Christus Totus: Why Catholics Care about Christians
May 31, 2012
Leroy Huizenga
The University of Mary defines its mission and identity as “Christian, Catholic, and Benedictine.” Its Christian Leadership Center, which I direct, is intended to foster relationships among a wide variety of Christians, from Catholics to Pentecostals, from Lutherans to Baptists.
But why? Why would a Roman Catholic University named after the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived immaculate, ever sinless, assumed body and soul into heaven, deliberately describe its identity as “Christian” first, then “Catholic, and Benedictine”? And why would it sponsor a Center dedicated to dialogue with Protestants and evangelicals?
The answer is that Catholics think other Christians are—wait for it—Christians. I’ve found a lot of otherwise informed Protestants are surprised to find that informed Catholics regard them as sisters and brothers in Christ. And Christ is the key, of course, to this question, as he is to all of theology, to all of creation, to all of existence.
There is one Church because there is one Christ. It is not as a certain Monty Python sketch would have it, in which the Pope calls Michelangelo to account for painting the Last Supper with three Christs— “The fat one balances the two skinny ones!” —to say nothing of the twenty-eight disciples and one kangaroo.
There is one Church because there is one Christ. It’s an ancient concept called “Christus Totus,” Latin for “the whole Christ.” It means that Christ comprises both Christ and the Church, head and members, head and body. Christ is us and we are Christ. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of this in paragraph 795:
Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ. The saints are acutely aware of this unity:
Let us rejoice then and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself. Do you understand and grasp, brethren, God’s grace toward us? Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ. For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . the fullness of Christ then is the head and the members. But what does “head and members” mean? Christ and the Church. [St. Augustine, In Jo. ev, 21, 8: PL 35, 1568]
Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church whom he has taken to himself. [Pope St. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, praef., 14: PL 75, 525A]
Head and members form as it were one and the same mystical person. [St. Thomas Aquinas, ST III.48.2]
A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”
“Christus Totus” is more than ancient; it’s biblical. The idea comes from Ephesians, in which St. Paul writes: “ . . . Christ is the head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Savior. . . . For no man ever hates his own body, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church.”
It’s unfortunate that most folks only discuss Paul’s controversial words about husbands and wives in Ephesians 5, without expending the same energies on the passage’s profound Christo-ecclesiology: Christ and the Church are “one flesh” in the way husband and wife are sacramentally “one flesh.” It does not get much more intimate than that. He is us and we are him, he in eternity and we in time.
There is one Church because there is one Christ, and Christ and the Church are one. But how does one become one with Christ and thus the Church? St. Paul’s answer is the sacrament of baptism: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body”; “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”. Consider especially St. Paul’s words in Ephesians: “There is one body and one Spirit…one hope…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all.”
“One baptism”: In Catholic thinking, any baptism performed rightly with water in the Triune Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is valid. What this means for non-Catholics is that your baptisms count, in our eyes. You are (if Karl Rahner will excuse me) “anonymous Catholics.” As an eager and well-catechized Catholic friend insisted to me back when we were in college: “It’s our sacrament!”
I don’t mean that to sound aggressive. The point is that we consider you sisters and brothers, and not in some vague sentimental sense, but in a real, ontologically true, metaphysical, sacramental sense. Your own baptisms united you to Christ, as did ours, and therefore all of us—Roman, Lutheran, Baptist, whatever—have been baptized into the one Christ, who is the Church. We are already really and truly one in Christ.
This drives Catholic concerns for unity. We must realize on earth what’s already real in Christ in heaven. Christian Smith, a Notre Dame sociologist and recent convert to Catholicism, explains that for Catholics, present Christian divisions are like a human body chopped to bits: “Suppose I took your body and cut it down the middle into two parts, and then cut one of the parts into little bits. How healthy would you be?” He’s referring to the historic divisions of Christendom: The body of Christ was cleaved in the Great Schism in 1054, and then the Western half began to suffer severance into thousands of pieces beginning in the sixteenth century.
For us Catholics, then, ecumenism is an urgent necessity requiring radical reconstructive surgery as we attempt to mend the body of Christ which human sin has mutilated. Even as with Richard John Neuhaus I would confess that “The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time,” we Catholics repent of our sins wounding unity and ask you to walk with us as we journey ever deeper together into the Truth, who is Jesus Christ.
