What Flannery Said!
Feb 22, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
Father Augustin Escobar, associate pastor at St. Norbert’s Church in Orange, California, invited a Presbyterian minister to concelebrate Mass, partake of the Holy Eucharist, and distribute the sacrament to the faithful. Bishop Tod Brown of the Diocese of Orange, California put Father Escobar on leave while an investigation ensues.
The few brief news items about the story leave more questions asked than answered, but a lack of solid information never stops people from opining, and in the social and alternative media forums the usual suspects dismiss the matter as “trivial” or denounce it as “a travesty” and the more middling folks vacillate between the two extremes. The debate comes down to an ancient question: what is more important, the letter of the law or its spirit? If we believe that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, shouldn’t we be inviting all to approach and Commune with Him, or must we instead protect Christ from irreverence?
For many Catholics (and other Christians), this seems like a no-brainer: who has the right to stand between Christ and another human being? Jesus prayed “that all might be one,” and so Catholics should enthusiastically open their communion, some say, to any-and-all, and trust the Holy Spirit to work it all out. Others argue that withholding communion from non-Catholics seems like a remarkably ironic exclusion, given the number of Catholics who themselves either receive communion unworthily or without true understanding. Still others suggest, provocatively, that excluding non-Catholics or even Catholics in grave sin from communion prevents Jesus from converting hearts through a physical encounter.
While I understand the first position, I am inclined toward the second, and not because of I am a "legalist" but because I believe in common sense, respect, and common courtesy.
The argument that our communion restrictions are made irrelevant due to the imperfect participation of our own poorly-catechized members really has no bearing on whether our communion should be further opened. Common sense tells us that if I spell cat with a K, my ignorance in no way suggests that everyone else should do the same. Catholics have a duty—no matter how happy-clappy we get—to keep proclaiming what the Holy Eucharist is, and explain why what is Holy is not meant to be received lightly, or without full appreciation.
If we’re not teaching this well to our own, it seems a bad idea to broaden our poor instruction.
There exists an odd double-standard concerning Catholic observances and almost any other ritual. Culturally nuanced and sensitive Americans would never presume to attend a Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or even Orthodox Christian celebration with an expectation of full participation, but when Catholics ask the same respect for their holiest sacrament, they are criticized for being unreasonable and “exclusionary,” and always there is a whiff of that dreaded word “intolerance.” Other cultures and religions are to be allowed their exclusivities with full respect, but Catholics who base their beliefs on Jesus’ own words, and on reasoned theology and philosophy, tradition and supporting scripture, ought not expect the same courtesy.
And then there's courtesy. Holy Communion is a great mystery of ponderous depth. People like to call it “a meal” and “a banquet,” and if it were only that, there would still be rules about reception. One does not go into a neighbor’s house, open the fridge, and gobble down the food that has been prepared for a family event, with a careless, “What, it’s for everyone, right?”
But our Communion is much more than a mere family meal. it is a face-to-face, one-on-one, intimate encounter with Christ. This is nothing to engage in lightly. Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 against unworthy reception of the Eucharist and canon 908 is just the expression of this apostolic instruction in canon law. If the Church seems to “stand between” a person and Christ it is only because we each of us have a responsibility to stand between ourselves and the reception of Christ in the Holy Sacrament, if we are not rightly disposed. 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 one’s beliefs in the light of all of Scripture—including Paul’s admonishments—and the teaching of the Church, including her canon law. If one does not believe what Scripture and the Church say about the Mass, one ought not allow a feel-good pretense to overrule one’s manners.
The Holy Eucharist is the all-or-nothing Source and Summit of our faith. It either is what Jesus said it is, or it is nothing at all. If it is the Flesh and Blood of Christ, truly Present, then common sense says the Holy Eucharist deserves our highest honor, our highest respect, our most complete reverence, and all of the excludes those who don't believe this from participating.
If it is not, then as Flannery O’ Connor so perfectly said, “to hell with it.”
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here. Read the most complete report on Fr. Escobar and Rev. Whitney’s concelebration.
UPDATE: Fr. Escobar has issued an apology, according to the California Catholic Daily website.
Comments:
2.22.2011 | 1:34am
Dena Hunt says:
I don't think O'Conner's comment is misapplied. She's right and the quotation is perfectly apt.
More, even those among us who say that we feel unsure about the Eucharist, we have doubts, our faith is weak--perhaps we think these things as we kneel for that holy moment or as we walk slowly forward in communion lines--yet, still, none of us would ever say that it should be shared with non-Catholics.
It would be easy to argue that "many" do feel it should be shared, but not the vast (usually silent) majority of us.
Why is that? Because most of us have the humility to recognize those doubts as the weakness of our own faith, not as some "proof" that the Eucharist is not what the Church says it is.
But then, that's what makes us Catholics in the first place, isn't it?
And if that's true, what does that say about the "many" who disagree?
More, even those among us who say that we feel unsure about the Eucharist, we have doubts, our faith is weak--perhaps we think these things as we kneel for that holy moment or as we walk slowly forward in communion lines--yet, still, none of us would ever say that it should be shared with non-Catholics.
It would be easy to argue that "many" do feel it should be shared, but not the vast (usually silent) majority of us.
Why is that? Because most of us have the humility to recognize those doubts as the weakness of our own faith, not as some "proof" that the Eucharist is not what the Church says it is.
But then, that's what makes us Catholics in the first place, isn't it?
And if that's true, what does that say about the "many" who disagree?
2.22.2011 | 3:51am
William Sprague says:
Being a conservative Presbyterian, I would have to say that the Eucharist can be everything that Jesus said it is and not be what Rome says it is. I get the authority issue (and being Presbyterian, I obviously don't believe that the Roman is the Catholic Church) but I just felt like the last paragraph was a tad black and white for me. I am not a memorialist Zwinglian and I am not a Bodily Presence Anglican or Lutheran. There is an alternative and I think it is the duty of the Church to protect the Sacrament from defilement. Calvin threw himself in front of the Eucharist in order to prevent the Libertines in Geneva from partaking unworthily and defiling the Body of Christ. He believed in a Spiritual (as in by-the-ministration-of-the-Holy-Spirit) partaking of the natural flesh of Christ while leaving His glorified body in Heaven. I think it is the most Biblical understanding. I am not trying to force agreement on the theological point, just pointing out that I would be placed in the "nothing" part of the "all or nothing" point of Ms. Scalia's last paragraph, and I think that is inappropriate.
All of that to say that I don't think the Presbyterian should have done what he did because the theological divide between his beliefs (I suppose he is sacramentally with Calvin and the Westminster/Belgic Confessions) and Rome's is too wide and only his ignorance or impiety (or the Bishop's for that matter) could have left his conscience unscathed on the matter. And, for respect's sake as well (as Ms. Scalia pointed out) he should have not done it even if the Bishop asked him too. He should've known better, even if the Bishop didn't.
All of that to say that I don't think the Presbyterian should have done what he did because the theological divide between his beliefs (I suppose he is sacramentally with Calvin and the Westminster/Belgic Confessions) and Rome's is too wide and only his ignorance or impiety (or the Bishop's for that matter) could have left his conscience unscathed on the matter. And, for respect's sake as well (as Ms. Scalia pointed out) he should have not done it even if the Bishop asked him too. He should've known better, even if the Bishop didn't.
2.22.2011 | 6:25am
Michael PS says:
When Christ uses the image of the vine and the branches, or St Paul speaks of the mystical body of Christ, it is obvious that this is figurative or metaphorical language; what it points to, the unity of life that members of the church share, is not figurative or metaphorical at all, but a literal, though spiritual, reality. It is of this life that Christ says he is the food. This is why St Augustine says in Sermo 229, "He gives us his body to make us into his body.”
For Catholics, to share in the Eucharist is to be “in communion” both with the local church and its bishop and, through him, with the bishops in communion with him and with the church universal. “Communion,” therefore, is an implicit submission to his authority “to rule, sanctify and govern” them. This has always been the Church’s rule, from the time of the Apostolic Fathers, as may be seen from the letters of St Ignatius, St Polycarp and St Irenaeus and, one must assume, from the Apostolic age itself.
For Catholics, to share in the Eucharist is to be “in communion” both with the local church and its bishop and, through him, with the bishops in communion with him and with the church universal. “Communion,” therefore, is an implicit submission to his authority “to rule, sanctify and govern” them. This has always been the Church’s rule, from the time of the Apostolic Fathers, as may be seen from the letters of St Ignatius, St Polycarp and St Irenaeus and, one must assume, from the Apostolic age itself.
2.22.2011 | 8:10am
pdn Michael says:
To Todd's point, the Orthodox do not (or are not supposed to, at any rate) receive communion from Catholic priests. Now, I'm sure it is offered with good intention, but in the Orthodox view the bishop of Rome is not in communion with the other Patriarchates (his is not the only one) of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria (whose bishop is also called "the pope"), Jerusalem, Moscow, Belgrade, Bucharest. For the Orthodox, "communion" does not necessarily follow "recognition." From the Orthodox standpoint, the one thing missing is Rome's confession that it's bishop is not a bishop at all, but something above and beyond those who are bishops, and must once more become a bishop in a way which the Orthodox find consistent with ancient polity. (No, probably not in our lifetime!)
To the Orthodox mind it was Rome who broke communion; to the Latin mind everyone else broke communion with them. It was a nice but ultimately a quixotic and whimsical gesture for the Roman Catholic Church to formally open its Eucharist to Orthodox Christians. It has also led to unnecessary confusion among both Catholics and Orthodox, assumes the very same "right to" on the part of Rome that the Orthodox have never accepted, and is in it's way no different than what happened with the priest and the Presbyterian minister (who did NOT go into a bar in this joke).
Having said all that, I am currently reading a collection of the documents published by both the North American and the International Catholic-Orthodox theological commissions over the past fifty years, and there is every reason to be hopeful that the divorce may one day end, the parties ask one anothers' forgiveness, and true communion is restored. But it will not happen by pretending not to notice what continues to divide us. We cannot, like the priest in Elizabeth's story here, act like Carrol's Humpty-Dumpty and insist words mean what we decide they mean.
This leads me to Elizabeth's story (one wishes it was a parable). For fifteen hundred years, even after Rome separated from communion with the other Churches, Christians on the whole shared remarkably congruent notions of "church" and "sacrament" and what it meant to be "in communion." Beginning with Luther and continuing through every latest fragmentation, Protestants have agreed that we (Rome and the Orthodox) have it wrong about "church" and have continuously chosen to keep themselves separate from us. I don't see how its unkind when we honor the choice.
To the Orthodox mind it was Rome who broke communion; to the Latin mind everyone else broke communion with them. It was a nice but ultimately a quixotic and whimsical gesture for the Roman Catholic Church to formally open its Eucharist to Orthodox Christians. It has also led to unnecessary confusion among both Catholics and Orthodox, assumes the very same "right to" on the part of Rome that the Orthodox have never accepted, and is in it's way no different than what happened with the priest and the Presbyterian minister (who did NOT go into a bar in this joke).
Having said all that, I am currently reading a collection of the documents published by both the North American and the International Catholic-Orthodox theological commissions over the past fifty years, and there is every reason to be hopeful that the divorce may one day end, the parties ask one anothers' forgiveness, and true communion is restored. But it will not happen by pretending not to notice what continues to divide us. We cannot, like the priest in Elizabeth's story here, act like Carrol's Humpty-Dumpty and insist words mean what we decide they mean.
This leads me to Elizabeth's story (one wishes it was a parable). For fifteen hundred years, even after Rome separated from communion with the other Churches, Christians on the whole shared remarkably congruent notions of "church" and "sacrament" and what it meant to be "in communion." Beginning with Luther and continuing through every latest fragmentation, Protestants have agreed that we (Rome and the Orthodox) have it wrong about "church" and have continuously chosen to keep themselves separate from us. I don't see how its unkind when we honor the choice.
2.22.2011 | 8:21am
ferd says:
Please consider, God let's His grace rain down on both the righteous and unrighteous; and the words of consecration include "take this ALL of you and eat it..." Yet, the Catholic church has the authority "to bind on earth" Eucharistic participation any way the Key holder decides.
Perhaps, those of us, so blessed in the Catholic faith, should be aware of what is really going on. We should consciously offer back to the Father our Eucharistic participation for the benefit of the entire Church (throughout time and eternity). Are we not all one body in Christ? Does one receive that it does not affect the rest of the Body?
What annoys me is fundies within the Church that scandalize a secular world by narrowly defining salvation into obscure theological corners...ie...baptism by immersion, verbally proclaiming the Name of Jesus, etc. What then results is Oprah telling her audience that it is ridiculous to believe that only Christians would be saved. Yet, Christians should already know full well that she is right! Many that we think are "non-christian" will be saved by the Name of the Lord Jesus, whether that Name spoke intimately with a little Hindu girl or a loving Muslim or whoever. Wouldn't the same be true of Holy Communion? We do not know how God is working in souls.
If it were my call I would open the Eucharist up to all: but, I obey Mother Church as a Catholic son.
Perhaps, those of us, so blessed in the Catholic faith, should be aware of what is really going on. We should consciously offer back to the Father our Eucharistic participation for the benefit of the entire Church (throughout time and eternity). Are we not all one body in Christ? Does one receive that it does not affect the rest of the Body?
What annoys me is fundies within the Church that scandalize a secular world by narrowly defining salvation into obscure theological corners...ie...baptism by immersion, verbally proclaiming the Name of Jesus, etc. What then results is Oprah telling her audience that it is ridiculous to believe that only Christians would be saved. Yet, Christians should already know full well that she is right! Many that we think are "non-christian" will be saved by the Name of the Lord Jesus, whether that Name spoke intimately with a little Hindu girl or a loving Muslim or whoever. Wouldn't the same be true of Holy Communion? We do not know how God is working in souls.
If it were my call I would open the Eucharist up to all: but, I obey Mother Church as a Catholic son.
2.22.2011 | 8:39am
Brian LeCompte says:
Not to belabour the obvious, but was the minister properly disposed by having received the sacrament of Reconciliation?
It is interesting to me that this sacrament is prima facie open to all baptized Christians, yet I don't know if Protestants regularly line up with Catholics on Saturday morning.
I do know that in the RCIA process, a baptized non-Catholic Christian receives the sacrament of Reconciliation as part of the preparation for Confirmation and reception in to the Church.
Maybe if the Church spent some effort emphasizing the GIFT of the GRACE necessary for reception of the Eucharist, as sanctifying grace is given in baptism and restored through reconciliation, then this argument could be reduced to something we need to agree upon: we need Christ's forgiveness first before we can offer thanksgiving in Holy Eucharist.
It is interesting to me that this sacrament is prima facie open to all baptized Christians, yet I don't know if Protestants regularly line up with Catholics on Saturday morning.
I do know that in the RCIA process, a baptized non-Catholic Christian receives the sacrament of Reconciliation as part of the preparation for Confirmation and reception in to the Church.
Maybe if the Church spent some effort emphasizing the GIFT of the GRACE necessary for reception of the Eucharist, as sanctifying grace is given in baptism and restored through reconciliation, then this argument could be reduced to something we need to agree upon: we need Christ's forgiveness first before we can offer thanksgiving in Holy Eucharist.
2.22.2011 | 10:51am
Ricko says:
Two and a half years ago we had a Baptist minister concelebrate, partake and pass out Communion. The Celebrant was a regular Sunday substitute who is a Carmelite. The pastor sat in the back of this Mass and after Communion appeared on the altar to say how wonderful this joining in communion was. The scandal of it was kept to a minimum by very limited discussion that was handled by the Bishop. It never happened again.
Don't we owe a duty in conscience to our fellow Christians to not encourage them to participate in a ritual that they do not fully agree with or understand? It reminds me of the young Muslim woman who appeared at another of these Sunday Masses and started her sermon by saying that she agreed with much of what the Church taught and that we were not so different in our beliefs. For her, this was blasphemy. Why would we encourage her to blaspheme her religious beliefs?
These local acts of attempted ecumenical love are so poorly conceived that they are a true travesty. Not only for the faithful who witness them, but for the non-Catholic participants who are not knowledgeable in the Faith and may be encouraged to break their own beliefs and Confessions.
Don't we owe a duty in conscience to our fellow Christians to not encourage them to participate in a ritual that they do not fully agree with or understand? It reminds me of the young Muslim woman who appeared at another of these Sunday Masses and started her sermon by saying that she agreed with much of what the Church taught and that we were not so different in our beliefs. For her, this was blasphemy. Why would we encourage her to blaspheme her religious beliefs?
These local acts of attempted ecumenical love are so poorly conceived that they are a true travesty. Not only for the faithful who witness them, but for the non-Catholic participants who are not knowledgeable in the Faith and may be encouraged to break their own beliefs and Confessions.
2.22.2011 | 11:28am
Mark says:
A mixture of arguments pragmatic and theological. The pragmatic are much stronger, but everyone runs to the theological. Simple question - if you are in someone's house, do you raid the fridge? The polite answer is no. And you do this out of courtesy. The neighbor 13 year old boy might do this, but that is because he has become part of the family and he's a 13 year old boy. Practical politeness says until you feel like its your home, don't raid the fridge. But do notice that it is the guest excluding themselves and not a sign on the fridge by the owner saying keep out.
The theological argument from 1 Cor 11 isn't told to the owner to guard the fridge. Its told to the guests. 1 Cor 11:27 says that taking wrongly is being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. That is the natural state. We are all guilty of the body and blood prior to baptism and repentance. The instruction in 1 Cor 11:28 is examine yourself and then eat and drink.
Where does that examination take place? It can be by confession - sacramental or for protestant pious examination. It should also be ringing from the liturgy of the day. Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Word of God, Gospel, Sermon Proclamation, Creed, Lord's Prayer. If you are paying attention and participating in the liturgy; it is hard not to have examined yourself. The result of that examination prayerfully is a running to that rail for the only cure. It has always felt strange to me that the guardians of the purity of the rail are usually one and the same with the high liturgists. I always want to ask, don't you think the liturgy is effective? Can it not call to repentance and offer the cure?
Exclusionary principles on the Supper are like Moses' rules about divorce. They are granted for the hardness of our hearts. The theological arguments for exclusion are all poor, and probably should be avoided. If just from the realization that it is not God who breaks communion, but us.
The theological argument from 1 Cor 11 isn't told to the owner to guard the fridge. Its told to the guests. 1 Cor 11:27 says that taking wrongly is being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. That is the natural state. We are all guilty of the body and blood prior to baptism and repentance. The instruction in 1 Cor 11:28 is examine yourself and then eat and drink.
Where does that examination take place? It can be by confession - sacramental or for protestant pious examination. It should also be ringing from the liturgy of the day. Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Word of God, Gospel, Sermon Proclamation, Creed, Lord's Prayer. If you are paying attention and participating in the liturgy; it is hard not to have examined yourself. The result of that examination prayerfully is a running to that rail for the only cure. It has always felt strange to me that the guardians of the purity of the rail are usually one and the same with the high liturgists. I always want to ask, don't you think the liturgy is effective? Can it not call to repentance and offer the cure?
Exclusionary principles on the Supper are like Moses' rules about divorce. They are granted for the hardness of our hearts. The theological arguments for exclusion are all poor, and probably should be avoided. If just from the realization that it is not God who breaks communion, but us.
2.22.2011 | 12:22pm
Michael PS says:
I believe the fallacy comes from trying to define “the faithful” by their beliefs or conduct, or trying to decide who are, or who are not, “true Christians,” by their tenets.
On the traditional Catholic view, “the faithful, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome.”
This test has the merit of being a real test, without the need for question-begging assumptions and that is the real argument against inter-communion.
On the traditional Catholic view, “the faithful, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome.”
This test has the merit of being a real test, without the need for question-begging assumptions and that is the real argument against inter-communion.
2.22.2011 | 12:46pm
Michael says:
Roman Catholics take the Eucharist so seriously that they allow only Roman Catholics to partake in it. The Eucharist is the final sign that all participants have achieved unity and full agreement.
On the other hand, we Methodists take the Eucharist so seriously that we offer it to anyone who enters the door and intends to live as a Christian. Baptized or not, young or old, all are welcome to the table because we believe the unity of Christ already exists. We are all too aware that Christians have failed to manifest the unity in Christ, but we know that God has given us the gift of unity in advance.
For that reason, Methodists are encouraged to participate in ecumenism, always taking care not only to respect the traditions of others but to learn from them. We are to understand that God has given grace liberally and that we can expect to learn from our fellow Christians.
Scalia’s all-or-nothing asks others to respect the door that excludes them from participating, while Wesley’s all-or-nothing removes the doors from their jambs. While Scalia is right that it is rude to go to a neighbor’s house and rummage through the fridge, it is another thing altogether if the neighbor throws open the refrigerator door and offers the guest the master bedroom and everything in the closet as well.
As Wesley says in one hymn, “Sure and real is the grace, the manner be unknown. Only meet us in thy ways and perfect us in one. Let us taste the heavenly powers, Lord. We ask for nothing more. Thine to bless, ’tis only ours to wonder and adore.”
On the other hand, we Methodists take the Eucharist so seriously that we offer it to anyone who enters the door and intends to live as a Christian. Baptized or not, young or old, all are welcome to the table because we believe the unity of Christ already exists. We are all too aware that Christians have failed to manifest the unity in Christ, but we know that God has given us the gift of unity in advance.
For that reason, Methodists are encouraged to participate in ecumenism, always taking care not only to respect the traditions of others but to learn from them. We are to understand that God has given grace liberally and that we can expect to learn from our fellow Christians.
Scalia’s all-or-nothing asks others to respect the door that excludes them from participating, while Wesley’s all-or-nothing removes the doors from their jambs. While Scalia is right that it is rude to go to a neighbor’s house and rummage through the fridge, it is another thing altogether if the neighbor throws open the refrigerator door and offers the guest the master bedroom and everything in the closet as well.
As Wesley says in one hymn, “Sure and real is the grace, the manner be unknown. Only meet us in thy ways and perfect us in one. Let us taste the heavenly powers, Lord. We ask for nothing more. Thine to bless, ’tis only ours to wonder and adore.”
2.22.2011 | 1:33pm
Elizabeth Glass Turner says:
Interesting. As a high-church leaning Protestant, I agree with you. Once in seminary, we visited a Catholic church and conversed with the priest. The question of the Eucharist came up, and he wore a conspiratorial shrug as he said if one of us came forward for the Eucharist in Mass he probably wouldn't say or do anything, would, in essence, turn a blind eye.
At the time, that really bothered me. I disagreed but deeply respected the Catholic church's position, and it kind of insulted me that he was so desperate to be ecumenical. "If you believe it, practice it! If you don't - well, don't!" was my thought. And it still is.
I shared the story with Fr. Richard John Neuhaus once, whose head snapped to attention. "Which congregation was this?" Unfortunately, I only remember the city, not the specific priest.
