Looks like I have the topic for my column appearing in 13 days. Buckle up.

Peter -

I would love for you to receive communion at my parish. Only when you do, I want it to mean that we are, you know, actually in communion with each other. If we aren't, then receiving communion is meaningless - just a nice thing that we do rather than a nice thing we do that is ALSO an expression of the deep intimacy we have with each other as followers of Christ.

I bet don't even agree as to what the Eucharist even is, which seems pretty minimal to me.

We (rightfully) 'exclude' people we aren't in communion with. To allow people we aren't in communion with to take communion would cheapen and degrade the sanctity of the celebration. It would cheapen our beliefs, and it would cheapen theirs as well.

"And, doesn't Jesus show up?" Not if it is just a memorial, in which case as Flannery O'Connor quipped...

There are different denominations only because there is real and - thus far - insurmountable disunity of Christian in belief and practice among us. So why would we unite around the table of the Lord and share the most meaningful and unifiying sacrement in Christendom... and then walk away from each other still divided? That, to me, seems lukewarm and somehow lacks integrity. Would sharing that sacrement together help unite us theologically? I don't think so.

I have always understood the proclamation, "The Body of Christ" and the response, "Amen" to signify agreement that the power to act "in persona Christi" is handed down by the Holy Spirit through the sacraments of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, led by the successor of St. Peter.

The profoundly significant obligations one undertakes in saying this great "Amen" simply cannot be compared to a dinner shared by devout Christians in a restaurant or private home.

Fr. Bryan, Luke T., et al: Doesn't our union with Christ make us members of one another, in communion with one another, and don't we deny this when we refuse to share table fellowship?

I'm a Protestant, and have no quarrel with the Catholic/Orthodox strictures on this measure. True, we are their fellow Christians and their brethren. True, we're no longer considered heretics in the fully pejorative sense of that word, with its overtones of willful, knowing rebellion and obstinacy. However, by their tenets we remain material "heretics" in the more technical, dispassionate sense, and even by Leithart's reasoning there is good reason for the Catholics to exclude us from their table, charitably and without malice.

I still hope we shall join at the table together, but not by rendering Catholicism un-Catholic, and not by shelving the Reformers' genuine concerns. One day, God willing.

Fr. Brian,

Your point reveals a dualistic view of the Church. If one cannot take communion in your church one is excommunicated. Excommunication should only be for those who have denied the faith through heresy or an immoral life. This is the point:there should be no good reason not to be in communion unless you say Protestants are heretics or degenerates.

Luke T. as well. What are the points of disunity and why should they lead to exclusion? Christ should not be divided like this. Either say you do not believe other denominations are orthodox Christians and you have a duty to label them as such or you eat both fellowship meals and the body of Christ together.

I rejoice Rev. Leithart is pressing this point!

I'm being confirmed Catholic in two weeks. I must confess that this is the one issue with which I am having the most trouble. May I be honest? The Catholic answers above are not helpful to me. I cannot help but remember that Judas received and ate the consecrated bread. Pope Benedict XVI, himself, wrote as much, yet we cannot share the bread with a Lutheran.

My good friend was refused communion by a Eucharistic minister when he was in the hospital because the minister found out that my friend was raised a Lutheran and was never confirmed Catholic. My friend told the minister that he believed the host was the body of Christ, but to no avail. I realize the minister did what he was supposed to do, but within the week cancer closed my friend's throat forever. He never ate anything again. I wrestle with this. Was this a demonstration of the love of Christ? I don't know. I just don't know.

Peter Leithart has recently written on his personal blog: "I agree with the standard Protestant objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy: Certain Catholic teachings and practices obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ; prayers through Mary and the saints are not encouraged or permitted by Scripture, and they distract from the one Mediator, Jesus; I do not accept the Papal claims of Vatican I; I believe iconodules violate the second commandment by engaging in liturgical idolatry; venerating the Host is also liturgical idolatry; in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, tradition muzzles the word of God." (http://www.leithart.com/2012/05/21/too-catholic-to-be-catholic/).

Does he really want to be in communion with Catholic and Orthodox idolaters who are muzzling the word of God and obscuring the free grace of God in Jesus Christ? As a Catholic convert from Calvinism (with no influence from Leithart, I might add--there is nothing personal about this comment), I concluded that Catholics and Orthodox were right about all the issues he disagrees with above. Having become Catholic I certainly do not disdain either the people from whom I originally learned to love Jesus or their own deep faith. Some of them are probably a lot holier than I. But I also think that their faith is objectively incomplete in many ways. Some of the more evangelical catholic among them embrace almost all of the Catholic faith except the Church itself. But that is precisely the issue, isn't it?

"Everyone is to examine himself and only then eat of the bread or drink from the cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. That is why many of you are weak and ill and a good number have died."
-- 1 Cor 11:28-30

"For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person."
-- John 6:55:56

It seems that if one doesn't believe the words of Jesus in John 6:55:56 one isn't going to recognize the presence of the divine humanity in the Eucharist and isn't going to be prepared to make one's own humanity a home for Jesus to live in. If such a one, in receiving the Eucharist, eats and drinks his own condemnation, it can't be a good thing to offer the Eucharist to those who openly admit they do not believe in the real presence of Christ in His humanity and in His divinity therein. In consideration of St. Paul's warnings, charity towards such people demands that they be denied the Eucharist.

I'm pretty sure that if any baptized Christian went to a Catholic parish priest and told them that they believed in the Catholic teachings on the real presence then he would allow them to participate in communion at that church. It's not the fact that you're not a member of the church that keeps Protestants away, its the fact that we don't believe you should be taking part if you just believe its a symbol.

My, my, how the convictions emerge- mine included.

I agree with Peter. But just a couple of thoughts to add to this.

@ Leroy Huizenga, I read your comment from today and your article from May 31. I hope that your pending publication doesn't conflate the headship of Jesus with the membership of Jesus. Your earlier article did just that, where you went from extolling first the priority of the Lord-as-head and then descended to a description of communion as "our sacrament", by which you meant "belonging to the church of Rome". That is, by which you meant, "belonging to the member" when you should have meant "belonging to the head". So I wait- not breathlessly- for the new word you will have in two weeks.

@ Linda Smith, I agree with what you said, except for the specifications about the successor to Peter. I think that all of us should have that understanding that the church lives, thinks, and worships in the name of Christ, and that that is the very ministry of the church. Authority comes from the Holy Spirit to speak in God's name. (BTW, Linda says she agrees emphatically with me on this point about Peter after all...... Okay, so she didn't say that. But you can imagine what feuding could result from unauthorized speech in someone else's name.)

Do we confess the same Jesus when some say He is able (because He is God and because He has said it) to give us His Body and Blood on earth, while others say His human body is confined to heaven, because human bodies, by definition, can be in one place only?

We are not actually 'sharing' (communing) in the same meal if we do not agree about what the meal is. Otherwise it is an empty gesture of false ecumenism.

Hello Peter,

I have written a brief reply to your "One Lord, One Baptism" article, in comment #15 here:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/#comment-31244

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

@ Harry: In the passage you quote, Paul does not mean the body of Christ (at least as translated into english). Not recognizing the body while eating and drinking is neglecting members of the body of Christ--the community. As such, Catholics and Orthodox Christians who refuse the bread and wine to Protestants are in danger of condemning themselves (unless, in fact, those refused the eucharist are truly apostate--but then Catholics and Orthodox Christians need to be honest about this). I believe in true presence (I'm a thoroughly ecumenical Anglican) for the record.