Leroy Huizenga is Director of the Christian Leadership Center at the University of Mary in Bismarck, North Dakota. This essay is an adaptation of a talk given at a recent meeting of the Christian Leadership Center’s ecumenical Convocation on Christian Unity.
RESOURCES
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, “The One True Church”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 781-810, “The Church – People Of God, Body Of Christ, Temple Of The Holy Spirit”
Monty Python, The Penultimate Supper
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
5.31.2012 | 9:49am
MT says:
If true, why can't I, a Protestant, receive Communion?
5.31.2012 | 11:29am
sally rogers says:
I was told by an Archbishop that he is responsible for all the Christians in his diocese, because even though some Christians are separated, they are still members of the Church. I'm sure alot of them would be surprised to hear that he is their Archbishop, but in many places the Catholic Bishop does take on a leadership role unofficially.
5.31.2012 | 1:39pm
LUKE1732 says:
MT - you can, if you first become a Catholic. For you to remain a member of a faith community whose raison d'etre is to be separate from the Catholic church would make a lie out of your reception of a sacrament that, among other things, symbolizes the unity of Christ's body as described above. Are you "in communion" with the Church or not? You can't have it both ways.
5.31.2012 | 3:47pm
mcurt2s says:
Yes! One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all!
We think you Catholics are Christians, too. I was part of a group from our church that had the privilege of joining a faith festival in Galway, Ireland. We shared the gospel side by side with our Catholic brothers and sisters. The outreach featured the worship, dramas, and evangelistic messages I was used to, but there were also priests available for Confession and a table with the Host for Adoration. God's presence was there. Irish who had left the church fell on their knees in the square before the Host. My mind might not be able to grasp the full significance of Adoration, and I might think the Chaplet of Divine Mercy boring and repetitive. But they--the images especially-- work powerfully on my heart. I wish more Protestants were aware of the spiritual treasure that is in your church. I believe we have much to gain from each other.
That being said, I'd like for the church to turn its prayers and attention to Latin America. My father's family is typical. They're culturally Catholic, but spend most of their time partying. They have crucifixes and statues of the Virgin of Lourdes in their homes, but also straw witches for good luck and a Buddha for financial prosperity. They go to the priest and the witch doctor. My father has kept his distance from the Church since a priest shouted profanities at him for taking too long with confession before his first communion. It was our American Protestant mother who took us to church. I have shared the gospel with my Venezuelan cousins who grew up going to Catholic school but have no idea of how to receive Jesus. I tell them to remain in the Church and tell their friends. Too often, evangelical churches in Latin America are anti-Catholic and legalistic. God, revive Your Church in Latin America!
We think you Catholics are Christians, too. I was part of a group from our church that had the privilege of joining a faith festival in Galway, Ireland. We shared the gospel side by side with our Catholic brothers and sisters. The outreach featured the worship, dramas, and evangelistic messages I was used to, but there were also priests available for Confession and a table with the Host for Adoration. God's presence was there. Irish who had left the church fell on their knees in the square before the Host. My mind might not be able to grasp the full significance of Adoration, and I might think the Chaplet of Divine Mercy boring and repetitive. But they--the images especially-- work powerfully on my heart. I wish more Protestants were aware of the spiritual treasure that is in your church. I believe we have much to gain from each other.
That being said, I'd like for the church to turn its prayers and attention to Latin America. My father's family is typical. They're culturally Catholic, but spend most of their time partying. They have crucifixes and statues of the Virgin of Lourdes in their homes, but also straw witches for good luck and a Buddha for financial prosperity. They go to the priest and the witch doctor. My father has kept his distance from the Church since a priest shouted profanities at him for taking too long with confession before his first communion. It was our American Protestant mother who took us to church. I have shared the gospel with my Venezuelan cousins who grew up going to Catholic school but have no idea of how to receive Jesus. I tell them to remain in the Church and tell their friends. Too often, evangelical churches in Latin America are anti-Catholic and legalistic. God, revive Your Church in Latin America!
5.31.2012 | 3:54pm
Gil says:
MT,
You ask, "If true, why can't I, a Protestant, receive Communion?"
