been responded to.
[blockquote]I must also take exception to your Ad Hominem attack on Fr. Kimmel’s character which I found frankly shocking. I gather in your worldview one is not permitted to recognize heresy and separate oneself from it.[/blockquote]
Not at all, I was responding to Fr Kimel’s claim that I am an inclusivist Episcopalian, a church I have never belonged to. In my view people are free to join or leave churches as they feel God calling them, but sometimes in doing so they are, as I believe an Episcopalian and a priest are required to do, required to deny their former church and its sacraments. Not something I have done or would do, and not something which I criticise in others, who must have wrestled with doing this in a way I cannot imagine. Perhaps you had to do the same in becoming Orthodox. I have quite a bit of time for Fr Kimel.
#31: “There was never a need for the “Dutch Touch†in Anglicanism. And there still isn’t.”
You are absolutely correct, Ralph (though some Anglo-Catholics have felt differently). And there’s never been a need for the “Dutch Touch” in Lutheranism either. And that is exactly the point!
Let me reiterate: the Catholic Church believes that a validly ordained ministerial priesthood is constitutive of a valid Eucharist and thus of the Church. The evidence that the Catholic Church really believes this as a matter of doctrine and isn’t crossing its fingers is overwhelming. Consequently, the Catholic Church will never authorize its members to partake of a Eucharist that is not presided over by a validly ordained priest or bishop nor will it ever enter into sacramental communion with Churches that do not possess Holy Orders in the apostolic succession. If anyone has any evidence that contradicts me, please share it with the brethren.
Of course, if you can persuade the Catholic Church that Lutheranism (or Anglicanism or Methodism) does indeed possess valid Orders according to Catholic criteria, then all bets are off. Some Lutherans, for example, have argued that Lutheran Orders are valid through an unbroken line of presbyteral ordination; but this argument has persuaded neither the Catholic Church nor most Lutherans, from what I can gather.
Now if you wish to argue that a validly ordained priest/bishop is not necessary to a valid and true Eucharist, that is well and good. You are in good Protestant company; indeed, it is hard to find a Protestant theologian who would disagree with you. But that’s not what the Catholic Church believes … and it’s not what the Orthodox Church believes either (though Orthodoxy does not understand “sacramental validity” quite in the same way as the Catholic Church). I’m not arguing in this thread that the Catholic Church believes on this matter is correct. I’m just saying what it believes.
[i]I am not proposing that Catholics become Protestant, but there are real questions raised by the Bishop. Ordination issues aside, there are real questions about how a church can accept the baptism in water and spirit of a Christian in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and yet categorically deny them the Eucharist which Our Lord instructed us to observe, and I think you should perhaps engage with these points.[/i]
Pagentmaster, you make a profound point. Historically and Biblically one was baptised into the Church. Paul specifically states that it is baptism that makes us part of Christ’s Church. Augustine unequivocally recognizes the sacrament of baptism of all Christians. And yet the Roman Church denies the sacrament of the Eucharist because other Christians are not part of the Church.
We see also in the Gospels that Christ commands his disciples NOT TO FORBID those who practice the sacraments (healing) without authorisation of the Apostles.
Catholic mom, won’t you be honest and just come out and say it: you believe that Mary is without sin because your Church recently said so, and because you are to subject your reason to the Magisterium, NOT because the Bible or early church history states that this is the case.
If I am wrong, I’d love to hear otherwise.
#40: “Augustine unequivocally recognizes the sacrament of baptism of all Christians. And yet the Roman Church denies the sacrament of the Eucharist because other Christians are not part of the Church.”
This is inaccurate on both counts. First of all, while St Augustine did indeed recognize the validity of Holy Baptism outside the canonical bounds of the Catholic Church, he also denied the sacramental efficacy of schismatic Baptism. On this point the Catholic Church has qualified the position of Augustine, as it acknowledges both the validity and efficacy of Holy Baptism, properly administered, within the separated Churches. The Orthodox Churches, on the other hand, tend to follow the more rigorous Cyprianic position on this question. If you are a Protestant (or even a Catholic) seeking admission into the Orthodox Church, do not be surprised (depending on jurisdiction) if you are told you need to be baptized.
Second, the Catholic Church does not recognize the Eucharist of the Protestant Churches either because (a) the Protestant denomination in question does not possess a validly ordained ministerial priesthood, (b) the Protestant denomination in question does not hold a catholic understanding of the Eucharist, or (c) both of the above. On the other hand, the Catholic Church does recognize the Eucharist of both the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, despite the fact that they are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Without going off on a tangent, I will simply note that Blessed Augustine is commemorated in the Orthodox Church for his personal sanctity, not his theology. Fr. Kimel is correct. The Orthodox position is that there are no Mysteries outside the Church.
What is the positive value of Christians outside the Orthodox or Roman bodies, in terms of following Christ and making His mission the absolute priority: for themselves and the world needing His life?
St Paul states that:
1. We are all baptized into one Body.*
2. The Body is the Church.*
And I am to swallow the story that my baptism is valid but I am not part of the True Church? A little hard for me to submerge my reason on this one, sorry.
*
1.
(1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul) “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, whether we are bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
2.
(Ephesians 1:22-23) “the church, Which is his body,”
(Colossians 1:18) “he is the head of the body, the church:”
(Colossians 1:24) “the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church.”