It does not insult me as a Protestant to be restricted in what parts of a Catholic service I can participate in. It does insult me when priests throw out their dogma in order to try to make friends.
At the time, that really bothered me. I disagreed but deeply respected the Catholic church's position, and it kind of insulted me that he was so desperate to be ecumenical. "If you believe it, practice it! If you don't - well, don't!" was my thought. And it still is.
I shared the story with Fr. Richard John Neuhaus once, whose head snapped to attention. "Which congregation was this?" Unfortunately, I only remember the city, not the specific priest.
It does not insult me as a Protestant to be restricted in what parts of a Catholic service I can participate in. It does insult me when priests throw out their dogma in order to try to make friends.
2.22.2011 | 1:49pm
AMO says:
I'm no theologian (well, an amateur armchair theologian -- who isn't?), but a particular example from my experience highlighed the importance of the individual faith of the (self-)proposed communicant:
A friend, having had a Pentecostal upbringing and currently attending a Bible-based evangelical church, met me for Mass at a local Cistercian Abbey. She wanted to go because I told her how I loved the serene, prayerful atmosphere there. I informed her that if it made her more comfortable we could sit at the back together, then asked if she wanted to stay in her seat or go up with hands across her chest for a blessing from the priest during communion. She then said:
"Oh, that's what that was ... did I ever tell you about the time that the priest bopped me on the head?"
"No --"
"I was at Catholic mass once, and went in the communion line like everybody else. When I got to the front, the priest put the wafer in my hands, but I didn't eat it right away and started going back to my seat. I didn't know what else to do. As I walked away, he quickly stopped me and said, 'Are you Catholic?' I said 'No...', then he grabbed the wafer & mumbled something while he bopped me on the forehead. I thought he was hitting me for taking the communion."
Trying to find a charitable reply to this, I said:
"Well, when you go up there and take the communion, you're saying publically that 'I believe that this wafer is Jesus' actual body, blood, soul, and divinity, and through receiving this I implicitly consent to the authority of the Pope.'"
She then replied:
"Well, of course I wouldn't say that! Of course I wouldn't take it, then."
I don't share this to brag about my very awkward impromptu attempt at apologetics. But it did bring to my attention that we Catholics owe it to our separated bretheren that we ought not them blaspheme themselves in their own individual faiths. So I agree with other commenters here who point out that the onus in partaking of this act rests equally on the faith of the individual communicant. Unfortunately, this principle is too frequently lost in the fracas over the Catholic Church not "including" everyone in its Eucharist.
A friend, having had a Pentecostal upbringing and currently attending a Bible-based evangelical church, met me for Mass at a local Cistercian Abbey. She wanted to go because I told her how I loved the serene, prayerful atmosphere there. I informed her that if it made her more comfortable we could sit at the back together, then asked if she wanted to stay in her seat or go up with hands across her chest for a blessing from the priest during communion. She then said:
"Oh, that's what that was ... did I ever tell you about the time that the priest bopped me on the head?"
"No --"
"I was at Catholic mass once, and went in the communion line like everybody else. When I got to the front, the priest put the wafer in my hands, but I didn't eat it right away and started going back to my seat. I didn't know what else to do. As I walked away, he quickly stopped me and said, 'Are you Catholic?' I said 'No...', then he grabbed the wafer & mumbled something while he bopped me on the forehead. I thought he was hitting me for taking the communion."
Trying to find a charitable reply to this, I said:
"Well, when you go up there and take the communion, you're saying publically that 'I believe that this wafer is Jesus' actual body, blood, soul, and divinity, and through receiving this I implicitly consent to the authority of the Pope.'"
She then replied:
"Well, of course I wouldn't say that! Of course I wouldn't take it, then."
I don't share this to brag about my very awkward impromptu attempt at apologetics. But it did bring to my attention that we Catholics owe it to our separated bretheren that we ought not them blaspheme themselves in their own individual faiths. So I agree with other commenters here who point out that the onus in partaking of this act rests equally on the faith of the individual communicant. Unfortunately, this principle is too frequently lost in the fracas over the Catholic Church not "including" everyone in its Eucharist.
2.22.2011 | 2:16pm
Brad says:
Going forth to receive Him is predicated upon not only being free of mortal sin but also being in *communion* with the Church and her creed, dogmas, etc.
The presbyterian gentleman has no access to the Sacrament of confession, thus he cannot be free of his sins. Alas! (And no, no one needs to bring up his potential for perfect contrition; I know that.) Also, he is not in communion with what the Catholic Church believes. He is not a member of our Church.
This is just talking about him receiving. Not even going to dignify the dissenters from within who do not believe in the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the concept and reality of in persona Christi.
It appears the priest down there is very agenda driven. Praying for him.
The presbyterian gentleman has no access to the Sacrament of confession, thus he cannot be free of his sins. Alas! (And no, no one needs to bring up his potential for perfect contrition; I know that.) Also, he is not in communion with what the Catholic Church believes. He is not a member of our Church.
This is just talking about him receiving. Not even going to dignify the dissenters from within who do not believe in the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the concept and reality of in persona Christi.
It appears the priest down there is very agenda driven. Praying for him.
2.22.2011 | 3:46pm
Fran Rossi Szpylczyn says:
A one-on-one encounter with Christ? I respect you Elizabeth, but that is woefully inadequate eucharistic theology!
No offense but someone with your influence might think about offering a counterbalance to that kind of statement.
This is not to say that there are no issues with the California situation, but all this hand-wringing and outcry makes Roman Catholics (and I am one) look very little like Christ.
No offense but someone with your influence might think about offering a counterbalance to that kind of statement.
This is not to say that there are no issues with the California situation, but all this hand-wringing and outcry makes Roman Catholics (and I am one) look very little like Christ.
2.22.2011 | 3:50pm
Holly Ordway says:
As an Anglican who firmly believes in the Real Presence, the thing that struck me about the original article, that seems to have been passed over in the comments, is not the ecumenical angle, but the fact that a Presbyterian would not be part of the Apostolic Succession.
If a Protestant minister celebrated a Eucharist, it would not be a valid Eucharist, period. It would be fine if a Protestant served as a deacon, or as a chalice bearer, or gave out the host; but not to be the celebrant. Speaking as an Anglican, I would gladly take communion from a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox priest (I emphatically do not believe that would indicate agreement with all the doctrinal positions of those churches, but I believe the Eucharist would be valid because those churches are part of the apostolic succession) but if a Protestant were the celebrant, I would have to refrain from receiving.
If a Protestant minister celebrated a Eucharist, it would not be a valid Eucharist, period. It would be fine if a Protestant served as a deacon, or as a chalice bearer, or gave out the host; but not to be the celebrant. Speaking as an Anglican, I would gladly take communion from a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox priest (I emphatically do not believe that would indicate agreement with all the doctrinal positions of those churches, but I believe the Eucharist would be valid because those churches are part of the apostolic succession) but if a Protestant were the celebrant, I would have to refrain from receiving.
2.22.2011 | 3:54pm
Ceile De says:
Although the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith may choose to remit the case back to the local bishop, ultimately this is an issue reserved to the Holy See.
Redemptionis Sacramentum provides:
"[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:
.... c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;"
There is good reason for this. I am glad that the priest has apologised: a good first step. But he has not explained how this came to be in the first place.
For Protestants here (and poorly catechized Catholics here who confuse our Lord with the Jesus character from South Park), the reasons the Catholic Church takes this seriously are as follows.
We believe that the Eucharist is physically the body and blood of Our Lord. Not just spiritually, but physically: that is why we kneel before him. We believe that he is here because of a consecration by an ordained priest during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We believe such a priest can only be ordained by a bishop possessing apostolic succession.
Now, Presbyterians are good Christians. But we are not "in communion" with them. Acting as if it is so does not make it so.
They reject apostolic succession, they reject the ordained priesthood, and they reject the Real Presence in the sense that it is understood by the Catholic church. For them, it is bread and wine partaken at a memorial of the Lord's Supper. It is their right to believe that even if we as Catholics respectfully disagree.
However, what could be more fundamentally important than whether or not the Eucharist is Jesus physically present or not? At a family dinner, my presence or a snapshot photograph of me are two very different things. Even if I telephone in, I may be there "in spirit" but I am not there.
The minister may believe in the Real Presence but even so the bishop's consent would be required to allow him to receive the Eucharist.
Further, a non-Catholic may not be an ordinary or extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist, thus he had no right or power to distribute it to the faithful.
Most importantly, even if he believes in the Real Presence, he is not an ordained priest ordained by a bishop with apostolic succession and thus had no power to consecrate the bread and wine into the Eucharist.
I am a simply layman - how could these very basic facts have eluded Fr Escobar? What was his view beforehand and at the time of these basics of not just Catholic but Presbyterian belief?
Redemptionis Sacramentum provides:
"[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’, namely:
.... c) the forbidden concelebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with ministers of Ecclesial Communities that do not have the apostolic succession nor acknowledge the sacramental dignity of priestly Ordination;"
There is good reason for this. I am glad that the priest has apologised: a good first step. But he has not explained how this came to be in the first place.
For Protestants here (and poorly catechized Catholics here who confuse our Lord with the Jesus character from South Park), the reasons the Catholic Church takes this seriously are as follows.
We believe that the Eucharist is physically the body and blood of Our Lord. Not just spiritually, but physically: that is why we kneel before him. We believe that he is here because of a consecration by an ordained priest during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We believe such a priest can only be ordained by a bishop possessing apostolic succession.
Now, Presbyterians are good Christians. But we are not "in communion" with them. Acting as if it is so does not make it so.
They reject apostolic succession, they reject the ordained priesthood, and they reject the Real Presence in the sense that it is understood by the Catholic church. For them, it is bread and wine partaken at a memorial of the Lord's Supper. It is their right to believe that even if we as Catholics respectfully disagree.
However, what could be more fundamentally important than whether or not the Eucharist is Jesus physically present or not? At a family dinner, my presence or a snapshot photograph of me are two very different things. Even if I telephone in, I may be there "in spirit" but I am not there.
The minister may believe in the Real Presence but even so the bishop's consent would be required to allow him to receive the Eucharist.
Further, a non-Catholic may not be an ordinary or extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist, thus he had no right or power to distribute it to the faithful.
Most importantly, even if he believes in the Real Presence, he is not an ordained priest ordained by a bishop with apostolic succession and thus had no power to consecrate the bread and wine into the Eucharist.
I am a simply layman - how could these very basic facts have eluded Fr Escobar? What was his view beforehand and at the time of these basics of not just Catholic but Presbyterian belief?
2.22.2011 | 4:14pm
Fred says:
It's time to turn St. Norbert's Parish over to the Norbertines in Organce, CA. There is no better group of priests around.
2.22.2011 | 5:18pm
Mark says:
"Come unto me all who are weary and burdened, I shall give you rest." Well, except for you in the corner with unbearable pain. And, you over there who has so much shame that you dare not speak? Nope, sorry. And that guy over there who lacks complete understanding? There's the door. And that woman, with guilt beyond measure, who is so burdened that she cannot even take the first step towards those meetings which explain the proper way to seek forgiveness. Get out! There is no hope for you. The doctor will only see those who are not sick.
2.22.2011 | 5:32pm
Anonymous 3 says:
Good thing that the controversy serves to educate some on a topic that is worthy of same !
The Lord of the universe chooses to make Himself small and even insignificant , to be in the form of Bread and Wine , in order to be with His children, to give them His Sprit and merciful love with its merits , His presence , to heal what is broken, to free what is under bondage to evil , even of generations and we in turn , to have the trusting grateful love , to acknowledge same !
Reading accounts of the experience of saints who recieve our Lord , in ardent trusting love may be a remedy for many of lukewarm faith in this area !
Measure of that trusting love may be whether we believe that The Church has been granted an Apostolic Head , in His loving providence ...do we love and honor his role by accepting the teachings etc :
If not , it would be like entering into a false oath , with God ...with the resultant possible consequences ...and The Church is to protect persons from same , just like Catholics are asked to make sure they too have reestablished a trusting relationship again, trhough confession , if they had chosen to break same through mortal sin !
As to the Apostolic Churches not in communion being allowed to participate in the Eucharist in Catholic Churches , seems that if they are there with such an intent , this indicates that they are not against The Church and thus , in turn are with The Church , thus need not be denied the extent of the relationship !
For those who are not able to recieve our Lord in The Eucharist , there is always means of spiritually asking for His presence ..which is what Catholics too often do during the day !
Meanwhile , those who are near to a Catholic church can always go in, be near the tabernacle and sit and read /pray in His presence ....for moments of tender communion , with Him, with all in Him !
The Lord of the universe chooses to make Himself small and even insignificant , to be in the form of Bread and Wine , in order to be with His children, to give them His Sprit and merciful love with its merits , His presence , to heal what is broken, to free what is under bondage to evil , even of generations and we in turn , to have the trusting grateful love , to acknowledge same !
Reading accounts of the experience of saints who recieve our Lord , in ardent trusting love may be a remedy for many of lukewarm faith in this area !
Measure of that trusting love may be whether we believe that The Church has been granted an Apostolic Head , in His loving providence ...do we love and honor his role by accepting the teachings etc :
If not , it would be like entering into a false oath , with God ...with the resultant possible consequences ...and The Church is to protect persons from same , just like Catholics are asked to make sure they too have reestablished a trusting relationship again, trhough confession , if they had chosen to break same through mortal sin !
As to the Apostolic Churches not in communion being allowed to participate in the Eucharist in Catholic Churches , seems that if they are there with such an intent , this indicates that they are not against The Church and thus , in turn are with The Church , thus need not be denied the extent of the relationship !
For those who are not able to recieve our Lord in The Eucharist , there is always means of spiritually asking for His presence ..which is what Catholics too often do during the day !
Meanwhile , those who are near to a Catholic church can always go in, be near the tabernacle and sit and read /pray in His presence ....for moments of tender communion , with Him, with all in Him !
2.22.2011 | 5:59pm
jb says:
Positing a question . . .
If the Eucharist is the the fullest manifestation of God in the flesh, i.e., the Gospel in its fullest purity possible, can it not only forgive one of venial or mortal sin, but can its reception also convert one from unbelief to the One Holy?
If the Eucharist is the the fullest manifestation of God in the flesh, i.e., the Gospel in its fullest purity possible, can it not only forgive one of venial or mortal sin, but can its reception also convert one from unbelief to the One Holy?
2.22.2011 | 9:10pm
patricksarsfield says:
So the protestants (such as the concelebrating minister) now want to partake in the Catholic Mass without agreeing with Rome. Why is that? Probably because Protestantism is falling apart in this country and misery loves company. The latest figures in the 2011 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches show that the established Protestant denominations are in free-fall, even the "evangelical" ones such as the SBC and the LCMS. Despite the very well-publicized difficulty the Mater Ecclesia has holding on to a significant minority of its born Catholics, Catholicism is still growing in this country but the Protestant denominations with few exceptions are almost all losing members. Now, American Cathoicism is as large as the fifteen largest Protestant denominations put together. Think of that: Catholicism > SBC + UMC + LDS + CG inC + NBCUSA + ELCA + NBCA + AoG + PCUSA + AMEC + NMBCA + LCMS + ECUSA + Cs of C + PAW put together! (68.5 M versus 68.2 M).
Yet we almost never hear of the parlous state of Protestantism. Why is it that the growing Catholic Church is always characterized as about to fall apart while nobody mentions that fissiparous Protestantism is, as a matter of simple arithmetic, shrinking away into irrelevance?
Yet we almost never hear of the parlous state of Protestantism. Why is it that the growing Catholic Church is always characterized as about to fall apart while nobody mentions that fissiparous Protestantism is, as a matter of simple arithmetic, shrinking away into irrelevance?
2.22.2011 | 9:27pm
patricksarsfield says:
pdn Michael writes:
"For fifteen hundred years, even after Rome separated from communion with the other Churches...."
This misstates History. Rome never broke communion and has always sought reunion. Indeed, the Constantinopolitan Orthodox have renewed communion with Rome on more than one ocasion and the most recent break from Rome did not occur until the 1450s and only after their patriarchate had been enthralled by the Muslim Turks in the continuing domination that the Orthodox themselves call the Tourkokratia. Although there had been earlier breaks between Rome and Constantinople attriburted to such issues as the Filioque and the azymes, the two sees renewed communion in the course of the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439, just as they had done on earlier occasions.
"For fifteen hundred years, even after Rome separated from communion with the other Churches...."
This misstates History. Rome never broke communion and has always sought reunion. Indeed, the Constantinopolitan Orthodox have renewed communion with Rome on more than one ocasion and the most recent break from Rome did not occur until the 1450s and only after their patriarchate had been enthralled by the Muslim Turks in the continuing domination that the Orthodox themselves call the Tourkokratia. Although there had been earlier breaks between Rome and Constantinople attriburted to such issues as the Filioque and the azymes, the two sees renewed communion in the course of the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439, just as they had done on earlier occasions.
2.22.2011 | 9:57pm
Eugene McGovern says:
I recently came across the fact that Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875), revivalist, abolitionist, and long-time president of Oberlin College, urged Christian clergymen to deny communion to slaveholders when they were passing through NYC on their way to Saratoga for the summer. There were objections to Finney's proposal, some more cogent than others.
2.22.2011 | 10:15pm
Michael says:
“So the protestants (such as the concelebrating minister) now want to partake in the Catholic Mass without agreeing with Rome.”
Both Scalia and her source make it clear that Father Escobar invited Reverend Whitney to concelebrate. Thus Escobar made the mistake, not Whitney. Presbyterians practice an open communion, which means that all baptized Christians can partake. Thus Whitney probably didn’t think that taking the Eucharist meant that he was asserting agreement with Rome. He probably took the Eucharist in the same spirit in which Presbyterians offer it, as a free gift of grace.
While it’s true that Protestant churches are losing members, so is the Roman Catholic Church, though at a slower rate. Rod Dreher explains the numbers well in a series of posts in an earlier First Thoughts column (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/02/16/mainline-denominations-have-plenty-of-extra-pew-space-on-sunday-mornings/#comments).
Both Scalia and her source make it clear that Father Escobar invited Reverend Whitney to concelebrate. Thus Escobar made the mistake, not Whitney. Presbyterians practice an open communion, which means that all baptized Christians can partake. Thus Whitney probably didn’t think that taking the Eucharist meant that he was asserting agreement with Rome. He probably took the Eucharist in the same spirit in which Presbyterians offer it, as a free gift of grace.
While it’s true that Protestant churches are losing members, so is the Roman Catholic Church, though at a slower rate. Rod Dreher explains the numbers well in a series of posts in an earlier First Thoughts column (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/02/16/mainline-denominations-have-plenty-of-extra-pew-space-on-sunday-mornings/#comments).
2.22.2011 | 10:43pm
jb says:
patricksarsfield . . .
68.2M is irrelevant, and 68.5 M is not?
I am sure there is a measure of logic in that, even without the adjectives, but it escapes me. Ironic is that Scalia's post was about the fragmentation within American Catholicism regarding concelebration, not about "Protestantism."
There has been much fragmentation among American Catholics since V2 and JXXIII and the open windows. So it would be, at the least, prudent not to paint the theological canvas with such broad strokes. More importantly, rather than reciting statistics as if it were an ESPN halftime report, and cheering "your side" because you are up by 3/10ths of a point, a focus on the Gospel and its very nature in Christ and the reconciliation of all mankind should take precedence in all discussions.
After all, THAT is the focus of the Eucharist. It is a point about which progress toward unity can be (and has been) substantial, rather than the shallow denominational finger-pointing and nyah-nyah-ing of the past. This very site ought to speak volumes to that distinction as well.
The imprint of Christ and the Spirit upon a soul belonging to the Father will not include any acronym(s) whatsoever, save perhaps, XP.
Pax Domini
68.2M is irrelevant, and 68.5 M is not?
I am sure there is a measure of logic in that, even without the adjectives, but it escapes me. Ironic is that Scalia's post was about the fragmentation within American Catholicism regarding concelebration, not about "Protestantism."
There has been much fragmentation among American Catholics since V2 and JXXIII and the open windows. So it would be, at the least, prudent not to paint the theological canvas with such broad strokes. More importantly, rather than reciting statistics as if it were an ESPN halftime report, and cheering "your side" because you are up by 3/10ths of a point, a focus on the Gospel and its very nature in Christ and the reconciliation of all mankind should take precedence in all discussions.
After all, THAT is the focus of the Eucharist. It is a point about which progress toward unity can be (and has been) substantial, rather than the shallow denominational finger-pointing and nyah-nyah-ing of the past. This very site ought to speak volumes to that distinction as well.
The imprint of Christ and the Spirit upon a soul belonging to the Father will not include any acronym(s) whatsoever, save perhaps, XP.
Pax Domini
2.23.2011 | 12:22am
Darthe Hughes says:
To Mark,
Holy Mother Church has her arms open wide to everyone of the groups of people you listed in your post. But from the very beginning, non-Catholics have always been excluded from receiving the Eucharist. As a matter of fact, in the earliest liturgies, only those who were validly baptized and catechized were allowed to even remain present during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. After the Liturgy of the Word, everyone else was ushered out of the sanctuary, (or the room where the liturgy was being celebrated), to receive the proper catechesis so that they could be properly disposed to receive the Lord in the Eucharist. Read St. Cyril of Jerusalem Jerusalem Catechesis and the Didache.
You and one or two others have made the assumption that those who are hurting, possibly physically, emotionally and spiritually, would be healed by receiving the Eucharist even if they have not been properly prepared. First Corinthians clearly speaks against that kind of thought when when St. Paul says that people have gotten sick and some have even died by receiving the Lord unworthily. By reserving the Eucharist for only those who have taken the proper steps to prepare themselves to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist, the Church is mercifully sparing those who have not been prepared from doing serious damage to themselves by profaning the Lord.
Holy Mother Church has her arms open wide to everyone of the groups of people you listed in your post. But from the very beginning, non-Catholics have always been excluded from receiving the Eucharist. As a matter of fact, in the earliest liturgies, only those who were validly baptized and catechized were allowed to even remain present during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. After the Liturgy of the Word, everyone else was ushered out of the sanctuary, (or the room where the liturgy was being celebrated), to receive the proper catechesis so that they could be properly disposed to receive the Lord in the Eucharist. Read St. Cyril of Jerusalem Jerusalem Catechesis and the Didache.
You and one or two others have made the assumption that those who are hurting, possibly physically, emotionally and spiritually, would be healed by receiving the Eucharist even if they have not been properly prepared. First Corinthians clearly speaks against that kind of thought when when St. Paul says that people have gotten sick and some have even died by receiving the Lord unworthily. By reserving the Eucharist for only those who have taken the proper steps to prepare themselves to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the Eucharist, the Church is mercifully sparing those who have not been prepared from doing serious damage to themselves by profaning the Lord.