@ John: In my experience, both Catholic and Orthodox priests have refused communion to me. I went to priests before mass to inquire about receiving the eucharist and made sure to include that I believed in true presence, but both denominations have refused my participation. Perhaps there is some parish somewhere that would allow this, but overwhelmingly this is not the case.

The Eucharist in the Catholic Mass is not merely a meal that we share with family and friends, but something of an altogether different in kind. The Eucharist is Jesus Christ’s fulfillment in the New Covenant of certain Old Covenant sacrifices and offerings rolled into one: the Day of Atonement; the Todah (Thank offering); the Passover meal.

To take the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement as a example, in the Old Covenant, on the Day of Atonement the Jewish high priest would offer the mixed blood of a sacrificial spotless lamb and a bull (representing himself and the people), and offer the mixure of the lamb and bull blood to God in the Temple Holy of Holies. In the New Covenant, we have in Jesus Christ a new High Priest (see Heb 7:11-12) forever in the true Holy of Holies, and offers himself as the sacrificial lamb to the Father (see Heb 8:3). Anticipating this, Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharist in which, by eating his Real Presence, we mix our blood and body and soul in a real way with His, which is offered together with Christ’s self-offering in the Heavenly Holies of Holies.

The Old Covenant clearly did not consider Yom Kippur, the Passover and the Todah to be ordinary meals or events. Neither does Paul consider the Eucharist to be an ordinary meal. In fact, in 1st Cor 11, he describes the Eucharist in the same way it is reported by Matthew, Mark and Luke, and he adds the warning that one must discern the body before eating or drinking the Eucharist or bring judgment on himself (see 1 Cor 11:23 - 28). This parallels the Old Covenant Day of Atonement ritual in which the High Priest would be tied by rope in case he was not pure of heart and therefore, God could choose to strike him down, and the High Priest’s body would have to be pulled out of the Holy of Holies. Indeed, it is clear to the Catholic that the Eucharist is of a different kind entirely than an ordinary meal, as it would have been clear to a Hebrew (convert or otherwise) that the Passover, Todah and Yom Kippur were not ordinary meals or events.

Our honor is first due to God, then to fellow men. Communion among Christians is important, but it cannot be at the expense of honor to God. In my opinion, to allow those that do not believe in the Eucharist is a real participation in Christ, nor profess that the priest which presides is the instrumentality to effect such Eucharist, then it would be to mock God and Jesus Christ (and St. Paul) and also place that person in danger – according to St. Paul’s warning in 1 Cor 11.

As Catholic’s, we need to explain this beautiful gift and supernatural reasoning for limiting participation to Catholics in a state of grace (indeed, not even all Catholics should partake).

Dr. Leithart,

As one sympathetic to the New Perspective on Paul, you should know better than to rip this event in the life of Sts. Peter and Paul out of its covenantal context. Was it a denial of the gospel simply because St. Peter was refusing table fellowship to all and sundry who claim to have faith in Christ? Or was it a denial of the gospel because, in forcing them to *become Jews,* he was denying that the the Old Covenant (all the requirements of the Torah) had been fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Christ? It appears that these people excluded from the table were *already* in ecclesial communion with St. Peter - and they had to be, because there was no other Church! It is quite clear from the book of Acts that everything (especially sacramental) in the early church had to go through the apostles.

It would seem that the issue really is whether the apostolic succession of bishops is a reality - and if it is, then people like Jean Calvin (and all ordained through and after him) have no ministerial validity. This is really one of the major issues (among other Christological ones, etc) upon which the Reformed bodies (stand or) fall. Unlike the people excluded by St. Peter, the Reformed and evangelical communities today are not even in governmental, theological and sacramental agreement, let alone communion *with each other,* not to say with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church [and I'm not talking about the RCC] - so the comparison is rather forced and weak.

It is hard not to hear much of your special pleading (e.g. Judah and Israel) as a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the possibility that perhaps you have never in fact served a true eucharist! Or at least that is how your blog posts came across to this ex-calvinist... I can understand why you would be so stubborn about this, but in reality you are showing by your re-defining of terms like 'catholic' and 'Church' that you are in fact already obviously out of communion of faith with the historical Church.

By the way Dr. Leithart, I have enjoyed the privilege of reading your blog and a couple of your books. You have many very insightful things to say on a variety of topics, and I hope that your goal of 'always reforming' will lead you deeper and deeper into the fulness of Christ.

I agree with Leithart's argument here and think it is consistent with the Roman Catholic recognition of Protestant baptism (among others). Baptism unites us to Christ by making us one with his body, members of his family. Therefore, we should be allowed to live out this identity by eating at the Lord's table, the family table. Refusing communion to those who disagree about the exact manner in which Christ is present is to exalt Aristotelian categories over the teaching of scripture.

If I might summarize. Yesterday, Dr. Leroy Huizenga wrote a column on the invisible, but real, unity of the Roman Catholic church with all other baptized Christians. According to Huizenga, we are in communion, even if it does not appear so, because the Catholic Church recognizes the efficacy of all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Today, Dr. Leithart wrote a column which agrees with the invisible unity in Christ, and from that critiques Roman Catholic practice of barring certain baptized Christians from receiving Communion as analogous to the actions of judaizers.

I must admit, I am having trouble holding the two truths that Dr. Huizenga maintains together in my mind--(1) that we are in actual communion, (2) but not enough so to share Communion. I would like to hear this explained further, and look forward to Dr. Huizenga's subsequent column.

On the other hand, my mind more easily grasps Dr. Leithart's assertion that (1) if we are in actual communion, (2) we should be able to fully share Communion. Still, I warn myself, one must be careful not to conflate categories that are not perfectly analogous. As Dr. Huizenga commented yesterday, "the best way to start thinking about it is to start thinking about the obvious differences between Baptism and Holy Communion."

My apologies for the self-centered post. I am grateful for your thoughts.

Peter, thanks for an excellent article. I have also enjoyed the comments. Here is my 2cents worth.

It seems to me that what Peter is addressing here is not, in the first order (theologically speaking), the unity of the church, visible or invisible, but the unity of the Godhead, contained as it is in the unity of its incarnation in Jesus Christ. The argument that this article assumes a dualist reading of church is as much a red herring as the argument that opens this thread, that real communion means agreement within a given tradition. Real communion is not decided on the side of human action but is consummated and made irrevocably real in the incarnation, death and resurrection. We enact only in a secondary way that primal divine act. The fact that this secondary act is sanctions by the appearance, the real presence of the incarnate Jesus Christ is not ensured by the secondary act except in its divine realization. The real Presence of Christ at Eucharist cannot be limited by any given tradition. It can only be participated in by means of secondary act, albeit and act that is at once translated into the realm of primary divine act by virtue of the divine habitation in and with this secondary act. Thus the point of the article, it seems to me, turns upon the reality that in the Eucharistic act, the unity of God in the Son should have irrevocable implications for our total inclusion in Christ, here and now.

"Refusing communion to those who disagree about the exact manner in which Christ is present is to exalt Aristotelian categories over the teaching of scripture."

As many commentators have noted, a) the use of "transubstantiation" preceded the Aristotelian revolution in the West, and b) An Aristotelian would find "transubstantiation" incoherent in the Catholic context. The problem is not the "manner" of Christ's presence for most Protestants, but whether he is present in his person in the eucharist or even whether his power is present.