Catholic Catechism
“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324
One small clarification to point out, Catholic Mom, regarding the confession-before-Eucharist point. That is not universally true. My children received all of the sacraments of initiation at their baptism/chrismation, and will continue to do so, even though they are not yet old enough to be canonically required to go to confession. This holds true for most of the Eastern Churches in union with Rome – you get all sacraments of initiation at the same time as babies/children. Also true for catachumens. I believe some Latin Churches also maintain the practice of having children receive Eucharist prior to Confession. FWIW – that’s the order I received them as a kid.
“The Church knows that she is [b]joined[/b] in many ways to the baptized”
Of course the bible says we Christians are not only “joined”, we [b]are[/b] the Church. A distinction that makes all the difference, don’t you think?
jhp,
Real tyranny is the tyranny of ignorance, specifically an ignorance that defines for other people what you think that they are–refusing to learn who they are and what they believe in their own words. Real tyranny is the tyranny that refuses to let others be who they are.
I have never met a Catholic whose “conscience was terrorized” into believing the immaculate conception. Your reduction of divine revelation to the canonical books may be popular in your historical milieu, but that milieu is not as broad as you suspect.
The idea that Roman Catholics “submit their reason to the magisterium” is also a hostile and bizarre phrasing, since it is precisely Catholicism (not classical Protestantism) that holds that faith and reason are compatible.
Classical protestantism holds that faith and reason are not compatible? Which Classical Protestant ™ argued that? What reasons did they give for their argument? 🙂
#49:
[b]I have never met a Catholic whose “conscience was terrorized†into believing the immaculate conception. Your reduction of divine revelation to the canonical books may be popular in your historical milieu, but that milieu is not as broad as you suspect.[/b]
To exact from believers the maximum degree of assent for doctrines that rest on the slenderest biblical and historical foundations is a very real abuse of the Church’s authority. Sacred Scripture must be the ultimate control over theological speculation and private revelation.
Maybe you’ve never met Catholics terrified not to believe in the Immaculate Conception because most of them don’t exactly know what it means (“isn’t that Jesus’ birth without a father?”); nor do many of them seem to know that they are required to believe it and they will be damned for not believing it (as [b]doctrina de fide[/b]).
Incidentally, I’ve lived for twenty years as a Roman Catholic and more than thirty years as an Anglican. During that time I received advanced graduate degrees from Roman Catholic universities and I taught in them at the graduate level. Believe me, friend, my knowledge of the Roman Catholic system is not just from reading.
[b]Corrigenda:[/b] In reviewing my original post above (#22), I notice three typos. First, the bishop’s name is Younin (not Mounan); the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854 (not 1954); in the last line, it’s “consciences” (not consicencies).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Gotta run out the door for a day of activities and didn’t even have time to read all these interesting comments but:
1. Of course I believe Mary was without sin because the Church teaches it and not because I have studied the Bible and come to the conclusion. I also believe that the Church does not teach anything which is in opposition to anything in scripture. But unlike Protestants I don’t believe that I have to re-hash 2,000 years of scholarship and theology to puzzle out the truth of every doctrine. When I have a medical problem, I don’t go to the library of the local medical school and start reading textbooks until I think I’ve figured out the problem. I go to a doctor. In this case the “doctor” (the teaching magisterium of the church) is not only learned, but guided by the Holy Spirit.
2. Still not sure why the comment about “going to confession” was “ungenerous.” Find me one single Catholic that you personally know who has never gone to confession. You won’t. Because you can’t even START receiving communion unti you do. So my 8 year old son cannot yet receive communion because he hasn’t completed his studies nor made his First Reconciliation, but a non-Catholic who had done neither could??
Re #51:
The Immaculate Conception is, I admit, a curious dogma and perhaps even a poor dogma. Dogmatic definitions should never be made unless they are necessary for the welfare and mission of the Church; but it’s difficult for me to understand why a definition on the Immaculate Conception was necessary in the mid-1800s. It’s not as if the Catholic Church was being wracked by Marian controversy at the time–quite the contrary. More seriously, it is a dogma that appears to be dependent upon a second millennium scholastic understanding of original sin, which makes it difficult for Eastern Orthodox Christians to understand and appropriate within their own living tradition of the sanctity and glorification of the Theotokos. A dogma that truly intends to be ecumenical needs to make sense in both the Eastern and Western traditions. But whereas Protestant Christians might reject the Immaculate Conception because they wish to declare the personal sinfulness of the Mother of God, this is not the case with Eastern Christians. Catholic and Orthodox are united in the confession that the Blessed Virgin lived without personal sin throughout the entirety of her life. I imagine that jhp would also dismiss the belief in the sinlessness of the Theotokos as also lacking sufficient biblical and historical foundation.
Jhp’s comment raises so many questions. How much biblical and historical foundation is necessary for a dogma of the faith? Are we talking about evidence that would persuade a group of “unbiased” historians? If so, one wonders how there could be any dogmas of the Church. Can historical reason prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth truly is the Incarnation of the second person of the Holy Trinity or that he was raised from the dead into a glorified existence on Eastern morning? Or if “beyond a reasonable doubt” is too demanding a standard, can one say that historical reason demonstrates that these two propositions enjoy a 50% or better probability of being true? But is 50% probability sufficient for a dogma? What about 35%? 20%? Are we willing to bind our consciences to a belief judged to be improbable by the historians? How many of us presently reading this thread base our faith on the “assured” results of historical research?