In fact, you can, with the permission of a bishop. It is the bishop's responsibility to discern if the Christian accepts the sacramental teaching of what Eucharist is. In other words, as I see it, the Eucharist is pure gift, but for a gift to be received it must be accepted for what it actually is. Otherwise the person, although receiving what is apparent or what he/she might designate it to be, would in fact not be receiving what it actually is. (A crude comparison: a person gives his friend a gourmet pastry, but the friend thinks it’s an ornament and puts it on his library shelf instead of eating it.)
This is true, also, of many Catholics who are not supposed to receive Eucharist unless they first embrace what the Eucharist is. For example, a man who divorces his wife (where no annulment is possible) and marries another woman in his adamancy that he knows better than the mind of Christ, is in a state of separation from the possibility of receiving the gift of Eucharist: his adamancy is proof itself that he doesn’t understand Eucharist as pure gift. Of course, he may very well receive it in appearance as some Protestant Christians visiting a Catholic church and through encouragement of their Catholic friends receive it in appearance. But in both cases the gift is not actually received, for one must grasp what the gift is to receive it as gift.
Further, it is my view that if a person, including a Catholic, fully embraced the sacramental gift of Eucharist, in that moment of receiving the gift they would be in a holy, unblemished state, separated from the egotism that both Catholics and Protestants so easily succumb to.
The essential point is that Eucharist is Absolute Gift, but that gift cannot be received even if one apparently receives it but is not in a state of being open to the gift for what it actually is. I am convinced that one cannot in any way, in any degree, resist the revelation of Christ to receive him in this great gift. This is certainly one thing all the saints in the Catholic Church share in common: their devotion to the sacrament of confession-penance-reconciliation (totally, in the absence of egotism, purifying oneself to receive the totality of Our Lord, the only way to totally receive him) as an absolute prerequisite to actually receiving the gift. Any egotism on the part of Catholic or Protestant will in some fashion obscure what the gift itself is, and therefore cannot be received. But this doesn’t make one any less a Christian or in any way close the gates of heaven, for we are Christians destined for life everlasting through the sacrament of Baptism.
You ask, "If true, why can't I, a Protestant, receive Communion?"
In fact, you can, with the permission of a bishop. It is the bishop's responsibility to discern if the Christian accepts the sacramental teaching of what Eucharist is. In other words, as I see it, the Eucharist is pure gift, but for a gift to be received it must be accepted for what it actually is. Otherwise the person, although receiving what is apparent or what he/she might designate it to be, would in fact not be receiving what it actually is. (A crude comparison: a person gives his friend a gourmet pastry, but the friend thinks it’s an ornament and puts it on his library shelf instead of eating it.)
This is true, also, of many Catholics who are not supposed to receive Eucharist unless they first embrace what the Eucharist is. For example, a man who divorces his wife (where no annulment is possible) and marries another woman in his adamancy that he knows better than the mind of Christ, is in a state of separation from the possibility of receiving the gift of Eucharist: his adamancy is proof itself that he doesn’t understand Eucharist as pure gift. Of course, he may very well receive it in appearance as some Protestant Christians visiting a Catholic church and through encouragement of their Catholic friends receive it in appearance. But in both cases the gift is not actually received, for one must grasp what the gift is to receive it as gift.
Further, it is my view that if a person, including a Catholic, fully embraced the sacramental gift of Eucharist, in that moment of receiving the gift they would be in a holy, unblemished state, separated from the egotism that both Catholics and Protestants so easily succumb to.
The essential point is that Eucharist is Absolute Gift, but that gift cannot be received even if one apparently receives it but is not in a state of being open to the gift for what it actually is. I am convinced that one cannot in any way, in any degree, resist the revelation of Christ to receive him in this great gift. This is certainly one thing all the saints in the Catholic Church share in common: their devotion to the sacrament of confession-penance-reconciliation (totally, in the absence of egotism, purifying oneself to receive the totality of Our Lord, the only way to totally receive him) as an absolute prerequisite to actually receiving the gift. Any egotism on the part of Catholic or Protestant will in some fashion obscure what the gift itself is, and therefore cannot be received. But this doesn’t make one any less a Christian or in any way close the gates of heaven, for we are Christians destined for life everlasting through the sacrament of Baptism.
5.31.2012 | 3:58pm
Leroy Huizenga says:
MT, you're asking a great question, and it's exactly what my largely Protestant audience asked. I'll get to it, I think, in a future column, but the best way to start thinking about it is to start thinking about the obvious differences between Baptism and Holy Communion. There's also historical roots to the Catholic position on Baptism (and Communion) in the Donatist controversy in the early North African church.
5.31.2012 | 4:17pm
JJM says:
Luke1732 I don't think that quite gets at the question MT raises.
There is a desire among Catholics to share the Eucharist indiscriminately because of who Christ is and his wide-open table fellowship that Christ exemplifies in the Gospels. However, we are also heeding the warning that Paul gives about receiving the Eucharist "unworthily" that to do so is actually a desecration and a sin! There is still some debate over what that means precisely but the Church has meant it to mean that to receive the Eucharist worthily entails *knowing* and *believing* what the Eucharist really is, which is the real and substantial body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But as you may know also that a major component to Pauline theology that survives in the Church's understanding of Herself as Christ's bride is the absolute necessity of coherence and unity of faith. So, one cannot simply believe in the Eucharist but not also believe in, say, the authority of the Bible or the sacramentality of marriage and still expect to receive the Eucharist worthily. It creates a contradiction and separation within the Body which Paul says is really the effect of sin. It is the belief of the Church that by disallowing reception of the Eucharist to people who find themselves in certain situations is to actually be saving them from committing a grave sin. It is not done out of any malevolence but only with the good in mind. I hope this helps.
There is a desire among Catholics to share the Eucharist indiscriminately because of who Christ is and his wide-open table fellowship that Christ exemplifies in the Gospels. However, we are also heeding the warning that Paul gives about receiving the Eucharist "unworthily" that to do so is actually a desecration and a sin! There is still some debate over what that means precisely but the Church has meant it to mean that to receive the Eucharist worthily entails *knowing* and *believing* what the Eucharist really is, which is the real and substantial body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. But as you may know also that a major component to Pauline theology that survives in the Church's understanding of Herself as Christ's bride is the absolute necessity of coherence and unity of faith. So, one cannot simply believe in the Eucharist but not also believe in, say, the authority of the Bible or the sacramentality of marriage and still expect to receive the Eucharist worthily. It creates a contradiction and separation within the Body which Paul says is really the effect of sin. It is the belief of the Church that by disallowing reception of the Eucharist to people who find themselves in certain situations is to actually be saving them from committing a grave sin. It is not done out of any malevolence but only with the good in mind. I hope this helps.
5.31.2012 | 4:25pm
JJM says:
Additionally, Catholics will even bar themselves from reception of the Eucharist for spiritual reasons sourced in the reasoning outlined above, e.g. living in a state of sin or a scandalous situation.
5.31.2012 | 4:34pm
WWU says:
Luke1732 - but why isn't MT "in communion" with the Catholic Church? Because the Catholic Church forbids MT to receive communion. The raison d'etre of a Protestant denomination is not to remain separate from the Catholic Church - it is to be a community of believing Christians who proclaim the Gospel. And the question remains, why does the Catholic Church forbid Protestants from receiving communion if MT and all other Catholics are, as Huizenga puts it, "already really and truly one in Christ"?
5.31.2012 | 5:16pm
Mary says:
Besides, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Given that many Christians have been explicitly taught not to discern the body, they are at risk. By requiring you to be received before you receive Communion, we can help minimize that.
(Also, if you think the differences so few that you should receive, how can they be so many as to justify your schismatic state?)
Given that many Christians have been explicitly taught not to discern the body, they are at risk. By requiring you to be received before you receive Communion, we can help minimize that.
(Also, if you think the differences so few that you should receive, how can they be so many as to justify your schismatic state?)
5.31.2012 | 5:41pm
Russell Belding says:
It is refreshing to hear from a Catholic Christian these friendly words. The current persons you quote or refer to (LH, CS, RJN) moved to the Catholic family from outside it. Perhaps their sensitivity to many issues of "separate bretheren" is also heightened? My guess is we in the family of God in Christ are somewhat of an embarassement to Jesus because of our inability to resolve our disunity. I'll join with you LEroy in speaking and praying for real unity. Meanwhile we can all act with kindness and integrity towards each other across the family divisions.
5.31.2012 | 6:31pm
John Shelley says:
Leroy Huizenga, thank you for your post above on the unity of the church. I am a Presbyterian (PCA) and have had for many years an interest in the history and majesty found in Catholic doctrine and teaching. Because of your post above I am more inclined to attend Mass and continue to seek to understand the foundation and hermeneutic of the Catholic church. I hesitate, however, on a number issues... I would like your thoughts though on a comment a devoted Catholic friend of mine once said about the difference between a Protestant and a Catholic. My friend put a dot on one end of a dry erase board and labeled it God. Next to that dot he put his name (the Catholic) and at the other end of the board he put another dot representing me (the Protestant). His point was, that because he is Catholic, he is much closer to God, in proximity than the Protestant. In regards to your post above I like to know what you think about this illustration regarding the spiritual and or relational proximity differences that my friend pointed out.
Thanks again for your well thought and kind post above.
John
Thanks again for your well thought and kind post above.
John
5.31.2012 | 6:53pm
Wolf Paul says:
1. As many of the comments in reply to MT's question demonstrate, Catholics don't think we're "anonymous Catholics", they think we're schismatics.
2. Paul in 1 Cor tells us to "examine ourselves and so partake" -- he doesn't tell the elders (popes, bishops, priests) to examine us.
3. As long as the church does not find a more consistent way of disciplining its own wayward members when it comes to communion, excluding faithful and essentially orthodox Protestants from the table is hypocritical and effectively denies what you assert in your article. The lifestyle of many nominal Catholics who receive the Eucharist without official hindrance is much more likely to lead to "eating unworthily" than the different understanding of the Eucharist most Evangelicals have.
2. Paul in 1 Cor tells us to "examine ourselves and so partake" -- he doesn't tell the elders (popes, bishops, priests) to examine us.
3. As long as the church does not find a more consistent way of disciplining its own wayward members when it comes to communion, excluding faithful and essentially orthodox Protestants from the table is hypocritical and effectively denies what you assert in your article. The lifestyle of many nominal Catholics who receive the Eucharist without official hindrance is much more likely to lead to "eating unworthily" than the different understanding of the Eucharist most Evangelicals have.
5.31.2012 | 7:47pm
LUKE1732 says:
Christianity is sacramental. God actually entered the physical world as a human being exactly like us in all things but sin. And then he actually instituted one visible Church and gave that Church the power to do sacramental things on his behalf - like forgive sins and perpetuate his physical presence on earth after his Ascension by means of confecting his Real Presence in the Eucharist. The Protestant Reformation was an actual split from the visible Church and a denial of the Sacraments. You want to reject the practical demands of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and reject the Real Presence and then share in "communion"???
Look, I realize that modern Protestants aren't first generation schismatics and they do see their faith community as WWU says - a community of believers proclaiming the Gospel. But part of the fullness of that Gospel is the visible unity of the Church and the efficacy of the Sacraments. Sorry - you just aren't free to simultaneously reject them and participate in them.
Reread the two final paragraphs after "already really and truly one in Christ". The dismembered body is an excellent analogy. The severed arm of Christ really and truly is a part of His Body. But it has been cut off from its unity with the main body and, starved of His life-giving Blood will eventually die. We pray for the restoration of all of the members to the Body since they all have something unique to offer. Pretending that all the dismembered bits somehow make up a fully functional "invisible" Body is not enough. I believe most of our current troubles in a nation that is nominally Christian are due to the practical consequences of this disunity.
Look, I realize that modern Protestants aren't first generation schismatics and they do see their faith community as WWU says - a community of believers proclaiming the Gospel. But part of the fullness of that Gospel is the visible unity of the Church and the efficacy of the Sacraments. Sorry - you just aren't free to simultaneously reject them and participate in them.
Reread the two final paragraphs after "already really and truly one in Christ". The dismembered body is an excellent analogy. The severed arm of Christ really and truly is a part of His Body. But it has been cut off from its unity with the main body and, starved of His life-giving Blood will eventually die. We pray for the restoration of all of the members to the Body since they all have something unique to offer. Pretending that all the dismembered bits somehow make up a fully functional "invisible" Body is not enough. I believe most of our current troubles in a nation that is nominally Christian are due to the practical consequences of this disunity.
5.31.2012 | 9:25pm
slats grobnik says:
Query: And the question remains, why does the Catholic Church forbid Protestants from receiving communion if MT and all other Catholics are, as Huizenga puts it, "already really and truly one in Christ"?
I believe the answer the Catholic Church would give is that being one in Christ is not the only condition for receiving communion. Not even all Catholics can always receive communion. At the least, you must have no un-confessed mortal sins, you must observe the eucharistic fast, and you must believe what the Catholic Church believes about the Eucharist. Catholics also go through a period of education before they properly receive the Blessed Sacrament, but I'm not sure of the formal requirement for this.
I would think that these conditions are pretty hard to meet if you are a Protestant. Particularly, if you do believe all that the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, then the question would be - Why are you not a Catholic? Believing as such and not entering the Church would likely itself be a sinful matter (schism?).
Furthermore, I recall being told that members of the Orthodox churches are permitted to receive the Eucharist in Catholic Churches, and some do so if there is no Orthodox church available. That's because they can meet all the conditions listed above.
I believe the answer the Catholic Church would give is that being one in Christ is not the only condition for receiving communion. Not even all Catholics can always receive communion. At the least, you must have no un-confessed mortal sins, you must observe the eucharistic fast, and you must believe what the Catholic Church believes about the Eucharist. Catholics also go through a period of education before they properly receive the Blessed Sacrament, but I'm not sure of the formal requirement for this.
I would think that these conditions are pretty hard to meet if you are a Protestant. Particularly, if you do believe all that the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, then the question would be - Why are you not a Catholic? Believing as such and not entering the Church would likely itself be a sinful matter (schism?).
Furthermore, I recall being told that members of the Orthodox churches are permitted to receive the Eucharist in Catholic Churches, and some do so if there is no Orthodox church available. That's because they can meet all the conditions listed above.
5.31.2012 | 9:55pm
Marty Jones says:
I loved this piece. Thanks, Dr. Huizenga. I still look back fondly on taking New Testament with you at Wheaton during the spring semester of my senior year. I'm pleased to know that your love for quirky evangelicals hasn't faded in the course of your journey to Rome.
6.1.2012 | 1:05am
Michael says:
A good example of productive ecumenical exchange can be found in “The Grace Given You in Christ,” which was jointly written by the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council and can be found on the Vatican website:
(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/meth-council-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060604_seoul-report_en.html)
The report is productive because there was no talk about who separated from who and who needs to submit to who. The commission looked instead at the gifts each tradition contributes to the one Church.
As they say, “it is now possible to see through and beyond the veil of separation, and (1) to consider how we, both on our own and together, constitute the Church; and (2) to discover the spiritual gifts with which each church is adorned.”
A 2001 report explains quite well how the Roman and Methodist Churches view the sharing of the Eucharist. Both churches base Eucharistic sharing on two principles: “(1) Sharing at the Lord's Table builds up the unity of the Church and therefore is to be commended as a means of building unity. (2) On the other hand, the celebration of the Eucharist is the culmination of our unity in one Church and therefore is appropriate as a witness to full agreement in our recognition of one another as churches with the accompanying affirmations that requires.”
Methodists emphasize the first principle and Romans the second, but both experience “deep pain at the separation caused by these different understandings of the Eucharist.” The report can be found at the USCCB website:
(http://old.usccb.org/seia/methcath.shtml)
More recently, the joint dialogue has produced an inspiring discussion of the link between the Eucharist and ecology.
(http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/dialogue-with-others/ecumenical/methodist/upload/Heaven-and-Earth-are-Full-of-Your-Glory.pdf)
One gift that Methodism brings to these discussions is that our church was created by accident. The break with the Anglican Church was not sought out, and John Wesley himself preached ecumenism. We’ve never claimed to represent the one, true church, and this humility puts us in a good position to talk.
(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/meth-council-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060604_seoul-report_en.html)
The report is productive because there was no talk about who separated from who and who needs to submit to who. The commission looked instead at the gifts each tradition contributes to the one Church.
As they say, “it is now possible to see through and beyond the veil of separation, and (1) to consider how we, both on our own and together, constitute the Church; and (2) to discover the spiritual gifts with which each church is adorned.”