2.23.2011 | 2:01am
patricksarsfield says:
Ignoring the stark reality that US Catholicism is now larger than the fifteen largest US Protestant sects combined, jb writes:
"There has been much fragmentation among American Catholics since V2 and JXXIII and the open windows. So it would be, at the least, prudent not to paint the theological canvas with such broad strokes. More importantly, rather than reciting statistics as if it were an ESPN halftime report, and cheering "your side" because you are up by 3/10ths of a point, a focus on the Gospel and its very nature in Christ and the reconciliation of all mankind should take precedence in all discussions."
Protestants looking for reconciliation? Perhaps they say that. In reality, though, Protestantism is built on the premise of ipse dixit (that is: "Because I said so"). As a result, the fifteen largest Protestant sects includes at least four Baptist sects (SBC + NBCUSA + NBCA + NMBCA), three Anglican sects (UMC + AMEC + ECUSA) and two Lutheran sects (ELCA + LCMS).
And as to the statistics, the significance is not that Catholicism is "up by 3/10ths of a point...at the halftime" but that Catholicism is now as large as the top 15 US protestant sects combined. Here in the formerly very Protestant US which has long been the home of colonial Penal Laws, the 19th Century Blaine Amendments, the Know Nothing Party and the Ku Klux Klan.
As to Michael's supposed reality that "while it’s true that Protestant churches are losing members, so is the Roman Catholic Church, though at a slower rate...." Michael is proven wrong by the new 2011 Yearbook figures (see http://www.ncccusa.org/news/110210yearbook2011.html). They show that, as has been true almost every year since the 1950s, Catholicism continues to maintain its percentage of the US population (approx. 25%) while growing in absolute numbers. By contrast, Protestantism continues to slip as a percentage of the US population. That slippage is most pronounced in the membership rolls of the larger Protestant sects. Overall, Protestantism now represents hardly 51% of the total US population, while Catholicism still represents about 25% of the US population.
That is a far cry from the 1950s when Protestantism dominated the US culture. In 1957, the US Census conducted its last survey on religion (see http://acmcu.georgetown.edu/135392.html). At the time, Catholicism represented 25.7% of the US while Protestantism totalled 66.2%% of the US population.
"There has been much fragmentation among American Catholics since V2 and JXXIII and the open windows. So it would be, at the least, prudent not to paint the theological canvas with such broad strokes. More importantly, rather than reciting statistics as if it were an ESPN halftime report, and cheering "your side" because you are up by 3/10ths of a point, a focus on the Gospel and its very nature in Christ and the reconciliation of all mankind should take precedence in all discussions."
Protestants looking for reconciliation? Perhaps they say that. In reality, though, Protestantism is built on the premise of ipse dixit (that is: "Because I said so"). As a result, the fifteen largest Protestant sects includes at least four Baptist sects (SBC + NBCUSA + NBCA + NMBCA), three Anglican sects (UMC + AMEC + ECUSA) and two Lutheran sects (ELCA + LCMS).
And as to the statistics, the significance is not that Catholicism is "up by 3/10ths of a point...at the halftime" but that Catholicism is now as large as the top 15 US protestant sects combined. Here in the formerly very Protestant US which has long been the home of colonial Penal Laws, the 19th Century Blaine Amendments, the Know Nothing Party and the Ku Klux Klan.
As to Michael's supposed reality that "while it’s true that Protestant churches are losing members, so is the Roman Catholic Church, though at a slower rate...." Michael is proven wrong by the new 2011 Yearbook figures (see http://www.ncccusa.org/news/110210yearbook2011.html). They show that, as has been true almost every year since the 1950s, Catholicism continues to maintain its percentage of the US population (approx. 25%) while growing in absolute numbers. By contrast, Protestantism continues to slip as a percentage of the US population. That slippage is most pronounced in the membership rolls of the larger Protestant sects. Overall, Protestantism now represents hardly 51% of the total US population, while Catholicism still represents about 25% of the US population.
That is a far cry from the 1950s when Protestantism dominated the US culture. In 1957, the US Census conducted its last survey on religion (see http://acmcu.georgetown.edu/135392.html). At the time, Catholicism represented 25.7% of the US while Protestantism totalled 66.2%% of the US population.
2.23.2011 | 2:11am
jb says:
I must admit, reading I Corinthians in both the Greek and in context, that I have never read Paul's words being so twisted to meet a certain doctrine. The flow is supposed to be in the opposite direction.
It was never aimed at the children whom from Baptism until the holy, mystical and indecipherable "age of reason" they suddenly and miraculously qualify to receive the Eucharist . . . to the contrary, Jesus reserved His harshest judgment for those who prevent the little ones (brephes) from coming to Him. Well, where is it one meets Christ? 4th Street and Vine, or at the Holy Altar? Baptism is all well and good, but apparently minimal, since reason and a certain age must be attained before faith is able to comprehend Christ and feed on the food of eternal life. Does a child have to be able to reason that strained peas from Gerber are somehow essential, or does a child instinctively know what it needs? Hence Jesus' point.
Paul was addressing former heathen who were turning the Lord's Supper into a potluck or a remnant of pagan feasts. He excoriated the adults, and of course, the Church, in its infinite wisdom has since kept the kiddies from the benefits of the Eucharist until they have jumped through the performance hoops.
Not the Orthodox . . . Rome. The Orthodox feed the children from Baptism onward.
That whole matter is distinct in this post from cross-koivwvia and concelebration initiated not by the Protestants, but by Catholics. Keep the argument on track, Sports Fans.
Darthe is correct, but only in regard to ADULT converts. The Church USED to hold to what Jesus said about the infants and children:
"Of such is the Kingdom of God."
(Unless, of course, they haven't reached the age of reason)
Geez. Sometimes I think Rome is more Protestant than the Protestants.
It was never aimed at the children whom from Baptism until the holy, mystical and indecipherable "age of reason" they suddenly and miraculously qualify to receive the Eucharist . . . to the contrary, Jesus reserved His harshest judgment for those who prevent the little ones (brephes) from coming to Him. Well, where is it one meets Christ? 4th Street and Vine, or at the Holy Altar? Baptism is all well and good, but apparently minimal, since reason and a certain age must be attained before faith is able to comprehend Christ and feed on the food of eternal life. Does a child have to be able to reason that strained peas from Gerber are somehow essential, or does a child instinctively know what it needs? Hence Jesus' point.
Paul was addressing former heathen who were turning the Lord's Supper into a potluck or a remnant of pagan feasts. He excoriated the adults, and of course, the Church, in its infinite wisdom has since kept the kiddies from the benefits of the Eucharist until they have jumped through the performance hoops.
Not the Orthodox . . . Rome. The Orthodox feed the children from Baptism onward.
That whole matter is distinct in this post from cross-koivwvia and concelebration initiated not by the Protestants, but by Catholics. Keep the argument on track, Sports Fans.
Darthe is correct, but only in regard to ADULT converts. The Church USED to hold to what Jesus said about the infants and children:
"Of such is the Kingdom of God."
(Unless, of course, they haven't reached the age of reason)
Geez. Sometimes I think Rome is more Protestant than the Protestants.
2.23.2011 | 2:33am
jb says:
Thanks for proving my point, patrick.
You ignored, conveniently in your favor, the rest of what I said, however.
Numbers mean squat to Jesus; faithfulness does. Sociologists, poll-takers and number-crunchers won't matter one whit on "that day."
And "that day" is what it is all about. While you are at it, get a bit of a grasp about what Chesterton, in his book Orthodoxy, said most of the Church misses in their take on Jesus.
You need some, Dude.
You ignored, conveniently in your favor, the rest of what I said, however.
Numbers mean squat to Jesus; faithfulness does. Sociologists, poll-takers and number-crunchers won't matter one whit on "that day."
And "that day" is what it is all about. While you are at it, get a bit of a grasp about what Chesterton, in his book Orthodoxy, said most of the Church misses in their take on Jesus.
You need some, Dude.
2.23.2011 | 2:35am
ENOUGH ROPE says:
Anyone who touched the Ark Of The Covenant without the privilege to touch it was struck dead. Catholics! Think what we do when we receive the Eucharist while in the state of mortal sin. St. Paul told us. We are blessed with God's mercy for our sacrileges. Perhaps that steps on many toes, but read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
As a cradle Catholic, I can understand that being born into another Christian religion is a powerful influence on one's belief in the truth of that religion. What I have difficulty understanding is how an adult Protestant accepts his religion as the true religion when it was founded by men instead of Jesus Christ. What about there shall be one flock and one shepherd? There are numerous Protestant religions claiming to be the true religion. Can there be more than one true religion? Can someone explain this please?
As a cradle Catholic, I can understand that being born into another Christian religion is a powerful influence on one's belief in the truth of that religion. What I have difficulty understanding is how an adult Protestant accepts his religion as the true religion when it was founded by men instead of Jesus Christ. What about there shall be one flock and one shepherd? There are numerous Protestant religions claiming to be the true religion. Can there be more than one true religion? Can someone explain this please?
2.23.2011 | 2:40am
Rick says:
Ms. Scalia stated:
"Culturally nuanced and sensitive Americans would never presume to attend a Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or even Orthodox Christian celebration with an expectation of full participation..."
Not so. I was invited to participate in a ceremony in a Buddhist temple when I was in Japan. When I lived in West Africa, I was free to enter and pray in the mosques. (Even though this would not have been possible in more strictly observant Islamic countries, the fundamentalist muslims having this characteristic of exclusivity in common with conservative Catholics.) And my orthodox Hassidic friends in California have invited me to participate fully, just as they do, in seder suppers and shabbat services. And all this occurred with none of the hand-wringing that has been evidenced here about receiving the Eucharist.
"Culturally nuanced and sensitive Americans would never presume to attend a Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or even Orthodox Christian celebration with an expectation of full participation..."
Not so. I was invited to participate in a ceremony in a Buddhist temple when I was in Japan. When I lived in West Africa, I was free to enter and pray in the mosques. (Even though this would not have been possible in more strictly observant Islamic countries, the fundamentalist muslims having this characteristic of exclusivity in common with conservative Catholics.) And my orthodox Hassidic friends in California have invited me to participate fully, just as they do, in seder suppers and shabbat services. And all this occurred with none of the hand-wringing that has been evidenced here about receiving the Eucharist.
2.23.2011 | 3:13am
jb says:
Enough . . .
Cradle Catholic here, too.
Your understanding of the Eucharist is woefully deficient. It was not given as a LAW, but as the sheer Gospel of the crucified and resurrected Christ, given by Christ as the last act before His final humiliation, given for the forgiveness of sins and the ongoing food for the soul.
I mean, what part of the Mass/Words of Institution did Christ mean as a threat? None! It is pure Gospel---pure forgiveness---nothing else but!
Your understanding of Protestantism is woefully lacking as well.
None base their faith on men, but on Christ. Luther, foremost, is a problem to the RCC . . . even Trent could not him wish away, because he WAS RCC, and one of the most corrupt popes in history played complete dictator in excommunicating him (falsely), then turned to government in the AC to, by governmental edict, do what Rome could not--shut up the prophet. Shades of Pilate! Fire up the Webber gas grill . . . but they couldn't BBQ Luther in the quaint fashion Rome had for preaching Christ to all (Matt. 28:19-20).
Rome claims to be the one true faith, too. The Orthodox make the same claim, so how can you be sure? Depends on your source, doesn't it?
Or maybe you should spend more time with the words of Jesus.
Old-fashioned idea, I know, but Jesus said it would help.
Cradle Catholic here, too.
Your understanding of the Eucharist is woefully deficient. It was not given as a LAW, but as the sheer Gospel of the crucified and resurrected Christ, given by Christ as the last act before His final humiliation, given for the forgiveness of sins and the ongoing food for the soul.
I mean, what part of the Mass/Words of Institution did Christ mean as a threat? None! It is pure Gospel---pure forgiveness---nothing else but!
Your understanding of Protestantism is woefully lacking as well.
None base their faith on men, but on Christ. Luther, foremost, is a problem to the RCC . . . even Trent could not him wish away, because he WAS RCC, and one of the most corrupt popes in history played complete dictator in excommunicating him (falsely), then turned to government in the AC to, by governmental edict, do what Rome could not--shut up the prophet. Shades of Pilate! Fire up the Webber gas grill . . . but they couldn't BBQ Luther in the quaint fashion Rome had for preaching Christ to all (Matt. 28:19-20).
Rome claims to be the one true faith, too. The Orthodox make the same claim, so how can you be sure? Depends on your source, doesn't it?
Or maybe you should spend more time with the words of Jesus.
Old-fashioned idea, I know, but Jesus said it would help.
2.23.2011 | 3:15am
Corey says:
As a protestant, I believe that communion must only be for those with faith in Christ. In her own way, Ms. Scalia has stated the same doctrine as a Catholic doctrine. Catholic tradition teaches that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ, and therefore is the actual communion of Christ with the (Catholic) Christian. As she also says, it is "the all or nothing Source and Summit of our faith." It follows from this that, if Catholics prohibit anyone but Catholics from receiving communion, they must believe that none but Catholics can and have received Christ, since Christ is literally in the Eucharist. "Catholic" is, then, synonomous with "Christian," and those who are not Catholics are not Christians since they have no communion with Christ.
And while you might find it silly to quibble with the protestants, since they lack Christ anyway, one might wonder what the protestant who also yearns for unity in the body of Christ thinks about all this. What is he, who rejects Catholic tradition when it has no explicit scriptural basis, but who finds much good in the Catholic Church, to make of it? Some have made the rather natural inference that, if it is Catholic doctrine that their communion is all-or-nothing source-and-summit, that this isn't Christianity at all. Rather, it is another religion called "Catholicism" that includes Christ's teachings among a number of others. And can you blame them? They take communion too, but they cannot take communion in a Catholic church. So their communion must be something different from the Catholics'. In fact, they may believe that the real profanity of their taking communion in a Catholic church is the Catholic belief about communion.
But this all turns on whether one accepts the literal embodiment of Christ in the Eucharist. If not, then communion becomes a symbol of joining in the body of Christ. While the tradition of the service of communion is helpful as a reminder of Christ's body, it is the meaning of the tradition that matters more than the ceremony. It becomes possible, then, for Christians to be made by faith, rather than by communion. Life itself takes on the character of the sacrament rather than confining sacrament to specific acts. The body of Christ is received through faith in Christ, rather than through the Catholic Eucharist only.
To turn back to Flannery O'Connor, while protestants may not appropriate the work of a devoutly Catholic writer, I do wonder whether the protestant understanding of sacraments isn't compatible with O'Connors'. Her project seemed to be making manifest the sacramental nature of everyday life, to reimbue the seen with the depth of the unseen. This she called "the Catholic sacramental" view of life. But isn't it properly the "Christian sacramental" view of life, since protestants, too, believe in the vital importance of the unseen? If sacraments may not be confined to a simple event, then every act in life is imbued with the importance of sacrament.
And while you might find it silly to quibble with the protestants, since they lack Christ anyway, one might wonder what the protestant who also yearns for unity in the body of Christ thinks about all this. What is he, who rejects Catholic tradition when it has no explicit scriptural basis, but who finds much good in the Catholic Church, to make of it? Some have made the rather natural inference that, if it is Catholic doctrine that their communion is all-or-nothing source-and-summit, that this isn't Christianity at all. Rather, it is another religion called "Catholicism" that includes Christ's teachings among a number of others. And can you blame them? They take communion too, but they cannot take communion in a Catholic church. So their communion must be something different from the Catholics'. In fact, they may believe that the real profanity of their taking communion in a Catholic church is the Catholic belief about communion.
But this all turns on whether one accepts the literal embodiment of Christ in the Eucharist. If not, then communion becomes a symbol of joining in the body of Christ. While the tradition of the service of communion is helpful as a reminder of Christ's body, it is the meaning of the tradition that matters more than the ceremony. It becomes possible, then, for Christians to be made by faith, rather than by communion. Life itself takes on the character of the sacrament rather than confining sacrament to specific acts. The body of Christ is received through faith in Christ, rather than through the Catholic Eucharist only.
To turn back to Flannery O'Connor, while protestants may not appropriate the work of a devoutly Catholic writer, I do wonder whether the protestant understanding of sacraments isn't compatible with O'Connors'. Her project seemed to be making manifest the sacramental nature of everyday life, to reimbue the seen with the depth of the unseen. This she called "the Catholic sacramental" view of life. But isn't it properly the "Christian sacramental" view of life, since protestants, too, believe in the vital importance of the unseen? If sacraments may not be confined to a simple event, then every act in life is imbued with the importance of sacrament.
2.23.2011 | 3:53am
jb says:
Believing is sacramental, and all that accompanies faith, is sacramental.
And that is Gospel . . . good news . . . forgiveness and eternal life.
And that is Gospel . . . good news . . . forgiveness and eternal life.
2.23.2011 | 8:39am
pdn Michael says:
patricksarsfield says: "Although there had been earlier breaks between Rome and Constantinople attriburted to such issues as the Filioque and the azymes, the two sees renewed communion in the course of the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439, just as they had done on earlier occasions."
That "union" was repudiated quickly and decisively by the Orthodox faithful led by St. Mark of Ephesus as a slick piece of political maneuvering and political opportunism, not least of which was all the papal supremacy stuff. In this sense the Florence business went the way of Arianism and the "Robber Council" of Ephesus because the Orthodox faithful did not at all recognize the faith of the Church in the Farrar-Florentine proceedings.
Rather, the view of most Orthodox (on demonstrable evidence) is that western military assistance to Byzantium in its fight against Turkish domination was dangled as a carrot to induce "acceptance." The more logical and, I believe, documented construction is that Rome separated herself from the other four of the five patriarchates that made up the ancient Pantarchy. patricksarsfield's take, to rank and file Orthodox is simply more evidence of a self-proclaimed supremacy that the Orthodox have never accepted except, occasionally at spear point. Uniatism is a separate issue here, and the Union of Brest is also a point of contention for the Orthodox; that one, however, is entirely different because people DID choose to go to Rome.
I would point interested parties to a book entitled "The Quest for Unity," co-edited by John Borelli (Catholic) and Fr. John Erickson (Orthodox) which takes a much more irenic and informed look at this entire issue than any of us (me included!) blogging hacks. But one will detect a willingness on the part of Catholics in this dialog to seriously consider the comparatively isolated "petrine" doctrines and polity in light of the fact that all the Orthodox Churches (note the plural here) share a different understanding and that Rome alone really does (and really did) recast teaching and polity alone.
That "union" was repudiated quickly and decisively by the Orthodox faithful led by St. Mark of Ephesus as a slick piece of political maneuvering and political opportunism, not least of which was all the papal supremacy stuff. In this sense the Florence business went the way of Arianism and the "Robber Council" of Ephesus because the Orthodox faithful did not at all recognize the faith of the Church in the Farrar-Florentine proceedings.
Rather, the view of most Orthodox (on demonstrable evidence) is that western military assistance to Byzantium in its fight against Turkish domination was dangled as a carrot to induce "acceptance." The more logical and, I believe, documented construction is that Rome separated herself from the other four of the five patriarchates that made up the ancient Pantarchy. patricksarsfield's take, to rank and file Orthodox is simply more evidence of a self-proclaimed supremacy that the Orthodox have never accepted except, occasionally at spear point. Uniatism is a separate issue here, and the Union of Brest is also a point of contention for the Orthodox; that one, however, is entirely different because people DID choose to go to Rome.
I would point interested parties to a book entitled "The Quest for Unity," co-edited by John Borelli (Catholic) and Fr. John Erickson (Orthodox) which takes a much more irenic and informed look at this entire issue than any of us (me included!) blogging hacks. But one will detect a willingness on the part of Catholics in this dialog to seriously consider the comparatively isolated "petrine" doctrines and polity in light of the fact that all the Orthodox Churches (note the plural here) share a different understanding and that Rome alone really does (and really did) recast teaching and polity alone.
2.23.2011 | 2:43pm
michael Currie says:
Several years ago my sister in law and her 18 yr. old daughter were visiting from California. They are of a fundamentalist bent, i say this meaning no disrespect because they never identify themselves in congregational terms.
Anyway, I was having a discussion with my niece and we started to talk about the Eucharist, whether it was symbolic, though prfoundly so or if there was more to it. One thing led to another and I mentioned John 6 which regarded the hard sayings in which many would be disciples walked away. My niece after pondering Johns account said oh, it's efficacious. The symbol and that symbolized were the same. She said oh, again, and for all I know she could still be pondering the signifcance of Johns account.
Not being a theologian or even well studied in the Bible or the Church it strikes me that the distinction between the real, absolute presence of Christ in the Eucharist and any other version of what the Eucharest is is a move away from the fundamental incarnate nature of Christ and a turn to the over spiritualization of Christianity. Christ was real and is real now and forever and that reality is presented to us daily in the Eucharest.
This does not preclude us from experiencing Christ in the totality of our lives nor does it void the action of the spirit in the world.
When I approach the priest at Communion he presents me the Eucharest and says "the Body of Christ" I reply "Amen". He does not say " the symbol of Christ" or any such nonsense. To be truthful and appropriate to the moment my Amen is an assent to the Churches belief. If it is not then I am at worst a
liar and at best misguided.
Anyway, I was having a discussion with my niece and we started to talk about the Eucharist, whether it was symbolic, though prfoundly so or if there was more to it. One thing led to another and I mentioned John 6 which regarded the hard sayings in which many would be disciples walked away. My niece after pondering Johns account said oh, it's efficacious. The symbol and that symbolized were the same. She said oh, again, and for all I know she could still be pondering the signifcance of Johns account.
Not being a theologian or even well studied in the Bible or the Church it strikes me that the distinction between the real, absolute presence of Christ in the Eucharist and any other version of what the Eucharest is is a move away from the fundamental incarnate nature of Christ and a turn to the over spiritualization of Christianity. Christ was real and is real now and forever and that reality is presented to us daily in the Eucharest.
This does not preclude us from experiencing Christ in the totality of our lives nor does it void the action of the spirit in the world.
When I approach the priest at Communion he presents me the Eucharest and says "the Body of Christ" I reply "Amen". He does not say " the symbol of Christ" or any such nonsense. To be truthful and appropriate to the moment my Amen is an assent to the Churches belief. If it is not then I am at worst a
liar and at best misguided.
2.23.2011 | 5:12pm
Michael says:
Enough Rope,
You asked someone to explain how there can more than one true religion, and the answer is that there is only one.
I’m a cradle Catholic who is blessed to find himself within the Methodist church. Although Methodists believe we inhabit the Christian faith more fully, we don’t claim to be “the true religion.” In fact, we believe that “ecumenism is not an option for Christians or their church bodies.” Instead, being Christian requires us to reach out to other Christian churches in order fulfill John 17:11. It’s clear to us that many of the historic theological differences between various Christian churches have been resolved. The differences that remain are largely institutional.
---
Michael Currie,
While your niece sounds like she believes that the Eucharist is only a symbol, many Protestants believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We differ in how we explain what Real Presence means, Lutherans talk about “Sacramental Union” and Methodists, with our practical sensibility, simply call it a “Holy Mystery.” Anglicans explain it in a variety of ways.
To Roman Catholic ears, this range of explaining Real Presence might seem chaotic, but the truth is that a range of understandings exist within Catholicism. The term “transubstantiation” is fairly recent, having been coined only in the twelfth century, and although Catholic theologians have settled on the term, they have argued over how exactly transubstantiation works.
Much of the division among various Christian churches is over terminology and traditions rather than important matters of gospel faith.
It is abundantly clear to us that Methodism adheres more closely to the gospel and to the Apostolic fathers than Catholicism does, and we see abundant evidence that Catholicism has relied too much on men in crafting its beliefs and practices.
You asked someone to explain how there can more than one true religion, and the answer is that there is only one.
I’m a cradle Catholic who is blessed to find himself within the Methodist church. Although Methodists believe we inhabit the Christian faith more fully, we don’t claim to be “the true religion.” In fact, we believe that “ecumenism is not an option for Christians or their church bodies.” Instead, being Christian requires us to reach out to other Christian churches in order fulfill John 17:11. It’s clear to us that many of the historic theological differences between various Christian churches have been resolved. The differences that remain are largely institutional.
---
Michael Currie,
While your niece sounds like she believes that the Eucharist is only a symbol, many Protestants believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We differ in how we explain what Real Presence means, Lutherans talk about “Sacramental Union” and Methodists, with our practical sensibility, simply call it a “Holy Mystery.” Anglicans explain it in a variety of ways.
To Roman Catholic ears, this range of explaining Real Presence might seem chaotic, but the truth is that a range of understandings exist within Catholicism. The term “transubstantiation” is fairly recent, having been coined only in the twelfth century, and although Catholic theologians have settled on the term, they have argued over how exactly transubstantiation works.
Much of the division among various Christian churches is over terminology and traditions rather than important matters of gospel faith.
It is abundantly clear to us that Methodism adheres more closely to the gospel and to the Apostolic fathers than Catholicism does, and we see abundant evidence that Catholicism has relied too much on men in crafting its beliefs and practices.
2.23.2011 | 7:00pm
Corey says:
@michael currie:
In the same passage of John, chapter 6, Jesus both says, "(54) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (55) For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink," and "(63) The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."
Now, this is either Jesus contradicting himself, or it can be interpreted by other scipture. We know from earlier verses in the chapter that Jesus had said he knew that many who came had come for food ("bread") and not to hear Jesus speak or to lay down their lives and follow him. He goes on to say that his flesh is the true bread- the bread of life and the eternal bread- and that those who came should be more concerned with partaking of him than of food ("bread").
It isn't at all clear that this is direct teaching about communion, or that this teaching is about "real" bread in any sense at all, besides to tell his audience to stop worrying so much about eating and to hear something about God. But one very obvious interpretation of this passage is an admonishment against overly concerning oneself with the physical world, to the detriment of the spirit.
The teaching is just as hard whether you believe Jesus to be saying that any particular bread is actually his flesh, or whether you believe this to mean that one must renounce the flesh for the spiritual body of Christ. For, on the one hand, one must come up with a mechanism where actual bread is both bread and the body of Christ, and on the other hand, one must be willing to give up everything.
And there are attendant dangers to both ways of thinking: the transubstantionist may overemphasize the Eucharist itself and lose his spirit; the symbolist may forget that communion with Christ requires real action. On the one hand you are in danger of confinement of the Spirit because the performance becomes more important than the meaning, and on the other hand you are in danger of antinomianism because the spiritual becomes disconnected from the physical.
But aren't these problem answered by Christ himself? Christ, himself a paradox and mystery, unites the spiritual and the physical because he is both God and man. As you said, he is living and real now and forever. But isn't that enough? If He is truly living, then faith in Him unites us with Him. Communion is our picture of this paradox, rather than the accomplishment of faith. Otherwise, it would be possible for a person with no faith simply to partake of the Eucharist and be united with Christ.
And wasn't this the main action of O'Connor's "The Violent Bear It Away"?
In the same passage of John, chapter 6, Jesus both says, "(54) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (55) For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink," and "(63) The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."
Now, this is either Jesus contradicting himself, or it can be interpreted by other scipture. We know from earlier verses in the chapter that Jesus had said he knew that many who came had come for food ("bread") and not to hear Jesus speak or to lay down their lives and follow him. He goes on to say that his flesh is the true bread- the bread of life and the eternal bread- and that those who came should be more concerned with partaking of him than of food ("bread").
It isn't at all clear that this is direct teaching about communion, or that this teaching is about "real" bread in any sense at all, besides to tell his audience to stop worrying so much about eating and to hear something about God. But one very obvious interpretation of this passage is an admonishment against overly concerning oneself with the physical world, to the detriment of the spirit.
The teaching is just as hard whether you believe Jesus to be saying that any particular bread is actually his flesh, or whether you believe this to mean that one must renounce the flesh for the spiritual body of Christ. For, on the one hand, one must come up with a mechanism where actual bread is both bread and the body of Christ, and on the other hand, one must be willing to give up everything.
And there are attendant dangers to both ways of thinking: the transubstantionist may overemphasize the Eucharist itself and lose his spirit; the symbolist may forget that communion with Christ requires real action. On the one hand you are in danger of confinement of the Spirit because the performance becomes more important than the meaning, and on the other hand you are in danger of antinomianism because the spiritual becomes disconnected from the physical.
But aren't these problem answered by Christ himself? Christ, himself a paradox and mystery, unites the spiritual and the physical because he is both God and man. As you said, he is living and real now and forever. But isn't that enough? If He is truly living, then faith in Him unites us with Him. Communion is our picture of this paradox, rather than the accomplishment of faith. Otherwise, it would be possible for a person with no faith simply to partake of the Eucharist and be united with Christ.
And wasn't this the main action of O'Connor's "The Violent Bear It Away"?
2.23.2011 | 8:13pm
patricksarsfield says:
Jb tries to defend Protestantism with this:
"Numbers mean squat to Jesus; faithfulness does. Sociologists, poll-takers and number-crunchers won't matter one whit on "that day."
Ipso facto, Protestants who understand what the Bible actually teaches--that Christ founded His visible Church in the First Century AD--are not being faithful to Christ if they choose to stay in one of their man-made replacements for that visible Church.
"Numbers mean squat to Jesus; faithfulness does. Sociologists, poll-takers and number-crunchers won't matter one whit on "that day."
Ipso facto, Protestants who understand what the Bible actually teaches--that Christ founded His visible Church in the First Century AD--are not being faithful to Christ if they choose to stay in one of their man-made replacements for that visible Church.
2.23.2011 | 8:32pm
patricksarsfield says:
PDN Michael indulges in a bit of historical revisionism in the following exchange with me:
"patricksarsfield says: "Although there had been earlier breaks between Rome and Constantinople attributed to such issues as the Filioque and the azymes, the two sees renewed communion in the course of the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439, just as they had done on earlier occasions."
Michael: That "union" was repudiated quickly and decisively by the Orthodox faithful led by St. Mark of Ephesus as a slick piece of political maneuvering and political opportunism, not least of which was all the papal supremacy stuff. In this sense the Florence business went the way of Arianism and the "Robber Council" of Ephesus because the Orthodox faithful did not at all recognize the faith of the Church in the Farrar-Florentine proceedings."
Mark of Ephesus was neither the Patriarch of Constantinople nor the "Isopostolos" Emperor of Byzantium at any time after the Reunion, so his faction was just that: a faction of the Orthodox Church. In fact, an infinitesimal faction, for at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, he was a minority of one in the Orthodox delegation. Neither the Patriarch nor the Emperor repudiated the Reunion at any time before the Fall of Constantinople in May 1453 and the consequent enslavement of the Orthodox Church by the Ottoman "Sultan of Rum."
What is more: Mark of Ephesus was a catspaw of the Sultan who already controlled Ephesus in 1439. The truth is that Mark said what the Sultan wanted said. And once the Sultan conquered Constantinople 14 years later, Mark's minority view was adopted by the Orthodox Church precisely because the Sultan had taken over and decapitated the Church's leadership so he could put his very own "patriarch" in charge. That was Gennadius, a pupil of Mark of Ephesus. So the real history here is a history of the conquest of a Christian Church by an infidel sultan who wished to drive a barrier between the christians he controlled (the Orthodox) and the rest of the Christian Church.
"patricksarsfield says: "Although there had been earlier breaks between Rome and Constantinople attributed to such issues as the Filioque and the azymes, the two sees renewed communion in the course of the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439, just as they had done on earlier occasions."
Michael: That "union" was repudiated quickly and decisively by the Orthodox faithful led by St. Mark of Ephesus as a slick piece of political maneuvering and political opportunism, not least of which was all the papal supremacy stuff. In this sense the Florence business went the way of Arianism and the "Robber Council" of Ephesus because the Orthodox faithful did not at all recognize the faith of the Church in the Farrar-Florentine proceedings."
Mark of Ephesus was neither the Patriarch of Constantinople nor the "Isopostolos" Emperor of Byzantium at any time after the Reunion, so his faction was just that: a faction of the Orthodox Church. In fact, an infinitesimal faction, for at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, he was a minority of one in the Orthodox delegation. Neither the Patriarch nor the Emperor repudiated the Reunion at any time before the Fall of Constantinople in May 1453 and the consequent enslavement of the Orthodox Church by the Ottoman "Sultan of Rum."
What is more: Mark of Ephesus was a catspaw of the Sultan who already controlled Ephesus in 1439. The truth is that Mark said what the Sultan wanted said. And once the Sultan conquered Constantinople 14 years later, Mark's minority view was adopted by the Orthodox Church precisely because the Sultan had taken over and decapitated the Church's leadership so he could put his very own "patriarch" in charge. That was Gennadius, a pupil of Mark of Ephesus. So the real history here is a history of the conquest of a Christian Church by an infidel sultan who wished to drive a barrier between the christians he controlled (the Orthodox) and the rest of the Christian Church.
2.24.2011 | 2:24am
Rick says:
The boys in our local Boy Scout troop served as ushers at a Sunday morning service in a Methodist church last year. The scout master, who happens to be particulary doctrinaire Catholic, quietly pulled the Catholic scouts, including my two sons, aside after the service and informed them that their participation in the Methodist service was inadequate to avoid the mortal sin of missing mass. They would have to attend the evening service at Saint Leo’s. “There is no Presence here,” he said, waving his arm dismissively at the Methodist sanctuary. I gathered that he was referring to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
It struck me as bizarre that anyone could presume to know where the Spirit could make itself present. If you'll excuse the profane metaphor, it seemed to me to be a case of putting the cart before the horse. How could the scoutmaster be so sure that God was absent from Protestant services, or that any human organization had the exclusive franchise on the presence of the Spirit?
So, I began doing deeper research on the sacrament of the Eucharist. They most illuminating discoveries I made came from the writings of Saint Augustine. In his Sermon 272, Augustine confirms that the bread and wine on the alter are the body and blood of our Lord, and that this is a mystery. However, he goes on to address the question of what, in fact, that body and blood represent, and his thinking doesn't seem to agree with the teachings of the Magesterium:
"If you want to know what is the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: 'You are Christ’s body and his members' (I Cor 12:27). If, then, you are Christ’s body and his members, it is your own mystery that lies on the Lord’s alter—what you receive is the mystery of yourself. When you say 'Amen' to what you are, your saying it affirms it. You hear 'The body of Christ,' and you answer 'Amen,' and you must be a member of Christ's body to make that 'Amen' take effect. And why are you a bread? Hear the Apostle again, speaking of this very symbol: 'We, though many, are one bread, one body' (I Cor 10:17).”
Augustine goes to some length in his Sermon 272 to identify the Eucharistic bread as a symbol, not of Christ’s physical body, but of the unity of the body of believers. Just as many grains of wheat are processed into a single loaf of bread by grinding, kneading, and baking, so individual Christians are “processed” by the Holy Spirit into unity in the body of Christ. In the same way, many separate grapes are combined to make wine. For a thinker like Augustine, the idea that the Eucharistic bread and wine has some divine identity in an autonomous sense, even if it is removed from the context of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the community of believers, would have been fantastic, and he never attributed any unique spiritual potency to priests to consecrate or transform it. Rather, he makes it clear that it is we who are transformed, and the real purpose of the Eucharistic ceremony is to signify and seal the intimate unity of Christians with each other and with Christ.
And again in his work, Interpreting John’s Gospel 26.12:
“'This then is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that the one eating it shall not die' (John 6:50). But these words apply only to the validity of the mystery, not to its visibility—to an inner eating, not an external one; to what the heart consumes, not what the teeth chew."
In short, Augustine seems to have been a rather Protestant sort of theologian, at least when it comes to the Eucharist. As far as I can tell from my research, he never hinted that he thought the Eucharist was the literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus, but rather a representation of the mystical body of believers, and he certainly didn't seem to believe that the sacrament required the powers of an exclusive caste of priests.
It struck me as bizarre that anyone could presume to know where the Spirit could make itself present. If you'll excuse the profane metaphor, it seemed to me to be a case of putting the cart before the horse. How could the scoutmaster be so sure that God was absent from Protestant services, or that any human organization had the exclusive franchise on the presence of the Spirit?
So, I began doing deeper research on the sacrament of the Eucharist. They most illuminating discoveries I made came from the writings of Saint Augustine. In his Sermon 272, Augustine confirms that the bread and wine on the alter are the body and blood of our Lord, and that this is a mystery. However, he goes on to address the question of what, in fact, that body and blood represent, and his thinking doesn't seem to agree with the teachings of the Magesterium:
"If you want to know what is the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: 'You are Christ’s body and his members' (I Cor 12:27). If, then, you are Christ’s body and his members, it is your own mystery that lies on the Lord’s alter—what you receive is the mystery of yourself. When you say 'Amen' to what you are, your saying it affirms it. You hear 'The body of Christ,' and you answer 'Amen,' and you must be a member of Christ's body to make that 'Amen' take effect. And why are you a bread? Hear the Apostle again, speaking of this very symbol: 'We, though many, are one bread, one body' (I Cor 10:17).”
Augustine goes to some length in his Sermon 272 to identify the Eucharistic bread as a symbol, not of Christ’s physical body, but of the unity of the body of believers. Just as many grains of wheat are processed into a single loaf of bread by grinding, kneading, and baking, so individual Christians are “processed” by the Holy Spirit into unity in the body of Christ. In the same way, many separate grapes are combined to make wine. For a thinker like Augustine, the idea that the Eucharistic bread and wine has some divine identity in an autonomous sense, even if it is removed from the context of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper and the community of believers, would have been fantastic, and he never attributed any unique spiritual potency to priests to consecrate or transform it. Rather, he makes it clear that it is we who are transformed, and the real purpose of the Eucharistic ceremony is to signify and seal the intimate unity of Christians with each other and with Christ.
And again in his work, Interpreting John’s Gospel 26.12:
“'This then is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that the one eating it shall not die' (John 6:50). But these words apply only to the validity of the mystery, not to its visibility—to an inner eating, not an external one; to what the heart consumes, not what the teeth chew."
In short, Augustine seems to have been a rather Protestant sort of theologian, at least when it comes to the Eucharist. As far as I can tell from my research, he never hinted that he thought the Eucharist was the literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus, but rather a representation of the mystical body of believers, and he certainly didn't seem to believe that the sacrament required the powers of an exclusive caste of priests.
2.24.2011 | 10:20am
Michael says:
Rick,
All of the great Protestant reformers read Augustine. He was their favorite Church Father.
Your reading of Augustine confirms the variety of ways that the Eucharist has been understood, even relatively early in Christian history. For example, an earlier poster mentioned the Didache, which illustrates the variety even in the practice of the Eucharist. In this early community at least, they referred to the cup not as Christ's blood but as "the holy vine of David Thy servant," and they referred to the bread not as Christ's body but as "the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant." And then, they said, "Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom." Augustine was thus not alone in viewing the unity of believers in the Eucharist.
The scoutmaster erred in thinking that the Real Presence was not in that Methodist sanctuary. We Methodists certainly believe it is. We don't think that transubstantiation is the best or only way to explain how Christ becomes really present in the Eucharist, but we believe he does.
All of the great Protestant reformers read Augustine. He was their favorite Church Father.
Your reading of Augustine confirms the variety of ways that the Eucharist has been understood, even relatively early in Christian history. For example, an earlier poster mentioned the Didache, which illustrates the variety even in the practice of the Eucharist. In this early community at least, they referred to the cup not as Christ's blood but as "the holy vine of David Thy servant," and they referred to the bread not as Christ's body but as "the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant." And then, they said, "Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom." Augustine was thus not alone in viewing the unity of believers in the Eucharist.
The scoutmaster erred in thinking that the Real Presence was not in that Methodist sanctuary. We Methodists certainly believe it is. We don't think that transubstantiation is the best or only way to explain how Christ becomes really present in the Eucharist, but we believe he does.
2.24.2011 | 6:00pm
Corey says:
@patricksarsfield:
We protestants agree: Jesus did found his church during his ministry. But this was not the Roman Catholic church, or the Orthodox churches. Rather, it is the body of believers who hold a common orthodox understanding in the scriptures that leads to faith in Christ. Therefore Roman Catholics may be a part of the true Catholic church, and so may protestants.
As noted elsewhere on this site, however, Roman Catholics are more likely to either be ignorant of the scriptures or to hold non-Christian beliefs than even liberal Mainline Protestants. Are these people, who may have been members of "the church that Christ founded in the first century AD," excused to believe whatever they like? Is it fine and proper for them to believe that Jesus isn't the only way, so long as they participate in Roman Catholic communion, and attend Mass, etc? Most Roman Catholics posting here, including Ms. Scalia, surely have a strong Christian faith to go along with their participation in the sacraments. But what I have seen from far too many people purporting to be Catholics is a cavalier attitude towards scripture and faith in Christ because of a reliance on Church tradition.
We protestants agree: Jesus did found his church during his ministry. But this was not the Roman Catholic church, or the Orthodox churches. Rather, it is the body of believers who hold a common orthodox understanding in the scriptures that leads to faith in Christ. Therefore Roman Catholics may be a part of the true Catholic church, and so may protestants.
As noted elsewhere on this site, however, Roman Catholics are more likely to either be ignorant of the scriptures or to hold non-Christian beliefs than even liberal Mainline Protestants. Are these people, who may have been members of "the church that Christ founded in the first century AD," excused to believe whatever they like? Is it fine and proper for them to believe that Jesus isn't the only way, so long as they participate in Roman Catholic communion, and attend Mass, etc? Most Roman Catholics posting here, including Ms. Scalia, surely have a strong Christian faith to go along with their participation in the sacraments. But what I have seen from far too many people purporting to be Catholics is a cavalier attitude towards scripture and faith in Christ because of a reliance on Church tradition.
2.24.2011 | 8:41pm
patricksarsfield says:
Corey defends his refusal to join the Church Christ founded in the First Century thusly:
"We protestants agree: Jesus did found his church during his ministry. But this was not the Roman Catholic church, or the Orthodox churches. Rather, it is the body of believers who hold a common orthodox understanding in the scriptures that leads to faith in Christ. Therefore Roman Catholics may be a part of the true Catholic church, and so may protestants. "
This is a variant on the "invisible church" evasion. The biblical Church of Christ was not some "invisible" agglomeration of the faithful. Rather, it was an organized, visible church which had a world-wide commission and an organization that held sway throughout the world. As a result, when Paul and the Judaizers from James had a disagreement in Antioch about Christian dogma (dogma that had NOTHING to do with the New Testment which did not even exist), they went to the central council quartered then in Jerusalem and asked for a ruling. Even though the head of the Church had been on the lam since his Jerusalem jail breakout, he headed back to Jerusalem for the Council and gave the definitive ruling (Acts 15:7-13) to which the Judaizer James deferred (Acts 15:14 et seq.) and the ruling was then adopted by the Council. The Council then sent that ruling for observance not just by Antioch and Jerusalem but by all the cities to which it was circulated throughout Asia Minor. (evidence that Peter was head of the Church? Matt. 16:18 et seq.; John 21: 15 et seq.; Acts chapters 1-12 (until he went on the lam) and ch. 15).
So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend.
Then in a classic example of the pot calling the eggshell black, Corey writes:
"Roman Catholics are more likely to either be ignorant of the scriptures or to hold non-Christian beliefs than even liberal Mainline Protestants. Are these people, who may have been members of "the church that Christ founded in the first century AD," excused to believe whatever they like? "
Huh? The usual protestant cant about Catholics is that they are forced to believe what Christ's Church teaches them, not that they can believe what they like. Of course Catholics are not permitted to believe what they like. Not like all those misled protestants who believe in justification by Faith Alone. That's entirely UNbiblical.
The Good Book says unequivocally: " You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " James 2:24. Of course, I understand why protestant ministers like to preach salvation by Faith Alone. It's like a magic potion ("swallow this and you are saved. No muss, no fuss, no bother"). Of course, it's not true though. How do I know? Christ's Church tells me so.
"We protestants agree: Jesus did found his church during his ministry. But this was not the Roman Catholic church, or the Orthodox churches. Rather, it is the body of believers who hold a common orthodox understanding in the scriptures that leads to faith in Christ. Therefore Roman Catholics may be a part of the true Catholic church, and so may protestants. "
This is a variant on the "invisible church" evasion. The biblical Church of Christ was not some "invisible" agglomeration of the faithful. Rather, it was an organized, visible church which had a world-wide commission and an organization that held sway throughout the world. As a result, when Paul and the Judaizers from James had a disagreement in Antioch about Christian dogma (dogma that had NOTHING to do with the New Testment which did not even exist), they went to the central council quartered then in Jerusalem and asked for a ruling. Even though the head of the Church had been on the lam since his Jerusalem jail breakout, he headed back to Jerusalem for the Council and gave the definitive ruling (Acts 15:7-13) to which the Judaizer James deferred (Acts 15:14 et seq.) and the ruling was then adopted by the Council. The Council then sent that ruling for observance not just by Antioch and Jerusalem but by all the cities to which it was circulated throughout Asia Minor. (evidence that Peter was head of the Church? Matt. 16:18 et seq.; John 21: 15 et seq.; Acts chapters 1-12 (until he went on the lam) and ch. 15).
So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend.
Then in a classic example of the pot calling the eggshell black, Corey writes:
"Roman Catholics are more likely to either be ignorant of the scriptures or to hold non-Christian beliefs than even liberal Mainline Protestants. Are these people, who may have been members of "the church that Christ founded in the first century AD," excused to believe whatever they like? "
Huh? The usual protestant cant about Catholics is that they are forced to believe what Christ's Church teaches them, not that they can believe what they like. Of course Catholics are not permitted to believe what they like. Not like all those misled protestants who believe in justification by Faith Alone. That's entirely UNbiblical.
The Good Book says unequivocally: " You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " James 2:24. Of course, I understand why protestant ministers like to preach salvation by Faith Alone. It's like a magic potion ("swallow this and you are saved. No muss, no fuss, no bother"). Of course, it's not true though. How do I know? Christ's Church tells me so.
2.24.2011 | 10:37pm
Ben Dunlap says:
@Holly Ordway: You said, "It would be fine if a Protestant served as a deacon" -- actually in the Catholic church, a deacon is an ordained member of the hierarchy. So a Protestant acting as a deacon in a Catholic Eucharistic liturgy would pretty much be sacrilegious.
@Michael, the Didache is an outlier. No other primitive liturgy is like it. Or at least so says Adrian Fortescue, the great early-20th-century liturgical scholar. If he's right, it's hard to make theological arguments about the Eucharist from the text of the Didache.
@Michael, the Didache is an outlier. No other primitive liturgy is like it. Or at least so says Adrian Fortescue, the great early-20th-century liturgical scholar. If he's right, it's hard to make theological arguments about the Eucharist from the text of the Didache.
2.25.2011 | 2:36am
Rick says:
patricksarsfield said:
"Of course, I understand why protestant ministers like to preach salvation by Faith Alone. It's like a magic potion ("swallow this and you are saved. No muss, no fuss, no bother")."
You seem to be getting a bit desperate, judging by the simplistic caricatures of Protestantism you are using. Salvation by faith is the core of Protestant belief, but no responsible Protestant minister teaches that you can then live whatever kind of life and expect to waltz through the pearly gates. The reality is far deeper than that. The doctrine of salvation by faith necessarily follows the inevitable discovery of every true pilgrim: to attain the levels of spirit to which we are called purely by our human efforts is simply a huge, cosmic joke. When the utter futility of it dawns on us, and we are touched by pure Grace, we understand the truth of our condition. And what pure joy and relief follows that touch! But this is only the beginning of the journey. Read "Pilgrim's Progress" to get a more well-rounded conception of the nature of salvation in Protestant thought.
And then you said:
"So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend."
Well, now that's a fair analysis of the average Protestant minister, isn't it? If I were to return the favor with respect to Catholic priests, I might say, "You know what those priests are like: sexual deviants just waiting for the chance to deflower little girls and sodomize little boys, while their bishops frantically cover up the crimes and facilitate yet more crimes." And if I were to say that, it would be exactly as fair as your caricature of Protestant ministers.
So, let's stick to the issues in a respectful manner. When I posted my comments about Augustine's take on the Eucharist, I was hoping that some of the One-True-Church Catholics might have an informed response. I was really hoping that I could learn more about it. You see, I am well aware of just how ignorant I am, expecially in the erudite company of this distinguished forum.
"Of course, I understand why protestant ministers like to preach salvation by Faith Alone. It's like a magic potion ("swallow this and you are saved. No muss, no fuss, no bother")."
You seem to be getting a bit desperate, judging by the simplistic caricatures of Protestantism you are using. Salvation by faith is the core of Protestant belief, but no responsible Protestant minister teaches that you can then live whatever kind of life and expect to waltz through the pearly gates. The reality is far deeper than that. The doctrine of salvation by faith necessarily follows the inevitable discovery of every true pilgrim: to attain the levels of spirit to which we are called purely by our human efforts is simply a huge, cosmic joke. When the utter futility of it dawns on us, and we are touched by pure Grace, we understand the truth of our condition. And what pure joy and relief follows that touch! But this is only the beginning of the journey. Read "Pilgrim's Progress" to get a more well-rounded conception of the nature of salvation in Protestant thought.
And then you said:
"So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend."
Well, now that's a fair analysis of the average Protestant minister, isn't it? If I were to return the favor with respect to Catholic priests, I might say, "You know what those priests are like: sexual deviants just waiting for the chance to deflower little girls and sodomize little boys, while their bishops frantically cover up the crimes and facilitate yet more crimes." And if I were to say that, it would be exactly as fair as your caricature of Protestant ministers.
So, let's stick to the issues in a respectful manner. When I posted my comments about Augustine's take on the Eucharist, I was hoping that some of the One-True-Church Catholics might have an informed response. I was really hoping that I could learn more about it. You see, I am well aware of just how ignorant I am, expecially in the erudite company of this distinguished forum.
2.25.2011 | 8:52am
patricksarsfield says:
Rick comments on my response to Corey thusly:
"And then you said:
"So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend."
Well, now that's a fair analysis of the average Protestant minister, isn't it? If I were to return the favor with respect to Catholic priests, I might say, "You know what those priests are like: sexual deviants just waiting for the chance to deflower little girls and sodomize little boys, while their bishops frantically cover up the crimes and facilitate yet more crimes." And if I were to say that, it would be exactly as fair as your caricature of Protestant ministers."
My statement was in reponse to Corey's statement about the ignorance of the Catholic faithful, so Rick really ought to clean up his own side of the street with Corey before engaging in this wild arm-flailing.
In all events, my statement about Protestant ministers' being essentially entrepreneurs is quite correct. Even though there are half as many Catholics in the US as Protestants, there are three hundred thousand protestant churches in America versus twenty thousand Catholic churches. Why the difference in size (7.5 to 1)? Although some of it may be explained by a different urban-rural skew, much of it must be attributed to the unremitting competition among churches (i.e. entrepreneurial ministers) for the collection plate dollar. Protestant ministers who come out of seminary generally do not go to work for a particular diocese which has paid for their training. Rather, they get the chance to go into business for themselves. And that they do.
As to the infamy uttered about Catholic priests, Rick has shown himself unable to engage in the "informed" discourse he purportedly seeks.
"And then you said:
"So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend."
Well, now that's a fair analysis of the average Protestant minister, isn't it? If I were to return the favor with respect to Catholic priests, I might say, "You know what those priests are like: sexual deviants just waiting for the chance to deflower little girls and sodomize little boys, while their bishops frantically cover up the crimes and facilitate yet more crimes." And if I were to say that, it would be exactly as fair as your caricature of Protestant ministers."
My statement was in reponse to Corey's statement about the ignorance of the Catholic faithful, so Rick really ought to clean up his own side of the street with Corey before engaging in this wild arm-flailing.
In all events, my statement about Protestant ministers' being essentially entrepreneurs is quite correct. Even though there are half as many Catholics in the US as Protestants, there are three hundred thousand protestant churches in America versus twenty thousand Catholic churches. Why the difference in size (7.5 to 1)? Although some of it may be explained by a different urban-rural skew, much of it must be attributed to the unremitting competition among churches (i.e. entrepreneurial ministers) for the collection plate dollar. Protestant ministers who come out of seminary generally do not go to work for a particular diocese which has paid for their training. Rather, they get the chance to go into business for themselves. And that they do.
As to the infamy uttered about Catholic priests, Rick has shown himself unable to engage in the "informed" discourse he purportedly seeks.
2.25.2011 | 9:01am
patricksarsfield says:
Rick writes in response to me:
"patricksarsfield said:
"Of course, I understand why protestant ministers like to preach salvation by Faith Alone. It's like a magic potion ("swallow this and you are saved. No muss, no fuss, no bother")."
You seem to be getting a bit desperate, judging by the simplistic caricatures of Protestantism you are using. Salvation by faith is the core of Protestant belief, but no responsible Protestant minister teaches that you can then live whatever kind of life and expect to waltz through the pearly gates. The reality is far deeper than that. The doctrine of salvation by faith necessarily follows the inevitable discovery of every true pilgrim: to attain the levels of spirit to which we are called purely by our human efforts is simply a huge, cosmic joke. When the utter futility of it dawns on us, and we are touched by pure Grace, we understand the truth of our condition. And what pure joy and relief follows that touch! But this is only the beginning of the journey. Read "Pilgrim's Progress" to get a more well-rounded conception of the nature of salvation in Protestant thought."
Hmmm..so what Rick is essentially saying is that he does not agree with the dogma of "By Faith Alone." If Faith is "only the beginning of the journey" then it is not "alone." Or, if he still clings to the false term "alone," his "alone" must mean something like a Bill Clinton "is" (i.e., whatever it takes to hold onto the old obfuscation).
"patricksarsfield said:
"Of course, I understand why protestant ministers like to preach salvation by Faith Alone. It's like a magic potion ("swallow this and you are saved. No muss, no fuss, no bother")."
You seem to be getting a bit desperate, judging by the simplistic caricatures of Protestantism you are using. Salvation by faith is the core of Protestant belief, but no responsible Protestant minister teaches that you can then live whatever kind of life and expect to waltz through the pearly gates. The reality is far deeper than that. The doctrine of salvation by faith necessarily follows the inevitable discovery of every true pilgrim: to attain the levels of spirit to which we are called purely by our human efforts is simply a huge, cosmic joke. When the utter futility of it dawns on us, and we are touched by pure Grace, we understand the truth of our condition. And what pure joy and relief follows that touch! But this is only the beginning of the journey. Read "Pilgrim's Progress" to get a more well-rounded conception of the nature of salvation in Protestant thought."
Hmmm..so what Rick is essentially saying is that he does not agree with the dogma of "By Faith Alone." If Faith is "only the beginning of the journey" then it is not "alone." Or, if he still clings to the false term "alone," his "alone" must mean something like a Bill Clinton "is" (i.e., whatever it takes to hold onto the old obfuscation).
2.25.2011 | 12:15pm
Rick says:
patricksarsfield said:
"As to the infamy uttered about Catholic priests, Rick has shown himself unable to engage in the "informed" discourse he purportedly seeks."
Yes, you are definitely getting desperate. Why the defensiveness? You seem intelligent enough to grasp the parallel logic I was using about ministers and priests. Of course, I never uttered any "infamy" about Catholic priests. I simply used a common, simplistic criticism that many people today are using against Catholic clergy as a parallel example of how misinformed your simplistic condemnation of Protestant ministers was. Do you really believe that was supposed to be my opinion of priests? But I'm beginning to feel I'm wasting my breath (or keystrokes) here.
"As to the infamy uttered about Catholic priests, Rick has shown himself unable to engage in the "informed" discourse he purportedly seeks."
Yes, you are definitely getting desperate. Why the defensiveness? You seem intelligent enough to grasp the parallel logic I was using about ministers and priests. Of course, I never uttered any "infamy" about Catholic priests. I simply used a common, simplistic criticism that many people today are using against Catholic clergy as a parallel example of how misinformed your simplistic condemnation of Protestant ministers was. Do you really believe that was supposed to be my opinion of priests? But I'm beginning to feel I'm wasting my breath (or keystrokes) here.
2.25.2011 | 1:06pm
patricksarsfield says:
In response to my observations that his attacks on Catholic priests as sodomites and deflowerers sonstituted wild arm-flailing and infamy, Rick writes:
"Yes, you are definitely getting desperate. Why the defensiveness? You seem intelligent enough to grasp the parallel logic I was using about ministers and priests. Of course, I never uttered any "infamy" about Catholic priests. I simply used a common, simplistic criticism that many people today are using against Catholic clergy as a parallel example of how misinformed your simplistic condemnation of Protestant ministers was. Do you really believe that was supposed to be my opinion of priests? But I'm beginning to feel I'm wasting my breath (or keystrokes) here. "
Nothing defensive about my response. Rather, I was flat out dismissive. As Rick now admits he didn't really mean it. Yet, I (patricksarsfield) made a serious observation about the economic principles on which Protestant churches are based in this country and I did mean what I said and I backed it up with some analysis. If Rick has any observations about my critique which he means I would be glad to address them.
"Yes, you are definitely getting desperate. Why the defensiveness? You seem intelligent enough to grasp the parallel logic I was using about ministers and priests. Of course, I never uttered any "infamy" about Catholic priests. I simply used a common, simplistic criticism that many people today are using against Catholic clergy as a parallel example of how misinformed your simplistic condemnation of Protestant ministers was. Do you really believe that was supposed to be my opinion of priests? But I'm beginning to feel I'm wasting my breath (or keystrokes) here. "
Nothing defensive about my response. Rather, I was flat out dismissive. As Rick now admits he didn't really mean it. Yet, I (patricksarsfield) made a serious observation about the economic principles on which Protestant churches are based in this country and I did mean what I said and I backed it up with some analysis. If Rick has any observations about my critique which he means I would be glad to address them.
2.25.2011 | 8:54pm
Rick says:
Patrick:
No...you still don't get it. I have not "admitted" that I didn't really mean my "attack" on priests as sodomites. I never made an attack. I'll run through it again, very carefully:
You began by going far beyond a reasoned analysis of the economic principles on which Protestant churches are based in this country. You said:
"So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend."
In effect, then, you say that Protestant ministers can generally be portrayed as cynical charlatans whose primary purpose is self-enrichment at the expense of their flock. Now, I would call that irresponsible defamation. You seem to have a great deal of bile and venom towards the entire Protestant establishment. This disturbed me enough that I posted a message to you about it. In that message I drew a parallel. I said that if I were to call all Catholic priests sodomites, it would be just as fair as what you had said about Protestant ministers. Even a child could have seen that I was never calling priests sodomites. I was presenting both charges, against Protestant ministers and priests alike, as equally ridiculous and unfair. So, there is clearly nothing for me to "admit".
If either of us wanted to, we could easily summon anecdotal evidence to support a charge of rapacious profiteering on the part of some Protestant ministers (I knew one egregious case long ago) or sexual molestation on the part of some priests (my wife had a frightening run-in with one of those a long time ago). I have no motive to do that, since I never made any charge against priests as a general class of people. (If that point is not clear yet, please reread the preceding paragraph very carefully.) You, however, are sticking by your charge about Protestant ministers, so I would say the onus is on you to demonstrate that they are really wolves in sheep's clothing who have no intention of spiritual pastoring, but rather only self-enrichment.
A final point: Most Protestant ministers do not "go into business for themselves". They belong to, and are paid, by their denominational organizations, like my friend Amy. I met her while we were both working on poverty housing projects with Habitat for Humanity. She lived for years on an income that most welfare recipients would consider insulting to their dignity. Her family thought it was a little crazy for a talented, intelligent young woman like her to live in poverty because she wanted to do charitable work with a Christian organization. Now she is the head pastor of a Methodist church in Alabama. There's one of your profiteers.
No...you still don't get it. I have not "admitted" that I didn't really mean my "attack" on priests as sodomites. I never made an attack. I'll run through it again, very carefully:
You began by going far beyond a reasoned analysis of the economic principles on which Protestant churches are based in this country. You said:
"So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend."
In effect, then, you say that Protestant ministers can generally be portrayed as cynical charlatans whose primary purpose is self-enrichment at the expense of their flock. Now, I would call that irresponsible defamation. You seem to have a great deal of bile and venom towards the entire Protestant establishment. This disturbed me enough that I posted a message to you about it. In that message I drew a parallel. I said that if I were to call all Catholic priests sodomites, it would be just as fair as what you had said about Protestant ministers. Even a child could have seen that I was never calling priests sodomites. I was presenting both charges, against Protestant ministers and priests alike, as equally ridiculous and unfair. So, there is clearly nothing for me to "admit".
If either of us wanted to, we could easily summon anecdotal evidence to support a charge of rapacious profiteering on the part of some Protestant ministers (I knew one egregious case long ago) or sexual molestation on the part of some priests (my wife had a frightening run-in with one of those a long time ago). I have no motive to do that, since I never made any charge against priests as a general class of people. (If that point is not clear yet, please reread the preceding paragraph very carefully.) You, however, are sticking by your charge about Protestant ministers, so I would say the onus is on you to demonstrate that they are really wolves in sheep's clothing who have no intention of spiritual pastoring, but rather only self-enrichment.
A final point: Most Protestant ministers do not "go into business for themselves". They belong to, and are paid, by their denominational organizations, like my friend Amy. I met her while we were both working on poverty housing projects with Habitat for Humanity. She lived for years on an income that most welfare recipients would consider insulting to their dignity. Her family thought it was a little crazy for a talented, intelligent young woman like her to live in poverty because she wanted to do charitable work with a Christian organization. Now she is the head pastor of a Methodist church in Alabama. There's one of your profiteers.
2.26.2011 | 11:22am
patricksarsfield says:
Rick,
I am not going to go back and forth with you on your purple prose strawmen (terms like "rapacious profiteering" or "cynical charlatans" or "wolves in sheep's clothing who have no intention of spiritual pastoring, but rather only self-enrichment"). Suffice it to say that your over the top rhetoric needs some toning down.
I will address your claim that most protestant ministers do not go into business for themselves. You claim that most are paid by their denominational organizations. That, however, is true primarily of ministers in denominations that are not congregationalist in polity, and those are precisely the denominations that are in almost perpetual decline (e.g., the Episcopalians, Methodists, some Lutheran sects, etc).
Even the whole idea of denominations shows the entrepreneurial motive at work. Why is there more than one Protestant church out there? Because more than one "magister" (or in many cases European kings) chose to go into the "church business" for themselves (meanwhile seizing a lot of church property for the new business along the way). Nor did the entrepreneurial spirit die with the magisterial reformers. Why is there a flock of Lutheran denominations in the US? Why a multiplicity of Black (National) Baptist sects? Or of Methodist sects? Mirabile dictu, there are even two African Methodist Episcopal Churches (AME and AMEZ)! Heck, there are even the Episcopal Church and the "Reformed Episcopal" Church!
What's more, even in the non-congregationalist denominations, the "getting ahead in business" work frame still applies. Your anecdotal friend Amy's story is not inconsistent with my characterization. Despite her ministry degree, she worked for a non-denominational charitable outfit until she could find a position at a denominational church. She got paid awful wages at the non-denominational outfit but persevered and is now bringing in good bucks as head pastor of a Methodist church in Alabama. An American Protestant ministry success story. One not all that different from that of true ministerial entrepreneurs such as Joel Osteen or Rick Warren except for scale perhaps. I mention them since they are more typical of the "Young Guns" taking over the American Protestant Ministry market. And, of course, there are some protestant ministers who never make it. Given the small averrage size of Protestant congregations, many ministers necessarily become the victims of the Hobbesian competition that is the American Protestant religion.
In all events, the denominations with anything but a congregational polity seem to be in perpetual decline. The Methodists used to be the largest denomination in America but, even after uniting, the UMC is now little more than a ninth the size of the Catholic Church in America and less than half the size of the SBC.
And none of those numbers touch on the significance of the whole "Non-denominational Protestant" "churches'" demographics. Those are the true entrepreneurs of American Protestantism because not only can they strike out into business for themselves, they are largely unfettered by any "brand requirements" with respect to the message they should be preaching. The whole "non-denominational church" "movement" (for want of a better word about an agglomeration that ipso facto is NOT a denomination), which is the growing part of Protestantism, and most ministers in the evangelical sects (such as the Pentecostalist and Southern Baptist sects) do not get support from a denomination but instead hire themselves out as ministers to individual congregations. Those are the true ecclesiastical entrepreneurs and they are the ones beating the more organized denominations and reducing most of them to ecclesiastical ghost towns. That, of course, should not be surprising since the denominations are tied to particular messages while the "non-denominational church" can innovate and preach what sells. That is the competitive process at its best (or worst).
You may not like this frankness about Protestantism any more than Catholics like the awful stuff you have been spreading (purportedly without believing it) about Catholic priests, but this is a lot more tempered and based on a lot more analysis than the similar (and longstanding) protestant attacks on Catholicism's alleged love of money. It is true that Catholic priests spend money on the decoration of their sanctuaries, more so than do Protestant ministers. Is that proof that Catholic priests love money more? Or that protestant ministers (and their spouses) would rather spend what comes in on the parsonage or their retirement plans than on a sanctuary?
I am not going to go back and forth with you on your purple prose strawmen (terms like "rapacious profiteering" or "cynical charlatans" or "wolves in sheep's clothing who have no intention of spiritual pastoring, but rather only self-enrichment"). Suffice it to say that your over the top rhetoric needs some toning down.
I will address your claim that most protestant ministers do not go into business for themselves. You claim that most are paid by their denominational organizations. That, however, is true primarily of ministers in denominations that are not congregationalist in polity, and those are precisely the denominations that are in almost perpetual decline (e.g., the Episcopalians, Methodists, some Lutheran sects, etc).
Even the whole idea of denominations shows the entrepreneurial motive at work. Why is there more than one Protestant church out there? Because more than one "magister" (or in many cases European kings) chose to go into the "church business" for themselves (meanwhile seizing a lot of church property for the new business along the way). Nor did the entrepreneurial spirit die with the magisterial reformers. Why is there a flock of Lutheran denominations in the US? Why a multiplicity of Black (National) Baptist sects? Or of Methodist sects? Mirabile dictu, there are even two African Methodist Episcopal Churches (AME and AMEZ)! Heck, there are even the Episcopal Church and the "Reformed Episcopal" Church!
What's more, even in the non-congregationalist denominations, the "getting ahead in business" work frame still applies. Your anecdotal friend Amy's story is not inconsistent with my characterization. Despite her ministry degree, she worked for a non-denominational charitable outfit until she could find a position at a denominational church. She got paid awful wages at the non-denominational outfit but persevered and is now bringing in good bucks as head pastor of a Methodist church in Alabama. An American Protestant ministry success story. One not all that different from that of true ministerial entrepreneurs such as Joel Osteen or Rick Warren except for scale perhaps. I mention them since they are more typical of the "Young Guns" taking over the American Protestant Ministry market. And, of course, there are some protestant ministers who never make it. Given the small averrage size of Protestant congregations, many ministers necessarily become the victims of the Hobbesian competition that is the American Protestant religion.
In all events, the denominations with anything but a congregational polity seem to be in perpetual decline. The Methodists used to be the largest denomination in America but, even after uniting, the UMC is now little more than a ninth the size of the Catholic Church in America and less than half the size of the SBC.
And none of those numbers touch on the significance of the whole "Non-denominational Protestant" "churches'" demographics. Those are the true entrepreneurs of American Protestantism because not only can they strike out into business for themselves, they are largely unfettered by any "brand requirements" with respect to the message they should be preaching. The whole "non-denominational church" "movement" (for want of a better word about an agglomeration that ipso facto is NOT a denomination), which is the growing part of Protestantism, and most ministers in the evangelical sects (such as the Pentecostalist and Southern Baptist sects) do not get support from a denomination but instead hire themselves out as ministers to individual congregations. Those are the true ecclesiastical entrepreneurs and they are the ones beating the more organized denominations and reducing most of them to ecclesiastical ghost towns. That, of course, should not be surprising since the denominations are tied to particular messages while the "non-denominational church" can innovate and preach what sells. That is the competitive process at its best (or worst).
You may not like this frankness about Protestantism any more than Catholics like the awful stuff you have been spreading (purportedly without believing it) about Catholic priests, but this is a lot more tempered and based on a lot more analysis than the similar (and longstanding) protestant attacks on Catholicism's alleged love of money. It is true that Catholic priests spend money on the decoration of their sanctuaries, more so than do Protestant ministers. Is that proof that Catholic priests love money more? Or that protestant ministers (and their spouses) would rather spend what comes in on the parsonage or their retirement plans than on a sanctuary?
2.26.2011 | 2:22pm
Rick says:
Patrick:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I didn't really think my prose was all that "purple" compared to your phrases about "ecclesiastical profit centers" and "fleecing the sheep".
You make some quite good points about the difference in structure and authority between the Catholic church and the innumerable Protestant churches. Unity, historical continuity, and centralized authority are clearly the strengths of Catholicism--but sometimes also its weaknesses, in my opinion.
I have thought long and hard about the bizzare contrast in religiousity between this country and the rest of the modern, industrialized world--primarily Europe and Japan. Why are we such a fervently religious people, while the average citizen of France or England considers religion to be a quaint, if not sinister, superstition that any educated person should have outgrown? The best answer I have been able to come up with is the genius of the Founding Fathers in throwing open the doors, keeping the government's hands off, and letting religious institutions compete freely--a most un-European, but characteristically American, approach. This is exactly the feature you are condemning, but have you considered that it may also be the feature that gives religion in America its vitality? In return for the liberty and vitality of free-market competition, we just have to use our own discernment about separating the wheat from the chaff, the saints from the charlatans. Yes, an extremely American way of doing things! There is no pope or magesterium to tell Americans what to think.
I also have to disagree with your statement that Protestantism is shrinking to irrelevance. Pentacostalism is not just alive and well in this country, it is exploding in the Global South and in China. It is the world's fastest growing religion. (See the "On the Square" article about Pentacostalism from a couple of days ago, along with my posting concerning my experiences with the Pentacostal church.)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I didn't really think my prose was all that "purple" compared to your phrases about "ecclesiastical profit centers" and "fleecing the sheep".
You make some quite good points about the difference in structure and authority between the Catholic church and the innumerable Protestant churches. Unity, historical continuity, and centralized authority are clearly the strengths of Catholicism--but sometimes also its weaknesses, in my opinion.
I have thought long and hard about the bizzare contrast in religiousity between this country and the rest of the modern, industrialized world--primarily Europe and Japan. Why are we such a fervently religious people, while the average citizen of France or England considers religion to be a quaint, if not sinister, superstition that any educated person should have outgrown? The best answer I have been able to come up with is the genius of the Founding Fathers in throwing open the doors, keeping the government's hands off, and letting religious institutions compete freely--a most un-European, but characteristically American, approach. This is exactly the feature you are condemning, but have you considered that it may also be the feature that gives religion in America its vitality? In return for the liberty and vitality of free-market competition, we just have to use our own discernment about separating the wheat from the chaff, the saints from the charlatans. Yes, an extremely American way of doing things! There is no pope or magesterium to tell Americans what to think.
I also have to disagree with your statement that Protestantism is shrinking to irrelevance. Pentacostalism is not just alive and well in this country, it is exploding in the Global South and in China. It is the world's fastest growing religion. (See the "On the Square" article about Pentacostalism from a couple of days ago, along with my posting concerning my experiences with the Pentacostal church.)
2.26.2011 | 8:36pm
Michael says:
Ben Dunlap,
You said, “the Didache is an outlier. No other primitive liturgy is like it.”
You’re quite right, and I tried to indicate that in my comment when I used the phrase “at least.” But we also don’t know how many congregations practiced in this way or what other variations existed. The documentary evidence is quite weak, and scholars have to do a lot of guessing. I was merely pointing out that thinking of the Eucharist as unifying the church long predates Augustine and that there were even variations in practice.
---
Patricksarsfield,
“This is a variant on the "invisible church" evasion. The biblical Church of Christ was not some "invisible" agglomeration of the faithful. Rather, it was an organized, visible church which had a world-wide commission and an organization that held sway throughout the world.”
The split between Roman Catholic and Orthodox and later the continually resurfacing idea of a conciliar rather than a monarchal structure for the Western church suggests that church history is more complex than this. The ecclesiastical structure even in Rome keeps changing. Its organization and sway have always been in flux.
“So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend”
You cast a large net here, lumping together churches that have structures very similar to Roman Catholicism (with bishops, ministry training and assignment) with those that do not. More precision would clarify matters.
“Not like all those misled protestants who believe in justification by Faith Alone. That's entirely UNbiblical”
Well, justification by faith is biblical. It comes most directly from Paul. The concept is more complex than you’ve portrayed it, and it differs from one Protestant Church to another. Again, you cast too wide a net.
“much of it must be attributed to the unremitting competition among churches (i.e. entrepreneurial ministers) for the collection plate dollar. Protestant ministers who come out of seminary generally do not go to work for a particular diocese which has paid for their training. Rather, they get the chance to go into business for themselves.”
Again, you oversimplify because you cast such a wide net. Some churches assign ministers; some don’t.
“As to the infamy uttered about Catholic priests, Rick has shown himself unable to engage in the "informed" discourse he purportedly seeks”
You really need to reread Rick’s post. He made quite clear that he doesn’t believe that priests are sexual deviants. He in fact believes that to call priests sexual deviants is to caricature them, and he is as much against this caricature of priests as he is against your caricature of ministers. I agree with him that you are unfairly depicting ministers, and I think you owe him an apology for misunderstanding his words.
“Even the whole idea of denominations shows the entrepreneurial motive at work. Why is there more than one Protestant church out there? Because more than one "magister" (or in many cases European kings) chose to go into the "church business" for themselves (meanwhile seizing a lot of church property for the new business along the way).”
It’s true that you will find a financial motive in the founding of some churches, but you’ll find a financial motive in various splits and controversies in Catholic church history. You will also find serious theological and devotional issues. Seeing only cynical financial motives in one church and only serious high-minded motives in another church oversimplifies and distorts the record of all Christian churches.
I encourage you to read more deeply and charitably in the history of one or two Protestant churches and then read more about the structure and practice of them.
You said, “the Didache is an outlier. No other primitive liturgy is like it.”
You’re quite right, and I tried to indicate that in my comment when I used the phrase “at least.” But we also don’t know how many congregations practiced in this way or what other variations existed. The documentary evidence is quite weak, and scholars have to do a lot of guessing. I was merely pointing out that thinking of the Eucharist as unifying the church long predates Augustine and that there were even variations in practice.
---
Patricksarsfield,
“This is a variant on the "invisible church" evasion. The biblical Church of Christ was not some "invisible" agglomeration of the faithful. Rather, it was an organized, visible church which had a world-wide commission and an organization that held sway throughout the world.”
The split between Roman Catholic and Orthodox and later the continually resurfacing idea of a conciliar rather than a monarchal structure for the Western church suggests that church history is more complex than this. The ecclesiastical structure even in Rome keeps changing. Its organization and sway have always been in flux.
“So Christ's Church was nothing like modern Protestantism where entrepreneurs with a sufficient smattering of clergy-craft set up their own eccclesiastical profit centers and fleece whatever sheep they manage to tend”
You cast a large net here, lumping together churches that have structures very similar to Roman Catholicism (with bishops, ministry training and assignment) with those that do not. More precision would clarify matters.
“Not like all those misled protestants who believe in justification by Faith Alone. That's entirely UNbiblical”
Well, justification by faith is biblical. It comes most directly from Paul. The concept is more complex than you’ve portrayed it, and it differs from one Protestant Church to another. Again, you cast too wide a net.
“much of it must be attributed to the unremitting competition among churches (i.e. entrepreneurial ministers) for the collection plate dollar. Protestant ministers who come out of seminary generally do not go to work for a particular diocese which has paid for their training. Rather, they get the chance to go into business for themselves.”
Again, you oversimplify because you cast such a wide net. Some churches assign ministers; some don’t.
“As to the infamy uttered about Catholic priests, Rick has shown himself unable to engage in the "informed" discourse he purportedly seeks”
You really need to reread Rick’s post. He made quite clear that he doesn’t believe that priests are sexual deviants. He in fact believes that to call priests sexual deviants is to caricature them, and he is as much against this caricature of priests as he is against your caricature of ministers. I agree with him that you are unfairly depicting ministers, and I think you owe him an apology for misunderstanding his words.
“Even the whole idea of denominations shows the entrepreneurial motive at work. Why is there more than one Protestant church out there? Because more than one "magister" (or in many cases European kings) chose to go into the "church business" for themselves (meanwhile seizing a lot of church property for the new business along the way).”
It’s true that you will find a financial motive in the founding of some churches, but you’ll find a financial motive in various splits and controversies in Catholic church history. You will also find serious theological and devotional issues. Seeing only cynical financial motives in one church and only serious high-minded motives in another church oversimplifies and distorts the record of all Christian churches.
I encourage you to read more deeply and charitably in the history of one or two Protestant churches and then read more about the structure and practice of them.
2.26.2011 | 8:58pm
Corey says:
Patrick- I share the disappointment of others in your comments, which serve rather to inflame than to expose and enlighten.
But what I will say is that you have an odd understanding of the passage in James, which I think only indicates a context-less interpretation. Just as sure as James 2:24 says, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone," James 2:26 says, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." What are we to make of this?
First, what we can say about James 2:14-26, in isolation, is that when James is referring to "faith without deeds," he is not referring to faith in the same way as a protestant today might say that one may be saved by faith in Christ. Rather, he is denying that "faith without deeds" is any kind of faith at all. James 2:26 implies that works are the spirit of faith, which is to say that a faithful person must exercise a faithful will. But this is in line with what protestants believe: faith is all, or it is nothing. Works are not something separate from faith, but part and parcel with it. And while works may be the evidence of faith, there is nothing scriptural about the idea that unfaithful works(or works without faith) can accomplish salvation (as we know from Hebrews 11). Perhaps there is simply a misunderstanding about what is meant by faith- whether it is the "magic potion" you denigrated, or whether it is the life-defining belief referred to by protestants.
But what I will say is that you have an odd understanding of the passage in James, which I think only indicates a context-less interpretation. Just as sure as James 2:24 says, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone," James 2:26 says, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." What are we to make of this?
First, what we can say about James 2:14-26, in isolation, is that when James is referring to "faith without deeds," he is not referring to faith in the same way as a protestant today might say that one may be saved by faith in Christ. Rather, he is denying that "faith without deeds" is any kind of faith at all. James 2:26 implies that works are the spirit of faith, which is to say that a faithful person must exercise a faithful will. But this is in line with what protestants believe: faith is all, or it is nothing. Works are not something separate from faith, but part and parcel with it. And while works may be the evidence of faith, there is nothing scriptural about the idea that unfaithful works(or works without faith) can accomplish salvation (as we know from Hebrews 11). Perhaps there is simply a misunderstanding about what is meant by faith- whether it is the "magic potion" you denigrated, or whether it is the life-defining belief referred to by protestants.
2.26.2011 | 10:52pm
Verity says:
Let have a reality check here. I speak from over sixty years experience in church attendance.
In my life I have known three people who were dedicated to keeping exclusive communion rules: only members of their church in good standing could take their consecrated hosts. All of these people were serial breakers of the ten commandments. They entrapped and hurt other people without remorse. I have also known faithful people who kept the commandments and noticed that these people did not worry about who else was taking communion. I know which kind of person I want to be.
I am glad I found a church that has it all: Apostolic Succession, Transubstantiation and a policy that invites all baptized people to communion. I also think that God loves each communicant just the same no matter if they take the consecrated host or the symbolic one.
In my life I have known three people who were dedicated to keeping exclusive communion rules: only members of their church in good standing could take their consecrated hosts. All of these people were serial breakers of the ten commandments. They entrapped and hurt other people without remorse. I have also known faithful people who kept the commandments and noticed that these people did not worry about who else was taking communion. I know which kind of person I want to be.
I am glad I found a church that has it all: Apostolic Succession, Transubstantiation and a policy that invites all baptized people to communion. I also think that God loves each communicant just the same no matter if they take the consecrated host or the symbolic one.
2.27.2011 | 2:07pm
patricksarsfield says:
Michael writes:
"“Not like all those misled protestants who believe in justification by Faith Alone. That's entirely UNbiblical”
Well, justification by faith is biblical."
Michael, you are not paying atention. Of course, that is biblical. That is the Catholic position. What is wrong with Luther and the Protestant position is the addition of the word alone. Luther even added it ti his bible, just as he tried to eliminate the "inconvenient truth" of James 2:24 by trying to eliminate James from his bible as an epistle of straw.
The rest of your post requires little response. You have overread much of what I have written. Your overreading is best caught in this statement:
"Seeing only cynical financial motives in one church and only serious high-minded motives in another church oversimplifies and distorts the record of all Christian churches."
I challenge you to find any statement by me that there has never been cynical financial motives among some Catholic priests/prelates. That would indeed be a silly position. I am not silly and you should stop with such silly strawmen.
"“Not like all those misled protestants who believe in justification by Faith Alone. That's entirely UNbiblical”
Well, justification by faith is biblical."
Michael, you are not paying atention. Of course, that is biblical. That is the Catholic position. What is wrong with Luther and the Protestant position is the addition of the word alone. Luther even added it ti his bible, just as he tried to eliminate the "inconvenient truth" of James 2:24 by trying to eliminate James from his bible as an epistle of straw.
The rest of your post requires little response. You have overread much of what I have written. Your overreading is best caught in this statement:
"Seeing only cynical financial motives in one church and only serious high-minded motives in another church oversimplifies and distorts the record of all Christian churches."
I challenge you to find any statement by me that there has never been cynical financial motives among some Catholic priests/prelates. That would indeed be a silly position. I am not silly and you should stop with such silly strawmen.
2.27.2011 | 7:00pm
patricksarsfield says:
Corey,
You write:
"But what I will say is that you have an odd understanding of the passage in James, which I think only indicates a context-less interpretation. Just as sure as James 2:24 says, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone," James 2:26 says, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." What are we to make of this?"
There is nothing unusual about my understanding of James 2:24. The epistle writer's statement is in direct conflict with the position of Magister Luther, the founder of Protestantism, on the subject of justification by Faith Alone. Because there is such direct and obvious conflict between the two positions, Luther arrogated to himself the "authority" to read the Epistle of James out of the canon as an "epistle of straw." Oh, what tangled webs....
You write:
"But what I will say is that you have an odd understanding of the passage in James, which I think only indicates a context-less interpretation. Just as sure as James 2:24 says, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone," James 2:26 says, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." What are we to make of this?"
There is nothing unusual about my understanding of James 2:24. The epistle writer's statement is in direct conflict with the position of Magister Luther, the founder of Protestantism, on the subject of justification by Faith Alone. Because there is such direct and obvious conflict between the two positions, Luther arrogated to himself the "authority" to read the Epistle of James out of the canon as an "epistle of straw." Oh, what tangled webs....
2.28.2011 | 3:28pm
Michael says:
Patricksarsfield,
“What is wrong with Luther and the Protestant position is the addition of the word alone.”
My larger point is that you continually lump all Protestants together as if there weren’t important differences. These differences occur across time as well. Lutheranism and Protestantism have changed over the last five centuries and so has Roman Catholicism. In 1999, the Lutheran World Federation worked with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to work through their different theological understandings of justification. In reviewing the work of the commission the Roman Catholic Church has stated that “a high degree of agreement has been reached” and that there is “consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification.” In 2006, United Methodists agreed with these findings.
“The rest of your post requires little response.”
Then you’ve decided to skip the most important part of my response, which I repeated so many times I got tired of hearing it, which is that you oversimplify the Protestant position again and again. You prefer to fight a caricature of Protestantism rather than thinking about the subject with greater intelligence and nuance.
“I challenge you to find any statement by me that there has never been cynical financial motives among some Catholic priests/prelates. That would indeed be a silly position.”
You’re absolutely right that you nowhere claim such a thing. I was addressing, however, not any claim but a pattern of argument. You consistently point to an entrepreneurial motive when discussing Protestantism, but when you mention Catholicism, you never mention its entrepreneurial motives only its spiritual ones. It is this lopsided pattern I was referring to when I said that you see “only cynical financial motives in one church and only serious high-minded motives in another church.”
Here’s one example of your lopsided thinking at work. You said, “It is true that Catholic priests spend money on the decoration of their sanctuaries, more so than do Protestant ministers. Is that proof that Catholic priests love money more? Or that protestant ministers (and their spouses) would rather spend what comes in on the parsonage or their retirement plans than on a sanctuary?”
You imply once again a financial motive to Protestants when, if you knew anything about our history or theology, you would know that many, but not all, Protestants value simplicity and a lack of ornament. These things focus us on God.
“What is wrong with Luther and the Protestant position is the addition of the word alone.”
My larger point is that you continually lump all Protestants together as if there weren’t important differences. These differences occur across time as well. Lutheranism and Protestantism have changed over the last five centuries and so has Roman Catholicism. In 1999, the Lutheran World Federation worked with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to work through their different theological understandings of justification. In reviewing the work of the commission the Roman Catholic Church has stated that “a high degree of agreement has been reached” and that there is “consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification.” In 2006, United Methodists agreed with these findings.
“The rest of your post requires little response.”
Then you’ve decided to skip the most important part of my response, which I repeated so many times I got tired of hearing it, which is that you oversimplify the Protestant position again and again. You prefer to fight a caricature of Protestantism rather than thinking about the subject with greater intelligence and nuance.
“I challenge you to find any statement by me that there has never been cynical financial motives among some Catholic priests/prelates. That would indeed be a silly position.”
You’re absolutely right that you nowhere claim such a thing. I was addressing, however, not any claim but a pattern of argument. You consistently point to an entrepreneurial motive when discussing Protestantism, but when you mention Catholicism, you never mention its entrepreneurial motives only its spiritual ones. It is this lopsided pattern I was referring to when I said that you see “only cynical financial motives in one church and only serious high-minded motives in another church.”
Here’s one example of your lopsided thinking at work. You said, “It is true that Catholic priests spend money on the decoration of their sanctuaries, more so than do Protestant ministers. Is that proof that Catholic priests love money more? Or that protestant ministers (and their spouses) would rather spend what comes in on the parsonage or their retirement plans than on a sanctuary?”
You imply once again a financial motive to Protestants when, if you knew anything about our history or theology, you would know that many, but not all, Protestants value simplicity and a lack of ornament. These things focus us on God.
2.28.2011 | 11:31pm
patricksarsfield says:
Michael writes:
"Then you’ve decided to skip the most important part of my response, which I repeated so many times I got tired of hearing it, which is that you oversimplify the Protestant position again and again. You prefer to fight a caricature of Protestantism rather than thinking about the subject with greater intelligence and nuance. "
"The Protestant position"? Please. There is no such thing as "the" Protestant position. The last time there was a single Protestant position was probably Oct. 30, 1517. Luther's tactical decision to throw out Tradition and to insist on his own right to the private interpretation of Scripture has, as a practical matter, destroyed any possibility of there ever being a single Protestant position on anything. That is yet another reason I know that the "Protestant Church" (or more properly, the "Protestant churches") cannot be the single church commissioned by Christ to baptize and teach all nations.
Michael also writes:
"
(PATRICKSARSFIELD)“I challenge you to find any statement by me that there has never been cynical financial motives among some Catholic priests/prelates. That would indeed be a silly position.”
(MICHAEL) You’re absolutely right that you nowhere claim such a thing. I was addressing, however, not any claim but a pattern of argument. You consistently point to an entrepreneurial motive when discussing Protestantism, but when you mention Catholicism, you never mention its entrepreneurial motives only its spiritual ones. "
I pointed to the entrepreneurial motive of protestant ministers because that was relevant to the point I was making. Michael doesn't want to admit that entrepreneurial motive so he seeks to change the subject and to assert a moral equivalency between the economics of the two religion's clergies. In fact, though, the environment of clerical celibacy and hierarchical governance of individual Catholic parishes is different from the Protestant environment of clerical marriage and widespread (although not universal) entrepreneurship in the Protestant ministry. An "entrepreneurial Catholic priest" would first have to forsake a wife and live within a hierarchical structure that would impinge significantly on his entrepreneurial spirit before he could follow his entrepreneurial way while an entrepreneurial Protestant minister can marry (or not) and strike out on his own by creating his own "non-denominational" church even if he first does an apprenticeship in any of a large number of denominations.
"Then you’ve decided to skip the most important part of my response, which I repeated so many times I got tired of hearing it, which is that you oversimplify the Protestant position again and again. You prefer to fight a caricature of Protestantism rather than thinking about the subject with greater intelligence and nuance. "
"The Protestant position"? Please. There is no such thing as "the" Protestant position. The last time there was a single Protestant position was probably Oct. 30, 1517. Luther's tactical decision to throw out Tradition and to insist on his own right to the private interpretation of Scripture has, as a practical matter, destroyed any possibility of there ever being a single Protestant position on anything. That is yet another reason I know that the "Protestant Church" (or more properly, the "Protestant churches") cannot be the single church commissioned by Christ to baptize and teach all nations.
Michael also writes:
"
(PATRICKSARSFIELD)“I challenge you to find any statement by me that there has never been cynical financial motives among some Catholic priests/prelates. That would indeed be a silly position.”
(MICHAEL) You’re absolutely right that you nowhere claim such a thing. I was addressing, however, not any claim but a pattern of argument. You consistently point to an entrepreneurial motive when discussing Protestantism, but when you mention Catholicism, you never mention its entrepreneurial motives only its spiritual ones. "
I pointed to the entrepreneurial motive of protestant ministers because that was relevant to the point I was making. Michael doesn't want to admit that entrepreneurial motive so he seeks to change the subject and to assert a moral equivalency between the economics of the two religion's clergies. In fact, though, the environment of clerical celibacy and hierarchical governance of individual Catholic parishes is different from the Protestant environment of clerical marriage and widespread (although not universal) entrepreneurship in the Protestant ministry. An "entrepreneurial Catholic priest" would first have to forsake a wife and live within a hierarchical structure that would impinge significantly on his entrepreneurial spirit before he could follow his entrepreneurial way while an entrepreneurial Protestant minister can marry (or not) and strike out on his own by creating his own "non-denominational" church even if he first does an apprenticeship in any of a large number of denominations.
3.1.2011 | 12:06pm
Michael says:
Patricksarsfield,
“There is no such thing as "the" Protestant position.”
That’s precisely my point. You’ve repeatedly argued, however, that Protestants do this or believe that, and I keep trying to remind you that you need to identify which Protestants you’re talking about at which point in history. Thus, you complain about the Protestant position toward justification, and then remain silent when I point out that the Roman Catholic Church and some Protestant Churches, including some Lutheran Churches, agree on justification. You seem to want to just vent against Protestantism rather than try to understand it.
“Luther's tactical decision to throw out Tradition and to insist on his own right to the private interpretation of Scripture”
Another distortion of both Luther and Protestantism. Luther didn’t simply indulge in a private interpretation. He read deeply in the Catholic tradition, especially Augustine, and tried to understand what had gone right and what had gone right. In doing so, he acted no differently than any other Catholic theologian. The rightness of some of his conclusions can be seen in the actions of the Council of Trent, which reformed many of the abuses Luther identified. The question of whether Protestantism had to break off or could have stayed a reform movement is a thornier one that involves a lot of what-ifs. And I would point out that the question of reform or break reappears with frequency in both the Catholic and Protestant tradition. Lefebvre is a recent example.
“destroyed any possibility of there ever being a single Protestant position on anything”
Another example of painting with too broad a brush. It’s true that there no single Protestant position on anything, but Protestants don’t claim to agree with each other. However, if you look at any single Protestant tradition, you might, depending on which you choose, see positions that are longstanding. If you want to know the Methodist position on something, consult the Book of Discipline. You will see some positions that are shared with Roman Catholics and are thus quite ancient and some positions that are not. And if you examine Roman Catholic history, you will see it changing positions on different issues. Roman Catholics often like to think their tradition is more unified and consistent than it is in fact.
“Michael doesn't want to admit that entrepreneurial motive so he seeks to change the subject and to assert a moral equivalency between the economics of the two religion's clergies.”
I hope you can see the contradiction in your argument here. You claim there’s no one Protestant position on anything and then in this statement claim that Protestantism is a religion with a distinct clergy and economics. It is not. The clergy and economics of Anglicanism closely resemble Catholicism while the clergy and economics of non-denominational congregations are vastly different. You want to argue against Luther and Protestantism by using examples drawn from non-denominationalism, which is why I keep pointing out that you are indulging in caricature.
I haven’t discussed the entrepreneurial motive yet because I want to you specify exactly who you are attacking. If you want to go after non-denominational churches, then be my guest, but don’t think that your arguments have any bearing at all concerning Lutheranism, Anglicanism, or Methodism. Learn your history and theology first.
But if you want me to discuss it, I’ll say this. I see no difference in the entrepreneurial motive as I’ve experienced it in the Methodist Church than I experienced it in the Roman Catholic Church. In both Churches, I’ve seen bishops reassign clergy in order to raise money and increase attendance when a congregation needed to raise money for a building or some other capital project or when a congregation was losing members. And in both Churches, I’ve seen clergy adapt their preaching, worship, fellowship, and service styles in order increase attendance or to better match their understanding of the gospel. The reason such similarities exist between the Methodist and the Roman Catholic Church is because both Churches have an episcopal structure in which bishops appoint pastors and then rotate them out every few years.
And I’ll add this. I dated a wonderful woman in high school who belonged to a non-denominational church. We clashed a little because she thought Roman Catholics like me were going to hell! Anyway, her pastor had taken their congregation out of the Southern Baptist Convention because he thought the SBC had gotten “too liberal.” Perhaps he just wanted to make extra cash for him and his family, but that’s not how he struck me. He gave lengthy sermons that were packed full of history and theology, most of it flat wrong, but he was serious about it and clearly had studied much. He had just studied the wrong people! You might describe him as exactly the kind of entrepreneurial Protestant you despise, but don’t extrapolate from cases like his to all of Protestantism.
“There is no such thing as "the" Protestant position.”
That’s precisely my point. You’ve repeatedly argued, however, that Protestants do this or believe that, and I keep trying to remind you that you need to identify which Protestants you’re talking about at which point in history. Thus, you complain about the Protestant position toward justification, and then remain silent when I point out that the Roman Catholic Church and some Protestant Churches, including some Lutheran Churches, agree on justification. You seem to want to just vent against Protestantism rather than try to understand it.
“Luther's tactical decision to throw out Tradition and to insist on his own right to the private interpretation of Scripture”
Another distortion of both Luther and Protestantism. Luther didn’t simply indulge in a private interpretation. He read deeply in the Catholic tradition, especially Augustine, and tried to understand what had gone right and what had gone right. In doing so, he acted no differently than any other Catholic theologian. The rightness of some of his conclusions can be seen in the actions of the Council of Trent, which reformed many of the abuses Luther identified. The question of whether Protestantism had to break off or could have stayed a reform movement is a thornier one that involves a lot of what-ifs. And I would point out that the question of reform or break reappears with frequency in both the Catholic and Protestant tradition. Lefebvre is a recent example.
“destroyed any possibility of there ever being a single Protestant position on anything”
Another example of painting with too broad a brush. It’s true that there no single Protestant position on anything, but Protestants don’t claim to agree with each other. However, if you look at any single Protestant tradition, you might, depending on which you choose, see positions that are longstanding. If you want to know the Methodist position on something, consult the Book of Discipline. You will see some positions that are shared with Roman Catholics and are thus quite ancient and some positions that are not. And if you examine Roman Catholic history, you will see it changing positions on different issues. Roman Catholics often like to think their tradition is more unified and consistent than it is in fact.
“Michael doesn't want to admit that entrepreneurial motive so he seeks to change the subject and to assert a moral equivalency between the economics of the two religion's clergies.”
I hope you can see the contradiction in your argument here. You claim there’s no one Protestant position on anything and then in this statement claim that Protestantism is a religion with a distinct clergy and economics. It is not. The clergy and economics of Anglicanism closely resemble Catholicism while the clergy and economics of non-denominational congregations are vastly different. You want to argue against Luther and Protestantism by using examples drawn from non-denominationalism, which is why I keep pointing out that you are indulging in caricature.
I haven’t discussed the entrepreneurial motive yet because I want to you specify exactly who you are attacking. If you want to go after non-denominational churches, then be my guest, but don’t think that your arguments have any bearing at all concerning Lutheranism, Anglicanism, or Methodism. Learn your history and theology first.
But if you want me to discuss it, I’ll say this. I see no difference in the entrepreneurial motive as I’ve experienced it in the Methodist Church than I experienced it in the Roman Catholic Church. In both Churches, I’ve seen bishops reassign clergy in order to raise money and increase attendance when a congregation needed to raise money for a building or some other capital project or when a congregation was losing members. And in both Churches, I’ve seen clergy adapt their preaching, worship, fellowship, and service styles in order increase attendance or to better match their understanding of the gospel. The reason such similarities exist between the Methodist and the Roman Catholic Church is because both Churches have an episcopal structure in which bishops appoint pastors and then rotate them out every few years.
And I’ll add this. I dated a wonderful woman in high school who belonged to a non-denominational church. We clashed a little because she thought Roman Catholics like me were going to hell! Anyway, her pastor had taken their congregation out of the Southern Baptist Convention because he thought the SBC had gotten “too liberal.” Perhaps he just wanted to make extra cash for him and his family, but that’s not how he struck me. He gave lengthy sermons that were packed full of history and theology, most of it flat wrong, but he was serious about it and clearly had studied much. He had just studied the wrong people! You might describe him as exactly the kind of entrepreneurial Protestant you despise, but don’t extrapolate from cases like his to all of Protestantism.
3.1.2011 | 11:07pm
patricksarsfield says:
Michael,
A telling part of our last exchange:
"me:“destroyed any possibility of there ever being a single Protestant position on anything”
Michael: Another example of painting with too broad a brush. It’s true that there no single Protestant position on anything, but Protestants don’t claim to agree with each other. "
As I said before, Christ's Church was commissioned to teach all nations, not to say different thigns in different places. If Protestantism can't have a single position on anything, it is hardly Christ's Church because Christ's Church teaches universally.
As to the rest of your post--where you admit the appropriateness of my "entrepreneurial" observations when applied to non-denominational ministers but insist there is no difference between the economics of the more traditional Protestant denominations' ministers and that of Catholic priests--I disagree. The key difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is, of course, celibacy. While some of the more hierarchical denominations (e.g., Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran) may have bishops involved and are to that extent a little more like Catholicism than the non-denominational churches, all of their ministers can marry. Catholic priests, by contrast, cannot marry and therefore do not have the same need to support a family that almost all Protestant ministers have. That makes for hugely different economic interests.
That is one of the reasons (beyond the lack of historical connection of the Protestant sects to the Church Christ founded) that I could never take Protestantism seriously as Christ's Church. The Catholic Church in its wisdom and 2000 year experience has determined that celibacy advances the Kingdom. The Orthodox Church, with its policy of clerical celibacy for bishops and monks (albeit not for secular clergy), concurs. My own experience with Catholic clergy is that most I have met have sacrificed much for the Kingdom and that they are single-mindedly in service of God's people. And equally important, they are not preaching their own message; rather, they are preaching the Universal message of God's Holy Catholic Church.
Now is any of this to say that there are not some Protestant ministers who sacrifice for their view of the Kingdom? Of course not. Some may even sacrifice their own family's interests. I though prefer to be shepherded by a pastor that would not have to sacrifice anybody's interest but his own. That plus True Apostolic succession and the passing on of charisms by the laying on of hands from Christ through the apostles to the bishops and the priests is the assurance I need.
A telling part of our last exchange:
"me:“destroyed any possibility of there ever being a single Protestant position on anything”
Michael: Another example of painting with too broad a brush. It’s true that there no single Protestant position on anything, but Protestants don’t claim to agree with each other. "
As I said before, Christ's Church was commissioned to teach all nations, not to say different thigns in different places. If Protestantism can't have a single position on anything, it is hardly Christ's Church because Christ's Church teaches universally.
As to the rest of your post--where you admit the appropriateness of my "entrepreneurial" observations when applied to non-denominational ministers but insist there is no difference between the economics of the more traditional Protestant denominations' ministers and that of Catholic priests--I disagree. The key difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is, of course, celibacy. While some of the more hierarchical denominations (e.g., Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran) may have bishops involved and are to that extent a little more like Catholicism than the non-denominational churches, all of their ministers can marry. Catholic priests, by contrast, cannot marry and therefore do not have the same need to support a family that almost all Protestant ministers have. That makes for hugely different economic interests.
That is one of the reasons (beyond the lack of historical connection of the Protestant sects to the Church Christ founded) that I could never take Protestantism seriously as Christ's Church. The Catholic Church in its wisdom and 2000 year experience has determined that celibacy advances the Kingdom. The Orthodox Church, with its policy of clerical celibacy for bishops and monks (albeit not for secular clergy), concurs. My own experience with Catholic clergy is that most I have met have sacrificed much for the Kingdom and that they are single-mindedly in service of God's people. And equally important, they are not preaching their own message; rather, they are preaching the Universal message of God's Holy Catholic Church.
Now is any of this to say that there are not some Protestant ministers who sacrifice for their view of the Kingdom? Of course not. Some may even sacrifice their own family's interests. I though prefer to be shepherded by a pastor that would not have to sacrifice anybody's interest but his own. That plus True Apostolic succession and the passing on of charisms by the laying on of hands from Christ through the apostles to the bishops and the priests is the assurance I need.
3.2.2011 | 11:56am
Michael says:
Patricksarsfield,
“If Protestantism can't have a single position on anything, it is hardly Christ's Church because Christ's Church teaches universally”
Let me put it this way. If someone told you that he doesn’t believe in Christianity because Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants don’t agree on everything, you would point out that there are some commonalities but that you think Roman Catholicism is Christ’s Church. It’s the same situation. You’re saying you don’t believe in Protestantism because Protestants don’t share the same beliefs, but I’m pointing out that there are some commonalities but that Methodism is Christ’s Church. Just as you would argue against someone who lumped all Christians together, I’m saying you shouldn’t lump all Protestants together.
“While some of the more hierarchical denominations (e.g., Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran) may have bishops involved and are to that extent a little more like Catholicism than the non-denominational churches”
I’m happy to seeing you using this qualification. It’s important to get more precise.
“Catholic priests, by contrast, cannot marry and therefore do not have the same need to support a family that almost all Protestant ministers have. That makes for hugely different economic interests”
Right now, the differences you see are all negative. You believe that someone with a family is more likely to do what exactly? You’ve mentioned that they’re more likely to spend money on their family than on decorating the church, but usually there is a church council that oversees the budget. It’s not up to the pastor. How else do you think an entrepreneurial motive is likely to affect Lutheran, Anglican, or Methodist clergy?
While you’re making your list, here are some of the positives I’ve seen. When my high school buddy entered an Episcopalian seminary, he was already married with three children. He could hardly afford to go to school and support his family, and so he wrote regular letters requesting money for support, and he wrote lovely thank you letters in return. One result is that he gathered a community who believed in him and in his ministry, and in return he felt truly supported and deeply responsible to his supporters.
“the lack of historical connection of the Protestant sects to the Church Christ founded”
What lack of connection? Methodism goes right back to the beginning, complete with apostolic succession. So does Anglicanism and Lutheranism.
“I could never take Protestantism seriously as Christ's Church”
Neither do I. To repeat, I take Methodism seriously as Christ’s Church, just as a Lutheran does Lutheranism. If I said I don’t take Catholicism seriously as Christ’s Church because Roman Catholics are split from Palmarian Catholics, you’d make the distinction fast enough.
“The Catholic Church in its wisdom and 2000 year experience has determined that celibacy advances the Kingdom.”
Well, the Roman Catholic Church did. From the perspective of Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism departed from tradition when it securely instituted mandatory celibacy in the 1100s.
“My own experience with Catholic clergy is that most I have met have sacrificed much for the Kingdom and that they are single-mindedly in service of God's people.”
That’s been my experience of Catholic clergy as well as Methodist, Lutheran, etc.
“they are not preaching their own message”
Nor are my Methodist pastors. They read the Book of Discipline.
“they are preaching the Universal message of God's Holy Catholic Church”
So are they, and I would add that I would not be a Methodist if I don’t think they were doing a better job of it than Roman Catholics.
“If Protestantism can't have a single position on anything, it is hardly Christ's Church because Christ's Church teaches universally”
Let me put it this way. If someone told you that he doesn’t believe in Christianity because Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants don’t agree on everything, you would point out that there are some commonalities but that you think Roman Catholicism is Christ’s Church. It’s the same situation. You’re saying you don’t believe in Protestantism because Protestants don’t share the same beliefs, but I’m pointing out that there are some commonalities but that Methodism is Christ’s Church. Just as you would argue against someone who lumped all Christians together, I’m saying you shouldn’t lump all Protestants together.
“While some of the more hierarchical denominations (e.g., Anglican, Methodist and Lutheran) may have bishops involved and are to that extent a little more like Catholicism than the non-denominational churches”
I’m happy to seeing you using this qualification. It’s important to get more precise.
“Catholic priests, by contrast, cannot marry and therefore do not have the same need to support a family that almost all Protestant ministers have. That makes for hugely different economic interests”
Right now, the differences you see are all negative. You believe that someone with a family is more likely to do what exactly? You’ve mentioned that they’re more likely to spend money on their family than on decorating the church, but usually there is a church council that oversees the budget. It’s not up to the pastor. How else do you think an entrepreneurial motive is likely to affect Lutheran, Anglican, or Methodist clergy?
While you’re making your list, here are some of the positives I’ve seen. When my high school buddy entered an Episcopalian seminary, he was already married with three children. He could hardly afford to go to school and support his family, and so he wrote regular letters requesting money for support, and he wrote lovely thank you letters in return. One result is that he gathered a community who believed in him and in his ministry, and in return he felt truly supported and deeply responsible to his supporters.
“the lack of historical connection of the Protestant sects to the Church Christ founded”
What lack of connection? Methodism goes right back to the beginning, complete with apostolic succession. So does Anglicanism and Lutheranism.
“I could never take Protestantism seriously as Christ's Church”
Neither do I. To repeat, I take Methodism seriously as Christ’s Church, just as a Lutheran does Lutheranism. If I said I don’t take Catholicism seriously as Christ’s Church because Roman Catholics are split from Palmarian Catholics, you’d make the distinction fast enough.
“The Catholic Church in its wisdom and 2000 year experience has determined that celibacy advances the Kingdom.”
Well, the Roman Catholic Church did. From the perspective of Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism departed from tradition when it securely instituted mandatory celibacy in the 1100s.
“My own experience with Catholic clergy is that most I have met have sacrificed much for the Kingdom and that they are single-mindedly in service of God's people.”
That’s been my experience of Catholic clergy as well as Methodist, Lutheran, etc.
“they are not preaching their own message”
Nor are my Methodist pastors. They read the Book of Discipline.
“they are preaching the Universal message of God's Holy Catholic Church”
So are they, and I would add that I would not be a Methodist if I don’t think they were doing a better job of it than Roman Catholics.
3.2.2011 | 2:03pm
patricksarsfield says:
Michael writes this unhistorical and unbiblical piece of fluff:
"You’re saying you don’t believe in Protestantism because Protestants don’t share the same beliefs, but I’m pointing out that there are some commonalities but that Methodism is Christ’s Church...."
Clearly false. Christ's Church was founded in the First Century AD. Methodism was an 18th Century breakaway from the 16th Century Anglican breakaway from the Church Christ founded in the First Century AD. Nowhere does the Bible state that the Wesley Boys would come along and replace the Church Jesus founded. Nor does it state that Jesus may be God but He couldn't found a proper church that would last until the End of the Age and that the Wesley Boys would have to come along and fix up what He messed up and Henry VIII (and Elizabeth) then compounded. So the claim that an 18th Century invention of Men is Christ's Church (founded in the First Century AD) is evidentially false and certainly unbiblical.
Michael may think it is his choice to choose among the various Christian churches and pick the one he considers to be doing the best job, but that is not the way Christ set it up. He did not say: "thou art Peter, and Andrew, James, John, Phillip, Bartholomew....Martin Luther, Henry Tudor, Jean Calvin, Oecolampadius....John and Charles Wesley and upon these rocks I will build my churches and the sheep can follow whichever one they think is doing the best job."
The Church Christ founded had a universal (Catholic) mission and Christ promised to remain with it until the end of the Age (Matt. 28:18-20). That Church was a visible institution right from the start and when the local church at Antioch had a dispute over the issue of Circumcision, it brought that dispute to the Central Church Council (Acts 15: 1 et seq) and the Church as a whole adopted Peter's position Acts 15:7-28) and that position was binding, not just on Antioch but on the church as a whole (Acts 16:2-5). IOW, Christ founded a visible church in the First Century AD, so any church claiming to be His would have to be a church founded in the First Century AD. IOW, no protestant church could be His Church.
"You’re saying you don’t believe in Protestantism because Protestants don’t share the same beliefs, but I’m pointing out that there are some commonalities but that Methodism is Christ’s Church...."
Clearly false. Christ's Church was founded in the First Century AD. Methodism was an 18th Century breakaway from the 16th Century Anglican breakaway from the Church Christ founded in the First Century AD. Nowhere does the Bible state that the Wesley Boys would come along and replace the Church Jesus founded. Nor does it state that Jesus may be God but He couldn't found a proper church that would last until the End of the Age and that the Wesley Boys would have to come along and fix up what He messed up and Henry VIII (and Elizabeth) then compounded. So the claim that an 18th Century invention of Men is Christ's Church (founded in the First Century AD) is evidentially false and certainly unbiblical.
Michael may think it is his choice to choose among the various Christian churches and pick the one he considers to be doing the best job, but that is not the way Christ set it up. He did not say: "thou art Peter, and Andrew, James, John, Phillip, Bartholomew....Martin Luther, Henry Tudor, Jean Calvin, Oecolampadius....John and Charles Wesley and upon these rocks I will build my churches and the sheep can follow whichever one they think is doing the best job."
The Church Christ founded had a universal (Catholic) mission and Christ promised to remain with it until the end of the Age (Matt. 28:18-20). That Church was a visible institution right from the start and when the local church at Antioch had a dispute over the issue of Circumcision, it brought that dispute to the Central Church Council (Acts 15: 1 et seq) and the Church as a whole adopted Peter's position Acts 15:7-28) and that position was binding, not just on Antioch but on the church as a whole (Acts 16:2-5). IOW, Christ founded a visible church in the First Century AD, so any church claiming to be His would have to be a church founded in the First Century AD. IOW, no protestant church could be His Church.
3.2.2011 | 4:09pm
Michael says:
Patricksarsfield,
Your understanding of history is limited in two ways.
First, you’re wrong to describe Methodism as a “breakaway” Church. John Wesley lived and died an Anglican priest. His Methodism was a devotional and evangelical movement within Anglicanism. Wesley observed that Christian worship had become merely formal and had abandoned common people who had stopped attending church.
The “method” he and his college classmates developed included frequent prayer, daily devotions, weekly bible readings, weekly fellowship, and daily mass. Since so many Britons had stopped attending mass, he decided to take the Word to them and began preaching in fields and in the mines, urging people to return to faith and to the church.
Although the Methodists eventually established their own chapels, Wesley insisted that people attend the Anglican Church for the sacraments. Methodist meetings were supplements to the Church, not a replacement for it.
What changed things was the American Revolution, during which Anglican priests were pulled out. Wesley was against the revolution, but he couldn’t abide the thought that Methodists in America could not take the sacraments. After his pleas to the Bishop of London fell unheeded, Wesley reluctantly appointed Thomas Coke to administer the sacraments in the new republic. In the meantime, he encouraged Englishmen to remain Anglicans as he and Charles did.
The existence of the Methodist Church is thus one of those accidents of history that says more about the role that institutions play in inhibiting the gospel than it does about what you call inventions of men.
Second, you have an idealized view of how history and especially church history works. Like many Roman Catholics, you imagine some great, unbroken chain from the first century to the present that might be twisted by politics and great events but always straightens itself out. But if you really study how councils worked and how decisions got made and if you become aware of how small a thing the Roman church was during the first millennium, then you can begin to appreciate that Protestantism was only one in a series of debates about how the universal church was to be organized and understood.
While Bishops of Rome frequently declared their primacy from an early date, the apostolic churches in the East didn’t pay much attention. They had a more conciliar understanding of their relationship to Rome, recognizing papal primacy but not supremacy. This notion of conciliarism reappears occasionally in the history of the Roman Church, especially in the 14th century, and it underlies the way that Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist Churches understand their ecclesiological structures. If the Roman and Orthodox Churches ever do enter more fully into communion with each other, they will probably negotiate some notion of conciliarism even if they don’t call it that. They’ve already gone a long way in reconciling their different doctrines and practices, agreeing that their differences are more a matter of misunderstanding than of fundamentally different belief.
As I pointed out earlier, the Western Churches are also reaching similar agreements. Justification is no longer quite the barrier it once seemed, and it is getting closer to being described as a misunderstanding rather than a different and heretical teaching.
I do think, however, that Western reunion will take longer than reunion between East and West. Protestantism sticks in the craw of Rome because Rome never had control of the East. During the first millennium, the East produced the better theologians and was the seat of imperial power. Rome only arose after the East had declined. But soon after its triumph, Rome lost Northern Europe to Protestantism, and that hurt its pride. Henry VIII was a horse’s rear, but Rome bungled it, too. In history, accidents and personalities matter.
When you go down the list of central Christian doctrines, Methodism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism line up well with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. They share the Nicene creed, the Chalcedonian creed, apostolic succession, the Real Presence, belief in both the bible and church tradition, baptism, sin, veneration of saints, confession, penance, episcopal governance, and liturgy. Ecumenical discussions in the last half century have brought the organizations closer together, but pride gets in the way a lot, just as it did in the beginning.
Your understanding of history is limited in two ways.
First, you’re wrong to describe Methodism as a “breakaway” Church. John Wesley lived and died an Anglican priest. His Methodism was a devotional and evangelical movement within Anglicanism. Wesley observed that Christian worship had become merely formal and had abandoned common people who had stopped attending church.
The “method” he and his college classmates developed included frequent prayer, daily devotions, weekly bible readings, weekly fellowship, and daily mass. Since so many Britons had stopped attending mass, he decided to take the Word to them and began preaching in fields and in the mines, urging people to return to faith and to the church.
Although the Methodists eventually established their own chapels, Wesley insisted that people attend the Anglican Church for the sacraments. Methodist meetings were supplements to the Church, not a replacement for it.
What changed things was the American Revolution, during which Anglican priests were pulled out. Wesley was against the revolution, but he couldn’t abide the thought that Methodists in America could not take the sacraments. After his pleas to the Bishop of London fell unheeded, Wesley reluctantly appointed Thomas Coke to administer the sacraments in the new republic. In the meantime, he encouraged Englishmen to remain Anglicans as he and Charles did.
The existence of the Methodist Church is thus one of those accidents of history that says more about the role that institutions play in inhibiting the gospel than it does about what you call inventions of men.
Second, you have an idealized view of how history and especially church history works. Like many Roman Catholics, you imagine some great, unbroken chain from the first century to the present that might be twisted by politics and great events but always straightens itself out. But if you really study how councils worked and how decisions got made and if you become aware of how small a thing the Roman church was during the first millennium, then you can begin to appreciate that Protestantism was only one in a series of debates about how the universal church was to be organized and understood.
While Bishops of Rome frequently declared their primacy from an early date, the apostolic churches in the East didn’t pay much attention. They had a more conciliar understanding of their relationship to Rome, recognizing papal primacy but not supremacy. This notion of conciliarism reappears occasionally in the history of the Roman Church, especially in the 14th century, and it underlies the way that Lutheran, Anglican, and Methodist Churches understand their ecclesiological structures. If the Roman and Orthodox Churches ever do enter more fully into communion with each other, they will probably negotiate some notion of conciliarism even if they don’t call it that. They’ve already gone a long way in reconciling their different doctrines and practices, agreeing that their differences are more a matter of misunderstanding than of fundamentally different belief.
As I pointed out earlier, the Western Churches are also reaching similar agreements. Justification is no longer quite the barrier it once seemed, and it is getting closer to being described as a misunderstanding rather than a different and heretical teaching.
I do think, however, that Western reunion will take longer than reunion between East and West. Protestantism sticks in the craw of Rome because Rome never had control of the East. During the first millennium, the East produced the better theologians and was the seat of imperial power. Rome only arose after the East had declined. But soon after its triumph, Rome lost Northern Europe to Protestantism, and that hurt its pride. Henry VIII was a horse’s rear, but Rome bungled it, too. In history, accidents and personalities matter.
When you go down the list of central Christian doctrines, Methodism, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism line up well with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. They share the Nicene creed, the Chalcedonian creed, apostolic succession, the Real Presence, belief in both the bible and church tradition, baptism, sin, veneration of saints, confession, penance, episcopal governance, and liturgy. Ecumenical discussions in the last half century have brought the organizations closer together, but pride gets in the way a lot, just as it did in the beginning.
3.2.2011 | 10:51pm
patricksarsfield says:
Michael tries to defend his claim that the Methodist Church is the Church of Christ with this distorted snippet of History:
"First, you’re wrong to describe Methodism as a “breakaway” Church. John Wesley lived and died an Anglican priest. His Methodism was a devotional and evangelical movement within Anglicanism. ....Although the Methodists eventually established their own chapels, Wesley insisted that people attend the Anglican Church for the sacraments. ....What changed things was the American Revolution, during which Anglican priests were pulled out. Wesley was against the revolution....The existence of the Methodist Church is thus one of those accidents of history that says more about the role that institutions play in inhibiting the gospel than it does about what you call inventions of men."
If wishes were horses, beggars would be kings. Whatever Wesley might have said, Methodism is a breakaway from Anglicanism and it has fractionated even more (e.g., the AME and AMEZ churches). Because the UMC is distinct from both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church, it is undeniable that the Methodist Church is a breakaway from the Anglican Church which the Tyrant Henry VIII (and his daughter Elizabeth) broke away from the Church Christ founded. So, the Methodist Church is not Christ's Church. As to Michael's implicit claim that a revolution means Christ's Church can be replaced in a different country by a man-made church, where is the biblical warrant for that? Where does it say: "thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church unlessthere is a revolution; then whatever church somebody founds can be substituted for the Church I ambuilding...."?
And then, without dealing with my showing that the Bible shows that the Church of Christ was a visible one right from the start, Michael writes this patronizing material:
"Second, you have an idealized view of how history and especially church history works. Like many Roman Catholics, you imagine some great, unbroken chain from the first century to the present that might be twisted by politics and great events but always straightens itself out. But if you really study how councils worked and how decisions got made and if you become aware of how small a thing the Roman church was during the first millennium, then you can begin to appreciate that Protestantism was only one in a series of debates about how the universal church was to be organized and understood...."
I am very well aware of the History of the Catholic Church and it is actually Michael who has the idealized view of Ecclesiastical History when he fails to recognize that the Eastern Orthodox Schism and the Protestant break from the Catholic Church were largely matters of temporal lords using their power to impose their own control over the Church. That is what the Northern German princes did in imposing Lutheranism throughout their "regios" and that is what Henry VIII and the Scandinavian kings (and the turncoat Hohenzollern who headed up the Teutonic Knights) and the Scottish Lairds of the Congregation did in the other countries that fell to Protestant rule.
And the real reason the East has remained in schism from Rome since the last loss of communion after the Fall of Constantinople is that the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate chose "dhimmitude" as the favored christian of the Ottoman Sultans rather than remaining in communion with its fellow-christians. The apparently Eastern Orthodox "pdn MIchael" (who, I guess, is different from "Methodist Michael") has never refuted my showing above (2/23 at 5:32 pm) that the Papacy had been able to reunite the Chalcedonian East with the West at the 1439 Council of Florence-Ferrara and that it was the Conquest of Constantinople in May 1453 that led to the final break of the Phanar with the Vatican.
As noted above, the Ottoman Turk wanted a catspaw patriarch who would do the Sultan's bidding and that was what Gennadius became for the Sultan. Even the Orthodox now recognize that the period of domination by the Ottoman Sultans was a shameful one for the Orthodox. As a result, they call that the period of "Tourkokratia" (rule by the Turk).
The real history of the Church for the past 2000 years is that Christ's Holy Church has been under pretty constant attack by the temporal bad guys and that when they got a chance to bite off a bit of the Church they did. That is the real reason for divisions that may get dressed up with concocted issues like "By Faith Alone" or the Filioque or azymes disputes but people like Henry VIII, the Lairds of the Congregation, the Hohenzollern and the Scandinavian kings usually manage to appropriate a lot of Church property to their own use and usufruct (to quote a famous Protestant minister who liked using that term).
"First, you’re wrong to describe Methodism as a “breakaway” Church. John Wesley lived and died an Anglican priest. His Methodism was a devotional and evangelical movement within Anglicanism. ....Although the Methodists eventually established their own chapels, Wesley insisted that people attend the Anglican Church for the sacraments. ....What changed things was the American Revolution, during which Anglican priests were pulled out. Wesley was against the revolution....The existence of the Methodist Church is thus one of those accidents of history that says more about the role that institutions play in inhibiting the gospel than it does about what you call inventions of men."
If wishes were horses, beggars would be kings. Whatever Wesley might have said, Methodism is a breakaway from Anglicanism and it has fractionated even more (e.g., the AME and AMEZ churches). Because the UMC is distinct from both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church, it is undeniable that the Methodist Church is a breakaway from the Anglican Church which the Tyrant Henry VIII (and his daughter Elizabeth) broke away from the Church Christ founded. So, the Methodist Church is not Christ's Church. As to Michael's implicit claim that a revolution means Christ's Church can be replaced in a different country by a man-made church, where is the biblical warrant for that? Where does it say: "thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church unlessthere is a revolution; then whatever church somebody founds can be substituted for the Church I ambuilding...."?
And then, without dealing with my showing that the Bible shows that the Church of Christ was a visible one right from the start, Michael writes this patronizing material:
"Second, you have an idealized view of how history and especially church history works. Like many Roman Catholics, you imagine some great, unbroken chain from the first century to the present that might be twisted by politics and great events but always straightens itself out. But if you really study how councils worked and how decisions got made and if you become aware of how small a thing the Roman church was during the first millennium, then you can begin to appreciate that Protestantism was only one in a series of debates about how the universal church was to be organized and understood...."
I am very well aware of the History of the Catholic Church and it is actually Michael who has the idealized view of Ecclesiastical History when he fails to recognize that the Eastern Orthodox Schism and the Protestant break from the Catholic Church were largely matters of temporal lords using their power to impose their own control over the Church. That is what the Northern German princes did in imposing Lutheranism throughout their "regios" and that is what Henry VIII and the Scandinavian kings (and the turncoat Hohenzollern who headed up the Teutonic Knights) and the Scottish Lairds of the Congregation did in the other countries that fell to Protestant rule.
And the real reason the East has remained in schism from Rome since the last loss of communion after the Fall of Constantinople is that the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate chose "dhimmitude" as the favored christian of the Ottoman Sultans rather than remaining in communion with its fellow-christians. The apparently Eastern Orthodox "pdn MIchael" (who, I guess, is different from "Methodist Michael") has never refuted my showing above (2/23 at 5:32 pm) that the Papacy had been able to reunite the Chalcedonian East with the West at the 1439 Council of Florence-Ferrara and that it was the Conquest of Constantinople in May 1453 that led to the final break of the Phanar with the Vatican.
As noted above, the Ottoman Turk wanted a catspaw patriarch who would do the Sultan's bidding and that was what Gennadius became for the Sultan. Even the Orthodox now recognize that the period of domination by the Ottoman Sultans was a shameful one for the Orthodox. As a result, they call that the period of "Tourkokratia" (rule by the Turk).
The real history of the Church for the past 2000 years is that Christ's Holy Church has been under pretty constant attack by the temporal bad guys and that when they got a chance to bite off a bit of the Church they did. That is the real reason for divisions that may get dressed up with concocted issues like "By Faith Alone" or the Filioque or azymes disputes but people like Henry VIII, the Lairds of the Congregation, the Hohenzollern and the Scandinavian kings usually manage to appropriate a lot of Church property to their own use and usufruct (to quote a famous Protestant minister who liked using that term).
3.3.2011 | 4:41pm
Michael says:
Patricksarsfield ,
“Whatever Wesley might have said, Methodism is a breakaway from Anglicanism”
I think you missed my point. You’ve portrayed the division of the Church as matter of entrepreneurship, people splitting off from the Church for personal or national gain. That has certainly been true in some cases, and I agree that Henry VIII was one of them, though I’d add that Rome was part of the problem. But Methodism did not split off for either personal or national gain. Neither did the AME or AMEZ Churches that you mention. I don’t blame either Church for rebelling against the racism within the Methodist Church at that time, even though the Methodist Church had led the charge for abolition.
Both the AME and AMEZ have done a brilliant job of ministering to black Americans in a hostile nation. Acknowledging our part in this shameful history, members of my Methodist congregation attend a neighboring AME church for its Ash Wednesday services, and during the year, we cooperate with them in interfaith initiatives.
“As to Michael's implicit claim that a revolution means Christ's Church can be replaced in a different country by a man-made church”
I make no such claim. What I did argue is that politics have always gotten in the way of the Church. You can see this not only in Protestant national churches, but in Catholic history as popes have established papal states, as popes have been imprisoned by emperors, as popes have found their authority challenged by bishops more beholden to their kings, as antipopes have been placed in power, etc.
“without dealing with my showing that the Bible shows that the Church of Christ was a visible one right from the start”
I didn’t deal with it because it is something we all acknowledge. The question is whether the role of the papacy as the Roman Catholic Church now describes it has always been understood that way.
“the Eastern Orthodox Schism and the Protestant break from the Catholic Church were largely matters of temporal lords using their power to impose their own control over the Church”
But my point is that temporal lords since Constantine have used their power to control the Church. After this point, conversion was largely a matter not of personal faith but of whether your king or ruler had been converted to Christianity.
“The real history of the Church for the past 2000 years is that Christ's Holy Church has been under pretty constant attack by the temporal bad guys and that when they got a chance to bite off a bit of the Church they did.”
I think it’s a good bit more complicated than that. Popes, bishops, and Patriarchs have always been interested in using temporal as well as spiritual power, or at least they have ever since Constantine offered it to them, and they didn’t have the good sense to refuse. The notion that temporal and spiritual power should be separate again is a comparatively recent idea.
“the real reason for divisions that may get dressed up with concocted issues like "By Faith Alone" or the Filioque or azymes disputes”
I agree that political and religious leaders have used such issues as pretexts for power grabs, but I wouldn’t call them “concocted.” They were real enough issues and touch on genuine debates about how the faithful are to understand the faith.
“Whatever Wesley might have said, Methodism is a breakaway from Anglicanism”
I think you missed my point. You’ve portrayed the division of the Church as matter of entrepreneurship, people splitting off from the Church for personal or national gain. That has certainly been true in some cases, and I agree that Henry VIII was one of them, though I’d add that Rome was part of the problem. But Methodism did not split off for either personal or national gain. Neither did the AME or AMEZ Churches that you mention. I don’t blame either Church for rebelling against the racism within the Methodist Church at that time, even though the Methodist Church had led the charge for abolition.
Both the AME and AMEZ have done a brilliant job of ministering to black Americans in a hostile nation. Acknowledging our part in this shameful history, members of my Methodist congregation attend a neighboring AME church for its Ash Wednesday services, and during the year, we cooperate with them in interfaith initiatives.
“As to Michael's implicit claim that a revolution means Christ's Church can be replaced in a different country by a man-made church”
I make no such claim. What I did argue is that politics have always gotten in the way of the Church. You can see this not only in Protestant national churches, but in Catholic history as popes have established papal states, as popes have been imprisoned by emperors, as popes have found their authority challenged by bishops more beholden to their kings, as antipopes have been placed in power, etc.
“without dealing with my showing that the Bible shows that the Church of Christ was a visible one right from the start”
I didn’t deal with it because it is something we all acknowledge. The question is whether the role of the papacy as the Roman Catholic Church now describes it has always been understood that way.
“the Eastern Orthodox Schism and the Protestant break from the Catholic Church were largely matters of temporal lords using their power to impose their own control over the Church”
But my point is that temporal lords since Constantine have used their power to control the Church. After this point, conversion was largely a matter not of personal faith but of whether your king or ruler had been converted to Christianity.
“The real history of the Church for the past 2000 years is that Christ's Holy Church has been under pretty constant attack by the temporal bad guys and that when they got a chance to bite off a bit of the Church they did.”
I think it’s a good bit more complicated than that. Popes, bishops, and Patriarchs have always been interested in using temporal as well as spiritual power, or at least they have ever since Constantine offered it to them, and they didn’t have the good sense to refuse. The notion that temporal and spiritual power should be separate again is a comparatively recent idea.
“the real reason for divisions that may get dressed up with concocted issues like "By Faith Alone" or the Filioque or azymes disputes”
I agree that political and religious leaders have used such issues as pretexts for power grabs, but I wouldn’t call them “concocted.” They were real enough issues and touch on genuine debates about how the faithful are to understand the faith.
3.3.2011 | 8:49pm
patricksarsfield says:
Michael:
Once you admit, as you do above ("“without dealing with my showing that the Bible shows that the Church of Christ was a visible one right from the start” ....I didn’t deal with it because it is something we all acknowledge") that Christ's Church is a visible institution founded by Christ in the First Century AD, and that Methodism broke away from another breakaway church sometime later than the Sixteenth Century, you are admitting that the Methodist Church cannot be Christ's Church even if you believe it is Christ's Church. Any fool can look at Christ's Church and find it lacking, but that doesn't make his church Christ's Church. Christ's Church is a matter of historical reality. It has been around since the First Century, and no amount of private judgment or private interpretation of the Bible can change the historical redality that protestant churches were NOT founded by Christ.
Once you admit, as you do above ("“without dealing with my showing that the Bible shows that the Church of Christ was a visible one right from the start” ....I didn’t deal with it because it is something we all acknowledge") that Christ's Church is a visible institution founded by Christ in the First Century AD, and that Methodism broke away from another breakaway church sometime later than the Sixteenth Century, you are admitting that the Methodist Church cannot be Christ's Church even if you believe it is Christ's Church. Any fool can look at Christ's Church and find it lacking, but that doesn't make his church Christ's Church. Christ's Church is a matter of historical reality. It has been around since the First Century, and no amount of private judgment or private interpretation of the Bible can change the historical redality that protestant churches were NOT founded by Christ.
3.4.2011 | 5:27am
Verity says:
Was not the sale of indulgences an example of Roman Catholic entrepreneurship? Did not Luther object to this method of raising money in 1517? Was this not a good objection? The third session of the Council of Trent (1561-1563) finally prohibited this practice.
I was once at a RC Mass which was an annual devotion to raising money for the Archbishop's Appeal. The speech for money raising was so crass that people actually walked out before the Consecration.
Do not forget that the Marian persecutions in England....300 plus men, women and children killed for religious reasons.... turned most of England against Roman Catholicism. Even Edward Campion looked down his nose at the Marian Martyrs as being socially and economically beneath him.
The Pope also gave his blessing and a plenary indulgence to the Spanish Armada. Yet, the seminarians studying for the priesthood at the English College at Rome gave out a big cheer when it was announced that the Armada had been defeated.
Nineteen Roman Catholic plots against the life of Elizabeth I and James I gave the English enough cause to think of Roman Catholics as traitors.
History is very complicated.
I was once at a RC Mass which was an annual devotion to raising money for the Archbishop's Appeal. The speech for money raising was so crass that people actually walked out before the Consecration.
Do not forget that the Marian persecutions in England....300 plus men, women and children killed for religious reasons.... turned most of England against Roman Catholicism. Even Edward Campion looked down his nose at the Marian Martyrs as being socially and economically beneath him.
The Pope also gave his blessing and a plenary indulgence to the Spanish Armada. Yet, the seminarians studying for the priesthood at the English College at Rome gave out a big cheer when it was announced that the Armada had been defeated.
Nineteen Roman Catholic plots against the life of Elizabeth I and James I gave the English enough cause to think of Roman Catholics as traitors.
History is very complicated.
3.4.2011 | 10:01am
Michael says:
Patricksarsfield,
I don’t see how your last post has added anything to the conversation that I haven’t already addressed, but I’ve enjoyed talking to you. Farewell.
I don’t see how your last post has added anything to the conversation that I haven’t already addressed, but I’ve enjoyed talking to you. Farewell.
3.8.2011 | 11:42am
Kathlyn Yontz says:
This is a variant on the "invisible church" evasion. The biblical Church of Christ was not some "invisible" agglomeration of the faithful. Rather, it was an organized, visible church which had a world-wide commission and an organization that held sway throughout the world. As a result, when Paul and the Judaizers from James had a disagreement in Antioch about Christian dogma (dogma that had NOTHING to do with the New Testment which did not even exist), they went to the central council quartered then in Jerusalem and asked for a ruling. Even though the head of the Church had been on the lam since his Jerusalem jail breakout, he headed back to Jerusalem for the Council and gave the definitive ruling (Acts 15:7-13) to which the Judaizer James deferred (Acts 15:14 et seq.) and the ruling was then adopted by the Council. The Council then sent that ruling for observance not just by Antioch and Jerusalem but by all the cities to which it was circulated throughout Asia Minor. (evidence that Peter was head of the Church? Matt. 16:18 et seq.; John 21: 15 et seq.; Acts chapters 1-12 (until he went on the lam) and ch. 15). (PATRICKSARSFIELD)I challenge you to find any statement by me that there has never been cynical financial motives among some Catholic priests/prelates. That would indeed be a silly position.
3.15.2011 | 8:23pm
Shirleen Militano says:
What is more: Mark of Ephesus was a catspaw of the Sultan who already controlled Ephesus in 1439. The truth is that Mark said what the Sultan wanted said. And once the Sultan conquered Constantinople 14 years later, Mark's minority view was adopted by the Orthodox Church precisely because the Sultan had taken over and decapitated the Church's leadership so he could put his very own "patriarch" in charge. That was Gennadius, a pupil of Mark of Ephesus. So the real history here is a history of the conquest of a Christian Church by an infidel sultan who wished to drive a barrier between the christians he controlled (the Orthodox) and the rest of the Christian Church. My larger point is that you continually lump all Protestants together as if there werent important differences. These differences occur across time as well. Lutheranism and Protestantism have changed over the last five centuries and so has Roman Catholicism. In 1999, the Lutheran World Federation worked with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to work through their different theological understandings of justification. In reviewing the work of the commission the Roman Catholic Church has stated that a high degree of agreement has been reached and that there is consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification. In 2006, United Methodists agreed with these findings.
We should be clear about theoretical intercommunion: it doesn't happen mainly because of adherence/allliance to Rome. The Orthodox have an entirely valid sacramental system in Catholic eyes, yet something more is required, isn't it?
Fr Escobar and Rev. Whitney misstepped, and badly so. Yet the CCD (not an entirely reliable journalistic source) report presumes the Presbyterian minister has no Eucharistic faith. I wouldn't presume that. Many Protestants have an entirely orthodox understanding of the Eucharist. Why don't or shouldn't they receive Communion? Because they are not in union with Rome.
There are ways to cultivate good ecumenical relationships. This incident was not one of them. But it shouldn't deter good Catholics, including our bishops, from a proper level of sadness and contrition for Christian division. That remains the greater scandal, whether we realize it or not. John 17 remains at least on a par with 1 Corinthians (you're looking for chapter 11 there) in our consideration. Or at least it should.