But Scripture is not just an historical authority; it is also a divine authority: “Sacred Scripture must be the ultimate control over theological speculation and private revelation.” The Church, in other words, must be able to demonstrate that her dogmas express that which is clearly and plainly taught in the written Word of God. But this principle in itself begs so many questions. On what basis do we believe that this collection of written texts are the written Word of God? How do we know how to read the Bible properly? How do we know when we have read the Bible properly? And finally, how do we know that everything the Church dogmatically teaches must be grounded in Scripture [b]alone[/b], as opposed, say, to the liturgical, iconographical, and ascetical tradition of the Church?
advocate — I think I’ve heard before that this is the practice of the Eastern Rite churches. But as far as I know it is NEVER the practice of the Latin Rite. However, I would venture to say that in both Rites once a child attains the “age of reason” i.e., has the capacity to sin, the confession must precede communion.
Perhaps a further clarification may be helpful about the discipline of communion and sacramental confession in the Catholic Church: sacramental confession before communion is only mandated when a mortal sin has been committed. Thus Canon 916:
[quote]Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; 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.[/quote]
I presume that the Eastern Code has a similar canon, though I do not know this to be in fact the case.
To #52 / #53 :
Thanks for your thoughtful, careful response.
I have no difficulty with believers who wish to believe things that are unbiblical, non-traditional, or frankly folkloric. I’m quite sure that the fabric of my own Christian faith is woven with many dubious threads.
I am frustrated b/c I don’t seem to be able to express to you clearly my principal objection aginst the RC doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it’s that this doctrine has been required to be believed by Roman Catholics [i]with the same quality and degree of assent[/i] as they believe doctrines clearly expressed in the Bible and obviously central to the Christian tradition from the earliest times (e.g., the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the Ascension).
[b]Believe it if you want, but don’t force people to believe things that are really quite speculative and marginal as though they were of greater truth than they are.[/b]
Fr Kimel, long ago Lessing reminded us about the ‘big ugly ditch’ dividing the truths of the spirit from the truths of history. I’m not looking for positivistic support from history for my Christian faith — nothing to be dug up in Israel will convince me that [i]he will come to judge the quick and the dead,[/i] for example. But coercing consciences to believe what is unbiblical and untraditional is papal tyrrany (the original point of departure for this thread (see #14)).
#54 Catholic Mom- Both historically and recently there have been varying disciplines within the Church regarding first reception of Holy Communion. The original practice was the reception of adult converts by Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation, and then reception of the Eucharist. This is still-or rather again- what is followed for the reception of unbaptized adult converts, usually at the Easter Vigil.
For the children of Catholic families, there have been a great number of different practices through the ages, including the delaying of baptism until they got through the years of temptation to sins of the flesh (see Augustine’s Confessions). Eastern rite churches follow an earlier practice, in which infants are received in the same way as unbaptized adults, by baptism, chrismation, and reception of the eucharist, which they they continue through infancy and childhood. They do start going to confession when they come to the age of reason. The Western Church put off communion until later and later ages, required confirmation first, then lowered the age to 7 and didn’t require confirmation first. Recently many Catholic children recieved first communion at 7 but didn’t receive first penance until ten or so. This depended on what diocese they lived in, and still does. There is a movement for “restored order” in which children recieve confirmation before their first communion. Penance is really not part of the sacraments of initiation. I do believe it is a good idea to get children used to it before too much embarrassment creeps in, which IS usually before they will have committed grave sin, but this is a pedagogical issue rather than a theological one.
Susan Peterson
Pageantmaster.
It should be noted that many sects which Anglicans have traditionally condemned as heterodox have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, the Arians not being the least of them. Such persons were received in some cases without re-baptism but not without Chrismation. (See Constantinople 1, canon 7). Their baptism wasn’t a basis for admittance to the table.
Second, your remarks seem to imply a rather compartmentalistic view of doctrine where such and so boxes can be kept pure and separated from the others. This is not the way either Scripture or the Fathers spoke of such things. A little leaven goes a long way.
Consequently, baptism into a confessing faith that confesses heterodox views, say Lutheran or Presbyterian from an Orthodox or Catholic viewpoint isn’t some neutral baseline, but is a microcosm of that confessional faith. And this is so because the latter bodies have a different ecclesiology, to some degree or another or even altogether, they view Lutherans, Presbyterians and Anglicans as outside the visible society of Christ, the Church. (The former bodies have historically made similar reciprocal claims.)
As for John (of Ad Orientem) his reactions are hardly knee jerk and are hardly typical of converts. Cradles in fact, even in the more lax jurisdictions such as my own (Greek) are just as vociferous, if not more so. What John expresses is not some convert need to feel superior and even if it were, it is an ad hominem without any demonstration on your part. His claims could be true regardless of whatever psychological defect he may suffer from.
On the other hand, the psychological road is a two way street. It is not uncommon for Episcopalians or Anglicans to feel some need of validation (quasi-pun) from the Orthodox and your remarks could be construed by some to walk in that direction. In any case, none of the ecumenical dialogs between Anglicans and Orthodox in the last thirty years has moved the ball. If anything, there’s been a rather big chill over such discussions. They’d sooner commune with a Copt than the CofE.