A 2001 report explains quite well how the Roman and Methodist Churches view the sharing of the Eucharist. Both churches base Eucharistic sharing on two principles: “(1) Sharing at the Lord's Table builds up the unity of the Church and therefore is to be commended as a means of building unity. (2) On the other hand, the celebration of the Eucharist is the culmination of our unity in one Church and therefore is appropriate as a witness to full agreement in our recognition of one another as churches with the accompanying affirmations that requires.”
Methodists emphasize the first principle and Romans the second, but both experience “deep pain at the separation caused by these different understandings of the Eucharist.” The report can be found at the USCCB website:
(http://old.usccb.org/seia/methcath.shtml)
More recently, the joint dialogue has produced an inspiring discussion of the link between the Eucharist and ecology.
(http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/dialogue-with-others/ecumenical/methodist/upload/Heaven-and-Earth-are-Full-of-Your-Glory.pdf)
One gift that Methodism brings to these discussions is that our church was created by accident. The break with the Anglican Church was not sought out, and John Wesley himself preached ecumenism. We’ve never claimed to represent the one, true church, and this humility puts us in a good position to talk.
6.1.2012 | 8:58am
Rex Thorpe says:
As a Baptist who has been to Cursillo and serves a meal each month at Cursillo; along with my wife, I would offer that I have the utmost respect for my fellow Christians who are Catholic, but I have too many basic beliefs which are different to wish to experience Communion with the RC Church. I certainly feel we are all one in worshiping Christ and He alone will decide how we are all judged one day.
6.1.2012 | 11:12am
Leroy Huizenga says:
Dear Mr. Shelley:
I'm gratified you found the column charitable. At Princeton and Duke and then teaching at Wheaton, I made many friends in the PCA world and so know a bit about it.
As to your friend's analogy...the brute fact is that informed, magisterium-faithful Catholics do believe in Catholicism, that being in real communion in and with the Church as Jesus intended it on earth, we actually have a fuller understanding of the Truth and indeed do experience Jesus more fully because we have (like the Orthodox, in our understanding) a true and valid Eucharist. The question is, how does one engage other Christians truly and charitably.
So I don't know about the "proximity" argument, as it suggests two-dimensional mathematical quantities, when we're dealing with something much more qualitative. But I don't know of an easy way around it, rhetorically or theologically. It was a big issue for my wife in her own process of becoming Catholic; Catholic claims about the Catholic Church suggested to her that her prior life as a Protestant was deficient and somehow made her "less than." I never felt that, personally, and feel very grateful for my upbringing as a Lutheran and also for my formation at the hands of many evangelicals in college and beyond.
I could write a lot more, but I think a better thing would be to read, slowly, the essay by Richard John Neuhaus, "The One True Church". It's rich in its understanding of the Church and its explanation of Catholic claims, and I'm thinking also about a section in there in which he denounces "tribalism", as if people becoming Catholic was like the Red Sox stealing pitchers from the Yankees. (We all know Satan wears pinstripes.)
The other piece from FT I'd really recommend is from December 2007, the late Avery Cardinal Dulles' "Saving Ecumenism from Itself." I'm thinking especially of these paragraphs as a model for discussion in which Catholics can appreciate the real gifts non-Catholic Christians and churches possess:
"For some years now, I have felt that the method of convergence, which seeks to harmonize the doctrines of each ecclesial tradition on the basis of shared sources and methods, has nearly exhausted its potential. It has served well in the past and may still be useful, especially among groups that have hitherto been isolated from the conversation. But to surmount the remaining barriers we need a different method, one that invites a deeper conversion on the part of the churches themselves. I have therefore been urging an ecumenism of mutual enrichment by means of testimony. This proposal corresponds closely, I believe, with John Paul II's idea of seeking the fullness of truth by means of an 'exchange of gifts.'
"There are not many examples of the kind of ecumenical encounter I am envisaging, but one comes to my mind. In January 2006, the theology department at Durham University hosted at Ushaw College, a neighboring Catholic seminary, an international conference of Catholics in conversation with Orthodox, Anglicans, and Methodists. Conducting an experiment in what the conference called “receptive ecumenism,” the speakers were asked to discuss what they could find in their own traditions that might be acceptable to the Catholic Church without detriment to its identity. The Catholic participants, including Cardinal Kasper, were asked to evaluate the suggestions and judge their practical feasibility. The discussion, I am told, was informal and did not lead to any set of agreed conclusions.
