This is in the “day-late-and-a-dollar-short” category, but, on Friday, my friend Peter Leithart posted thoughts on his exclusion from the altars of several churches, most notably those of Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod churches.
Peter’s substantive argument is, as usual, interesting. That said, I think that Peter lets himself off a bit more easily than he lets off his Catholic, Orthodox, and Lutheran interlocutors.
To wit, Peter writes in passing that he would of course exclude heretics from the altar. Aside from the fact that Peter’s heretics may be a somewhat-different set of individuals than Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran heretics, the larger point is that Peter is not in principle opposed to drawing a line around the altar. Rather, he is against the lines that Rome, Constantinople, and St. Louis draw.
Fair enough. But I think Peter should shoulder the same burden he places on these other communions. For a start, I think that Peter needs to identify where he would draw the line around the altar and, more specifically, justify why he draws the line where he does. Concomitant with this, he needs to argue why drawing the line at a different location than where he draws it is somehow less biblical than his choice.
June 4th, 2012 | 6:19 pm
As a member of the denomination in which Dr. Leithart is ordained, the Presbyterian Church in America, I thought I might clarify where I suspect Dr. Leithart is coming from:
In the PCA whenever we serve the Lord’s Supper the pastor will state the words of institution and then say something like this. I’m just going to post what my church says, but every PCA church is required to say something along these lines, which we refer to as “fencing the table.”
“This isn’t the table of Grace Chapel, the PCA, or any other evangelical church, but it’s the Lord’s Table so if Jesus is your Lord, come and eat. Keep the feast.
However, if you do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord, then we’d ask that you not participate at this time. We’re glad that you’re here and we hope this can be a safe place for you to ask your questions and work through your doubts, but we ask that you not participate in the supper at this time. Firstly, because Paul actually warns that those who eat the supper without belief will be judged and we don’t want you to subject yourself to that. Secondly, by taking this bread and wine you’re confessing something with your actions that you don’t yet believe in your heart, so we want to spare you that inconsistency.”
I can’t speak for Dr. Leithart, but our PCA congregation would say anyone who is a Christian by the definitions of the oldest Christian creeds – Apostle’s and Nicea, basically – can come to the supper. Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury, St. Louis… they’re all welcome.
Where I get frustrated with Rome is that they no longer call us “heretics” straight up. Rather, they use this odd, ambiguous category of “separated brethren.” Well, if we’re brethren… why can’t we eat? If we are not… then why refer to us as such? I simply don’t see the warrant for such a category. Either we’re brethren and can participate at the eucharist or we aren’t and we can’t. It can’t be that we’re brethren in some vague, undefined sense but still can’t participate in the sacrament.
June 4th, 2012 | 8:03 pm
“… you’re confessing something with your actions that you don’t yet believe in your heart, so we want to spare you that inconsistency.”
As a Presbyterian why would you want to partake of Roman Catholic holy communion — the actual Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity of Jesus — when your heart is far from believing that reality?!
You want to consummate the marriage of Unity right now — during this initial ecumenical courtship period — rather than waiting and trusting the Holy Spirit.
June 4th, 2012 | 9:29 pm
My local PCA Church says in their order of worship that a person may not receive Communion unless he/she is a member in good standing of a church. I am a believing baptized Christian,but am currently between churches, so I would abstain from Communion in that church.
June 4th, 2012 | 10:17 pm
I wish I could understand the desire of Protestants to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church. I hear it mentioned on this web site quite a bit, so I am sure it must be common to a number of people.
I don’t know any Catholics who want to go to Protestant Church services and receive communion there. But apparently, lots of Protestants want to come to Catholic Churches and go to commuion. Why?
I just don’t get it. I have no corresponding desire to participate in a Protestant “Lord’s Table” fellowship as described above. It’s never entered my mind to wish to do so. In fact, I have a positive disposition against the idea of doing so. It has nothing to do with whether I consider Protestants as Christians (I do), it has to do with what I believe about the Blessed Sacrament.
Is this table fellowship thing common? Do Presbyterians go and receive commuion at Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopal, Evangelical, etc. churches? Do they also want to go to Orthodox churches and receive commuion?
June 4th, 2012 | 10:42 pm
Q: Well, if we’re brethren… why can’t we eat? If we are not… then why refer to us as such?
This sounds like you are saying that meeting the conditions for receiving commuion in the Catholic Church amount to some kind of “good housekeeping seal of approval” or that they are co-terminus with what it means to be a Christian. I don’t think this is the case.
People are either properly disposed to receive commuion or not — lots of Catholics are not properly disposed lots of the time, and they are still Catholics. It’s not like being properly disposed to receive commuion is the equivalent of being a Christian and vice versa. They are two different questions.
In the case of those not properly disposed, you are supposed to make a spiritual act of communion. Any Protestant could do this, and they would thereby be the equal of all the Catholics in attendance.
Here is a common one:
My Jesus,
I believe that You
are present in the Most Holy Sacrament.