"This is the point:there should be no good reason not to be in communion unless you say Protestants are heretics or..."

That's correct. And that is indeed the Catholic position regarding Protestants.

I say that knowing the opinion is mutual, and "heretic" does not mean "unholy" or "condemend" but this is the sad state of affairs.

Refusing communion to those who disagree about the exact manner in which Christ is present is to exalt Aristotelian categories over the teaching of scripture.

Either they are important or they are not. If they are important, we are entitled to treat them as important. If not, you are not entitled to treat them as important, and therefore should not let them keep you in a state of schism.

Furthermore, even if you are right, that your conscience is strong does not mean you have no duties to those whose conscience is weak -- as with meat sacrificed to idols, you should refrain if they object.

For the record, we Presbyterians, which includes Dr. Leithart, do not hold to a memorial or bare symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist. We confess the real presence of Christ. We don't do it in the same way that Trent articulates, but we nonetheless profess and believe the catholic faith on this issue.

Nevertheless, this issue is ecclesiological. IF one is a member of the body of Christ, then one ought to be seated at the table of Christ. It's that simple.

@Dr. Leithart

Isn't the case, in historical terms as well as theological, that your communities have removed themselves from ecclesial communion by the protests of Calvin, Luther, et. al. taking corporal form. I don't mean to absolve or forget Catholic errors. Your title is One Lord, One Table, but what of One Church? If you view yourself as One Church in One Lord then why persist in the exterior division but rather return to your historic home?

Excited to watch more.

Full communion with the Catholic Church is threefold: 1) faith (Creed); 2) governance (the Church is apostolic); and 3) sacraments. Once there is agreement on these three issues, full communion exists; hence, one is admitted to Communion. This ancient teaching of the Church can be found in writing of St. Justin, whose feast we celebrate today.

Hello, Geoff,

You wrote:

"In the passage you quote, Paul does not mean the body of Christ ... Not recognizing the body while eating and drinking is neglecting members of the body of Christ--the community."

St. Augustine wrote regarding the same passage:

"That sacred food will not submit to be despised, as the manna could not be loathed with impunity. Hence the apostle says that it was unworthily partaken of by those who did not distinguish between this and all other meats, by yielding to it the special veneration which was due; for to the words quoted already, 'eateth and drinketh judgment to himself,' he has added these, 'not discerning the Lord’s body;' and this is apparent from the whole of that passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if it be carefully studied."
-- Letters of Augustine, Letter LIV

In what writings of the Fathers do we find the idea that Paul is talking about the community and not the presence Christ in His humanity?

@David

Good to "see" you again, Dave. It's been a long time since Fordham. As you know, most denominations agree that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. They don't agree on how. Whether or not Aristotelian categories are anachronistic to the discussion, the precise manner in which Christ is present is a third-level theological argument.

The fact of the matter is that Catholics recognize Christians from all sorts of denominations as fellow members of Christ's Body. Closed Communion by any denomination (Roman, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc) is inconsistent and unbiblical when Christian unity is already being expressed in the sacrament of Baptism. Refusing baptized Christians communion because of theological disagreements is akin to one of my children refusing to pass the milk to her siblings at dinner because they don't agree (or care) about how that milk is actually making them stronger ("It's the vitamins." "No, it's the calcium.").

"The issue is ecclesiological. IF one is a member of the body of Christ, then one ought to be seated at the table of Christ. It's that simple."

The issue is ecclesiological, but I'm afraid it's not as simple as your second sentence. Catholics don't even teach that all Catholics should receive communion every time. If they are in mortal sin or haven't kept the Eucharistic fast or are otherwise improperly disposed they should not come to the Table. That doesn't mean that one ceases to be part of the Lord's Body. But it does mean those issues should be taken care of. Not submitting oneself to the the Catholic Church's faith and governance (as Vic puts it) is an issue to be taken care of before approaching the sacrament. I hope Dr. Leithart and others do exactly that.

It is quite that simple. If the Roman church has added stipulations to coming to the table, then she is not being catholic on this issue.

Matt--
Great to "see" you too! The comment I just posted addresses your point. Protestant eucharistic theology is all over the map--that Christ is present in some fashion doesn't really say much. And while Calvinists have a better theology of the sacrament than do generic Evangelicals, it's still not the same as the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the Real Presence. But it's not simply a question of the Real Presence in the Sacrament, as I note above--it's a number of other doctrinal issues (see my first comment above quoting Leithart as to our "idolatry" etc.) as well as the issue of the nature of the Church itself. As Blessed Newman wrote to an Anglican, I rejoice that you confess Christ and are indeed united to Him and His Body in some fashion, but I wish you held "the whole counsel of God."

I used to be Lutheran and then joined the Eastern Orthodox Church so I wrestled with this a bit. Jesus said in Matthew 18:20 "whenever two or three are gathered in my name I am there in the midst of them." And so I depend on the faith of those who surround me for Christ's presence. So then the question becomes "on who or what should I rely to determine if the men at my table have gathered in Christ's name?" On my own judgement? On some books they may have written? Or should I rely on my church for this assurance? It doesn't matter if it is 2 or 200--I rely on the church and not my own judgement.

In actual practice I have found the Eucharist in Eastern Orthodoxy to be profoundly different than what I experienced in the ELCA.

That incident in which Peter looks at the waves of fear for the opinion of the Jewish converts is more like what might be to help those Churches who have been faithful enough to Apostolic succession , yet , out of fear and pressure from their flock, are unable to proceed to fuller communion, with those who are being led more into truth , through the beauty and power of God's glory , revealed , esp. in the Dogmas .

For the others , The Church sharing the truth in mercy , that they are capable to loving and trusting The Lord, enough to accept His gifts - of The Church , the sacraments - no difft from telling those in The Church that they too are capable of and in need of repentig and recieving the peace through confession and absolution , thus being ready to recieve the presence of The Lord, to be moved into gratitude and praise , in the company of his angels and saints and of bringing all to His mercy ...this on behalf of all others too , who are not yet at that level of trust in His goodness ; thus , The Church is in communion , to the best level She can ..it is those who stand outside who are denying same , is it not ?

Peace !

Peace !

Peter Leithart wrote regarding communion:

"One Lord must have one people sitting at one table. Any additional requirement beyond faith in Jesus betrays the Gospel. "

Although the sentiment is laudable (thirst for true Christian unity), there are many loose ends in this argument, some already ably addressed. One such disconnect is that the above quote doesn't seem to recognize that a Catholic must be in the state of grace to be able to receive the Holy Eucharist, and that presupposes the necessity of another sacrament, confession.

So the question arises, is Peter Leithart also regarding the sacrament of confession as an "additional requirement" imposed beyond faith in Jesus?

"Refusing baptized Christians communion because of theological disagreements is akin to one of my children refusing to pass the milk to her siblings at dinner because they don't agree (or care) about how that milk is actually making them stronger ("It's the vitamins." "No, it's the calcium.")."

I think this is a false analogy because it makes it seem as though the Eucharist is like a holy cookie that will make you holier. It is, but not on its own. You must receive it in the proper way. And you cannot do that if you see it as something you are entitled to. You must see it as a gift. And you must trust that those entrusted to protect and administer the gift know what they're about--guided as they are by the Holy Spirit.

My point is that it is not merely eating the Eucharist which matters; the way in which you eat it matters as much.