"Unlike some recent models of dialogue, ecumenism of this style leaves the participants free to draw on their own normative sources and does not constrain them to bracket or minimize what is specific to themselves. Far from being embarrassed by their own distinctive doctrines and practices, each partner should feel privileged to be able to contribute something positive that the others still lack."
I'd start there. And also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 748ff. See especially pars. 817-819, subtitled "wounds to unity":
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
That's a lot. In any event, feel free to contact me if you'd like at lahuizenga [at] gmail [dot] com.
I'm gratified you found the column charitable. At Princeton and Duke and then teaching at Wheaton, I made many friends in the PCA world and so know a bit about it.
As to your friend's analogy...the brute fact is that informed, magisterium-faithful Catholics do believe in Catholicism, that being in real communion in and with the Church as Jesus intended it on earth, we actually have a fuller understanding of the Truth and indeed do experience Jesus more fully because we have (like the Orthodox, in our understanding) a true and valid Eucharist. The question is, how does one engage other Christians truly and charitably.
So I don't know about the "proximity" argument, as it suggests two-dimensional mathematical quantities, when we're dealing with something much more qualitative. But I don't know of an easy way around it, rhetorically or theologically. It was a big issue for my wife in her own process of becoming Catholic; Catholic claims about the Catholic Church suggested to her that her prior life as a Protestant was deficient and somehow made her "less than." I never felt that, personally, and feel very grateful for my upbringing as a Lutheran and also for my formation at the hands of many evangelicals in college and beyond.
I could write a lot more, but I think a better thing would be to read, slowly, the essay by Richard John Neuhaus, "The One True Church". It's rich in its understanding of the Church and its explanation of Catholic claims, and I'm thinking also about a section in there in which he denounces "tribalism", as if people becoming Catholic was like the Red Sox stealing pitchers from the Yankees. (We all know Satan wears pinstripes.)
The other piece from FT I'd really recommend is from December 2007, the late Avery Cardinal Dulles' "Saving Ecumenism from Itself." I'm thinking especially of these paragraphs as a model for discussion in which Catholics can appreciate the real gifts non-Catholic Christians and churches possess:
"For some years now, I have felt that the method of convergence, which seeks to harmonize the doctrines of each ecclesial tradition on the basis of shared sources and methods, has nearly exhausted its potential. It has served well in the past and may still be useful, especially among groups that have hitherto been isolated from the conversation. But to surmount the remaining barriers we need a different method, one that invites a deeper conversion on the part of the churches themselves. I have therefore been urging an ecumenism of mutual enrichment by means of testimony. This proposal corresponds closely, I believe, with John Paul II's idea of seeking the fullness of truth by means of an 'exchange of gifts.'
"There are not many examples of the kind of ecumenical encounter I am envisaging, but one comes to my mind. In January 2006, the theology department at Durham University hosted at Ushaw College, a neighboring Catholic seminary, an international conference of Catholics in conversation with Orthodox, Anglicans, and Methodists. Conducting an experiment in what the conference called “receptive ecumenism,” the speakers were asked to discuss what they could find in their own traditions that might be acceptable to the Catholic Church without detriment to its identity. The Catholic participants, including Cardinal Kasper, were asked to evaluate the suggestions and judge their practical feasibility. The discussion, I am told, was informal and did not lead to any set of agreed conclusions.
"Unlike some recent models of dialogue, ecumenism of this style leaves the participants free to draw on their own normative sources and does not constrain them to bracket or minimize what is specific to themselves. Far from being embarrassed by their own distinctive doctrines and practices, each partner should feel privileged to be able to contribute something positive that the others still lack."
I'd start there. And also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 748ff. See especially pars. 817-819, subtitled "wounds to unity":
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
That's a lot. In any event, feel free to contact me if you'd like at lahuizenga [at] gmail [dot] com.
6.1.2012 | 11:21am
Leroy Huizenga says:
By the way, gang, if you haven't watched the Monty Python clip...you're missing out.