I love You above all things,
and I desire to receive You into my soul.
Since I cannot at this moment
receive You sacramentally,
come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace You as if You were already there and unite myself wholly to You. Never permit me to be separated from You.
Amen.
June 5th, 2012 | 12:25 am
Mr. Meador – is it considered a snub if Christians present at your ceremony decline the invitation to partake of the Lord’s Supper?
June 5th, 2012 | 5:39 am
One can, of course, like Jake Meador, try to set up an explicitly doctrinal test – “The true faith is contained in the three catholic creeds,” or “The true faith is that Jesus Christ is Lord,” although, if anyone objects that one’s chosen formula is too inclusive/exclusive, it is difficult to discover grounds on which to refute him.
Now, it is perfectly possible to avoid the question-begging assumption of defining Christians by examining their tenets, or the Church by its teaching and Roman Catholics have done so. “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome.”
At least this test avoids the tautology of claiming that ““The true church is that which teaches the true faith” and “The true faith is what the true church teaches.”
June 5th, 2012 | 7:08 am
It is good to read again , of the deep desire in our hearts , to be in communion ..and we see why The Lord did insitute this Sacrament ..
Interesting to read the comment @ J .Meador , with the answer right there too – ‘if Jesus is your Lord ‘ ! The Church gives us the guideposts to know if Jesus is The Lord , by doing His will , of trusting enough in His goodness , to accept that He has left us a Holy Church and all that comes with same !
If there is fearful apprehension to accept that truth , does it not imply that the lordship is divided and The Truth that sets one free , to accept the fulness of truth is being denied when we overlook same !
June 5th, 2012 | 7:46 am
I have often found “fencing the table” to be either overly paternalistic or just plain weird.
On the paternalistic side — There is one verse in the Bible that warns people that taking the Eucharist inappropriately could be a bad thing. Nobody’s really sure what constitutes receiving inappropriately, and the evidence that the bad things that happened in Paul’s time still happen now is somewhere between slim and none — trending strongly towards none.
So warn people if you must, but don’t make such a fuss about it. Treat people like adults. Let them take the risk (if there is one). It’s their decision.
On the just plain weird side — Some people think they need to protect God, which always reminds me of Joash’s reply in Judges 6:31 — “If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself.”
June 5th, 2012 | 9:05 am
Slats Grobnik:
“It’s not like being properly disposed to receive commuion is the equivalent of being a Christian and vice versa. ”
I think that is the fundamental disagreement. If I have understood Peter Leithart correctly, he does indeed believe that (generally speaking) those two categories are equivalent.
June 5th, 2012 | 9:20 am
Mr. Meador says: “Where I get frustrated with Rome is that they no longer call us ‘heretics’ straight up. Rather, they use this odd, ambiguous category of ‘separated brethren.’”
We don’t call you “heretics” anymore because it’s much less likely you’ve chosen your theology with full knowledge of its relation to the tradition as interpreted by the Magisterium, and with full consent to your act as such. The first few generations of Reformation Christians were much more likely to have understood and willed their creedal shifts, so they can more accurately be called “heretics.”
June 5th, 2012 | 10:24 am
NickP, that sounds correct to me. It seems to me that Leithart is arguing something like the following.
Is there one Church, or multiple churches?
If there is one Church, are we Protestants members of it?
If we are indeed members of it, then we should eat in fellowship with our fellow members.
It’s a fairly simple argument.
June 5th, 2012 | 10:46 am
“It’s a fairly simple argument.”
- It may be simple, but I don’t understand it. Are we back to that idea of there being one big invisible catholic church out there somewhere in which all churches and denominations are just like franchises and we all really kinda sorta believe the same thing?
I recall a lot of back and forth with Lutherans about this idea last year. They were all saying they really were Catholics. I found it very confusing. Like, how come I’ve never seen a rosary hanging on their rear view mirror if they’re really Catholics? (just kidding).
June 5th, 2012 | 10:59 am
Yes, Slats, when I go with my mother to her Anglican chuch, I do wish I could receive communion with her. And, yes, Slats, when Protestants go to church with their friends who are of a different denomination they do receive communion together.
June 5th, 2012 | 12:10 pm
I am a Catholic who would never presume to receive communion in a non-Catholic church. I have not been catechized in those churches, I do not know their teaching or understanding of the Eucharist. I must know what I am doing in church, especially if I want to participate in its sacraments.
I still remember my own preparation for first communion, as well as those of my convert husband and our children—-specific and detailed religious instruction that lasted for the better part of a whole year. Reception of one’s first communion is an important and memorable rite of passage. There is much ado about it—-distinctive clothing, formal photographs, family celebration, perhaps the receipt of one’s first real Bible and rosary. these all underscore the significance of the event, and the reflective Catholic will ponder the mystery of the Eucharist the rest of his or her life.
I would not take communion in another church without being catechized there, so that I would know what I was doing, and if it had meaning.