Perhaps my theologically conservative Catholic friends can explain a puzzling piece of this discussion. The RCC gets very strict when it comes to "fencing the table" as we say, when it comes to the likes of a Leithart, but gets really relaxed when it comes to (let's call them charitably) "nominal Catholics" or (perhaps less charitably) "theologically-Liberal-Protestants-who-happen-to-be- members-of-the-Catholic-tribe".

As I understand it, Leithart's basic charge is that RCs are being too sectarian (and insufficiently "catholic") in excluding him. But, I wonder if an accompanying charge is that RCs aren't being sufficiently "sectarian." For example, we occasionally get treated to the well publicized situations in which, say, a priest refuses to serve communion to an openly "married" lesbian and yet HE gets disciplined by his bishop without any formal discipline of the lesbian! Where, one wonders, is the discipline for HER?

And then, of course we have the Jesuits. Conservative Catholics seem to be in the odd position of supporting the hierarchy when it excludes the likes of Leithart, but also supporting the hierarchy when it openly admits pro-gay, de-mythologizing, theologically liberal Jesuits. The latter are "in" while Leithart is "out"! Does that make sense? It seems to me that it would make sense to include them both, or to exclude them both, but to admit the latter while excluding to former is a hard circle to square.

In short, if a greater measure of discipline were exercised with regard to nominal Catholics (and your theologically liberal Jesuits, for example), it might be easier to take seriously conservative Catholic arguments for the exclusion theologically conservative Protestants.

I want to add to my earlier comment about my experience of converting from the Lutheran Church to the Orthodox Church. Early in my catechumen process I wasn't so keen on my priest praying to God aloud each week to deliver" me from my former delusions..." Well I'm NOT deluded, I used to think. But that wasn't up to me to say otherwise on the matter. It wasn't up to my priest to bypass the process, which was put in place over the last 1700 years or so. Instead I had to decide to put those thoughts aside and accept--or not--the church as the body of Christ. If they had asked me at the get go if I wanted be referred to as deluded each week, I imagine I would have checked the box for no. But I'm glad that the church claims that authority, rather than let me decide these things for myself.

While there were always agitations (reasonable as well as kooky) within the ancient Church and then (more pertinent to this discussion) the Roman Catholic Church, the challenge Luther began and each of the 30,000+ renovators have continued is to the very notion of Church itself, including whether (in some cases) it is even necessary.

At the Great Schism that helped usher in the last millennium, East and West frankly had a remarkable degree of agreement on what it was that constituted "Church." Mainly, that the Church was at once a supernatural and an historic reality, an organism if you will that certainly did demand the loyalty of human beings, a community that owned, rather than was owned by, the Scriptures. The marked sense of the "sacramentality" of the Church was shared (if nuanced differently) by Greeks, Latins, Ethiopians and Arabs. It's apostolicity (not just in doctrine) was seen as not just a notional proposition, but a historic, organic, verifiable (as in, literally, who "apostolically" begat whom) community that one had the option of joining, remaining in, or leaving. As Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory once suggested about the Orthodox Church, there was not even a clearly articulated "doctrine of the Church" until Russian Orthodoxy's engagement with the West beginning with the Petrine Reforms: the Church was simply a gift that was as unfathomable (and of the same divine origin) as the forgiveness of sins in baptism or the "body and blood" of the Eucharist. Beginning with Luther, Protestants have made no bones about the fact that this is NOT the Church they want to belong to! Not only that, as an Orthodox I'd have to essentially agree with the pope that protestant communities lack numerous "constitutive elements" that would make them the Church. Thus, protestant assurances that "we really believe almost like you guys do" about communion misses the larger picture and, in fact, shows that we really don't believe the same thing at all, because if we did the protestant could, in good conscience, decide that it is no capitulation on his part at all if he formally joins the Orthodox or Catholic Church. He could humor me; of course, he does not.

It's the undeniable fact of "leaving" that I think Peter Leithart, and those who find themselves agreeing with him, wants us to ignore or excuse. Especially in a time like ours, when it seems that every month someone finds a new historic slight for the Roman Catholic Church to repent of, it seems reasonable for Protestants to be a little repentant and even to ask the forgiveness of Catholics and Orthodox for what was obviously just the beginning of a relentless rending of Christianity. When I hear Protestants start that "c'mon, let us take communion" request it sounds a little like the teenager who totaled the Chevy and then asked to drive the Ford to the Friday night party after the football game. Luther could have repented but chose to obey his conscience and his intellect. This was a radical departure from historic Christianity and it produced produced predictably radical results. Within days of Luther's "arrest," Carlstadt's band of iconoclastic Jihadists were on a rampage, and then came the Protestant Inquisition in Geneva and then ............. Despite Luther's undoubted brilliance, he opened the floodgates for thousands of other, often rather dubiously anointed, consciences to wreak havoc on the very idea of "the Christian Church."

Thus, I'm not clear why it is such a tragedy for the Orthodox and Catholics to honor the conscious (by conscience) protestant choice, which historically has been to freely and knowingly absent themselves from the table by absenting themselves from the Church. Luther and his followers made, and continue to make, an adult decision not to be Orthodox or Catholic. I don't get the cry of "foul," for example, like Protestants complaints about Pope Benedict's statement in which he speaks of "lacking of constitutive elements," because it is these same elements that protestants have all along insisted are neither necessary nor compelling. Once again, how is it a tragedy to name the very thing Protestants have insisted is true about themselves all along?

In the Orthodox Church the receiving of communion makes little sense if it's isolated from the other gifts that culminate in the gift of Christ himself, not "including" the gift of the Church, but "within" the gift that is the Church.

"Closed Communion by any denomination (Roman, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc) is inconsistent and unbiblical when Christian unity is already being expressed in the sacrament of Baptism."
"Unbiblical" as a charge against an argument has less weight with Catholics when pressed up against Church authority since the authority of the Church predates the Bible, and in fact gave authority to the final form of the Bible itself. Thus, though closed communion may seem "unbiblical" (by your interpretation -- though it seems clear to this reader that Paul himself would agree with closed communion), the infallible teaching of the Church reveals that it is not.

@MT

Respectfully, Dr. Leroy Huizenga's teaching on this matter does not reflect the teaching of St Augustine who provides the theological backdrop for the "valid baptisms outside the Catholic Church" discussion. Augustine makes a distinction between “valid” (should not be repeated when joining the Catholic Church) and “profitable” (actually causing salvation). He clearly teaches that among schismatic groups baptisms are valid but unprofitable: “But as, by reconciliation to unity, that begins to be profitably possessed which was possessed to no profit in exclusion from unity, so, by the same reconciliation, that begins to be profitable which without it was given to no profit.” - On Baptism 1.2

Further, Augustine points out that those outside the Catholic Church like to play up the validity of their baptisms to mean something more than it does: “And let them not think that they are sound because we admit that they have something sound in them [baptism]; nor let them think, on the other hand, that what is sound must needs be healed [re-baptism], because we show that in some parts there is a wound. So that in the soundness of the sacrament, because they are not against us, they are for us; but in the wound of schism, because they gather not with Christ, they scatter abroad. Let them not be exalted by what they have. Why do they pass the eyes of pride over those parts only which are sound? Let them condescend also to look humbly on their wound, and give heed not only to what they have, but also to what is wanting in them.” – On Baptism 1.11

In short, Augustine argues that there is no "actual communion" with those baptized outside the Catholic Church. However, those baptized outside the Church, when they return to it, do not require re-baptism.