As for citing the words of Christ, those words are obviously understood by you within your own conceptual framework and so they do not advance your position over against the framework with which you disagree. That is, people of other traditions obviously do not interpret them in the way you are doing so merely expressing your implicit interpretation may have biographical import, but nothing in the way of argument.
I would like to know if anyone else sees the fact that Lutherans allow lay presidency of the Eucharist to be a serious obstacle to entering into full communion with Rome. How about WO? Coming to an agreement as to the nature of Holy Communion is one thing, however, Rome is not going to budge in these areas.
It is certainly traditional that the Theotokos is without sin. The fact that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism proclaim it in their worship is enough to show that. But the idea was expressed at least as early as Augustine. As Fr. Kimmel has said, the way the Catholic doctrine is expressed is in terms of the idea of original sin prevalent in the west, and this is a difficulty between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. But the vast majority of Christians in the world, far from having to have their consciences coerced to accept the sinlessness of the Mother of God, accept it with devotion and warm tenderness towards one they feel to be spiritually their own mother. That an angel called her ‘gratia plena’ is enough to convince hearts which already love her. There is no compulsion of conscience involved.
Of course TEC is in full communion with a body that permits lay eucharistic presidency namely ELCA, and another that permits diaconal presidency, namely the Moravian Church’s Northern Province.
Whether it’s reasonable to expect the See of Peter to be as “nuanced” with their own foundational commitments as TEC has apparently been with the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral will doubtless be a subject for future ecumenical reflection.
#56: “Believe it if you want, but don’t force people to believe things that are really quite speculative and marginal as though they were of greater truth than they are.”
And I have seen this argument made about each and every “catholic” belief that Protestants do not share. Take your pick–eucharistic real presence, eucharistic sacrifice, the constitutive role of the historic Episcopate in the Church, the male priesthood, the mediatorial role of the Theotokos, as well as her sinlessness and perpetual virginity, invocation of the saints, veneration of icons. Catholics and Orthodox alike believe that these beliefs are part of the revealed faith once delivered to the saints and therefore are not optional. Yet Protestant Christians tell us either that Scripture does not plainly teach them or that they are not essential, and they insist on the right to dissent from them. This thread became “interesting” because some (many? most?) on this forum vigorously object to the catholic belief that authentic Eucharist requires the presidency of a priest/bishop ordained in the apostolic succession. Heck if I can prove that belief to you on the basis of Holy Scripture alone, yet it’s a belief that Catholics and Orthodox alike believe to be divine revelation.
The real issue is whether the Church has the right and authority to dogmatize doctrines and insist that her members embrace them. The real question is whether you are willing to submit yourself to a specific doctrine (pick any of the above) on the basis of the testimony and authority of the Church.
You have used the used the word “tyranny” to describe the dogmatic status of the Immaculate Conception. You find it tyrannical that the Catholic Church requires of its members that they accept [i]de fide[/i] a doctrine which you personally deem lacking in biblical support and which you personally do not find essential.
The issue here, though, is not the Immaculate Conception. The issue here is dogma. The issue here is the authority of the Church.
Why don’t most Catholics find the papal dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception tyrannical? Because (a) they regularly invoke the Blessed Virgin in their prayers, (b) they believe that the Pope has been given divine authority to define doctrine, and (c) they believe that the God will not allow the Pope to lead the Church into grievous error by his solemn acts of dogmatic definition. Of course, if a person does not believe that the Pope has been given this authority by God, then he will find the ecclesial exercise of dogmatic authority to be tyrannical, abusive, and inappropriate, just as someone who does not believe the Scriptures to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God will find the doctrinal appeal to the Bible to be tyrannical, abusive, and inappropriate.
Several years ago I formulated Pontificator’s ninth law: “If a Catholic cannot name at least one article of faith that he believes solely on the basis of the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, he’s either a saint or a Protestant.” At some point, private judgment must give way to the authoritative teaching of the Church. If a person never reaches that point in his Christian faith, then he has simply created his own religion.
OK, once again $7.99 invested in the purchase of the Catechism of the Catholic Church pays off. Section 1457:
[blockquote] “According to the Church’s command, after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.” [/blockquote]
It then goes on the discuss not receiving communion while aware of having commited a mortal sin, but is this clearly above and beyond the requirement for an annual yearly confession of “serious sin.” If anybody out there gets through a year without serious sin, let me know so I can start buying futures in your eventual canonization.
However, the money quote is:
[blockquote] “Children **must** (my emphasis) go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.” [/blockquote]
I have never known it to be otherwise in the Latin Rite, notwithstanding the experience of those in the Eastern Rites. Certainly this is what it says in the catechism which, I note, has the Imprimi Potest of a certain “Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.” Therefore the notion than an ADULT would (under normal, as opposed to desparate circumstances) receive communion in the Catholic Church without every having gone to confession is simply a non-starter.
I’m sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought the question was whether sacramental confession was required before each communion. As CatholicMom has rightly pointed out, Catholics are required to make their confession at least once a year.
I was making a very simple point. An adult who had **never been to confession** would not be admitted to communion. A *child* is required to go to confession before receiving their First Communion and at least once yearly thereafter. How then could a busload of Lutherans who had never been to confession in their lives come into a Catholic Church and receive communion?
RE: “At some point, private judgment must give way to the authoritative teaching of the Church. If a person never reaches that point in his Christian faith, then he has simply created his own religion.”