June 5th, 2012 | 12:27 pm
In my Episcopal parish, I routinely invite “all baptized Christians” to come and receive Communion, remark that there is a blessing available for those who desire that instead, and simply leave it at that. It is assumed that that the non-baptized then select themselves out. It is likewise assumed through the participation of the liturgy that anyone who comes forward after the Proclamation of the Word, Creed, Confession, and Absolution goes forward to the altar with proper intent.
June 5th, 2012 | 12:48 pm
Mark – I understand how it would feel awkward to be with a loved one and not be able to receive communion. There’s a lot to be said for doing things for the sake of friendship and neighborliness, and I don’t mean to discount those things.
I did not understand that Peter Leithart’s (sp?) point to be about this kind of neighborliness though – I thought he was saying that it’s simply wrong theology for a Church to have any restrictions on who should receive communion. So even if he didn’t know anyone at the Church, he should be able to walk in and go to communion as his right as a Christian.
But as a Catholic, it would make me feel like I was lying if I lined up and went to communion or the Lord’s Supper ceremony at some other Church. I’d rather have the momentary discomfort of skipping reception than the lingering doubt about what it was I just said “Amen” to. (assuming they say Amen – I really don’t even know the logistics of how it works).
Would you want to go to an Anglican church if your mom wasn’t there and go to communion?
June 5th, 2012 | 2:06 pm
Are you Protestants who desire Catholic communion observing the requirements we place on ourselves? Even Catholics aren’t supposed to receive communion in the Catholic Church if they are not properly disposed: an examination of conscience, penance for grave sin, abstinence of food and certain drinks for at least one hour, etc. Note that grave sin includes willfully missing Mass during the summer because you can’t be bothered to find a Church while on vacation.
Of course, a priest won’t say to Joe McPew, “Joe, I haven’t seen you at confession for quite a while, you missed Mass all last August, and the grapevine tells me you’ve been hanging around a young lady who isn’t your wife. Sorry, no Jesus bread for you!” Likewise, if a Protestant approaches, the priest probably won’t know, most Catholics probably won’t notice, and many who do won’t care. Those who do notice will likely say something quietly, rather than make a scene.
That said, unless you’re willing to go to a Catholic priest and make a confession of your sins, which is what we’re supposed to do, and with good reason (someone else already cited St. Paul, though with different intent, I suppose), complaints that you feel excluded aren’t well-founded. If you want to feel included, then get busy including yourself in the fullness of faith!
June 5th, 2012 | 2:29 pm
Hm. Can a non-Catholic receive sacramental absolution of their sins in confession? I don’t really know the answer. Funny how I’ve never heard a Protestant complain about being excluded from the confessional! Although I suppose there’s nothing stopping them from getting in the box and confessing their sins.
I think I recall a priest saying that from time to time a non-Catholic would show up and confess their sins, and instead of saying the usual words of absolution he’d say something like – God has heard your plea for forgiveness, and no sin is too great for his mercy. Or something like that. But I don’t think that it “counted” as a sacrament, did it?
June 5th, 2012 | 2:59 pm
“If we are indeed members of it, then we should eat in fellowship with our fellow members.”
Very true.
And not just incidentally, when you happen to be around, but all the time.
June 5th, 2012 | 3:30 pm
Sally R. Hm. Can a non-Catholic receive sacramental absolution of their sins in confession?
Actually, some non-Catholics can, under certain circumstances (canon 844 § 4). I am not a Canon lawyer, but I would read that canon as saying that these are (generally) the non-Catholics whom we also happen to admit to our communion, if they request it: Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Churches. Possibly, a Protestant could, but the canon requires the Catholic faith with respect to this sacrament, and I doubt many Protestants hold to that.
June 6th, 2012 | 9:35 am
The Real Presence is the same now as it was in the beginning. If it was a serious matter to receive unworthily then, it is now. Our perception of whether or not the consequences of receiving unworthily are the same is not really the point. I suspect there are still negative consequences to receiving unworthily.
June 6th, 2012 | 10:44 am
Crowhill also said: On the just plain weird side — Some people think they need to protect God
Yes, how weird to treat the most precious gift in the world as something precious.
I recall a year or so ago hearing about some cutesy minister giving communion to a dog to make it feel included. I don’t think anyone thought that God was thereby “injured,” but I do believe that such an action reveals a shocking lack of reverence, piety, and love that we should have towards Our Lord whose death on the cross for our sins was the cost of this gift of his Body.
Avoiding the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament is an act of love towards God, but also towards those who love God.
June 6th, 2012 | 12:00 pm
June 6th, 2012 | 10:44 am
Crowhill also said: On the just plain weird side — Some people think they need to protect God
Yes, how weird to treat the most precious gift in the world as something precious.
It is not God that needs protection, but our ability to separate the sacred.
When we lose that ability, we lose our access to the sacred.
June 6th, 2012 | 11:18 pm
No, Protestants cannot receive absolution.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact