Rick at Brutally Honest, for whom I have a deal of affection, and he’s been a a provocative read for years, has been away from the Catholic Church for a long time.
He and his wife have now decided to partake of Holy Communion within the Catholic Church, although without the sacrament of Confession or any sort of adherent “membership,” in the church. He feels free to do this, because “no man has a right to stand between another man and Jesus.” He believes Jesus would not turn him away, nor his wife.
I am not quite certain I understand whether or not Rick and his wife believe that the Blessed Sacrament of which they are partaking is the Real Presence of Christ – the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus – or if they think it is a very powerful symbolic communion; that seems unclear to me. But in sharing his thoughts on the matter, Rick has basically put up his dukes and said, “tell me why I can’t; would Jesus turn my wife away?”
The Priest then said that this is how the Lord’s Supper should be viewed by all baptized Christians. That baptism is the price paid for all to come and partake. I was a bit taken aback. He did not say baptized Catholics. Perhaps he meant to. Though I was baptized Catholic and though I might’ve partaken if he had said instead baptized Catholic, I know that he instead said Christian.
A joy came over me. And I willingly, and guiltlessly, went and communed.
Tomorrow, I’m hoping, Mrs. BH will be joining me as I go back to Mass. And, I believe, as a baptized Christian, she will be welcomed to the Eucharist. Some will disagree I’m sure. And some may let their disagreements be known. Fine. But what would Jesus do?
Seriously?
Okay, a little background: here is what Jesus said in John, Chapter 6:48-61
I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
And here is what St. Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 23-29:
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Okay, anyone who has read me for a while knows I hate apologetics. But having just come off a retreat where I was so deeply humbled by the Presence and Merciful Love of His Majesty, I feel compelled to respond to Rick’s question.
I meant for this to show up in his comments thread, but for whatever reason, it would not. (Btw, the “sudden overnight” I mentioned yesterday is turning into a “sudden two nights” so, I may not be here to respond. I just ask that folks leaving comments be respectful.)
This is my rather fast and off-the-cuff response to Rick, meant for his comments thread.
Hi Rick! You asked: Would Jesus turn your wife away?
Jesus was an observant Jew who followed the rules of Judaism, and when he healed a leper, he told the leper to partake of the prescribed cleansing and show himself to the priest. And while he welcomed all, he never said, “mow down others and their rules” to get to him. Jesus never said “disrespect authority” (especially authority he himself put into place) to get to him. When the hemorrhagic woman dared to touch his cloak, he still wanted to know who had approached him in faith; he still wanted her to account for herself and her approaching him. He healed her. He had mercy on her. But he wanted her to declare herself to his face, and before all the rest. It was not enough for her to simply be anonymous in the crowd, and partaking of him for herself.
My question is, if you want mass and you want specifically Catholic Communion, do you or do you not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in Communion? If you do – if you can accept that great mystery – why would the rest not follow, including the sacraments and Paul’s anger against those who “eat and drink of the Body of Christ unworthily?”
If you do not believe this is the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ, then why would you (regardless of the goodness of your heart) go into a church, say, “no, I don’t believe this is the Body and Blood of Christ but you’re going to let me and my wife have it anyway!” I’m thinking there is not great or edifying love, there. And THAT attitude, more than anything, should get in the way of your receiving communion. I’m not sure how receiving communion with a heart full of love for Christ and defensive disdain for the rest of it equals adequate spiritual comportment for the reception of His Majesty’s own Body and Blood into your own body, your own blood.
People like to say Communion is “a meal” and “a banquet” and it is those things, but it is much, much more. Communion is a face-to-face, one-on-one with Christ. It is actually intercourse with Him, too, in the sense that he comes into us and we become ONE FLESH. He is the bridegroom and we, his church, the bride. This is nothing to engage in lightly.
I have long thought that “no one should stand between a man and Christ” and once even wrote a short story about it.
But we ourselves have a responsibility to stand between ourselves and the reception of Christ in the Holy Sacrament, if we are not rightly disposed toward receiving him. That means not only that we be free of the stain of grave sin, but that we also bring ourselves to him in humility, and part of that humility is to consider all of scripture – including Paul’s admonishments – and not simply take what we want and leave the rest.
It seems to me that in a mature and respectful faith, if you want what the Catholics have, you go about partaking it the Catholic way. To do less is profoundly disrespectful and, dare I say it, immature. It would be like me coming into your house, sticking my head into your fridge and grabbing the thing you’d prepared for a family event, scarfing it down and saying, “what, it’s for everyone, right? Why should I wait? Why shouldn’t I have it now, when I want it?”
If you want Catholic stuff, be a Catholic. If you don’t want to be a Catholic, don’t take their stuff. Especially don’t take their stuff while saying, “screw youse, I’m taking your stuff, because it’s deeply meaningful to me, but all the rest of your stuff is stupid.”
No one can stand in your way to Christ, but I have to wonder what Christ thinks of that. “Happy to be with you and in you, Rick, glad you love me; I love you too. Can we talk about how you’re treating the Catholics, now? If you’re not willing to take the ritual bath of confession and show yourself to the priest, should you be doing all this? I love you, but you know, that doesn’t mean the rules don’t apply to you. ‘Go and show’ is like ‘go and sin no more’ – I said these things for a reason.”
I hope you will rethink your “gorging at the banquet” because Communion is more than a meal. And the priest who told you this is the gift to every Christian is both correct and incorrect. Communion is Christ’s gift to every Christian. But there are ways of reception that are clearly spelled out, not written thoughtlessly or capriciously but reasoned and prayed about over many years, by the very church Christ himself instituted through Peter and the apostles and their successors.
Jesus either meant the things he said or he did not. He either meant that we were supposed to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood, or he was just (uncharacteristically) talking nonsense, but he did not try to clarify himself to those who rejected that message as “too hard” to take. He didn’t say, “hey, wait, you guys…I was speaking figuratively, not literally!” He either meant that Peter had the keys to the kingdom and was the head of his church on earth (‘what you hold bound on earth, is bound in heaven…’) or he was (again, uncharacteristically) saying nothing that needed heeding.
If Jesus didn’t want a church for this stuff, he wouldn’t have started one. How can you go to communion and say, “Jesus I love you and am happy to commune with you, but your church kind of sucks…”
That is of a piece with saying, “God, I believe you’re big enough to make the world in six days, (or in one instant) but don’t believe you can turn bread and wine into your Body and Blood.” These things either are or are not.
I say all of this in peace, and with a good deal of affection. But I think you and your wife, being hungry for Jesus in the Eucharist, need to consider that you are not the only ones involved, here.
You are engaging in a great mystery of ponderous depth. Jesus is also involved. So are the people around you who are withholding themselves from Communion because – for one reason or another – they know they are not currently in a fit state to welcome His Majesty into themselves. You might call that “the church standing between Christ and a person.” Some of us might call that, “giving Christ his due.”
Part of being Brutally Honest, Rick, it to be able to be brutally honest with yourself. I think you would not have gone out of your way to write this – and to engage in comments – if you did not know, within yourself, that you are NOT being 100% honest on this issue.
“No one can come to me, unless the Father draws him…” Jesus told us this. If you are being drawn to Him in Communion, through the beckoning of the Father, and if you believe that you are receiving the Body and Blood of Christ – and if you want this in its fullness – why not at least explore the idea that you are being drawn forward for a purpose beyond your immediate gratification, and that this drawing forward is not meant to be a half-measure?
The Holy Eucharist has real power; it is the Source and Summit of our whole life of faith because it is truly the physical Presence of Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. It is frankly, not to be messed with. For God to have placed a hunger for this within you suggests that God is working powerfully in your life. But God cannot contradict himself, and there are no negatives in Christ, which suggests that one cannot receive Him in Communion while harboring negative notions and then expect the full imparting of grace, blessing and completeness one seeks.
These things either are, or they are not. What you believe of the Eucharist you are receiving should compel your behavior beyond anything your human reasoning (no matter how gifted-and-faulty) can devise. If you believe the Eucharist is Holy, that it is the true Presence of the All in All, then you must go all in, or you insult His Majesty and lessen yourself.
If you do not believe it, then what are you doing?
All offered in peace, Rick. You know my affection for you. But I do pray you’ll rethink some of this, prayerfully. I pray you’ll take your questions to Jesus and let him tell you the answer.
I just posted something at my site last night that you might find interesting: “he is letting me touch him!” is wonder, reverence and humility. His Majesty deserves it all. We cannot give Him all due reverence and humility if we are simultaneously defiant to our surroundings.
Related: President Clinton took Catholic Communion, President Bush did not
Linked: Our pal, Fr. James Martin, who seems like he’s just run into a restaurant yelling, “fight, fight!” has linked here and added a great photo. I’m sure the comments will get “hotsy” over there, as they did yesterday when Fr. Jim wrote about the Tulsa Bishop’s decision to go ad orientem!
UPDATE: Completely off-topic:
but as I’m in a terrible rush to get going, please check out Victor Davis Hanson’s thoughts on Obama’s rather creepy use of scripture to justify his healthcare plan. And more here.
August 20th, 2009 | 1:22 pm | #1
Today the Mass reading was the wedding parable, the one where the person without the proper garments is tossed out. Confession is like putting on the proper garments; it shows respect and humility before God. Taking communion without basic respect is presuming an entitlement rather that respecting the incredible undeserved grace of His self-donation.
August 20th, 2009 | 1:29 pm | #2
Thank you Ms. Anchoress, for tirelessly standing up for Church teaching, especially in this posting about Mr. BH. I think he is right in that Our Lord loves him and wants him back, but it is just arrogant to walk up and take what is so infinitely precious and generously offered. I ask Mr. BH if we, assured of his generosity, can waltz into his kitchen any time we like, day or night, without asking, and certainly without washing our hands. He wouldn’t want us to go hungry, right?
August 20th, 2009 | 1:48 pm | #3
I think the biggest thing is we are worried for this man’s soul and his safety. Its true Christ could let you just go on this one…or he could kill you, like St. Paul reports.
August 20th, 2009 | 1:57 pm | #4
Confession is also the act of approaching the bridegroom with a soul that is pristine in its condition – or as much so as we poor humans can manage.
August 20th, 2009 | 1:59 pm | #5
As a baptized Christian and confirmed Anglican, I would not presume to receive the Host in a Roman Catholic Church unless specifically given permission by the presiding priest to do so. The Eucharistic doctrine of my church is Real Presence. But, what Real Presence means to some is not what it means to others. I believe that Christ is really there. But my church is not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and until it is, I must respect the Roman Catholic Church’s restrictions. BTW, the slippery slope is always with us. Many Episcopal Churches, including some in the diocese where I reside, do not even require baptism of a communicant. How that can be defended is beyond me.
August 20th, 2009 | 2:34 pm | #6
A lovely post, dear Anchoress. This actually hits on some things I’ve been pondering lately, specifically the incredibly intimate nature of the Eucharist, and what a truly mind-blowing thing it is.
So, thank you for helping to clarify my own mind ^_^!
August 20th, 2009 | 2:46 pm | #7
How is it that Catholics can pick and choose what they want to believe. True Catholics believe in the teachings of Jesus, don’t they? But quite a few voted for Obama, knowing he believes strongly in abortion, and many of them agree with him on that. Murder is murder and I don’t think the church should allow them to take communion or be a Catholic. Just as the bishops and priests who cherrypick what they preach, as long as it is something they believe in. Do they care what the Pope says? It doesn’t sound like it. I guess I don’t understand the Catholic church.
[I think you're confusing individuals, and their individual consciences and reasoning abilities, with the Catholic Church as a whole. Lots of people who call themselves Christian voted for Obama. -admin]
August 20th, 2009 | 3:32 pm | #8
And the way you feel Peggy is how a lot of the Catholic laity feel as well! Don’t consider yourself to be alone in your confusion. I am planning for a 10 day absence from work right now due to some surgery, and am accumulating books that require quiet reading time for my time off recuperating. Many of them are on the practices and customs of a church in which I grew up, which I thought I knew intimately, having survived 11 years of Catholic school, but still, I’m a bit in the dark! Welcome to our world!
August 20th, 2009 | 3:43 pm | #9
Just to agree with Memphis Aggie about today’s Gospel.
If everything stated in the post is true, correct, and accurate, Rick is now in the position of the guest without a wedding garment. The wedding garment is sanctifying grace. If he and his wife have “been away from the Church” for a long time, that would make the condition of their souls with regard to sanctifying grace a real concern. “Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?” Not words one would want to hear, especially considering what comes next.
In his homily this morning, Father pointed out that getting the wedding garment and putting it on was the responsibility of the guest. In other words, we ourselves must attend to the condition of our souls. Jesus extends the invitation to the banquet, but he expects people to show up in the proper state. As another priest once said, Jesus saves, but you have to cooperate.
It’s not the priest standing between a person who is not in a state of grace and Jesus. It’s the person who is the impediment.
I hope Rick is listening. “Harden not your heart …”
August 20th, 2009 | 3:46 pm | #10
I worked one summer in a Boy Scout camp where the staff was 99% Catholic. I was the other 1%, although the Camp Director, a Catholic Monsignor, made me an “Honorary Roman” for the summer.
I attended Mass every Sunday, I even read some of the prayers (I’m an Anglican, so I could fake it pretty well). The only thing I did not do is share in the Communion. Wanted to, but I knew that it would be wrong to put my preferences ahead of Church teaching.
As for the “Who would Jesus turn away?”, it is becoming the most tired, overused cliche in the playbook. I receive daily emails from an old acquaintance that always include “Who would Jesus deprive of government healthcare?”, and it has worn out its welcome.
The Bible can be a terrifying book, and no parts more terrifying than some of Christ’s pronouncements on exclusion from the Father’s presence. Lots of stuff in there about sheep vs. goats, burning chaff, unworthy servants, gnashing of teeth. It astounds me that people can skip past all that to find Jesus the Purple Dinosaur waiting to give each and every one of us a hug.
August 20th, 2009 | 4:26 pm | #11
How would being obedient keep one from Christ? I firmly believe that Christ would be present in the obedience, and that adhering to the rules can be a glorious sacrifice of self.
A couple in my church has been married for years; he is Catholic, and she is Anglican. Over the years, they have carefully navigated the uncomfortable and red-tape bound annullment process for their previous marriages, and followed canon law in good faith. It’s been very difficult for them. But simply watching them move forward in faith and obedience is a blessing to those who know them.
In the words of Samuel the prophet, “Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD ?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.”
The passion for the Eucharist is admirable. The response to seize and take is not.
August 20th, 2009 | 4:30 pm | #12
Lately at mass I have begun to really feel how very very holy and special communion is. I am almost shaking when I get up to receive and it is apparent to me that when you fully digest and know that you are receiving the real body and blood of Christ it is life changing.
It is hard for my non-Catholic family and friends to understand. I returned to the Church after many years away and it was the best confession I have ever had in my life because I wanted to come back. I hope Rick and his wife will do the right thing.
August 20th, 2009 | 4:43 pm | #13
I hate to do this but I think that the correct word here (Jesus was an observant Jew who followed the rules of Judaism, and when he healed a leper, he told the leper to partake of the proscribed cleansing and show himself to the priest.) is prescribed not proscribed. Prescribed indicates that a practice is a rule. Proscribed has the sense of a practice that is forbidden.
Beyond that I think that an ordinary sense of decency requires an observance of the forms – I’ve been in many Catholic Churches for family celebrations – Christmas , Easter …. as a Methodist I find it much smarter to not partake of Communion since I follow a different rule of confession than that of the Catholic church. On the other hand, there are several nominally protestant traditions that are close in practice but not precisely catholic. If one is bound and determined to follow a non-catholic rule on confession it seems to me that a non-catholic communion is the best plan.
[Was writing very fast, thanks for the heads up -admin]
August 20th, 2009 | 5:14 pm | #14
““Happy to be with you and in you, Rick, glad you love me; I love you too. Can we talk about how you’re treating the Catholics, now? If you’re not willing to take the ritual bath of confession and show yourself to the priest, should you be doing all this? I love you, but you know, that doesn’t mean the rules don’t apply to you. ‘Go and show’ is like ‘go and sin no more’ – I said these things for a reason.”
In this, you find the right words, said in the right spirit, to get the important point across. Well done!
While I am not a perfect Catholic and far from it, I do think that if you want to belong, you need to make a concerted effort at communing entirely, not selectively. That means a lot of things, but one most assuredly is going to Confession and taking part in Mass regularly. I want to disclose that I received the Body and Blood for a lot of years without going to Confession, and I was wrong and only half commited (I should further disclose I am now only three quarters commited – results wise- on most days!) I do sympathize with your friends because they are making an effort, and who knows, we might get another Curt Jester out of it (Atheist to Orthodox – or some such distance – in half a lifetime)! But in the meanwhile, it’s admirable (and crucial) that you, Anchoress, share what you know and defend the Faith. It wasn’t “thrown together” for no reason. Thanks for doing it with care and wit.
August 20th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #15
He feels free to do this, because “no man has a right to stand between another man and Jesus.” He believes Jesus would not turn him away, nor his wife.
I wonder why they call it “communion”? Could it be, in part, because you are uniting yourself to others (Christ and other faithful) in a very particular way. Seems to me that the attitude of doing your own thing your own way, even when contrary to the Church, is the very antithesis of communion.
August 20th, 2009 | 5:20 pm | #16
Okay, I have a serious question for you and your readers: You may safely assume that I believe in the presence of Christ in communion. You can’t have communion with someone isn’t there. Taking that as a given and that I am not a Catholic as a given, could you please explain to me what the Biblical basis for confessing to your parish priest is? I fervently believe that I have to have a clean conscience before God before I partake in communion, but I fervently believe that I can accomplish that between God and me as long as my sin hasn’t caused offense to someone else. (“If your brother has something against you, leave your sacrifice, and go make right.” That’s a paraphrase of Christ, but it’s close.) I don’t understand why confession to a priest should be necessary. Please help me?
August 20th, 2009 | 5:30 pm | #17
Missy,
Jesus instituted the sacrament of Confession when, after the Resurrection, He breathed on His disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
August 20th, 2009 | 6:09 pm | #18
Myssi, Peony Moss has given you the basic scriptural reference. There is a great deal more, if you are interested enough to pursue the answer.
I highly recommend this book:
Scott Hahn. (2003) Lord, Have Mercy: The Healing Power of Confession. New York: Doubleday. ($14.95 at Amazon, $9.95 if Kindle)
Scott Hahn is a former Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism. He had exactly the same objections to Confession as the ones you have stated — until he read the Bible more completely and discovered that what the Catholic Church teaches about this Sacrament is absolutely backed up in Scripture. He also explains the Catholic reliance on Tradition as part of God’s word, and how Tradition also supports Confession — and has since the days of the Apostles. He will give you all the proof you need, unless you have decided that no proof can ever be enough.
I will say a prayer for you on your journey.
August 20th, 2009 | 6:19 pm | #19
I don’t understand why confession to a priest should be necessary. Please help me?
—————–
I think the scriptual argument given above is a good one. Let me give a psychological one. The action of Confession is an apology. It is the perfect apology. Now what goes into a perfect apology? A statement of what was done (complete with no shading of the facts or special pleading), an acknowledge of why the act was wrong, a sincere promise to never to do so again, and finally an act of restitution.
All of these facets of the perfect apology (and thus Confession) are actions. They involve the will and the body. They’re also very humbling. A perfect apology requires you to humble yourself before another and that means you have to have a degree of courage. When I sin, part of me doesn’t want to go to Confession. I have to off the mask that wear all day and bare my soul to another person. But in that action, I find grace.
Now you say, “well why bother with the Priest, just do that in your prayers to God.” Can’t you see how easy that is? Where’s the courage needed for that? God already knows what you’ve done and he loves you, so why are you telling him what he already knows?
You see Confession isn’t telling God anything new; it’s telling yourself something. There’s a world of difference between saying to yourself in the safety of your own head, “I am a sinner. I have done wrong” and saying it to a fellow man.
But whom should we entrust with hearing such a statement? And whom can we entrust to say to you: “You are forgiven” and “Here is the restitution you must perform”? Not to just anyone. It has to be someone who has offered his life to Christ who has made a commitment to honor God and to honor your confidence.
August 20th, 2009 | 6:45 pm | #20
And remember the story about the priest helping to transport the Ark of the Covenant. When it began to fall, he reached out his hands to prevent it from falling, and was struck dead because of it. But he was just trying to protect it! …what’s so wrong with that? What is so wrong is that it was the wrong thing to do in the wrong way. And the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of God, not a man-made article like the Ark was. It sounds so old fashioned, a myth from our forgotten magical totems of our past. Except the writers of the Old Testament felt compelled to include it to address the holiness of the things of God.
Please watch where you tread, as it sounds so very much like presumption.
August 20th, 2009 | 6:47 pm | #21
Jms:5:16: Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved.
Consider that the only person you can confess sins to, and be assured of forgiveness, is to one whom Jesus entrusted the duty to forgive or bind sin. He didn’t entrust the whole Church with that duty, just the disciples gathered in the upper room, and upon those on whom He breathed and sent out. (Jn 20:19-23). We know it was upon 11 of the 12, since we know that Thomas, one of the 12, was not present in 20:24.
Binding and retaining sins is serious business, because it is the direct action of God (“Who is this man to forgive sins?” Lk 5:21) and it isn’t given to all to do.
August 20th, 2009 | 7:12 pm | #22
Myssi,
I have a small issue with your phrase, “as long as my sin hasn’t caused offense to someone else”. All sin hurts the Church, even if it only means hurting yourself (well, and God too), as you are part of the Church. It would seem natural, after hurting the Church, to get forgiveness from the Church.
I know you were looking for the Biblical basis, but Catholics do not consider the Bible, the infallible Word of God, the sole source of our beliefs.
August 20th, 2009 | 7:23 pm | #23
Ack – I read it over twice, hit “Submit”, and see something that can be misread. Just to be clear: Catholic consider the Bible the infallible Word of God, but not the sole source of our beliefs.
August 20th, 2009 | 7:50 pm | #24
Here is how Justin (Martyr), a second-century Christian, born when some of the apostles were still living, describes Christian worship in his day:
“But we, after we have thus washed [baptized] him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled…each of those present partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced… And this food is called among us ‘the Eucharist’ [meaning "thanksgiving"] , of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
This description, written early in the second century, fully supports your comments. Belief in the fullness of Catholic truth, and conformity with it in our lives, has always been a prerequisite to sharing in the Eucharist.
August 20th, 2009 | 8:07 pm | #25
Whenever I hear someone say… “What would Jesus do?”… I cringe because it is always used as an excuse to diminish sacred tradition and Catholic identity. What they really are asking is… “What would I do if I didnt believe in the authority of the Church?”
August 20th, 2009 | 8:10 pm | #26
I am a fairly recent convert to the Catholic faith from the Anglican Church. First, to Judith L, I do not think you are correct, at least not about the historic Anglican (Episcopalian) teaching. The Anglican Church very early adopted the Thirty-nine Articles which expressly state: “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture…and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” Of course, neither the Canadian Anglican nor the American Episcopalian Churches take the Thirty-nine Articles seriously any more, but they were the founding statement of faith of the Anglican church, so technically the Anglican church still does not accept the Real Presence, whatever various clergy or laity may teach or believe.
As for the post, thanks very much for this. I find it difficult to answer non-Catholic friends who have shown considerable hostility to the Church’s rule that only Catholics can receive communion. Your discussion is helpful, although, unfortunately, the idea that any rule that offends us can be disregarded because God wouldn’t offend us no matter what we do, think, or believe is a persistent one. I wonder if your post will have any effect on the thinking of such folks!!
August 20th, 2009 | 8:21 pm | #27
Myssi,
In short, we need confession because we sin. St. Paul warns us not to partake of the Eucharist unworthily because it is profane to do so.
“In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life…On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure.”
Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90).
August 20th, 2009 | 8:23 pm | #28
Wonderful response Anchoress, not condemnatory nor laissez faire either. Very Christlike. Your site is a real class act when compared to other very judgemental sites!
August 20th, 2009 | 8:27 pm | #29
Packer: I like the psychological argument you give, but I use it the exact other way.
Yes, a confession must be humbling, but consider what happens in ‘private’ prayer. Private prayer is between you and God. Theoretically, one can give a confession to God; God clearly can forgive sins.
However, you also point out (rightly) that telling another person is a humbling experience, and this is part of the nature of Confession.
If telling another human being is humbling, how much MORE SO can telling the omnipotent Creator? Something I can say is that I find Confession _to a human being_ so humbling that I rarely avail myself of the opportunity (among other reasons; yes, that makes me a bad Catholic). What are the chances that someone, in their private prayer, can actually attain the same humbling requirement towards their Creator? Theologically and theoretically, it’s possible. Practically speaking… less so.
Recall that everything done in history has been done, by God, for our benefit. While it is inarguable that God can forgive sins, it is _also_ inarguable that God’s appointed followers can forgive sins.
In other words, Confession was made for us, not for God. God does not need a stand-in to forgive us, but I believe His wisdom that we do. There are many reasons (social and psychological among them), but uppermost is that we are only destined to meet God’s burning love and justice after we can truly face it; that is, after death.
August 20th, 2009 | 8:30 pm | #30
if they are attracted let them come, the Trinity will do the rest.
August 20th, 2009 | 8:39 pm | #31
Thank you for this post. It answered some important questions I’ve had.
August 20th, 2009 | 9:02 pm | #32
Before Jesus, there was a forerunner who said repent. Repent came first. Jesus also used that word. Repentance comes before forgiveness.
I remember our priest addressing this very question. He said, let’s take for example you have this very sacred, very special place, how long would it stay sacred and special if everyone went there. How would you fell about sharing that place with someone and that went, “Huh, what’s so special.”
August 20th, 2009 | 9:07 pm | #33
…and when it’s all said and done, and as lovely as our traditions are, there really isn’t anything that approaches a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in importance.
August 20th, 2009 | 9:22 pm | #34
Oh my, I am a divorced Catholic. My first husband was Catholic, so I assume my marriage is still “in effect” in the eyes of the Church. However, I am now married to a true
Christian who has actually brought me closer to God and to Jesus than I have been in many years. We go to Mass (he had taken some classes on Catholocism), participate, and I do take Communion. My feeling is that God would rather have me take communion rather than just sitting there in church. As background, my Mother was truly a saint on earth – a devout Catholic who married my Father at age 40 (never married befoe). My Daddy was a Christian (but non-Catholic), so she was not allowed to receive the Sacraments during their marriage. I was raised Catholic, and my Mother was only allowed back into the good graces of the Church when my Daddy died. That really upset me. My Mother was always a teacher, and when Daddy died, she returned to that profession in a parish school. I remember her telling me about how the Pastor decided who would be accepted into the parochial school, based on what each family had contributed. Then came Vatican II. I felt very alienated from the Church in which I had grown up. My children were baptized Catholic, attended parochial school off and on (based on finances). But it wasn’t until I met and married my current (almost-Catholic) husband that I truly accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior! So, where do I stand in the eyes of God??
August 20th, 2009 | 9:32 pm | #35
You argue over something that is between Rick and God…..I would rather have you know that when Rick and his wife partake communion, there are angels in heaven rejoicing and singing…
to devolve that to….”rules”….escapes me..
Neither Rick nor his wife’s state of mind are your business…I also remind you of the prodigal son….
“hey honey…nuthins on TV, how ’bouts we go down and partake communion….”…Please….
Rick, you are ok and God loves you and your wife very much!!!!!
[I fail to see where I ever implied that God does not love Rick and his wife. On the contrary, I suggested God was "working powerfully" in his life. I also do not see where I presumed to know what was in his mind (I made it very clear that I was quite UNCLEAR about what Rick was thinking or what he thought of the Holy Eucharist) and I would never in a million years have written any of this if Rick himself had not written his post and then specifically linked to it in a newsgroup I belong to, clearly looking for feedback. I did not just happen upon his blog and decide I must comment. I was invited to read and see where Rick "was at" by Rick himself. -admin]
August 20th, 2009 | 9:40 pm | #36
If you love me you will keep my commandments. John 14:15.
Jesus gave us the Church to help us on the journey home. The Church has been divided since the 11th century but the fact remains that no mortal can undo what God has created. The Catholic Church offers all that is needed for salvation. While our brothers and sisters of other traditions may believe in the Real Presence–they clearly do not believe in the Church. The Eucharist is what defines us as Catholics and it is what sustains us. If others want to partake of the Eucharist, I hope that they will be honest with themselves and investigate what the Church has to offer them.
August 20th, 2009 | 10:07 pm | #37
I’ve responded at my site but I’ll post that response here:
UPDATE: The Anchoress has posted a response after being unable, for some reason, to comment here. It’s long, it’s comprehensive and it suggests that I, and Mrs. BH, have committed a grievous error, that we have disrespected The Church and that we may very well have wrought judgment upon ourselves.
I am at a loss quite frankly as to how to respond. I’m certainly not feeling the love of Christ from his Bride The Church, at least as represented by the devout in the Catholic Church.
At this point, I can only conclude, reluctantly, that perhaps Catholics are correct, Catholicism may not be for me.
[Rick, I hope to respond to you this week when my own life calms down a bit, but I must say I am surprised to see you accusing me of presumption when I have made it very clear in my piece that I was very UNCLEAR about where you stood with regards to the Holy Eucharist or what you believed or did not believe. You specifically put that post out on the newsgroup, so I assumed you wanted some feedback from a Catholic perspective, and all I tried to do here -I thought with stated affection- was give that feedback to you. I must have missed the part where I said you were consigned to hell. Possibly because I said no such thing?
Actually what I said (among other things) was that God was working powerfully in your life, and I asked you to prayerfully reconsider your stance and do some praying. How you have interpreted that to mean I think you're a horrible person who has wrought all sorts of judgment upon himself, I don't quite understand. Feeling a bit "judged" myself. And while you may not believe it, I have taken lots of guff from Catholics who think I'm a terrible Catholic. These "fundamentalists" exist everywhere, and among Catholics they tend to think the Pope isn't as Catholic as they are. I'm surprised to find myself among their number, as they are usually busily dunking my own head into the toilet. -admin]
August 20th, 2009 | 10:34 pm | #38
[...] The Anchoress — A First Things Blog http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2009/08/20/taking-communion-when-not-catholic – view page – cached First Things requires that you have JavaScript enabled on your browser. For a better experience, please turn on JavaScript or upgrade your browser. — From the page [...]
August 20th, 2009 | 10:40 pm | #39
I’m disappointed that The Anchoress considers this arrogant bastard worthy of mention. She may be too gentle to honor the Body of Christ but I have that duty in my Parish as Head Usher and Grand Knight.
If I was aware even my best friend was considering this blasphemy he would never get before the priest. If he caused trouble my parishioners would stand beside me and he would be escorted out in whatever condition his attitude required.
There is no compromise with the Truth.
Anyone who responds to that as did Pilate doesn’t belong in a Catholic Church.
[And how very edifying and helpful that was, Richard. :::rolling eyes::: Perhaps try it again, in a kinder key? -admin]
August 20th, 2009 | 10:45 pm | #40
Partaking of a sacrament without adhering to the tenets of the sacrament is simply not Catholic, nor even catholic.
Call it whatever you will, but it is like equating listening to an MP3 to attending a live symphony.
As with all things, there simply are no short cuts. Do it your own way if you must but please do not seek my acknowledgment, much less my approval.
August 20th, 2009 | 10:52 pm | #41
I hope that Rick’s comment above doesn’t mean he’s taken offense at the heartfelt correction he got from The Anchoress. Love is not just light split into a rainbow – it’s the complete electromagnetic spectrum. And like em energy, the most powerful bands may not reveal what we want to see, but they certainly make the universe do it’s thing.
Follow-up question: If Jesus’ love is so forgiving, all-inclusive, and awesomely sweet, how come there were only a few people at the foot of the cross?
August 20th, 2009 | 10:57 pm | #42
I know, love makes you do crazy things. But mature adults harness love to do sane things. I’m sure you went through lots of preparation before your First Communion. Don’t you want to give your wife the chance to prepare? Don’t you want to give yourself the chance again?
The wholeness of beauty and love stretch before you, waiting. But Christ waits until the proper moment to end the world, and the Bridegroom waits until his wedding to lie beside the Bride. And all we are asking is that you make peace with God and your brothers in the Church before you receive — which the priest could do for you in a quarter hour or a few weeks or months, depending on the situation. Pretty short engagement; nothing like Jacob and Rachel.
August 20th, 2009 | 11:00 pm | #43
A,
When I was Roman Catholic, I held similar confusion over this topic. I have found an answer in Orthodoxy that was never offered me in Catholicism. (I do think that the RC church may hold this same position, however…) The position of the Orthodox Church, who believe in the Presence in the Eucharist, believe also that we are the body of Christ, and our commitment as Christians is both to Christ and to one another. Frederica Matthews-Greene explains the Orthodox position in her article “12 Things I wished I’d known before first visit to an Orthodox church.” I’m an idiot with respect to html stuff, but an excerpt of her article is below.
(This might look familiar to any Catholics over 50.)
But the reception of the Eucharist is an affirmation of our being part of this Body of Christ – and I have seen Orthodox priests refuse communicants unknown to them, blessing them instead, as they were unprepared and ignorant of what we proclaim, and claim, by partaking of the Eucharist.
August 20th, 2009 | 11:03 pm | #44
TOLD you I was an idiot about HTML, I put “” around the article, and, what do you know, it disappeared! This corrects my comments, I hope!
A,
When I was Roman Catholic, I held similar confusion over this topic. I have found an answer in Orthodoxy that was never offered me in Catholicism. (I do think that the RC church may hold this same position, however…) The position of the Orthodox Church, who believe in the Presence in the Eucharist, believe also that we are the body of Christ, and our commitment as Christians is both to Christ and to one another. Frederica Matthews-Greene explains the Orthodox position in her article “12 Things I wished I’d known before first visit to an Orthodox church.” I’m an idiot with respect to html stuff, but an excerpt of her article is below.
[Visitors are sometimes offended that they are not allowed to receive communion. Orthodox believe that receiving communion is broader than me-and-Jesus; it acknowledges faith in historic Orthodox doctrine, obedience to a particular Orthodox bishop, and a commitment to a particular Orthodox worshipping community. There’s nothing exclusive about this; everyone is invited to make this commitment to the Orthodox Church. But the Eucharist is the Church’s treasure, and it is reserved for those who have united themselves with the Church. An analogy could be to reserving marital relations until after the wedding.
We also handle the Eucharist with more gravity than many denominations do, further explaining why we guard it from common access. We believe it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. We ourselves do not receive communion unless we are making regular confession of our sins to a priest and are at peace with other communicants. We fast from all food and drink—yes, even a morning cup of coffee—from midnight the night before communion.]
(This might look familiar to any Catholics over 50.)
But the reception of the Eucharist is an affirmation of our being part of this Body of Christ – and I have seen Orthodox priests refuse communicants unknown to them, blessing them instead, as they were unprepared and ignorant of what we proclaim, and claim, by partaking of the Eucharist.
August 20th, 2009 | 11:46 pm | #45
Seems like I’m nit-picking, but the title should be “Receiving” Communion. None of us takes Communion. We receive it from the hands of the priest (or not-so-extraordinary-because-it-happens-every-Sunday extraordinary minister of Holy Communion).
August 20th, 2009 | 11:47 pm | #46
Mary – I believe Judith L is correct. Anglicans do believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but not in transubstantiation (the actual changing of the bread and wine into body and blood), but consubstantiation – the Body and Blood of Jesus exist with, around, and in the bread and wine of the Eucharist – it is considered a mystery of the church exactly how this happens, but the Real Presence is there (just not in exactly the same way the RCs believe).
August 20th, 2009 | 11:59 pm | #47
I’m certainly not feeling the love of Christ from his Bride The Church, at least as represented by the devout in the Catholic Church.
We do love you, and we want you. And part of what we want for you is the great joy that comes from the sacrament of confession and from the reconciliation that it produces between you and Christ and you and the church.
August 21st, 2009 | 12:24 am | #48
Here’s a story:
I used to belong to a very liberal Episcopal Church. This church, through hard work, managed to build up a brand new church, in a beautiful Renaissance style. They thought it would be nice to raise some money by performing weddings in this lovely new church, and hosting receptions, for everyone, not just Episcopalians.
Oh, man.
I won’t go into the belly-dancing bridesmaid here, or the fist fights, or other bad behavior indulged in by the church’s guests. These people wanted a church wedding, but without, well—all that religious stuff. They wanted the setting, but not the meaning.
What’s significant here are the horror stories about unprepared, and unbelieving, people being given communion. (The Episcopal church offers communion to all baptized Christians.)
There was the man who staggered to communion drunk. In fact, there were quite a few men, and women, who communicated while—ahem!—inebriated. There were hosts, spat into dinner napkins, or the rosebushes outside the church. There were people making a scene before the altar about how DARE you offer them communion! Is this Christian brainwashing? And so on. After about 6 months, this formerly liberal, tolerant Episcopal church was becoming downright Orthodox about Communion, even publishing a list of rules for proper reception.
Sometimes rules are there for a reason. Religious people are not necessarily being closed-minded, or mean, in insisting on them.
Receiving Communion is not, and should not, be a casual act. And, no, Jesus doesn’t reject anybody, but you will get much more out of communion if you prepare for it. If you can’t be bothered with such preparation, you need to ask yourself, A. Is communion really important to me? and, B. If it isn’t that important, why should I bother with it?
If you don’t agree with a particular denomination’s rules, then what are you doing there in the first place? If you don’t want to make the effort to become a full member, and participate completely in its liturgy—again, what are you doing there?
August 21st, 2009 | 12:30 am | #49
In the case of sacramental confession, all appearances to the contrary, you really are not making your confession “to the priest.” You are making your confession to God.
The priest is not present in his personal capacity. Rather, he is present and acts in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. And it is because there is someone there, physically present, that one can, not merely confess ones sins, but receive tangible absolution, that is, tangible evidence of forgiveness (or withholding of forgiveness if the necessary contrition is lacking).
Remember what the nature of a “sacrament” is — an efficatious outward visible sign of the invisible reality of the conveying of grace. In the case of the Sacrament of Confession (i.e. Sacrament of Penance), you have (1) the outward, tangible, visible signs of vocally confessing out loud, which on a practical level makes the confession more concrete, rather than merely theoretical or merely a passing thought; and (2) the priest, acting in persona Christi, giving absolution, which is an outward, tangible, visible sign of the invisible reality of forgiveness by Christ and grace to avoid further sin.
In giving absolution, it is not the priest who forgives, but Christ. Father So-and-So has absolutely no power whatsoever to personally forgive sin. Only God can forgive sin. But, having received the authority of Christ to act on His behalf in imparting the Sacraments, Father So-and-So does have that power by Christ through the Holy Spirit.
It is actually a rather ingenious system that Jesus set up. Although we do have a spirit, we are also bodily creatures, and we experience and come to know things by and through our bodies. As human persons, we need a physical act involving our bodies for us to know that something has actually happened. We can say that we don’t need that, that we have faith and that faith alone is all we need, but as a practical matter, we are all Thomas and we all need to see and touch in order for us to know for certain. Especially when we are dealing with the transcendent and spiritual, we need some outward sign for us to authentically know the reality of the transcendent. A “sacrament” is such an outward sign.
Moreover, because we are not merely spiritual beings, but are body and spirit, for something to involve us and impact us only on a spiritual level is to engage our being only partially, rather than engage the whole of our being, soul AND body.
A prime example of this is the Eucharist, i.e. Holy Communion. Now, we can stay at home and pray to Jesus and, in that manner, obtain a spiritual communion with Him. But to be spiritually in communion with Jesus is incomplete communion — it is a union with Him in only a part of our being, and only a part of His Being. In order to be fully in communion with Jesus, in order to be fully joined in union to Him in the entirety of our being and the entirety of His Being, we must be in communion, not only spiritually, but bodily. Our spirit joined with His Spirit, our body joined with His Body. One can obtain the whole and complete communion — communion in the full and true sense — only by receiving the Eucharist, the real Body and Blood of Christ. Only then are we joined with Him in the entirety of our being.
Likewise in the other Sacraments. Only because there is an outward visible sign that acts upon, not merely the spiritual component of our being, but upon the bodily component as well, only in this way is the grace imparted upon the compete entirety of our being.
Without the Sacrament of Confession, where one confesses to God in the presence of the priest who then has the authority to convey absolution, you have a confession that is merely potential and, hence, you have forgiveness that is merely potential. When one “confesses” merely to oneself or secretly in the recesses of one’s mind, merely thinking about the sins, even though one may feel remorse, it is really only a possible confession. Until it is reduced to actual words that are actually spoken out loud, so as to give them a reality that goes beyond mere thought, then it is merely an idea. And without the confession being a reality, without the contrition/repentence being reduced to a tangible reality, there can be no forgiveness.
August 21st, 2009 | 12:42 am | #50
Well, I hope my response a few moments ago simply went into Comment Purgatory for a while, and is not eternally lost in the abyss. I’ll wait a while to see if it shows up and, if it is the latter, post it again. (Of course, this one will probably disappear into the internet ether as well.)
August 21st, 2009 | 12:55 am | #51
I really don’t understand this attitude, to be so obnoxious and selfish as a way of demonstrating that Jesus is on your side. Irony.
August 21st, 2009 | 2:00 am | #52
I’m going to respond briefly, as a Christian, not a Catholic, who has taken Communion in RC churches, Lutheran churches, charismatic, Pentecostal, and evangelical churches. I’ve taken communion at Easter sunrise in foreign countries, and midnight Christmas Eve in Sin City. (I have not, however, taken nearly as many Communions as I should have…)
I will take Communion in any Christian church (which leaves LDS and some other near/psuedo/whatever “Christian” churches out) that offer it to me. If they ask “are you such and such” and I say no, and they say “then you can’t take Communion with us”, I’ll simply say, “Okay” and wait quiety, praying. Ditto if they announce that they have closed Communion. I won’t demand that they accept or tolerate MY understanding of Communion, and as someone visiting, I know that Christian hospitality and charity won’t demand that I accept theirs. They are facilitating a sacrament, but the sacrament is between my Lord and I, not between the church and I.
God’s grace is sufficient for me in that moment, whether I “do this” in remembrance of Him, or forgo in order to refrain from offending my brother. (Kinda like the NT advice regarding keeping kosher) There’s been no call upon my life to cause a row over Communion. Perhaps others have been thus entreated by the Holy Spirit, although I am skeptical.
August 21st, 2009 | 2:09 am | #53
After all the human , 21st century re-interpretations of scripture, human made church canons, rules, clever rhetoric and arguments, I still think: leave the judging to God alone if someone, in good conscience, should or should not partake in Communion. Let me not be the space-time, socio-culturally restricted judge of that or anyone else. let me remain the co-pilot or steward on God’s plane and not try to usurp his role as creator of the plane and being the main and senior pilot.
John (priest and monk/hermit for 40 years)
August 21st, 2009 | 2:43 am | #54
First time poster, redirected from Hot Air. Anchoress, I thoroughly enjoyed your exposition which clarified my thoughts on the subject, and accorded with my rather muddled thinking. I read Rick’s reply and was saddened by this response, which seemed to say that “if you do not allow my every whim then I reject your beliefs and your church.” Sadly, I feel that Rick is depriving himself of a source of comfort and grace which he may regret in later life.
August 21st, 2009 | 4:55 am | #55
Rick,
The Invitation is there for you. What I don’t understand is this: if you do not accept the teaching of the Catholic Church as concerns the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, why would it matter in the least to you that it be available to you or not?
Why would you desire to receive a sacrament in which you do not fully believe? Do you truly believe you have found a “loophole” in the faith?
None of us speak for the Church, of course, but several above have provided relevant scriptural references underlying the doctrine. For us, the Holy Eucharist is a solemn and sacred moment. It is a gift available to all who seek it, but it is a specified covenant. We do not get to pick and choose parts of the covenant to observe or not.
You don’t have to accept and believe any of it by your own free will. But if your beliefs conflict with those of the Church, what possible benefit do you perceive in receiving a sacrament you don’t accept?
August 21st, 2009 | 6:30 am | #56
I don’t think it’s obnoxioux or displaying attitude for a Church to set its own rules and expect that its parishioners follow them. And everything here was said with a lot of care. I think if you don’t lik the answer, that is an answer in itself.
Rick and wife – you certainly may not decide to stay in this Church. You’ll find one you like if you’re commited to the process. I will just ask, what will you do when they all have something you don’t like? In other words, be ready to find a lot of imperfection and really ask yourself if belonging is what you want, or having it your way and being able to stay. Good luck (I mean that sincerely.) At some point, you may have to take seriously the things the places you want to worship in suggest to you.
August 21st, 2009 | 6:50 am | #57
One more thing to Rick, his wife, and anyone else looking and seeking:
When you are seeking out a Church to worship in, something important to remember is that you should be going to worship God, not to be validated. Those are two very different things. If you’re going to be validated, you might as well make your own Church because every place will disappoint you eventually. If you keep focused on God, the little things that annoy you or seem incomprehensible, may eventually make sense, or they may not, but in the meantime, you’ll be working on your relationship with God and that’s a great thing. Compared to that, other things fall away, honestly.
August 21st, 2009 | 7:32 am | #58
Jesus didn’t turn Rich or his wife away.
But, I think the whole idea is that your supposed to respect the Lord enough to turn yourself away when you’re not in a state of grace.
August 21st, 2009 | 7:38 am | #59
When I was fourteen I went to confession on Christmas Eve. My walk home that cold new england night is a memory I will treasure forever. I felt full of God’s blessing and such a joy….it is impossible to describe. Why would this poor man deprive himself of that?
August 21st, 2009 | 8:22 am | #60
I do not understand why someone that wants to be in communion with the Catholic Church wouldn’t go ahead and go through the process to, well, get in communion with the Catholic Church.
It is open to anyone, fairly simple (though long), and is offered everywhere. You learn a lot, meet a lot of really nice people and become a close member of a faith community through the experience.
Or that’s what I experienced anyway. I attended Mass 3 times a week for a full year without participating in communion while going through the process of becoming a Catholic. If it is truly important to you, as it was very important to me, why not go ahead and do it the way the Church prescribes?
August 21st, 2009 | 9:17 am | #61
Beautifully written Amen!
August 21st, 2009 | 10:31 am | #62
As a Protestant, I often come here to be refreshed by the talented writing of a sister in Christ who clearly and deeply loves the Lord. While I could hijack the thread by restarting the centuries old debate about transubstantiation, I won’t. We see through a glass darkly and won’t see fully until in His glorious presence.
However, I do want to make one point in regard to your statement:
“If Jesus didn’t want a church for this stuff, he wouldn’t have started one. How can you go to communion and say, “Jesus I love you and am happy to commune with you, but your church kind of sucks…””
I would point out that God instituted temple worship and priests. And yet, Jesus Himself came to earth and said “your church kind of sucks…”. To wit: “You brood of vipers…”
[I interpret his "brood of vipers" to mean the pharisees and priests who taught incorrectly and were out for themselves, and not to be a criticism of Judaism itself, which Christ clearly respected and observed. -admin]
August 21st, 2009 | 10:31 am | #63
Anchoress, you may hate apologetics but you sure are good at it! Love your stuff, keep it coming!
August 21st, 2009 | 10:40 am | #64
REPOSTED (since the comment I sent in last night is apparently lost) –
In the case of sacramental confession, all appearances to the contrary, you really are not making your confession “to the priest.” You are making your confession to God.
The priest is not present in his personal capacity. Rather, he is present and acts in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. And it is because there is someone there, physically present, that one can, not merely confess ones sins, but receive tangible absolution, that is, tangible evidence of forgiveness (or withholding of forgiveness if the necessary contrition is lacking).
Remember what the nature of a “sacrament” is — an efficatious outward visible sign of the invisible reality of the conveying of grace. In the case of the Sacrament of Confession (i.e. Sacrament of Penance), you have (1) the outward, tangible, visible signs of vocally confessing out loud, which on a practical level makes the confession more concrete, rather than merely theoretical or merely a passing thought; and (2) the priest, acting in persona Christi, giving absolution, which is an outward, tangible, visible sign of the invisible reality of forgiveness by Christ and grace to avoid further sin.
In giving absolution, it is not the priest who forgives, but Christ. Father So-and-So has absolutely no power whatsoever to personally forgive sin. Only God can forgive sin. But, having received the authority of Christ to act on His behalf in imparting the Sacraments, with Christ acting through him, Father So-and-So does have that power by Christ through the Holy Spirit, so that it is the perfect and holy Jesus doing the absolution, not the imperfect human priest.
It is actually a rather ingenious system that Jesus set up.
Although we do have a spirit, we are also bodily creatures, and we experience and come to know things by and through our bodies. As human persons, we need a physical act involving our bodies for us to know that something has actually happened. We can say that we don’t need that, that we have faith and that faith alone is all we need, but as a practical matter, we are all Thomas and we all need to see and touch in order for us to know for certain.
Especially when we are dealing with the transcendent and spiritual, we need some outward sign for us to authentically know the reality of the transcendent. A “sacrament” is such an outward sign.
Moreover, because we are not merely spiritual beings, but are body and spirit, for something to involve us and impact us only on a spiritual level is to engage our being only partially, rather than engage the whole of our being, soul AND body.
A prime example of this is the Eucharist, i.e. Holy Communion. Now, we can stay at home and pray to Jesus and, in that manner, obtain a spiritual communion with Him. But to be spiritually in communion with Jesus is incomplete communion — it is a union with Him in only a part of our being, and only a part of His Being. In order to be fully in communion with Jesus, in order to be fully joined in union to Him in the entirety of our being and the entirety of His Being, we must be in communion, not only spiritually, but bodily. Our spirit joined with His Spirit, our body joined with His Body. One can obtain the whole and complete communion — communion in the full and true sense — only by receiving the Eucharist, the real Body and Blood of Christ. Only then are we joined with Him in the entirety of our being.
Likewise in the other Sacraments. Only because there is an outward visible sign that acts upon, not merely the spiritual component of our being, but upon the bodily component as well, only in this way is the grace imparted upon the compete entirety of our being.
Without the Sacrament of Confession, where one confesses to God in the presence of the priest who then has the authority to convey absolution, you have a confession that is merely potential and, hence, you have forgiveness that is merely potential. When one “confesses” merely to oneself or secretly in the recesses of one’s mind, merely thinking about the sins, even though one may feel remorse, it is really only a possible confession. Until it is reduced to actual words that are actually spoken out loud, so as to give them a reality that goes beyond mere thought, then it is merely an idea. And without the confession being a reality, without the contrition/repentence being reduced to a tangible reality, there can be no forgiveness.
August 21st, 2009 | 11:01 am | #65
Memphis Aggie said what I would have said. I was at mass on the 20th and I was struck by the parallel of the wedding parable and being correctly prepared for the eucharist. I am a new catholic, having come in at Easter Vigil from the Methodist Church. I craved the eucharist in the correct elements and the true presence. I had to wait, of course, until I was correctly prepared and I had to declare that I sought full communion with the church (and all it’s beliefs). This declaration is Confirmed by the priest and the congregation’s welcome. That is why it is called Confirmation. For Rick a new confirmation (confession and absolution) are required. This is how he can be in full communion with all the other catholics and come into the wedding feast with us. Hey, Rick, it’s scriptural.
August 21st, 2009 | 11:08 am | #66
Worra storm has been kicked up here.
I remember a similar thing with Blair (who I know is popular in America, but who has few friends here, & Brown even fewer: I opposed them both for their constant intrusions into our freedoms, especially civil liberties, & the fact that their spending rises weren’t in my view matched by results enough to justify them).
He too seemed to think he could be a Catholic a la carte- I really don’t understand this mentality, as I always thought the choice of being a member of the church meant signing up to all its teachings or getting lost, basically.
Of interest is that Iraq was one of the main issues over which the church hierarchy has a problem with him- see here for a bit of a slapping from Benedict.
On about excluding people. I sometimes visit churches, cathedrals etc for historical interest & I often see signs requesting tourists keep away from worship services. Yes, you don’t want some clown taking pictures when you’re having a service but surely there’s nothing that prevents one from being both a tourist & a worshipper at once, or going to a place & having supernatural yearnings that are so strong that he must take part, though admittedly it’s not happened to me.
Sorry not to have been much use in the discussion of Brutally Honest but it does happen a lot that people want some aspects of a religion without others- not really comprehensible to me but maybe that’s because I’m a bit literal-minded & all or nothing (I’ve also never joined a political party & only vote half the time as sometimes I’m too bitterly against them all!)
August 21st, 2009 | 11:47 am | #67
(I went to Rick’s blog, looked until I found the cited post, and left this response for Rick.)
“Rick, I responded on The Anchoress’ blog, but will leave a note here.
I think you are being called home. You’ve started the motion with what (in my opinion) is a mis-step. Got a little ahead of yourself. Fine. Not like the rest of us have never made a mis-step (me especially), or sometimes a willful turning off the path (me even more especially). But that’s what the sacrament of confession and reconciliation is for.
Don’t let how other people respond to you (including my response on the other blog) become an impediment — we aren’t perfect either, and even when our intentions are good, sometimes we don’t express them as well as we ought. Don’t harden your heart.
Go talk to that priest (or practically any priest) and explain the situation to him. Ask him for help in continuing your interrupted journey.
The banquet has been paid for. But you still need to be sure you have that wedding garment of sanctifying grace on, and that it is clean.
When you get home, everyone will be very happy to welcome you. In the meantime, we are all praying you have a safe journey, because you do matter and because we do love you.”
August 21st, 2009 | 12:21 pm | #68
Richard L. sez:
“I’m disappointed…”
A’s not being wimpy. She’s practising mercy by instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner, which are straight from the spiritual works of mercy.
Instead of being upset, you oughta give say “Praise be to God somebody’s actually being Catholic.”
August 21st, 2009 | 12:28 pm | #69
Hello,
God bless you for the elaborate and thoughtful response above. I pray the Lord will use you mightily.
K.
August 21st, 2009 | 2:00 pm | #70
For those who said, “Jesus would not turn anyone away from Communion,” here’s a thought.
When the rich young man asked Jesus what he must do in order to obtain eternal life, he tried to justify himself by saying he followed the commandments. Jesus “looked on him with love” and then told him it was necessary to get rid of impediments. Jesus didn’t turn him away. He said, “Here’s what you need to do.” But the young man was sad, and the young man himself turned away and (apparently) went on living his life the way he wanted to live it.
As far as I can recall from scripture, Jesus never turned anyone away. Even when he rebuked people, he didn’t turn them away. But he does say clearly what is required to enter the kingdom of heaven — and the Eucharist IS the kingdom of heaven because it IS the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ Himself, and Jesus IS The Kingdom.
The Catholic Church is simply being true to Jesus — the Church does not turn people away, or get between people and Jesus. However, in charity and in justice it tells people things they don’t like to hear. Such as, “Give up whatever gets in the way of your entry into eternal life,” and “Take up your cross and follow Him,” and “Do whatever He tells you.”
And this is a huge challenge to all of us, every day. By ourselves, it would be impossible to meet that challenge. But with God, all things are possible, and God provides us with the Church and the Sacraments to help us. Pray for the grace to hear and to do His will.
And pray for me, because I have failed so often, and continue to fail and to fall far short. I will do the same for you.
August 21st, 2009 | 2:08 pm | #71
To Rick at Brutally Honest try A LUTHERAN CHURCH
“ O Lord God, the one God, make Thy people one. Whatever be our differences, even in matters essential, may we ever realize that we are all one in Christ Jesus. Let not Satan break the blessed bond of union between believers, but may it be increasingly strengthened in our own experience, and in all Thy people every where: for the sake of Jesus Christ our Redeemer. Amen”
Rev. Benjamin Jenks 1646
August 21st, 2009 | 2:09 pm | #72
Re: Baptism — if the man’s wife hasn’t committed any mortal sins yet, she’d be in a lot less danger than he would be. And of course there’s always invincible ignorance — but if my mother could tell I really did know better than that, I’d be kinda nervous of using that excuse before God, unless I really really had no slightest clue of the rights and wrongs of a matter.
Re: Confession and priests, it should be added that the Catholic Church does teach that any person with “perfect contrition” and a firm purpose of amendment will be forgiven all sins by God directly. But since “perfect contrition” is being sorry for all your sins just because they offend God and are wrong, and not out of any other less noble motive of fear or embarrassment or pride or expediency at all —
Well, not many people can achieve perfect contrition. Not for long, anyway.
So God gives us a more elaborate apparatus for less perfectly repenting people, like the ordinary person on an ordinary day.
(Disclaimer: God is not bound by the sacraments He has established, so other means of grace and forgiveness certainly exist, as He pleases to work. But Baptism and Confession are the ordinary means of getting sins forgiven.)
August 21st, 2009 | 2:26 pm | #73
To Mary Stamm…you are not in good standing with the Church until you and your husband have received annulments and have been Sacramentally Married in the Church and like Rick, cannot approach the Sacrament -yet.
Just because you have ‘accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior’ (which, by the way, you also did at your Catholic Baptism) does not mean that you are prepared to approach the Sacrament of Eucharist. Did you not spend two years preparing for ‘First Communion’ as a child? Did you not study and learn about how to receive the Holy Sacrament? Did you not receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation BEFORE receiving First Eucharist? Why is it different now for you?
Let me tell you a story- I am currently working with a couple to prepare them for Sacramental Marriage. The man, a Baptized Catholic, had two prior civil marriages and is currently married to his third wife. His current wife, a Baptized Methodist, had three prior civil marriages. They have been waiting FOUR YEARS and just received the last of the annulment notifications. The wife will be received into the Church as a Catholic just before Marriage. They have attended Mass weekly and both have attended RCIA sessions for 4 years together. They both have spoken most ardently about their desire for the Sacrament of Marriage, and the Eucharist, because they have come to truly understand what the Eucharist is and what the Catholic Church teaches and believes about the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage and the Eucharist. If this couple can wait over four years, why can’t you at least inquire about what the Church teaches, instead of doing what you WANT? Your lack of understanding displays very vividly the ‘instant gratification’ mentality of people who don’t take the time to understand what the Catholic Church teaches.
I pray that you will discuss this with a priest, and refrain from receiving the Eucharist until you can do so worthily.
Some things are worth the wait-and the Eucharist is one of those holy and sacred things!
August 21st, 2009 | 2:28 pm | #74
Very little has been said here about the priest’s invitation to communion to all baptized Christians. I do not find that Rick was acting arrogantly in interpreting this to mean someone like himself. So I do not think he did anything wrong at the time. But now that he knows what the official Catholic Church position is regarding communion, it would seem to be the honorable thing to respect that position. In the meantime, Rick would do well to go and speak to a priest about his spiritual struggles. He seems to be honestly searching, and I beleive the Holy Spirit will lead him in the right direction.
August 21st, 2009 | 2:34 pm | #75
Just to clarify –
Confession and priests, it should be added that the Catholic Church does teach that any person with “perfect contrition” and a firm purpose of amendment will be forgiven all sins by God directly.
Yes . . . IF the person dies before he or she is able to make a sacramental confession (e.g. a traffic accident, a crashing airplane, etc.).
However, if there is time to make such a sacramental confession prior to death, such as when death is not imminent and the person goes on to live for years after, then a sacramental confession is necessary. Indeed, the failure or refusal to seek such a sacramental confession might in itself be a sin for which such sacramental confession and absolution are needed.
If the sacraments are available, one has an obligation to seek and make use of them. Jesus instituted them for a reason, to make them the usual and ordinary methods by which the relevant grace would be conveyed. That there might be extra-ordinary means (usually in the case of unexpected and sudden death) to receive such grace does not mean that we may dispense of the ordinary means via the sacraments altogether. Although God is not bound by the sacraments, we are.
August 21st, 2009 | 3:07 pm | #76
(Technical note…
I am seeing that as I refresh pages, comments are appearing, disappearing, and rearranging themselves. There have been a whole lot of really excellent comments on this thread, and you might want to go back to the main page, refresh, navigate in, and read through them again to make sure that you didn’t miss any.)
(Speaking of which — comments here have dates but not times — times would really help as far as keeping straight where one is in a comment thread.)
August 21st, 2009 | 3:21 pm | #77
cathyf: I am seeing that as I refresh pages, comments are appearing, disappearing, and rearranging themselves.
Some commenters are registered users, so their comments are automatically show up. Others have to go through the moderation system so they are delayed a bit.
***times would really help as far as keeping straight where one is in a comment thread.)***
‘Tis done.
Joe Carter
Web Editor
August 21st, 2009 | 3:25 pm | #78
Mr. Carter — excellent with the times.
Thank you!
August 21st, 2009 | 4:46 pm | #79
I received my first communion (second grade) 2 full years before I went to my first confession (fourth grade), and that is how it was for everyone my age as far as I know (I’m 41)
August 21st, 2009 | 4:56 pm | #80
hmmm… It’s 4pm central time — will this comment show up as 1:07pm?
August 21st, 2009 | 6:01 pm | #81
We had to go to Confession before we made our First Holy Communion, and I’m 41, too (well, in two weeks).
August 21st, 2009 | 6:08 pm | #82
Bender, since you seem to be knowledgeable about the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession), maybe you can answer a question. It’s my understanding that it’s only necessary to go to confession in the event of a mortal ( serious) sin, but that a venial ( less serious) sin can be confessed directly to God. Isn’t this a little inconsistent? It seems that if sacramental confession is important, then it ought to apply in all cases. Or conversely, if God will forgive a sin confessed directly to Him, then why isn’t sacramental confession merely optional?
I have never understood this differentiation, and don’t see the logic behind it.
August 21st, 2009 | 6:39 pm | #83
Beth, venial sins are not required to be confessed. Venial sin is forgiven with contrition and reception of the Eucharist. It is, however, good practice to accuse ourselves of even the venial sins during Confession, because venial sins can in fact add up and lead to mortal sin. This is why sacramental confession at least once a year is not optional.
In addition, not that this is part of the reason for requiring confession annually, even when venial sin is forgiven through contrition and the Eucharist, there is still temporal punishment associated with the sin. By going to confession, receiving the Eucharist, performing a work that is associated with a plenary indulgence, saying prayers for the Holy Father’s intentions, and renouncing all attachment to sin (even venial sin), one receives complete remission of all temporal punishment, in this life and in the next. The punishment is required by God’s justice, even though in His mercy he does not want to punish. I don’t want to take this too far afield, but a plenary indulgence is no small benefit, and it takes confession and the Eucharist to open the treasury.
August 21st, 2009 | 8:54 pm | #84
Beth, I’m no expert on this, only a struggling teacher of CCD to teenagers, but here are a few things to consider –
Part One
First, it is helpful to keep in mind the theology of sin and confession as it is discussed in the academic setting, and then as it applies in practice. The Church and theologians do make a distinction between “mortal” sin and “venial” sin, but that really is not helpful in everyday life. Why? Because we are not the judges of our own sin. Jesus Christ is the judge, not us, and if He says that a given sin is a “mortal” sin, it does not matter if we insist that it is only a venial sin. Making the mortal/venial sin distinction in our everyday life could have disasterous consequences if we judge wrong.
Hence, leaving aside that distinction for the moment, so that one makes a full and complete confession — a “good confession” — the better practice is to sacramentally confess all of the sins that you are aware of and can remember. Now, in practice, this does not mean you will spend hours in the confessional. Usually we can remember the big sins, so those obviously should be specifically confessed. But there are countless tiny little sins that we commit all the time and often we cannot recall each and every instance of such sins. Those too should be confessed.
How, if you can’t remember what they are? Very simply by openly admitting that you are sure that there were other sins you committed but can’t remember them, but for those too you are sorry. To truly make a good confession, after stating all the sins that you recall, you should end with such a catch-all confession. And to make a good confession, you must be truly contrite, you must be truly and authentically sorry for having committed those sins.
Thus, in the practice of making a good confession, with this “catch-all” admission that there were many other sins you committed, even if you can’t remember them so as to specifically mention them, you necessarily do confess to venial sins, as well as the mortal sins which you did specifically mention.
Now, back to the mortal-venial distinction — even though in practice, because we are not our own judges, it is something we should be careful about — it is “necessary” to make a sacramental confession and absolution of a “mortal” sin, and not “necessary” to confess a “venial” sin, because of the nature of the two types of sin.
A mortal sin is indeed a “serious” sin, but it is a serious sin, not in the human or worldly understanding of “serious,” but in the effect of such a sin. It is a serious sin because it is a mortal sin, that is, it is a sin which is “mortal,” from the Latin meaning “death.” A mortal sin is a sin which leads to eternal death, i.e. damnation. Sometimes that can be a sin which is serious or grave in the worldly understanding, like murder or theft, sometimes it can be serious in the Biblical sense, like a purposeful violation of one of the Commandments.
But it is not necessarily so that a mortal sin is serious in our typical understanding. Sometimes a mortal sin can be something fairly innocuous. Remember, the greatest and most mortal sin in all of human history consisted of eating a piece of fruit. By Adam and Eve eating that fruit all of humanity was made subject to death. Such a tiny, seemingly insignificant act was a mortal sin because, by that act, humanity severed the bond between mankind and God, who is Life Himself.
That Original Sin, like all mortal sin, was a rejection of God, a statement that we did not want God and we did not need God. Formal confession and formal forgiveness of such sin is necessary to restore that bond and to reconcile the human person to God. Just as in human relations when you injure someone it is necessary to formally apologize to effect a reconciliation, so to is it appropriate to do so with God.
Refusing to formally say that you are sorry, refusing to seek God’s forgiveness and thereafter accept His forgiveness is the only unforgivable sin — it is the sin mentioned in the Gospels as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit — and it is, by its very nature, unforgivable because in order for the gift of forgiveness to be effective, it must be accepted. If one refuses to seek forgiveness or accept it, one cannot be forgiven. Not because God refuses to forgive, but because we refuse.
To be continued . . .
August 21st, 2009 | 8:56 pm | #85
Part Two of my response to Beth’s question –
Very simply, it is “necessary” to confess and receive absolution for a mortal sin because it causes death if it is so not forgiven. And it is not “necessary” to confess and receive absolution for a venial sin because such a sin is non-mortal, that is, although it strains the relationship between us and God, it does not break that relationship, it does not cause eternal death. That is, what makes confession of mortal sin “necessary” is that, without it, you suffer damnation. Such confession is necessary for eternal life, i.e. heaven.
Thus, venial sin, because it does not cause eternal death, is not necessary to attain eternal life to be so formally confessed. However, it is necessary to be contrite and repentant about such sin. Venial sin can easily become mortal sin if you are not sorry that you commited it.
Moreover, that does not mean that you can walk into heaven with all that stain of venial sin on you. You cannot. Only those in a state of perfect grace — heaven being a place of perfect grace — can enter heaven. Hence the need for purification, i.e. having those imperfections purged from your being.
But why a sacramental confession of mortal sin? Why not simply go to some quiet place and confess to God one-to-one?
One reason, as stated before, is because Jesus established the sacraments, including the Sacrament of Confession/Penance, because He wanted us to utilize them.
Another reason is because Jesus established the Church for a reason. Ours is not a hub-and-spokewheel kind of religion, ours is not that type of highly individualized one-on-one relationship with God. Rather, we are more like drops of water in the ocean, each being diffused throughout the whole, yet still retaining our individuality.
Thus, the sacraments, including Confession, are not individualized, but are communal. Man, male and female, is by his nature a social being. Being made in the image of God the Trinity, we were meant to exist as He exists, in relationship. We confess, not in privacy, not with God and ourselves alone, but rather, we confess and receive absolution in the entirety of the Church.
It may look as if there are only two people in the confessional, but in actuality, the whole of the Church is present. Confession, no matter how private in human terms, is a social act, involving all of the faithful, both here on earth and in heaven. All of the Church, being part of the Body of Christ, is bound up in the work of redemption and forgiveness. The Church is not a mere bystander, a mere observer on the sidelines. Rather, as the Bride of the Crucified One, she shares in His redemptive mission, including the Sacrament of Confession.
As such it is necessary to turn to the Church and seek and obtain sacramental confession and absolution, and not merely consider sin and forgiveness to be a private affair. After all, sin is not a private affair, but is intensely social. Every sin, even though committed secretly and in apparent isolation, has social implications. Accordingly, sin being a social act, so too should forgiveness be a social act.
Now, Beth, I’ve gone on longer than I anticipated, and probably said way too much, but hopefully I did not confuse you too much. Of course, you can go read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other documents for a more formal explanation, with more technical language, but in explaining such things to my students, I try to avoid such over formalities and try to make the complex more straightforward, while maintaining fidelity to Church teachings. I hope I have done so. In any event, as I said at the beginning, I’m no expert, but hopefully this will shed some light on things.
August 21st, 2009 | 9:58 pm | #86
Anchoress,
I think that you are wrapped too tight. Lighten up and receive and rejoice in God’s mercy. Jesus is our friend. He isn’t an overseer or a traffic cop. Strict rules made by a church bureaucracy that has quarreled over them for well over a thousand years are works of man and are tainted by the Devil. Don’t judge so much lest ye be judged. Keep peace in your heart.
August 21st, 2009 | 10:06 pm | #87
as a Protestant and a pastor I have enjoyed many times of worship and fellowship with Roman Catholics and have always felt welcomed. However, even on the occasion when a priest has let it be known that he is kind of loose in his interpretation of who can take the Eucharist I never have. I do this out of not only respect for the Catholic Church but out of a profound respect for the piety and devotion toward the Eucharist that I have witnessed in my fellow worshipers. Do I feel a little sting of being left out? Yes. But I often go to the altar to be blessed by the priest and have never been turned away.
I think that BH’s attitude is just frankly selfish and devoid of the communal love and concern that should be the hallmark of the Eucharistic spirit.
August 21st, 2009 | 11:47 pm | #88
Rick,
How far do you think your reasoning would get you if you tried to sit down at a White House state dinner being held for invited members of the diplomatic corps? After all, no one has the right to keep you from the President, do they? It’s a publicly paid event, isn’t it? (Yeah, it’s a pretty bad comparison, but it might start you thinking.)
The Anchoress and others in here have made some very kind and patient remarks to you. I am going to say something a little more blunt. Your thinking, and your behavior follows your thinking, is very two-dimensional; it’s shallow. It’s very 21st century America. There are mysteries of the Catholic faith that you appear to have little or no sense of. If your approach to the Eucharist was authentic and inspired in any way by the Spirit of God, you would get it. I strongly recommend you pray for the day when you will.
Now, do I have to write, like everyone else, that I do not condemn you? And that I pray for you? Try to understand, Rick, we are very anxious for you, but for you to understand why the Church limits access to the Holy Eucharist, you have to have a lot of humility.
August 22nd, 2009 | 12:09 am | #89
dellbabe68 wrote: “I don’t think it’s obnoxioux or displaying attitude for a Church to set its own rules and expect that its parishioners follow them.”
Oh, I’m sorry, I should have clarified. I meant that it is obnoxious and selfish of people who are going to force themselves on the Eucharist of another church to prove a point.
[Edited due to some weird HTML problem -admin]
August 22nd, 2009 | 12:12 am | #90
Beth, I really like Bender’s explanations (Bender, I can tell that you are a great CCD teacher!) But as a counterpoint, I would emphasize that understanding all of that is somewhat beside the most central point. I’m a musician, which means that I have a song for everything (so sue me
). In this case, the third verse of Come You Sinners Poor and Needy.
Come, ye weary, heavy laden,
Lost and ruined by the fall;
If you tarry till you’re better,
You will never come at all.
Every sacrament has matter. In the case of the sacrament of confession, the matter is the sorrow that you have for your sins and the firm resolve to avoid them in the future. So whether you can figure out which ones are mortal and which ones are venial, or whether you can remember exactly how many times you did each one, or whether you have a foolproof plan for avoiding them in the future, or whether you remember all of the words to the Act of Contrition in the right order, just do it.
August 22nd, 2009 | 6:34 am | #91
Self interpretationa of the Scripture can lead to self destruction. The comments by some of contributors seem absurd. I felt insulted and slighted that some people wake up and tell me what to do as a Catholic. We should watch subjectivism, modernism and relatives of our time. Ricky and his wife should simply respect the Catholic traditions. Presumption is a mortal sin. Nobody should presume his or her salvation. We should work our salvation in fear and trembling.
Anyway, I am not suprise of comments and self explanation and understanding of the Catholic faith and theology. I wish Rick and her ignorant wife and their supporters should be enlightened of the Catholic faith and follow the process of becoming Catholic including annualment of her first marriage.
I have read some of the comments, I still found it hard to believe the lack of faith on these beloved brethen. They need to be enlightened instead of justifying themselves. Self exegesis may lead to further corruption of the Scripture and deepen the wounds of division. They should listen to the Holy Spirit. They are in my prayers.
Thanks
Paul
August 22nd, 2009 | 10:14 am | #92
Bender, thank you for your carefully considered explanation. I have to say that while you make many good points, I disagree with your statement that venial sin only strains our relationship with God, but doesn’t break it. The Bible says that the wages for sin is death, and that we are all dead in our sin. When Jesus died on the cross, He died for all our sins, big and small. So while I understand that there are certainly degrees of sin, all it takes is one tiny sin to separate us from the holiness of God. So , again, I find it a little inconsistent to have two different rules regarding confession, depending on the type of sin involved.
Additionally, I find the Catholic doctrine as you’ve explained it highly legalistic. The way it works for me is that I ask the Holy Spirit to tell me where I’ve transgressed ( and He always does!). Then I repent of it, ask God for forgiveness, and any person, if appropriate. And oftentimes I find the conviction of the H.S. so strong that I have been thoroughly changed from the inside out, and the particular sin I’m dealing with is no longer a problem or temptation. Other times it’s a continual struggle, but as often as I turn to the Lord in true repentance, I know he forgives me.
Anyway, I appreciate your comments. God bless!
August 22nd, 2009 | 10:46 am | #93
Posted at my place in the comments of the original post… thought I’d post here:
Matteo wrote:
Mommynator,
Your previous post is absolutely chock full of assumptions.
I find some serious irony in that.
I’ve been reading through all these comments… and those over at The Anchoress’ post… and so many of them, to include The Anchoress, are filled with assumption… dare I say presumption… dare I say arrogance… as to my spiritual state, my worthiness to come to The Lord’s Table… it’s seriously disheartening, even cruel… and then couched in terms of it all being based in love… please…
I have been thinking long and hard about it all… and am fighting the strongest of urges to simply say screw it all…
Instead, I’ll take PS’s link to the Catechism, and I’ll attempt to read through it all… and then make up my mind as to whether my return to the Catholic Church is the correct one…
I hope to find something other than what I’m finding in the comments here and in the comments at The Anchoress’ place…
What I’m finding here and there I can’t claim to find synonymous with what I’ve come to know and love about Christ and his teachings.
Instead, I’m finding… well.. what I would deem to be lots of insecurity… and lots of people in bondage to what I believe they misguidedly call freedom in Christ…
I can’t help but seriously ponder the ramifications of what I’m reading. The idea that my wife and I have put ourselves in mortal danger by taking communion is one that lingers. If this is true… if the premise is to be believed… then I’d think every Catholic Church in the land would be posting signs to unsuspecting visitors stating that their eternity is at stake should they dare come to The Table.
Seems ludicrous doesn’t it… but… why would I, given what I’ve read being posted by some, conclude anything different.
And then there are those who know me not, who know my wife not, and yet who can presume to know that I’m coming to God with unconfessed sin, that I’m oblivious of my need for a Savior, that I’ve not contemplated who it is I’d be without the grace and forgiveness I believe Christ has proferred me and Mrs. BH in the many years that we’ve come to know Him and love Him (though less than perfectly).
There was an Episcopal Bishop named John Spong who some time ago wrote a book titled “Why the Christian Church Must Change or Die”. I disagree vehemently with the content as to the reasons for that title but after reading the comments I’ve read so far related to my journey back to Catholicism, the title seems most apt.
The judgment, falsely asserted to be steeped in love, is plainly wrong. Thankfully, my faith is deep enough that I can look past it… but what of others like me and Mrs. BH who perhaps don’t have that deep a belief? In my view, too many are saying loudly and clearly, f*ck you… your faith sux… and you can’t come here and do what we do until that faith is more mature… and then they sit back smugly and pat themselves on the back for being loving.
What utter bullshit. And how sad and pathetic.
Yes, Bishop Spong… though I continue to see you as a heretic, an apostate, someone who hates Truth and is passing along falsehood in its place… I can relate once again to the title of that book.
* * *
August 22nd, 2009 | 11:01 am | #94
Late to thread but had to say that a very close relative who is living with her boyfriend (both are grandparents) was told by a ‘nun’ that it was just fine for them to receive Communion. My point: How many RELIGIOUS people have fostered this notion? This situation in our family ignited an examination of the Catechism teaching and ended up by said family member rejoining her former protestant church. It would help so much if persons who are supposed to represent the Church would actually teach what the Catechism teaches.
So often, Protestants are so used to simply making up any rules that they’re comfortable with (e.g. Rick’s “would Jesus refuse us?” The answer to that question is YES based on what Jesus said after He Resurrection “What you bind on earth is bound in heaven etc”) that they really are totally unaware of the whole Authority issue that Jesus passed on to his disciples.
August 22nd, 2009 | 11:30 am | #95
Time to be brutally honest. This guy Rick is a moron. It’s this simple: if the Church is right about the Eucharist, it’s right. If it’s wrong, you can always snack on a wafer with your friendly neighborhood Protestants.
August 22nd, 2009 | 11:39 am | #96
Wow, Gerry. Your comments will hardly draw someone closer to Christ , much less the Catholic faith.
I think Rick has a good point. He is obviously seeking Christ to the best of his ability. Please cut him some slack. We are all flawed, and need mercy.
August 22nd, 2009 | 11:59 am | #97
Catholics do not “take” Communion, they receive it. Holy Communion is given and RECEIVED. There is a huge theological difference. Please correct your erroneous title.
August 22nd, 2009 | 1:01 pm | #98
While my husband and I were waiting to hear about our annulments, we did not receive Holy Communion but used this prayer composed by St. Alphonsus Liguori in the 18th century:
My Jesus, I believe that you are present in the most Blessed Sacrament. I love You above all things and I desire to receive You into my soul. Since I cannot now receive You sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace You as if You have already come, and unite myself wholly to You. Never permit me to be separated from You. Amen.
At first we did receive the Eucharist. I thought angrily, why do I have to wait. But then my husband found the spiritual communion prayer on the back of the missal and I realized that it would be ok to wait, to obey the rules, to let go of anger, shame and the need to justify. To pick up my cross and follow him. To belong as I am.
St. Thomas Aquinas once defined a Spiritual Communion as “an ardent desire to receive Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament [in Communion at Mass] and in lovingly embracing Him as if we had actually received Him.”
So give up the fight; make a Spiritual Communion. Join the rest of us as you are and join with Christ whenever and wherever you’d like, using the prayer given above, others like it or your own heartfelt thoughts.
August 22nd, 2009 | 1:04 pm | #99
Beth –
I’m not so sure that we are as far apart as it might seem.
The Catholic Church does indeed recognize that a sin is a sin is a sin, and that “all it takes is one tiny sin to separate us from the holiness of God.” However, the Church also recognizes, as you say, that “there are certainly degrees of sin.” In all of this, we are in agreement.
The mortal/venial distinction is an attempt by the theologians and Magisterium of the Church to further explore those “degrees” of sin. Indeed, to say that there are “degrees” of sin is to say that not all sin is mortal, so long as there is contrition for that non-mortal sin as well. (A non-mortal sin can effectively become a mortal sin merely by being obstinent and refusing to be sorry about it, thereby being an additional sin of rejecting the whole idea of God’s forgiveness.)
This might seem overly legalistic, but once one starts trying to expand upon the idea of degrees of sin, then such complexities are inevitable. In any event, with respect to being overly legalistic, again, it is helpful to maintain a distinction between (a) the theologians, whose role is to further explore and understand and define all of the finer points of theology, doctrine and dogma (and, hence, are more apt to give the appearance of legalisms), and (b) the individual in their everyday life.
The everyday person generally is not going to be engaging in such in-depth analysis in his or her examination of conscience, that is, determination of what sins were committed. There are some who do put form over substance, but most people in their everyday life do not.
For most, it is — a sin is a sin, and these are the sins I’ve committed, these are the things I’ve done that I shouldn’t have done and these are the things I did not do that I should have, these are all the ways that I have fallen short. Some are more serious than others: these are the more “serious” and these are the not-as-serious, but sinner that I am, it would be impossible to list each and every tiny little transgression that I am guilty of; nevertheless, I am sorry for all of these.
There really is not all that much “legalism” for the everyday person. And for the person going to Confession, the “rules” are pretty straightforward — to be a good confession, you must be contrite and repentent for ALL of your sins, you must confess ALL those sins, and you must do the penance assigned to you (some small gesture to make amends for the sins you have committed, some small way to show your thanks and gratitude to God, typically prayer). As is apparent, these are not really “rules” but are merely what is required in order to fully reconcile with someone you love.
That is not all that legalistic. For the everyday faithful Catholic, there really are not “two different rules regarding confession,” there is only one rule: Be sorry for all your sins and confess all your sins.
The mortal/venial distinction favored by theologians comes into play only in the manner of confessing “all your sins.” The sins that are more serious and you are aware of you should specifically mention, with sufficient detail to give the priest some idea of what happened (e.g. “I stole $100 from my employer’s cash register”). Those that are not-so-serious are still confessed, but in a more general way if you can recall them (e.g. “I often get angry at other drivers in traffic”). And all of your other sins in a “catch-all” way if you cannot recall them but know you are guilty of them (e.g. “for those sins I have mentioned and for all the sins in my life, I am sorry”).
In this way, all sin is confessed – “venial” sin is still confessed, but generally, rather than specifically. Given that there are so many more venial sins we commit on a daily basis, so many ways that we fall short of the perfection to which we are called, even if we could remember them all, or spent all our time throughout the day writing them down, to confession each of them individually and specifically would require you to spend hours confessing. Hence the dispensation to confess them in a more general fashion.
August 22nd, 2009 | 1:13 pm | #100
Come now Rick, you just want someone to tell you, “Oh it is perfectly Okey-dokey!” The problem is that it is not. I’m responding as someone who is in a very similar situation to you. Born into a Catholic family, but not devout. My mother always told me any Christian denomination was OK, so I kind of let going to Mass, etc, fall by the wayside. Now I find I have Mystic tendencies and I’m slowly returning to the Church of my birth. What you don’t seem to understand is that in the Catholic Mass (or Orthodox) you are opening the veil between the physical and spiritual worlds. If you are not properly “prepared” what you are doing is opening yourself up for spiritual/demonic attack! That is why God just doesn’t remove the veil completely. He is protecting us. Remember in scripture when Jesus mentions the devil that is expelled will return with seven more to the clean house? When you take Jesus into you, you are creating a place for spiritual communion in your soul. If the place is not clean, Jesus/God cannot remain. God cannot coexist with sin. Therefore you are left with an empty place, guess who is going to come? Don’t be stupid! Christianity is the most Mystical of all faiths!!! More so than any Eastern mysticism, because God dwells within us when we allow him!
August 22nd, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #101
It might be helpful to see some of the prayers that are involved in Confession.
As part of the process, the person confessing will also say something to the effect of:
“My God, I am sorry for my sins with all my heart. In choosing to do wrong and failing to do good, I have sinned against you whom I should love above all things. I firmly intend, with your help, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin.”
or
“O, my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you. I detest all my sins because of your just punishment, but most of all because they offend you, my God, who are all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Your grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.”
From these “acts of contrition,” we can see that, in addition to the specific confession of non-recalled and minor sins, there is an overall confession of guilt for all of one’s sins.
Furthermore, if we look at one of the prayers said publicly at Mass, we again see a general confession of guilt: “I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do . . .” This public confession necessarily includes venial sins. And inasmuch as it is said in the Mass, which includes the Sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion), this too could be said to be a kind of sacramental confession (and the reception of Holy Communion effects a forgiveness of those venial sins – one guilty of mortal sin should not receive Communion, but should first receive the Sacrament of Confession/Penance).
Again, there is really only one “rule” regarding confession of sin, only different manners of confessing different degrees of it.
August 22nd, 2009 | 1:35 pm | #102
It might also be helpful to know the formula (words) of absolution said by the priest:
“God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His Son has reconciled the world to Himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
So, we see here that such forgiveness is by God, through the ministry of the Church, and in the name of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The priest himself is not doing the forgiving, it is God forgiving through the priest, who acts in persona Christi.
August 22nd, 2009 | 1:43 pm | #103
Rick, quit the name-calling. You’re making a lot of assumptions yourself.
I had a similar situation a couple of months ago when I stopped a pagan friend of mine from receiving Communion. She said, “I want to experience it for myself.” She wouldn’t talk to me on the ride home AT ALL.
And when she got out, she commented, “Jesus wouldn’t have turned me away.”
As far as she was concerned, what I did was ostracize her. She saw no difference between the Trinity and the Goddess (Maiden/Mother/Crone), so I was a terrible bitch for not allowing her the Christian experience.
I had already explained what Catholics believe, but she hadn’t wanted to hear it. Now that she’s cooled off and asked around, she knows that the Eucharist isn’t a mere “Christian experience” to share with everyone.
Also, Rick, maybe no one’s told you, but the Catholic Church is full of sinners. Just so’s you know.
August 22nd, 2009 | 2:25 pm | #104
Cross posted from Rick’s comments:
———
Thanks for the psychoanalysis, Mommynator. Not only are we Catholics evil, but we’re psychological wrecks, afraid of Jesus. I think that clears it up.
Rick, we’ve been addressing you in good faith, and love, the best way we know how. Many of us have explained this to the best of our ability. If this appears to you as “bullshit”, and “f*ck you”, well then, what can I say? In any case, if plain Catholic doctrine and self-understanding, mildly expressed, appears to you as “f*ck you” and “bullshit” then isn’t it rather clear what the answer is for you?
If you feel jumped on by everybody, please remember, you are the one who publicly invited comment. I would have had nothing to say publicly about your post and would have kept my peace, figuring “the Lord is calling Rick, and that’s beautiful. What Rick is doing ain’t exactly right, but the Lord will guide him.” Except for one thing.
You asked “Fine. But what would Jesus do?
Seriously?”
It was that last word, “Seriously,” that led me to respond. I assumed that that meant you seriously wanted an answer, so I seriously gave one to the absolute best of my knowledge and ability. You name your blog Brutally Honest, after all, so I thought you deserved the cleanest, clearest, most honest answer I could give.
I meant no offense. If you are this deeply offended by the whole thing, I can offer you no apology. If your reaction to the Catholic point of view is filled with this much turmoil and revulsion, then the Church is not for you. The only request that I can make is that you strive to understand what you are rejecting. No presumption here, and no apologies for saying so, but you simply don’t. That is a fact.
Be that as it may, you are a brother in Christ. Anyone who takes things this seriously regarding the Lord is my brother or sister (peace be with you, Mommynator). Let us all continue to pray for a more perfect communion.
Brutally Honest will, of course, continue to be stop number one in my daily blog reading. Thanks for the work and insight you put into the blog, Rick. You, too, Mommynator.
Your junior blog-brother,
Matteo
August 22nd, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #105
What does God require of us, first and foremost? Obedience. What was Adam’s and Eve’s sin? Disobedience. What was Satan’s sin? Disobedience. Why was Abraham pleasing to God? Because he was obedient even when it didn’t make sense. What did Jesus do? He was obedient on to death. What was Michael the Archangel’s response to Satan? “Who is like God?” God has setup his Church guided by His Holy Spirit and He is asking for obedience whether one understands it or not. We are not to put ourselves in the place of God and think we know God’s mind or intentions. God has put limits on Himself, by stetting up a sacrament where He gave the power to forgive sins to his apostles/disciples and the ones who come after them. He expects us to be obedient to His decree, while He Himself remains true to His given promise, even when one thinks, “surely He cannot forgive that!”
August 22nd, 2009 | 3:12 pm | #106
I may have misunderstood the issue with Rick; I thought the very issue he was raising was whether and why he had to go to Confession in order to receive the Eucharist, not us all assuming that he’s going to Church with un-confessed sin as stated in his most recent comment. I thought he was doing that openly, and wondered why that ought to be a problem. Hence, the Anchoress’s original post and the flood of comments after it.
Frankly, I no longer care if people walk in, look around, test the waters, and when they find that they can’t do what they want, how they want, and in the manner they want, they want to leave. No prob. Again, he and his wife, who I’m sure are lovely people, need to find a place where they want to worship God. They should go into testing out the next Church with that already figured out. It’ll make things much easier and less shocking for them when the place has something to say about the services in that Church.
It’s a long road. No doubt this experience will inform them, and someone else heading our way will have similar complaints about some other Church at coffee after Mass. Anyone ever ask themselves why there are so many Christian sects? I once had my own little mystical experience, where I imagined/pictured that I asked Jesus, upon crossing the finishing line, which of us Christians had it right. I then imagined, internalized, if you will, his expression of utter disappointment at my asking the question, when it was clear He died hoping we’d not put those kinds of questions to him, which is so human to do. I took that to mean two things: one, I’m not judging another group of committed Christians and if it makes me a bad Catholic, well, I’ll get in line. But two, I also take it to mean that if you’re part of a group, then be part of that group. Don’t come in, saying you want to be a part, and then want to pick and chose what you believe in and follow (because somewhere in that is your ego being put first), and you walk around testing everyone’s ecclesiastical knowledge for errors. Find your Church, be committed, and focus your time on worshipping Him.
August 22nd, 2009 | 3:30 pm | #107
(This is cross-posted, as a response to what Mateo cross-posted)
If your reaction to the Catholic point of view is filled with this much turmoil and revulsion, then the Church is not for you.
Maybe.
I speak from experience (rather a lot of experience
) when I say that when God wants something from me that I don’t want to do, He is a total pain in the ass. Turmoil is all part of being brutally honest, after all.
August 22nd, 2009 | 6:28 pm | #108
There are so many calm, thoughtful and charitable explanations offered here about the Catholic Eucharist that I can’t possibly top them even if I wanted to. I would just like to add one other thought that may be just off the point:
Rudeness and sarcasm should never be confused with “brutal honesty”.
August 23rd, 2009 | 4:17 am | #109
Come Holy Spirit…fill the hearts of your faithful and enkindle in us the fire of your love. Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.
Eternal Father, we offer Thee the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.
For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion,
Have Mercy on us and on the whole world.
“Jesus Loves You”
August 23rd, 2009 | 8:21 am | #110
Both Myssi’s problem with confession and the issue of receiving communion speak to one of the profound truths of the Catholic Faith: the fact that Christ is really present in the Eucharist (as a transubstantiated substance), and really present in the Church (through our baptism acknowlegement of our shared human nature, and our shared divine end). Personal dedication to the Eucharist is an important part of Catholic practice, as is personal prayer; but confession to a priest is a confession to the Body of Christ really existing in the world. In extreme cases, one can confess to any Roman Catholic, any member of that body; also, public confession was a tradition for part of Catholic history. Primarily, the priest’s role in confession is as a trained, committed, and discreet member of the Body, who can guide the return of a member to full communion by both absolution and spiritual aid, and without causing harm to the community by the scandal of one’s own sin. It makes certain that members of the Body truly commune with one another, and confession is the among the simplest of these communions. One should confess before going to Eucharist because one’s entrance into the Body of Christ is a ladder of commitment and love for that Body. We believe with Protestants that God will forgive all those who ask Him honestly, and love all, even His enemies. The Church provides us not merely with the bare forgiveness and general love of Christ, but spiritual intimacy, in Eucharist, but also in the fellowship of those who share our Body. Some no doubt can produce spiritual intimacy without much contact with the sacraments of the Church (consider some of the Desert Fathers); but for most of us, Catholics, Protestants, and non-Christians, such intimacy is not possible. We must rely on the Body to which we belong, and which we confirm in our involvement, for there we share in the intimacy of those around us. And we should beware relying too much on a vision of the Church as authority only. We are members, and the authority is there to protect the integrity of our Body. One does not go to confession because the Pope or a bishop of even the Catechism says to go: they say to go because they are protecting that integrity. For the same reason, works are important, for they are the regular and familiar communion with members of the Body (even members who do not recognize themselves as such). So too the sacraments. God wants our happiness, not just in heaven, but here, and He created human nature to be most happy with others, and graced our nature through the Incarnation by making our social life participate in the life of the Trinity, and the Spiritual love between Father and Son.
August 23rd, 2009 | 9:31 am | #111
I haven’t read all of the comments, here. So I do not know if anyone has mentioned another way of receiving Jesus, and that is in the Sacrament of Reconciliation…or Confession for folks more my age. Would it be out of line, as someone is pointing out to this fellow, who should know, the dangers of receiving Christ unworthily, the beauty of reconciliation and the mercy awaiting him in that sacrament?
It would be a first step in coming to realize, I suspect, the presumption (sinful?) underlying his decision to “partake” in Communion.
Perhaps, even, mentioning to Rich that while folks in other Christians either “take” or “partake” in whatever they believe communion is, Catholics (and Orthodox??) “receive” Christ. The attitude the two words describe is entirely different. Equals partake. Perhaps, even, superiors take. They do not “receive”.
And, they are not required to “give thanks”.
August 23rd, 2009 | 11:04 am | #112
Having gone back and done a little homework I find that reconciliation has been very much a part of the discussion, so I apologize for repeating what others have said.
Not too long ago, a priest pointed out to me that Christ waits for us with a much more hungry anticipation, eagerness and love than we could ever imagine or muster. Someone mentioned, here the story about the rich young man, who was eager to know God, so eager that he approached and asked that question of Him.
He went away, sad the story relates, because he was not yet ready to give up everything (sell what you have) including, on reflection, himself to receive Christ, who will not enter until that happens.
We have the example of His mother to guide us, here. I do not see that either in the original story about Rich’s decision to “partake” in communion, or is the one or two comments he has made in response, here. I do not see it, while fully admitting that I have not attained that degree of emptiness. However, I know that I cannot do that of myself. This is the purpose, I believe, of that Sacrament, whose grace is so necessary for the proper reception into our hearts and souls of Christ in His funless.
August 23rd, 2009 | 11:54 am | #113
What this parish priest has to say on this topic should put an end to this discussion:
August 23rd, 2009 | 12:07 pm | #114
I’ve left this comment for Rick’s readers at BH, and I realize my questions pertain to your thoughts, Anchoress. I have a lot of respect for you through your writings and the tone of this is intended for Rick’s commenters. Still, I respectfully wonder about your thoughts:
August 23rd, 2009 | 1:15 pm | #115
[...] also prompted this response from the Anchoress: My question is, if you want mass and you want specifically Catholic Communion, do you or do you not [...]
August 23rd, 2009 | 2:20 pm | #116
I feel compelled to keep some here up to date… I can stop if The Anchoress’ wishes it. My lastest post:
The missus and I were up early once again this Sunday morning and went off, for our 3rd week now, to the local Catholic service. And yes, this time, we decided not to participate in the Eucharist. Heaven’s earthly representatives forbid.
We attempted not to focus on the isolation that resulted but instead to simply worship prayerfully. I think the attempt was successful, if worship can be measured thusly.
I’ll continue to look through the Catechism so that in the end, I can make an informed decision as to my return to Catholicism… but I’m heartened by some of the e-mails I’ve received of late and with permission, am posting one of them here from Steve Schippert of ThreatsWatch.Org:
Dealing with “Catholics” is something well down the road. At this point, meditate on the Faith. The Church. Not “Catholics.” The Catholic faith, like any other, has the devout and the distant and the many in between. The Faith is about you and your relationship with God, not anyne else’s, inside or outside the Catholic Church or any other.
My pre-conversion criticisms of Catholics (vice the Faith) remain largely intact. So what? I am not they, for the better or for the worse. I have criticized them for lazy rote memorization/ritual with empty obligatory following. So what, I have realized. It’s not like the Faith encourages or commands such. That is an individual choice, not one made by the Church.
When I ignored/supressed critical observations of other Catholics (real or imagined as a Protestant) and focused on the Faith, clarity emerged. My conversion decision was instant and natural. I had the knowledge, but was clouded by judgments of my surroundings (having been married in a Catholic church and attended the same weekly, before and after marriage, for ten years as a non-Catholic.) I am not there for them beyond fellowship. I am not there to appear devout, cool, faithful or impressive. I am there to worship my God. My Maker, my Judge. What other Catholics think is of no concern nor impact. They will not stand with me before God when my life, my heart and my acts are judged.
It is written that “Faith without works is dead.”
I would write after that that “Worship without peripheral vision is Alive.”
Focus on Faith.
Cheers, brother.
Steve
Sound advice I believe.
I also believe that some won’t find it so sound… yet that’s not the belief I’m compelled to worry myself with.
August 23rd, 2009 | 3:37 pm | #117
In observing this over the last couple of days, I can’t help but notice Rick’s increasingly hostile reactions toward those who have, for the most part, with the best of intentions and the mildest of arguments, simply disagreed with him.
After seeing so many nice people respond with steady love, compassion and prayer, it’s unfortunate that all he does with this is take everyone’s kindness and use it as a cudgel against them.
From my perspective, Rick has now reduced this whole matter into some kind of unseemly pyschodrama involving a conflict between him and those he derisively dismisses as “Heaven’s Earthly Representatives”.
I appreciate the efforts of everyone who has responded to him with tact, respect and good will, but it really should be acknowledged that in response he is acting like a petulant child.
August 23rd, 2009 | 6:14 pm | #118
In response to Steve Schippert’s comment above, I was struck by his statement that “the Faith is about you and your relationship with God, not anyone else’s, inside or outside the Catholic Church or any other.” I am not a theologian by any means, so my understanding might be incomplete or incorrect; if so, please excuse. As a Catholic, I am somewhat uncomfortable about statements that imply (a la “Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior”) that the Faith is, at its core, individualistic. From my basic understanding of St. Paul’s writings, it seems that it has been stressed from the very beginnings of the Church that we are a community — that we are all members of the Body of Christ. Because of this unity, we share in each other’s joys as well as each other’s sorrows and pain. In fact, I would suggest that the majority of comments here arise less out of a sense of legalism and more out of a true desire for Rick and his wife to partake fully in the Eucharist. To be “brutally honest,” however, we can’t pretend that differences among us do not exist, nor can we say that we are all truly united just because we want it to be so — Christ Himself, through His Church, has told us what we must do to receive Communion worthily, and thus to remain united to Him and thereby to each other as members of His Mystical Body.
In his encyclical, “Ecclesia de Eucharistia,” Pope John Paul II underscored the communal nature of our faith: “Eucharistic communion also confirms the Church in her unity as the body of Christ. Saint Paul refers to this unifying power of participation in the banquet of the Eucharist when he writes to the Corinthians: “The bread which we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:16-17). Saint John Chrysostom’s commentary on these words is profound and perceptive: “For what is the bread? It is the body of Christ. And what do those who receive it become? The Body of Christ – not many bodies but one body. For as bread is completely one, though made of up many grains of wheat, and these, albeit unseen, remain nonetheless present, in such a way that their difference is not apparent since they have been made a perfect whole, so too are we mutually joined to one another and together united with Christ”.42 The argument is compelling: our union with Christ, which is a gift and grace for each of us, makes it possible for us, in him, to share in the unity of his body which is the Church. The Eucharist reinforces the incorporation into Christ which took place in Baptism though the gift of the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 12:13, 27).”
To Rick: I know that you will likely not feel compelled to read or worry about what I wrote above, and that’s fine — but I hope you can understand that this isn’t a matter of some people trying to be “right” and rub your nose in it, but rather trying to show you to the richness of the Faith as well as its intellectual underpinnings. Contrary to popular belief, the seemingly legalistic rules of the Church exist for our own good — God, who each moment loves us into existence, wants us to share in His life more than we can imagine, but we have to be humble and open-hearted enough to listen to His “roadmap” for that unity, as proclaimed by the Church established by Jesus Himself. You and your wife, brother and sister to me in faith, are in my prayers.
August 23rd, 2009 | 6:58 pm | #119
To Rick and all:
My family and I are converts: my husband and I are both cradle Methodists, and we spent many years of our married life as Anglicans. My husband was a priest prior to our conversion to Catholicism.
Our own story isn’t all that relevant here, except that my impetus to drag all of us to Mass to begin with was the realization that I believed that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist — which one can believe as an Anglican, and which is the practice of believing in the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism — and that the thought of bringing up my children outside that belief, as an organizing principle and a non-negotiable, was intolerable. It took us a good year of going to Mass even to arrive at the point of committing ourselves to being received into the Church.
During the — well, it was nearly two years that we spent going to Mass, not only on Sundays but during the week, during all of which time we all abstained from Communion. It was something like a very long Lent, and it was cleansing and focusing in the way that a Lenten discipline tends to be. It was a time during which I became acutely aware of my longing for Christ: not that I couldn’t encounter Him in prayer and adoration, but my sense of His waiting for me in the Eucharist was heightened, week after week. I truly believe that that long abstaining formed the spirit in which I have received Him ever since — as if it were my wedding day, and He my spouse.
I find it good to pray the preparatory prayers of St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas before Mass. They’re in an excellent little (Episcopalian) prayer book, Saint Augustine’s Prayer Book, which has a beautiful form for making a spiritual Communion AND an excellent and rigorous examination of conscience for Confession. I use it all the time and highly recommend it.
On a more pragmatic note, it felt weird at first, even to the point of being traumatic, to be in Mass but not receiving. I was sure that everyone in the church was making note of it, and considering me an outsider. Once I realized that nobody was paying attention to me, being far too absorbed in their own prayers, I relaxed and quit feeling like such a foreigner. I sang in our parish choir during much of that abstaining time, and only after the fact did I learn that everyone around me, knowing me week in and week out, had just assumed that I was Catholic but had — as many people do — some reason for not receiving, which they were too polite to ask about.
The thing about all these Catholics here whom Steve Schippert is advising Rick to ignore is that they aren’t being personally judgmental or speaking for themselves as individuals or sharing what they, personally, “feel” about the Church. They’re simply trying to explicate what the Church teaches, and what the Faith IS. The Eucharist, and Christ’s Presence in it, is not an add-on or a negotiable: it IS the organizing principle of the Faith. Anyone who says otherwise is misled, or misleading. These folks here are simply being not “Catholics” but the Church, and speaking the truth in love.
Incidentally, the thing that held me back from wanting to be Catholic, and committing to the process of becoming Catholic, was the knowledge that I would have to go to Confession. I dreaded it. I can’t express to you how much I hated the idea of spilling my guts like that to another person, even if in persona Christe. My husband had been going for years, long before we made this whole leap. I on the other hand dragged my feet and procrastinated and finally went the Friday before we were to be received on Sunday. I still sort of intrinsically don’t like going to Confession, but I go pretty much weekly now, and while I dread it beforehand, it feels inexpressibly good TO HAVE GONE. And so I do, and I do it often so that I won’t lose the habit. It is a gift, and I would embrace it if I were you, even against all your instinctive resistance. Especially against the instinctive resistance.
My prayers for your journey, Rick.
August 23rd, 2009 | 7:15 pm | #120
thanks to all who made a genuine effort to answer my question about confession to a priest.
Interesting how we can read the same scripture and take a totally different meaning from it. I guess one day, we’ll have to ask God who was right.
I do have to say, though, that I am offended by Gerry’s throw away line that The Lord’s Supper is “a snack” in the Protestant church. It isn’t; it’s a special occasion for rememberance of the sacrifice God made for our souls. Disagreements about transubstantiation aside, we all receive Communion in rememberance of Christ and at His command. Please don’t make light of our attempt at obedience; we don’t make light of yours.
August 23rd, 2009 | 7:36 pm | #121
How very interesting that our friend Rick tells us, through his priest-friend’s advice, which does infact seem sound to me, that he has learned not to care what we think. Yet somehow what we think is what he was after, I suspect. Why else put the feelings “to paper” to begin with. People here were kind and gracious, yet not ready to have their Church be steamrolled. I’m glad he’s offering respect to the Church, but let’s not pretend that you don’t care, Rick, what people think, or else this conversation would never have happened. “Petulent child” seems apropriate, honestly, since you made known your intent and then were obviously annoyed we didn’t see the wisdom in your choice. I see more wisdom now, by the way, and yet my saying that doesn’t matter since I’m not really a heavenly representative. But you know that already, or you wouldn’t have been so sarcastic to even have said it.
August 23rd, 2009 | 11:33 pm | #122
Wow! Just – wow! This whole thread has been amazing and inspiring. Like Rick (hopefully), I’m a revert to Catholicism after decades away. I am very blessed to be part of a parish with the motto, “Come home to Christ,” which is what I hear my fellow Catholics saying to Rick in these comments. Truly, the Body of Christ is at work here.
And while Rick claims not to be concerned with what other Catholics say, perhaps he would be interested in G. K. Chesterton’s opinion (Orthodoxy)? I’m paraphrasing here, but Chesterton points out there’s a cross-beam on that tree. It isn’t just about you and your vertical relationship with God. It is at the intersection – the Cross – where faith is manifest. Your relationship with God is necessary in that intersection, but not sufficient. You must have the horizontal relationship among the faithful to fully receive the grace offered by Christ.
BTW – I’ve been inspired reading this thread to “get thee off to Confession!” Thanks to all the contributors for your wisdom and prayers. God bless us all on this journey home.
August 23rd, 2009 | 11:42 pm | #123
I find that in the end, the teachings of the church always make a great deal of sense. Let me start from the end and work backwards. Paul said where there is faith there is no need for the law. Now those who want to break the law might jump right to that conclusion, that hey I have faith, so I can go break any law.
Paul is talking of the kind of faith where you step out of the boat and you don’t sink. Do you indeed walk and talk with God? Is He beside you, do you talk with Him daily and listen, and hear?
The law is a set of guidelines that will get you to that point. In a way it is like going on a diet, if you don’t stick to the program you don’t get the results.
Once you get there, you no longer need the law, because now you know the right thing without the law.
The hard part is discerning I am now in that place. Many an ego has taken a hard fall, because they presumed too much, too soon.