Not at all. It is private judgement of course that allows an individual to choose to submit himself to the Roman Catholic church [by which I mean all entities in communion with the see of Rome] as the one true church — and thus to the “authoritative teaching of the Church [sic].”
That private judgement of course is no such thing as “creating his own religion” any more than the refusal of the Protestant to declare using his own private judgement that Rome is the one true church — that’s really a silly and rather over-dramatic thing to say, springing I’m guessing from the frustration that drives the hyperbolic rhetoric.
At the end of the day, the RC church’s belief about itself is the delineating factor between the two debates above.
As such, I’m bemused by various Protestants above being once again amazed and appalled over the impossibility of “sharing communion” with other churches. That’s what RC’s believe — they’re in the one true church. As such any ecumenical dialogue is all about — on their side — ending up with everyone submitting to Rome. Obviously one cannot have “true unity” if there are Christians out there residing in various entities which are not in communion with the see of Rome.
This is not a bad thing or evidence that RCs are cruel or deceitful. It is what it is — and the RC church wouldn’t be the RC church if it didn’t believe that. Never mind that I happen to think that church’s belief about its nature is delusional in a way similar to my declaring myself the Queen of Sheba. The fact is that if a person really truly believes herself to be the Queen of Sheba — all later actions can be explained simply and cogently.
Blessedly, individuals on both sides of the divide have invoked their private judgements, and the resulting divisions springing from the consequences of those clear and important private judgements won’t be healed until one or the other side recognizes that its seminal private judgement was not true.
I expect that will happen in heaven in the light of God’s truth.
There are two separate issues the Lutheran bishop is asking for:
1.) A common statement on understanding the Eucharist
2.) “Eucharistic hospitality”.
Hospitality is, for the time being, a non-starter, but it’s not so clear that a joint statement is impossible. There is historical precedent for attempting to find common ground on historically divisive issues, like the Joint Declaration. The differences on justification seem much larger than those on Eucharist. Lutherans don’t use substance/accidents categories and there are some differing practices, but there is a profoundly deep sense that when you eat the bread, you get the Body, even among many liberal ELCA parishes (a tiny minority in the WLF).
The two sides probably agree on what happens during Catholic Eucharist — the faithful receive the Body & Blood. However, they seem to disagree on whether this happens during Lutheran Eucharist. But this is more a difference about the nature of the Church and validity and not about the Supper per se.
(For what an Anglican layman’s opinion is worth), I say they should go for it. I doubt it will lead to intercommunion any time soon, but neither can it hurt for them to acknowledge how much they have in common on this.
Re: 67
I agree. Agreement on the Eucharist between the Catholic and Lutheran Churches should be fairly simple to achieve. The U.S. Catholic/Lutheran dialogue achieved significant agreement on the Eucharistic presence. I do not recall whether agreement was reached on the eucharistic sacrifice; but I do not see why that should be a stumbling block either.
But insuperable differences regarding the ministerial priesthood and the sacramental validity of the Eucharist remain, as mentioned above.
Sarah,
The term private judgment or the right of private judgment is something of a technical term, particularly in Protestant theology of the Classical Reformation. It is not the idea that each person makes judgments with respect to the truth of a given proposition. This seems to be how you understand the term. But since it doesn’t mean that, your remarks to Fr. Kimel fall flat and miss their target.
The idea of the right of private judgment is not with respect to the truth of a given proposition but with the source of and degree of its binding character or its normativity. The thesis is that each individual’s conscience can only be bound absolutely by an act of its own and not that of another. So, an individual’s conscience cannot be so obligated unless that person judges themselves to be so. Every person then is not only in a position to judge the truth of a given proposition but whether the obligation to believe it extends to them or not. Every man is then the ultimate judge of what constitutes divine doctrine. And that is something that is not true of any faithful Catholic or Orthodox. And that is why Sola Scriptura entails more than a claim about each person making judgments as to the truth of a given claim and why it doesn’t abolish the papacy so much as it multiplies it, in a way analogous to how democracy doesn’t eliminate monarchy but spreads it out-every voter is a little king, per Plato.
Consequently, it is not private judgment that allows individuals to choose to submit to the Roman magisterium or to the episcopate of the Orthodox since the thesis is incompatible with their very claims.
So there is a very real sense in which the right of private judgment does in fact entail that an individual creates his own religion. And this is something Cardinal Newman saw clearly in his work On the Prophetical Office of the Church, in the chapter on the abuse of private judgment, which he wrote as an Anglican. To use the term in some other sense is just to use it apart form its intended meaning and usage in historical theology over the last few centuries.
If memory serves, historically, Anglicans have refused sharing communion with Calvinists for example (not to mention Baptists) on similar grounds as Rome does to Anglicanism, that such bodies were “sectarians†and not members of he true church at all. The literature, both high and low from the 18th to early 20th centuries is rife with such language, so much so that I am bemused by your being bemused.
RE: “Every man is then the ultimate judge of what constitutes divine doctrine.”
Yup — and the person who converts to Rome makes such a judgement when he or she decides the Rome’s claim about itself is truthful.
RE: “And that is something that is not true of any faithful Catholic or Orthodox.”
True — not after the faithful RC has instituted the inaugural and hopefully last Private Judgement about the claims of Rome about itself.
RE: “Consequently, it is not private judgment that allows individuals to choose to submit to the Roman magisterium or to the episcopate of the Orthodox since the thesis is incompatible with their very claims.”
Yes, it *is* a real inconsistency in their system.
RE: “So there is a very real sense in which the right of private judgment does in fact entail that an individual creates his own religion.”
One could certainly see that, since Rome’s claims about itself are false. But I do not go that far, of course, about RCs.
RE: “But since it doesn’t mean that, your remarks to Fr. Kimel fall flat and miss their target.”
Mmmm . . . which is why you spent so many words explaining that RCs don’t like my using that phrase to describe their initial submission to Rome.
A critical difference exists between living in a communion that teaches doctrine with divine authority, or at least believes it teaches doctrine with divine authority, and living in a communion that does not. We all exercise our private judgment to be Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Anglican, or what-not. Nobody disagrees about that. As Cardinal Newman wrote to Mrs. Helbert in 1869, “Private judgment must be your guide, till you are in the Church. You do not begin with faith, but with reason, and you end with faith.†The difference is what happens to our private judgment after one enters into a magisterial community. The Russian Orthodox theologian Alexei Khomiakov saw this clearly in his correspondence with the Anglican William Palmer:
[quote]Many bishops and divines of your communion are and have been quite orthodox. But what of it? Their opinion is only an individual opinion, it is not the Faith of the Community. Ussher is almost a complete Calvinist; but yet he, no less than those bishops who give expression to Orthodox convictions, belongs to the Anglican Church. We may, and do, sympathise with the individuals; we cannot and dare not sympathise with a community which interpolates the Symbol and doubts her right to that interpolation, or which gives communion to those who declare the Bread and Wine of the High Sacrifice to be mere bread and wine, as well as to those who declare it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. This for an example — and I could find hundreds more — but I go further. Suppose an impossibility — suppose all the Anglicans be quite orthodox; suppose their Creed and Faith quite concordant with ours; the mode and process by which that creed is or has been attained is a Protestant one; a simple logical act of the understanding, by which the tradition and writings of the Fathers have been distilled to something very near Truth. If we admit this, all is lost, and Rationalism is the supreme judge of every question. Protestantism, most reverend sir, is the admission of an unknown [quantity] to be sought by reason; and that unknown [quantity] changes the whole equation to an unknown quantity, even though every other datum be as clear and as positive as possible. Do not, I pray, nourish the hope of finding Christian truth without stepping out of the former Protestant circle. It is an illogical hope; it is a remnant of that pride which thought itself able and wished to judge and decide by itself without the Spiritual Communion of heavenly grace and Christian love. Were you to find all the truth, you would have found nothing; for we alone can give you that without which all would be vain — the assurance of truth.[/quote]
Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim to teach the one faith with divine authority; they teach the faith in such a way as to bind the conscience. Living in such a magisterial community is very different from living in a Protestant confessional community, and it is dramatically different from living in Anglicanism. I find it difficult to find the words to express this difference. Let me try this: Catholicism and Orthodoxy present both outsiders and insiders with the whole of the faith. They expect both converts and communicants to embrace this wholeness [i]as from God[/i]. There is no “mere” Christianity; there is only the catholic and orthodox faith in its fullness. This doesn’t mean that vigorous, contentious theological debate does not occur within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches; but all parties understand that the Church has the final say on the particulars. Dogmatic definitions that have been received into the consciousness of the Church can be reformulated; perhaps they can even be transcended, as the Church gains deeper theological understanding and incorporates the definitions into a wider theological framework (at least Catholic theologians entertain this possibility–I’m not sure about the Orthodox); but they cannot ultimately be rejected. They cannot be rejected because that would deny the Church’s infallible apprehension of the truth and assert the authority of the individual believer over the deposit of faith. This is why ecumenical discussion between Catholics and Protestants and between Orthodox and Protestants can be so frustrating for Protestants. Protestants feel that in the end they are being asked to simply abandon their convictions and submit to the other–hence the not infrequent charges of tyranny and absolutism. Of course, ecumenical discussions between Catholics and Orthodox can be even more frustrating. Orthodox/Catholic debates often remind me of the words of the Highlander, “There can be only one!” 🙂
Sarah,
Again I think you miss the distinction I’ve drawn between a judgment concerning the truth of a proposition and an authoritative judgment that extends beyond oneself. Truth and normativity aren’t co-extensive (they don’t necessarily cover all the same cases and I may not know that something is true but still obligated concerning it.)
So the person who converts to Rome or Orthodoxy doesn’t employ private judgment since that term picks out the latter and not the former. If there were no difference here then there’d be no difference between a Law professor qua expert and a supreme court justice. The judgment of the two may be the same as to the truth of some proposition, but only the judgment of the latter carries the force of law. If there were no difference ever expert in law would be de facto a supreme court justice. (This is the old confusion that Thrasymachus falls into in the Republic where rulers are always rulers except when they are not.)
So when a person makes a judgment that such and so is in fact the society of people Christ established, that isn’t a judgment that entails an ultimate level of normativity. It is this level of ultimate normativity that is entailed by the thesis of private judgment. Consequently there is no inconsistency in those who move from a judgment that such and so is truly the Son of God to submitting to all of his judgments as supremely obligatory. It only seems that there is an inconsistency since you’ve conflated and confused epistemology and metaphysics, that is the conditions on knowing if something is true and the conditions for some judgment to *be* ultimately normative or authoritative.