What this article brings out is the tremendous difference between the Catholic Mass and Protestant services. The "Sacrifice of the Mass" is not just a commemoration of the Last Supper but a reenactment of, and participation in, Christ's sacrifice. The priest, in persona Christi, separates the body and blood in the offering to the Father.

I don't know the answer to this, but I would have to note that the very end of the passage in Corinthians cited above reads, "So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, make everyone equally welcome."

Peter, thank you so much for this.

One further point regarding valid baptism - two weeks ago, my daughter made her First Holy Communion, - the culmination of a course of formation that began last September, and during which she also received another sacrament (the sacrament of Reconciliation also known as Confession).

Before she made her First Communion, she was not "excommunicated" because of difference in doctrine, or because of Sin, but simply because , before being allowed to receive communion, the church needed to know she had received a bare minimum of teaching on what the sacrament means, and also had reached the age of reason (and therefore had the ability to understand the teaching).

Going back to the early church - in the early liturgies, catechumins were, at one point, asked to leave at the end of the liturgy of the word - very much a closed communion, those who were not fully ready weren't even allowed to watch the Eucharistic part of the celebration.

On a related note however, my wife is not Catholic, and it is a source of pain for both of us that neither of us can, in good conscience, receive communion in eachothers' churches. I do understand this causes grief to many because I experience this grief in my own life - but to deny the real differences between us is to also minimise the true meaning of Eucharist (as understood in Catholic or Orthodox teaching). When your celebration of the Lord's Supper is purely a memorial with no concept of the 'Real Presence', then there's little or no reason to exclude people. When you believe that Christ is tangibly and miraculously present in the bread and wine (what ever precise nuances you put on this) then you will want to be very sure that no-one who doesn't (a) understand and agree and (b) is not is a state of serious sin does not approach the altar, not just for the sake of the church, but also for the sake of the recipient! (See the earlier comments about the risk of the unworthy High Priest being struck dead...)

There is much to say, but I'll limit myself to two brief comments.

First, many have offered justifications for the divided table. I'm sure Peter had his justifications too. Still, Paul said he was not being straightforward about the gospel.

Second, however we think it ought to be fixed, can we all agree that the divided table is intolerable, a standing offense to our Lord Jesus?

"Second, however we think it ought to be fixed, can we all agree that the divided table is intolerable, a standing offense to our Lord Jesus? "

Certainly! We can all agree that schism is now and always has been a scandal and an offense, and the divided table, as its most visible manifestation, is a wound in the Body of Christ.

It ought, however, to be healed and not papered over by pretending the schism that manifests as it is not there.

"the divided table is intolerable"
If, by that statement, you assert that an undivided table is more important than defending the table's main purpose, a means of salvation whereby we receive the true body and blood of our Savior, I would disagree.
This is a serious issue to those who believe in the table as a means of salvation. A negotiation process cannot resolve the differences. The truth must be made clear. Sometimes it may take centuries for the false to be exposed for what it was, but so be it.

Hello Peter Leithart,

"All this avoids the central question: Do Catholics and Orthodox consider their Protestant friends Christians?"

I think they do. But I don't think that is the central question.

Do you believe in the Real Presence of Christ in His humanity and in His divinity in the Eucharist?

If so, you aren't saying you want the Eucharist shared with those who are oblivious to that or who openly deny that, right?

If not, please notice that in Jn 4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12 Christ speaks of food in a symbolic way and is misunderstood. His disciples think He is speaking of food literally. Jesus then makes it clear to them that He was speaking figuratively. This doesn't happen in John 6. Instead He insists His flesh is real food and His blood is real drink and lets those who find that a hard saying leave Him. Rather than then explaining to the twelve how He had mistakenly been taken literally, as we know He was more than willing to do from Jn 4:31-34 and Mt 16:5-12, He simply asks the twelve if they also are going to leave Him.

How do you explain that? And please have an answer to Augustine's thoughts on Jn 6:63 before claiming that verse indicates that Christ was speaking figuratively. ;o)

May God bless you.

One possible sign for when the time is getting right for sharing at the same table the Eucharistic Lord could be when we are standing in line together for sacramental confession. I would like to see sacrament of confession available to all the baptized. One possible beginning for both is in Catholic hospitals etc. for those dying.

"All this avoids the central question: Do Catholics and Orthodox consider their Protestant friends Christians?"

Do Protestants consider their Catholic and Orthodox friends to be members of just another Protestant sect?

@Keith Pavlischek: There is no inconsistency among any Catholics I know--we all wish more bishops would exercise more discipline with Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, and all the wacky Jesuits and LCWR nuns we could name. And in fact, many of us have told "nominal" Catholics that they should not receive if they are in mortal sin. My wife and I teach the course for parents preparing to have a baptism at our parish--and the two things that get most uncomfortable are a) telling people that non-Catholics can't be godparents and b) that people should choose Catholics who actually practice their faith as godparents.

Mark, (June 1 post)


I really appreciated your post, and I won't cheapen it by claiming an easy answer. I've thought about your question this afternoon and I want to recommend reading the Scripture 2 Kings Chapter 5 for some insight, especially vs. 11.



Why doesn't God just heal the man? Is it just and loving that the gift of healing isn't given until the man, Naaman, does some concrete action?



I don't know anything about your particular example. All I will say is that in some way, your friend now shares the longing for Christian unity that Christ has for His church, and also perhaps experiences a longing for Christ that we may never fully understand because we are able so easily to receive Eucharist. Maybe he will also be given the gift of the joy and deep conversion that Naaman possesses in vs. 15-18.


peace,

JDD

@ Harry
I appreciate your response. I probably wasn’t fully clear on what I meant. It’s not that I don’t think Paul’s reference to the Lord’s body cannot be related to the Lord’s Supper. I’m saying that Paul was not talking about real presence or transubstantiation here—that was not the issue at Corinth. He was concerned with the tradition of the meal (what it was/meant/embodied/made real, etc.) and how the Corinthians practiced this worship unworthily by making a mockery of it through hypocrisy. It wasn’t even the Lord’s Supper if divisions remained at the table. Christ’s death reconciled communities by getting rid of division (no slave/free, gentile/jew, male/female). These divisions are the reason for Christ’s death, which resolves the divisions in his body. The celebration and reality of this salvation is in the Lord’s Supper. So, to worship with the meal that celebrated the ceasing of divisions, but to celebrate while creating divisions is to be guilty of creating the divisions that gave the reason for the death in the first place—the Corinthians condemned themselves by sinning in worship with the very sin that gave need for the death.

I have a very high regard for the fathers, but I don’t take everything they say as authoritative interpretation of Scripture and theology. If you’re going to cite a Church father as an indubitable interpreter, then to be consistent you have to hold to everything the Church fathers said without question. At times the fathers disagree with one another and on some issues they simply didn’t have the same tools that modern method and biblical criticism have beneficially provided to us.
You probably won’t find any of the fathers interpreting Paul the way I have done so, but that’s because this interpretation is the result of modern biblical criticism. I’ll quote just one, despite the promince of this interpretation among other expert biblical scholars.

The text concerning us is all of Corinthians, but St. Paul focuses his frustration in chapter 11 (especially in 11.17-30). “For the one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself” (NRSV). Paul Sampley exegetes the text, “The body that must be discerned cannot be separated from the just-mentioned ‘body of the Lord’, which was identified with the bread that is eaten in the supper (11.27 . . . ). So inevitably discerning the body must in some fundamental sense involve a reckoning or evaluation of how well one is related to Christ, whose body is understood as ‘for us’ in the supper traditions. But in Paul’s thought the body of Christ can never be separated from the members who by God’s grace are incorporated into it. So ‘discerning the body’ is Paul’s shorthand way of talking about an individual’s assessment of two distinguishable but inseparable matters: how well one’s life relates to Christ and how well one’s love ties on to othrs who, though many, are one body in Christ” (Samply, 936).

What Sampley explains is common interpretation among biblical scholars of different denominations today. You can find other similar interpretations from Gordan Fee, N. T. Wright, Jimmy Dunn and probably even Raymond Brown (who I would have checked, but didn’t see a commentary of his on this passage at work).

I agree with you, Peter Leithart, however we think division at the table should be fixed, it is a standing offense to our Lord Jesus to create division in any way that counters the truth of the Gospel.

@ harry
The reason they walked away in John 6 wasn't due to a teaching about Real Presence™ or Jesus being real food and real drink, but because of the point that Jesus taught in verse 44 and chose to repeat in even stronger language in verse 65: "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." And he repeated this idea again in verse 70: "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" The teaching that the choice to follow Jesus was up to the Father wasn't well received.

Geoff: Christ’s death reconciled communities by getting rid of division (no slave/free, gentile/jew, male/female). These divisions are the reason for Christ’s death, which resolves the divisions in his body. The celebration and reality of this salvation is in the Lord’s Supper.
That should be "These divisions are ***a*** reason for Christ's death". The chief reason for Christ's death is not harmony here on earth, even though that is desirable and one of the purposes of His death. That harmony will never be perfect in this world. Perfection is God's ultimate standard and requirement.
We are in a state of selfish pride and rebellion. God, on the other hand, is holy - without a shadow of turning. If we are to even enter His presence in heaven not to mention to live there eternally, we need forgiveness and justification, which is provided to us by Christ's death and received by us in the Lord's table.
By placing harmony in this world as the highest purpose of his death, it is not surprising that you agree with Peter.

@ Peter Leithart's two brief comments:

To the first, your example of Paul's contention with Peter is simply not analogous. If the Church makes converts in Central America (which has happened) and proceeds to tell them they have to act, dress and speak like Spaniards (which apparently also happened), then that is not being straightforward about the gospel. However, if an Englishman (like Cranmer) says he doesn't believe what the Church says about what is actually going on at "the table," and further demands drastic rule changes for being at "the table," then telling him he forfeits his place at the table is absolutely being straightforward about the gospel.

To the second, I go back to the analogy of the teenager who wrecked the Chevy. He's not in a position to demand we share in his sense of tragedy on the one hand, and that we continue to tolerate his unsafe driving habits (read here "his theology and ecclesiology") at the same time. To quote, loosely, Lothar of the Hill People: "You wish to possess your flagon of mead and consume it as well."

@ C.Frank Bernard: If the followers of Jesus in John 6 left Him because "the teaching that the choice to follow Jesus was up to the Father wasn't well received" then why were they grumbling, ""How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (John 6:52). It seems rather apparent that the problem was not that the choice to follow Jesus was up to the Father, but that Jesus said He was giving us His flesh to eat!

@ anonymous: "There is no inconsistency among any Catholics I know--we all wish more bishops would exercise more discipline with Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, and all the wacky Jesuits and LCWR nuns we could name. And in fact, many of us have told "nominal" Catholics that they should not receive if they are in mortal sin"--

I wonder if you recognize that this is an implicit indictment of the Catholic hierarchy? If "everyone" you know thinks the Bishops should exercise more discipline, it would seem to pose the question--"why then don't they exercise it?"

While you (and the Catholic friends in your circle) may well escape the '"inconsistency" you seem to be suggesting that the Bishops, in failing to exercise discipline have either (1) embraced the contradiction and are untroubled by it or (2) they really believe that there really is no inconsistency. Either way, there seems to be a big problem, unless someone can explain why the apparent contradiction OF THE CURRENT STATUS QUO is really no contradiction at all.

@ MJ

I actually don’t place harmony on earth as the highest purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection in contrast to the forgiveness, reconciliation, sanctification and glorification accomplished in Christ’s death and resurrection. There is not ranking of goods in God’s salvation purposes secured in Christ. When you begin to do so is when you begin to think that this life is unrelated to the new creation. Abstract notions of sin, forgiveness and salvation devoid of history and substance (docetism) move in, and one can begin to justify a present state of selfish pride and rebellion, because this world will be removed once God makes us perfect by taking us out of here to be in his presence.

That harmony you quote me talking about is what Paul said the entire Gospel was about, because social ‘harmony’ (you could substitute ‘flourishing’ or shalom) is all about forgiveness, reconciliation, justification, sanctification and glorification (i.e., salvation). I was not talking about some preferential temporal harmony on earth that was unrelated to the new creation. The Church is the community of the new creation where (according to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology of liturgy) the new creation is experienced proleptically. This is why Paul was so angry that the Corinthians were making a mockery of the meal that was the Gospel.

When I talk about Christ’s death resolving these social divisions, I don’t compartmentalize social relations from human relationship to God—neither do Jesus or the Apostles. Jesus told us that if we didn’t forgive each others debts, neither would the Father forgive our debts (this ultimatum was entirely socially based, for Christ new that this sort of love was necessary for his community to exist). Paul didn’t write to Church’s about how they needed first to worry about forgiveness and justification outside of a social context (as if it was the main point of Christ’s death) and then consider the persisting divisions (as if social divisions were a second or further point to Christ’s death). His death disarms the principalities and powers which creation was enslaved to so that he could bring his kingdom “on earth, as it is in heaven.” All that went wrong in creation as a result of sin is conquered and made right in Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Jesus reconciles and restores all things through one life, death and resurrection only because those things that must be reconciled and restored are all interrelated.

You say, “If we are to even enter His presence in heaven not to mention to live there eternally, we need forgiveness and justification, which is provided to us by Christ’s death and received by us in the Lord’s table.” If it were true that we were leaving this world to live in heaven in God’s presence eternally (if that’s what you are inferring), then you could perhaps make this world unrelated to heaven. However, Scripture does not give us a picture of us evacuating this world to live in heaven. God promises to restore and transform this world into the new creation (not destroy it to make another—just as Christ’s resurrected body was not a new body made of new matter, but the crucified body restored and transformed). This world and our present earthly lives have everything to do with eternity, because we ought to be living in this world as heirs to the kingdom that has come and will fully materialize at Christ’s return.

According to Eastern Orthodox tradition, “The Eucharist reveals to the world what it is to be.” This means that within the Church we ought to be embodying heavenly lives until heaven comes unto all earth—especially embodying this during our practice of the Eucharist, which proleptically points to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. So when I say that Christ’s death and resurrection resolve social barriers (or create harmony on earth as you summarize me) I don’t think that this is the main point or effect of Christ’s death as if there are lesser points or effects. There is only one point to Christ’s death and resurrection: to reconcile and restore a creation, that fell from it’s predestined purpose to be transformed into the new creation with the adoption of humanity into the family of God with whom the trinity would dwell eternally, so that through Christ’s death and resurrection this original purpose would still happen. In order for the family of God to live according to their calling, they cannot allow social distinctions to become divisions, because despite humanity’s selfishness, fear and pride, the Church is supposed to embody the future of creation in the here and now.

My reply to Bruce Roeder probably auto-formatted too long due to lines treated as paragraphs, so here's a link: https://www.facebook.com/notes/c-frank-bernard/john-6-the-fathers-force-is-offensive-to-the-flesh-not-real-presence/10151161249607506

Hello, Geoff,

Thanks for your very thoughtful remarks, many of which I am agree with. But not all of them. ;o)

You wrote:

“I’m saying that Paul was not talking about real presence or transubstantiation here—that was not the issue at Corinth.”

I think it was the issue.

“I am the LIVING bread which came down from heaven. … He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.” (John 6:51,56)


The issue was that their behavior was not appropriate, and it was especially inappropriate in consideration of the reality made being made present to them and abiding among and in them as Christ promised. That reality was the LIVING God, in His humanity and in His divinity. St. Paul said we were members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. (Eph 5:30). Surely Paul believed we are the very flesh and bones of a LIVING body.

“Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no LIFE in you.” (John 6:53)

St. Paul believed this and died to self to the extent he could eventually say, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”

Paul knew full well the reception of the Eucharist was a communion with the LIVING Jesus and through Him with each other:

“Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
” (1 Cor 10:16-17)

The body of Christ rose from the dead. He is risen. This is the One made present in the flesh in the Eucharist. Paul is telling the Corinthians to behave in a manner commensurate with the reality being made present to them, or suffer the consequences. Pope Clement explained in his letter to the Corinthians, after reminding them of the Old Covenant sacrifices, the consequences of improper performance of them:

“Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.”

And what is the danger to which we are exposed if we disrespect or do not acknowledge the New Covenant sacrifice of the Lamb of God made present to us, the presence of the LIVING God, in His divinity and in His humanity? As St. Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, puts it in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

“... they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins … Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.”

This is why Paul end this topic with, “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep (died).” Paul's remarks were all about disrespect and disregard for the realities being made present to the Corinthians at "the breaking of the bread." Surely Paul knew from Luke what had taken place on the road to Emmaus.

@ Harry

Thanks for your response. We may have to agree to disagree, because I don't find your argument convincing and this back and forth has to end somewhere. In order to show what the issue was at Corinth you quoted John and other passages outside of Corinthians (except for 1 Cor 10, but even this ignores the context and argument of 1 Cor 10:17-33). Whatever the issues of other letters and/or gospels, we cannot simply connect them to say the same thing is being discussed if we can't equally demonstrate it through it's historical and literary context.

Quoting John to show that Jesus meant that the bread was his body and the wine his blood does not necessarily mean anything for your argument concerning Corinthians. There is no reference in 1 Corinthians that the church was questioning the words of the Gospel of John. In the different churches that Paul visited and wrote to we see different issues taking place specific to each situation. As such, only texts which deal specifically with Corinthians can explain directly what was the issue at that church. As I stated before, Paul was dealing with the issue of their divisions created by certain members excluding others at their meals where they had the Lord’s Supper. Paul calls this meal not the Lord’s Supper, because no division can remain in the community while they practice the Lord’s Supper in its true essence of the Gospel.

Clement writes to the Church at Corinth to deal with issues of division as well. The church had kicked out its leaders (who had done no wrong), because of jealousy and envy. Clement defends the offices of these men who were kicked out by stating that Christian ministry was handed down by Christ and exists according to his will. He cites nothing of the church questioning whether or not Christ was truly present in the Lord’s Supper.

Ignatius, on the other hand, shows that true presence was an issue in some churches, but an issue resulting from Docetism and Gnosticism. This issue was especially acute in Smyrna, where different heresies popularly posed problems of unity of this church community. Ignatius explains that those who have denied the authentic reality of Christ’s incarnation (flesh), suffering and therefore resurrection “even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness afterwards raised up again. Consequently, since they reject God’s good gifts, they are doomed in their disputatiousness.” These are the same who “have no care for love, no thought for the widow and orphan, none at all for the afflicted, the captive, the hungry or the thirsty” (both citations come from Ignatius’ Epistle to the Smyrnaeans).

The only issue concerning the resurrection (notice this does not include the reality of the incarnation, flesh, suffering and death of Christ, just his resurrection) for the Corinthians in Clements letter is a digression from his main point. Chapters 23-27 in his epistle are a tangent from the main issue of expelling church leadership. Clement’s argument was not against those who would deny the body and blood of Christ, because they deny the incarnation, flesh or death of Christ (as the docetists or gnostics whom Ignatius countered had done so). He is dealing with a community who lack faith that there is indeed a resurrection for the dead (Christ’s death is not questioned, just his resurrection).

Notice the stark difference between Ignatius’ letter and Clement’s. No one should deny that true presence was an issue in some churches anymore than the truth of Christ’s incarnation and suffering were major issues. That does not mean, however, that every issue concerning the Lord’s Supper was centered on this. Neither Paul nor Clement make any reference to the questioned presence or questioned flesh/suffering. They do make reference to practicing the Lord’s Supper by excluding other members (Paul) and possibly offering their own Eucharist outside their office after kicking church leaders out (Clement). So, the warning you quote from Clement was not about questioning true presence, but seizing ministerial offices by kicking other good men out who had been appointed to it. God has commanded a specific order to the leadership, which is why Clement says, “each one of us should keep to his own degree. His conscience must be clear, he must not infringe the rules prescribed for his ministering, and he is to bear himself with reverence.” He says all of this just before his warnings of the consequences that should follow if one continues to kick out church leadership.

My argument has always been that Paul was not dealing with Corinthians questioning true presence, but practicing the Lord’s Supper improperly by rejecting others in their community out of selfishness—a selfishness and pride ostensibly contrary to the Gospel and therefore the practice of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge, as I always have since reading the Didache and Christological controversies years ago, that true presence was an issue for the early church, but in the form of docetic and Gnostic controversies. When such issues were at hand, readers know by the clarity with which the author forms his argument against those who deny the incarnation, suffering, death and resurrection.

Hello, Geoff,

"Whatever the issues of other letters and/or gospels, we cannot simply connect them to say the same thing is being discussed ... Quoting John to show that ... Clement writes to the Church at Corinth to deal with ... Ignatius, on the other hand ... So, the warning you quote from Clement was not about questioning true presence ..."

Yes. Of course. I didn't say that exactly the same issue was being discussed in each of those cases, although there IS a connection, which, apparently, I didn't point out in an explicit enough manner. What connects them is the severity of the consequences of disregarding or abusing the most sacred, which includes presuming one is authorized to be the minister of the most sacred when one is not.

John makes clear just what it is that is sacred and couldn't be more sacred: the presence of God in His humanity and in His divinity. John, by quoting Jesus, makes clear the consequences of disregarding this reality: we will have no life in us and won't be raised up to eternal life on the last day. Those are severe consequences.

St. Ignatius also says in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, "Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge." Clement seems to have this concept in mind when he reminds the Corinthians of the severity of the consequences of presuming laymen can “fire” a duly ordained bishop and appoint themselves to be ministers of sacred mysteries. He reminds them that under the Old Covenant the punishment for such presumption was death – a severe consequence.

As for Ignatius, I will let him speak for himself about the severity of the consequences of being oblivious to sacred realities, or disrespecting them, when one should know better. Again:

“... they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins … Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.”