I spent so many words because quite often simple mistakes require a setting out of the terms, their appropriate usage and their relations so that one can see clearly what is what. Further, I don’t think I said anything as to liking or disliking your claims. Here I think you’ve confused questions of taste with questions of conceptual identity. It was a matter of you not seemingly knowing what the term, the right of private judgment, has meant in Classical Protestant theology.
[b]#66/#70 / Sarah :[/b] Stop being brilliant. That’s what I’ve been trying to say for three days now.
[b]#60 / eulogos : It is certainly traditional that the Theotokos is without sin. The fact that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism proclaim it in their worship is enough to show that. But the idea was expressed at least as early as Augustine.[/b]
In a valid argument, you can’t assume what is to be proved. You are evidently unaware that the Immaculate Conception is not a generally defined Christian doctrine among Protestants and Orthodox because most Christians living in the past, and living now, have understood that humanity is universally sinful and in need of redemption (Rom 3:23). Special pleading to exempt the Blessed Virgin from that universal burden of sin, by saying she was never actually or originally sinful, is really a late development — and not to be found even in Augustine’s writings, if memory serves. But if you have a citation stating otherwise, kindly furnish it.
The angelic greeting of Luke 1:28 (chaire kecharitomene) is best translated, “greetings, most favored one” (NEB), “Greetings…highly-favored” (NIV). The translation you offer (ultimately based on the Vulgate, gratia plena) is a tendentious one used after-the-fact to justify the BVM’s sinlessness, but not gotten from the Greek.
#62: Fr Kimel
[b]This thread became “interesting†because some (many? most?) on this forum vigorously object to the catholic belief that authentic Eucharist requires the presidency of a priest/bishop ordained in the apostolic succession. Heck if I can prove that belief to you on the basis of Holy Scripture alone, yet it’s a belief that Catholics and Orthodox alike believe to be divine revelation.[/b]
Just to remind you, I have never insisted that Christian doctrine be proved from Sacred Scripture alone: I, for one, was always careful to insist on the three-fold doctrinal standard of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Quit knocking down a straw-man, quit caricaturing Anglicans; this was never a discussion defending simplistic views of [b]sola scriptura[/b].
We must be reading different posts … Obviously, traditional Anglicans belive in a three-fold ministry whose special prerogative is eucharistic presidency. (Incidentally, traditional Lutheranism as exemplified by the Church of Sweden and the the Book of Concord believe the same thing.) Why do we believe that? Because it is well-warranted apostolic practice! (See for example, St. Ignatius To the Smyrnaeans (8): “It is not permissible either to baptize or hold a love feast without the bishop” and other very early citations).
In any instant, I can find patristic citations supporting what you say we don’t believe in. But you still cannot find any early citations that state explicitly, the Virgin was sinless from the instant of her conception.
[b]You find it tyrannical that the Catholic Church requires of its members that they accept de fide a doctrine which you personally deem lacking in biblical support and which you personally do not find essential. The issue here, though, is not the Immaculate Conception. The issue here is dogma. The issue here is the authority of the Church.[/b]
You seemed to be a careful reader of my earlier postings; now you seem willfully to have misinterpreted what I said. No, Father Kimel, it’s not about my personal comfort level. It’s about the standards which the Roman Catholic Church uses to define doctrines with which they bind men’s consciences. If you enjoy building a prison for yourself, well and good. But don’t curse the rest of us, personally and corporately in the Protestant churches, who exercise the rights of Christian freedom, refusing to believe what is not scriptural, not traditional, not reasonable.
Re #72: “You are evidently unaware that the Immaculate Conception is not a generally defined Christian doctrine among Protestants and Orthodox because most Christians living in the past, and living now, have understood that humanity is universally sinful and in need of redemption (Rom 3:23).”
As expressly stated, the above statement is incorrect. It is certainly true that one will not find in the early Fathers an explicit assertion of the Immaculate Conception. Whether it may be found in germinal form is, of course, a matter of debate. But one does find in many of the Fathers the clear and unambiguous claim that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not commit a single personal sin throughout the entirety of her life. On this point Catholic and Orthodox Christianity are agreed. In the words of St Augustine: “Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God.” The Mary/Eve typology that one finds as early as St Irenaeus in the second century would appear to depend on the personal sinlessness of the Theotokos. This does not mean that she did not need her son as Redeemer. She was mortal and born into a sinful world. She too needed to be filled with the Holy Spirit. She too needed to be raised from death into everlasting life. But she was not guilty of personal sin. The sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin is not a Catholic innovation; it is a teaching that is clearly grounded in the ecumenical witness of the early Church.
Most Orthodox do not agree with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; but that is not because they wish to accuse the Theotokos of personal sin: it’s because they do not espouse an Augustinian construal of original sin, which they see as a Latin innovation and departure from the patristic witness. See [url=http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm]Fr John Romanides[/url] for a typical Eastern formulation of ancestral sin. For an illuminating, indeed, eye-opening, presentation of the immaculate sanctity of the Theotokos, see Sergius Bulgakov, [url=http://www.amazon.com/Burning-Bush-Orthodox-Veneration-Mother/dp/0802845746/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292816105&sr=8-1]The Burning Bush[/url].
Re #73: “We must be reading different posts … Obviously, traditional Anglicans belive in a three-fold ministry whose special prerogative is eucharistic presidency. (Incidentally, traditional Lutheranism as exemplified by the Church of Sweden and the the Book of Concord believe the same thing.) Why do we believe that? Because it is well-warranted apostolic practice!”
Perhaps, Sir, you have forgotten why I and other Catholics became involved in this thread–namely, to point out that Bishop Younan’s hope to establish intercommunion between the Lutheran and Catholic Churches is impossible. Why? Because unlike the Lutheran Churches, the Catholic Church believes that an authentic Eucharist, i.e., a Eucharist in which the bread and wine are indeed transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, must be celebrated by a bishop/priest validly ordained in the historic succession. This is not just a legal or canonical requirement; it is a sacramental requirement. Because most Churches in the LWF have not continued the apostolic succession of the ordained ministry, the Catholic Church does not [b]know[/b] whether the Lutheran Eucharist is a true and authentic Eucharist; it therefore cannot and will not permit its members to commune in the Lutheran Churches. It’s as simple as that.
I have inferred from your comments that you disagree with the Catholic position. If I have misinterpreted you, I apologize.
[b] #74 Fr Kimel wrote : In the words of St Augustine: “Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God.†[/b]
A quick google Search furnished the fuller quotations from Augustine, making it clear (as I thought) that he did not maintain the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin:
“Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin — after all,[b] how do we know what greater degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was without sin[/b] — to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we could bring together into one place all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have replied?” (On Nature and Grace, Migne PL 44:267)
Notice that it does not say he holds Mary to be sinless, only (agnostically) that he cannot say …
A second text:
“This being the case, ever since the time when by one man sin thus entered into this world and death by sin, and so it passed through to all men, up to the end of this carnal generation and perishing world, the children of which beget and are begotten, [b]there never has existed, nor ever will exist, a human being of whom, placed in this life of ours, it could be said that he had no sin at all, with the exception of the one Mediator,[/b] who reconciles us to our Maker through the forgiveness of sins. ” (NPNF1: Vol. V, On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 47)
And again, a third text …
“Let us hold fast, then, the confession of this faith, without filtering or failure. [b]One alone is there who was born without sin, in the likeness of sinful flesh, who lived without sin amid the sins of others, and who died without sin on account of our sins.[/b] “Let us turn neither to the right hand nor to the left.†For to turn to the right hand is to deceive oneself, by saying that we are without sin; and to turn to the left is to surrender oneself to one’s sins with a sort of impunity, in I know not how perverse and depraved a recklessness. “God indeed knoweth the ways on the right hand,†even He who alone is without sin, and is able to blot out our sins; “but the ways on the left hand are perverse,†in friendship with sins.” (NPNF1: Vol. V, On Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book II, Chapter 57 [XXXV])
And another text, as well …
“Therefore it is true that in the sight of God “shall no man living be justified,†and yet that “the just shall live by his faith.†On the one hand, “the saints are clothed with righteousness,†one more, another less; [b]on the other hand, no one lives here wholly without sin—one sins more, another less, and the best is the man who sins least.[/b]” (NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 167 – To Jerome, Chapter 3, §13).
Hat tip to: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4165
I think this is broadly right within England, Wales and from time to time Scotland. I’m not confident enough to speak of Ireland. This stems in my view from the foundational Anglican theological commitment to Royal Supremacy. So given the theological right of the Monarch to order the church, those who declined to act in obedience to this were by definition schismatic or heretical (as baptists were commonly agreed to be).
Nevertheless beyond the Sovereign’s realms there’s a broad and enduring (though not universal) sense that the COE is part of a supranational protestant true church arrayed against the errors of Rome. So presbyterians might well be sectarian within England (and perhaps Scotland) but part of the true church in the Low Countries or France. One sees this sort of attitude in the sixteenth century when ministers from Scotland are not required to be reordained when taking up posts in England. In the seventeenth at the Synod of Dort and in the preference at the Glorious Revolution for a Dutch reformed monarch. In the eighteenth century in the accession of the Lutheran Hanoverians and even in the nineteenth century in the Anglican Lutheran Bishops of Jerusalem.
Let me add that tension inevitably surrounded the Anglican theological view of episcopacy. Thus the more English divines defended episcopacy (itself of course tightly connected with supporting Royal Supremacy in England at some points in Scotland) against folks like Beza, the more the potential to see other Reformed churches as in some sense inadequately ordered or even disordered.
Curiously the first COE divine to argue, against Beza, that episcopacy was justified based on “ius divinum” was the onetime Dutch reformed minister Adrianus Saravia. Saravia himself never denied the validity of presbyteral ordination (outside England of course). Nevertheless he initiated a theological trajectory that did lead a minority of COE divines to consider if the Reformed and non episcopal Lutheran churches were churches at all. One sign of this momentum within the COE was the demand after 1660 that presbyterian ministers undergo episcopal re-ordination.
Driver8,
Except for the fact that Presbyterians and Baptists were also excluded in the US from intercommunion and mutual participation in eucharistic celebration.
The basis for calling such groups sectarians had to do with their rejection of episcopacy and not a loyalty to the crwon
One final thing, as we near the 400th anniversary of the publication of the Authorized Version (KJV), Adrianus Saravia was one of the translators. He was part of the team headed by Lancelot Andrewes responsible for Genesis – 2 Kings.