Prior to his remarks in 1 Cor 11 Paul had just made a blatant statement about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Again:

“Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
” (1 Cor 10:16-17)

And, not at all surprisingly, he then mentions in 1 Cor 11 the severe consequences of disrespect for this reality: sickness and/or death. That the Corinthians should know better than this is revealed by Paul's asking them questions in 1 Cor 10:16-17 he is certain the answers to which they already know. Yes, the Corinthians were behaving inappropriately. Yes, there was a lack of charity and humility. Yes, these things are very wrong. These things were the Corinthians sinning against each other – a sin against humanity. It was their sin against the divine – more precisely, the divine presence in their midst – not their sins against each other, that resulted in sickness and death for some of the Corinthians. That sin was one of being oblivious to the Real Presence when they knew better than that. Not only that, they were sinning against each other in His presence.

Paul's remarks make no sense if they weren't in the context of the Real Presence. People don't get sick and die for a lack of charity and humility in their dealings with each other. He cites the very institution of the Eucharist after his posing the questions in 1 Cor 10:16-17. This sets the stage for his reminding them of the grave consequences of disregard/disrespect for the most sacred.

Harry, I appreciate this last post. I know that I said I wouldn’t post again, but ironically I believe we agree. Seeing as I believe in true presence and that it was not simply a new addition (the conception of it matured--i.e., 'transmutation' > transubstantiation > etc. [I'm not saying later views after transubstantiation are improvements, just that change in thought occurs]), I believe that the Apostles understood real presence to be the case.

I had thought you were essentially arguing that the issue in Corinth was that the church had consciously rejected true presence (as if to take a Zwinglian symbolic approach instead). My point in arguing, then, was to show that St. Paul wasn't dealing with pre-Zwinglians or docetist argumentation about the particular nature of the Lord’s Supper, but that some in the community was acting contrary to the Gospel by trying to exclusively share the meal that embodied it. As such, he was dealing with a community whose actions didn't reflect their beliefs and the reality of a Gospel community. Of course, this includes that they were mocking the true presence of Christ (e.g., how can you practice the Gospel meal in which Christ himself is present and makes it a true experience of the Gospel by his presence, while acting in such a way that contradicts the nature of his presence--love, charity, etc.).

So, perhaps things will be clearer if I quote my argument with a nuance I understood in it:

"My argument has always been that Paul was not dealing with Corinthians questioning true presence, but practicing the Lord’s Supper improperly by rejecting others in their community out of selfishness—a selfishness and pride ostensibly contrary to the Gospel and therefore the practice of the Lord’s Supper."

-The Corinthians were not consciously arguing against true presence like the Docetists did or is later seen between Luther’s argument against Zwingli’s symbolic interpretation. In the latter cases, the debate was explicitly whether or not Christ was truly present. For the Corinthians, they did not argue that they could exclude others, because true presence was a farce. They were simply acting selfishly and insofar they mocked the Gospel reality of the Lord’s Supper through their division—which is a mockery of true presence by extension, because the Gospel is only truly experienced in Christ’s true presence.

-Even though the church in Corinth did not argue with Paul as to the reality of true presence, it is true that their actions are offensive precisely because the meal is the Gospel through the true presence of Christ.


If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Corinthians were selfishly contradicting the reality of true presence through their divisions. As such, Paul condemns these actions, because they do not honor the true presence of Christ in the meal (hence his appeal to it’s nature 1 Cor 10).

I am saying that the Corinthians mocked the true experience of the Gospel in the Lord’s Supper through their divisions, which Paul condemns because there are no divisions at the Lord’s Table. I believe Paul understood the meal through true presence, without which there could not be a genuine experience of the Gospel. I think we were laying stress on different aspects of the argument, and I apologize for not making explicit my belief that the reality of experiencing the Kingdom requires the true presence.

God bless you, Geoff! I thoroughly enjoyed our exchange.

To C. Frank Bernard,
you wrote, "The reason they walked away in John 6 wasn't due to a teaching about Real Presence or Jesus being real food and real drink"...

you followed up with a quotation of, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." to point us elsewhere I assume, yet fail to reason the context is in coming to Jesus (Christ's Real Presence) in the Eucharist, full circle stop.

As my mother once advised an evangelical Brethren (Protestant) friend of mine, "You simply don't have THE Faith" (not relating this story with any intent of superiority or self-righteousness) hence we cannot and should not pretend at being in full communion as one community called Christian least we cheapen the message of Christ the "Gospel of Truth"

sidenote - where Mr. Peter J. Leithart fails in his complaint is in not presenting full disclosure of his own dissidence.

Thanks to David Deavel for his above comments from 6.1.2012 @ 8:13am, will read more but I think this insight automatically disqualified Leithart from even a pretense of unity on the doctrine.

"One Lord, one Faith, one baptism"

For all those outside full communion with the Catholic Church give this audiofile a listen. Bookmark and listen early next week once uploaded,

The Eucharist: Source and Summit of Our Faith - Dr. Kenneth Howell
http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/the-eucharist-source-and-summit-of-our-faith-7186

John 6:61-66 summary: Does this cause you to stumble? What if you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was? [Then will you believe I came from Heaven? No.] It is the Spirit who gives life, not the flesh. My words are spirit and life BUT SOME OF YOU DON'T BELIEVE! That's why I told you no one can come unless the _Father grants_. As a result, many disciples chose to leave him.

Although Rev. Leithart posits a "Pauline test" on the question of "judaizing," even Paul recognized that it was not up to him to decide the question. He therefore brought the issue to the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-7). Peter, who was on the lam from Herod's jail (see Acts 12:3-18), did not shrink from going back to Jerusalem and ruling on the question when it was presented to him in the presence of the chief judaizer (James). Rather, he made a flat out ruling that gave Paul the ruling he sought but did so in a place and at a time when James and his emmisaries had no ability to keep up his legalistic position without having his position called in front of the other apostles (Acts 15: 7-13). The other apostles, of course, knew that it was Peter who had been called the rock upon which the Church was built by Christ (Matt. 16:18 et seq.) and that Peter, even after the three denials, was still entrusted with the pastoral role over Christ's flock (John 21:15 et seq.).

And Peter's approach of ruling on the matter in the presence of James clearly was the wiser path, for when James was confronted with Peter's ruling in the presence of the entire apostolate, he backed down entirely (Acts 15:14, et seq.). So whatever Paul may have written, it was Peter and not Paul who made the ruling that resulted in a unified rule for the Universal Church (see Acts 16:3-5). That is the great value of the Petrine office.

So far as the contention theat Catholics should open up Communion to Lutherans, the bishops are very clear that they will do that if as and when the Lutherans accept the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist.

Hi Frank,

you responded re: John 6:61-66 [My words are spirit and life BUT SOME OF YOU DON'T BELIEVE!] "That's why I told you no one can come unless the Father grants. As a result, many disciples chose to leave him."


And here in lies the dilemma. If you are of the ilk which interchanges faith and believe than your position is understandable even forgivable but if you consider the teaching of believing in the Father is something more, it's an entirely new ballgame. "As the Father has sent me I also send you" or "As you have sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world"

In addition, ask yourself this, remaining within the context of John 6, what exactly is the "word" (which was Christ's oral instruction, not simply the bible alone) leading us to understand?

Precisely that Christ is present, body blood soul and divinity in the Eucharistic celebration. Those disciples who left Christ understood what Christ was asserting but did not "BELIEVE" hence they did not believe in the authority of Christ from the Father and therefore did not believe in the person of the Father.

We return to the ultimate question, what does believing in the Father mean?

If it means believing also in all Christ taught which was continued by his apostles and their successors it would include a sacramental faith life and belief in Christ's Real Presence as explained in the bread of life discourse of John 6