Hello Catholic friends. I’ve got a good one for you.
The passing of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has been noted on many Protestant blogs, and, unfortunately, some of the commentary has been a far cry from the classy tribute of Paul McCain.
More typical is this post by Greg Gilbert, who can’t quite see how Fr. Neuhaus could become or remain a Catholic. But with the quoted material from 2001′s Death on A Friday Afternoon in mind, there’s “some hope” that Neuhaus was saved by believing the Protestant Gospel.
When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers throughout my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of “justification by faith alone,” although I will thank God that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood formulation was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways—these and all other gifts I have received I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will, with Dysmas, look to Christ and Christ alone.Then I hope to hear him say, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” as I hope with all my being—because, although looking to him alone, I am not alone—he will say to all.
Gilbert’s comments are also typical of the mindset of many young, restless and reformed, who believe the RCC is absent the Biblical Gospel.
So my Catholic readers, here’s your chance to speak directly to many young Protestants: Is the Neuhaus quote true to Roman Catholicism and what the church teaches, or is it an example of bringing the Protestant Gospel into one Catholic’s experience, but real Catholics know it’s not what the church teaches?
I find it interesting that some of the best and most convincing comments are left by non Catholics.
And the intercommunion thing? Got our own President in trouble
“Back in 1997, Mrs McAleese was accused of breaking Canon Law when she received Communion in the Protestant Christ Church Cathedral in what she saw as a bridge-building gesture against a backdrop of the evolving Northern peace process. However, the then Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Desmond Connell, took a dim view and said it was a “sham” for Catholics to receive communion in a Protestant church.”
In 2001, there was more trouble:
“Archbishop Desmond Connell of Dublin – who will be created a cardinal by Pope John Paul in Rome on Wednesday – has criticised the Church of Ireland for inviting Catholics to take Communion at Protestant services.
Three years ago, the Archbishop spoke out following the decision of President Mary McAleese to receive Communion at a Church of Ireland service. He said that it was a “sham” for Catholics to partake of Communion in a Protestant church.
In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Business Post, the Archbishop said the Church of Ireland knew that the Catholic Church had “a very clear position” on the question of Catholics receiving Communion in non-Catholic churches. “It is all very well [for Anglican ministers] to say that everybody whose conscience permits is welcome to come to Communion, but…that fails to respect the faith and obligations of our members and, consequently, the cause of ecumenism,” he said.
“I do feel bound to say that the cause of ecumenism would be greatly helped if the Catholic Church’s rules for its own members could be respected.”
So it’s still a big no-no
>…Interesting that some good folks here are complaining about the lack of monolithic thought-controlled RC sheep, whom they can be sure of believing X,Y, and Z (along with A – W).
Geee…..who could that be? Hmmmmm…..so subtle and nuanced….I may never be able to guess….
I guess I’ll go throw out my Catechism and everything else I’ve studied.
This is more than frustrating. It’s infuriating. You can believe whatever you want about the Eucharist. You can believe whatever you want about Protestant communion. You can believe whatever you want about believing whatever you want.
Is this just an attempt to wind me up and watch me go, or is this seriously the way Catholics view the confessions and laws of their church?
It’s a beautifully written excerpt, but it focuses mostly on what Neuhaus will do when he stands before God. Although he states he will plead no merits of his own the entire excerpt is about his one single merit he has earned heaven for all the things he has denied himself from doing.
To be fair, this is only piece of a longer work and is unfair to judge the man on this short excerpt. Only a careful, thorough reading of the work can we make a judgment on his life for which Neuhaus has invited us to do.
In the end all that matters in a man’s life, (women included), is this:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. (14) For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil (Ecc 12:13-14).
I wonder if Pope Benedict’s words here are relevant to this discussion. Perhaps the Pope’s words carry some weight as to what Catholic’s teach?
The wall — so says the Letter to the Ephesians — between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.
That is why Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14).
Paul knows that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love. We will see the same in next Sunday’s Gospel for the solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What I ask is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked? So justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel, we can say: love alone, charity alone. However, there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St. Paul. It is the same vision, the one according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the realization of communion with Christ. Thus, being united to him we are just, and in no other way.
OK, I’ve been summoned so here we go…
I think, in a sense, Surfnetter and iMonk are talking past each other. You guys seem to be talking about similar things on a different level. In the first mention Surfnetter made about “What matters is what the individual Catholic believes,” it seemed to have been in a direct rhetorical response to Boethius’ comment about “buying Masses for merit.”
It seemed to me like Surfnetter was making a point that (at least partly here) it really matters what the Catholic who gives the donation for a Mass believes he/she is doing when they do this. Some actually do believe they are somehow paying down the Purgatory debt of their loved one. Some aren’t thinking about it that way at all, most I’d say. So, in that case, you can’t put the blanket over all Catholics about what they’re doing when they do this.
Of course, some also take too heavily what might be done in any given Catholic parish as some kind of “imprimatur” as well. Not so.
As Surfnetter continues, there seem to be more statements that need balance. Of course a sort of debate started after that so everybody’s in argument mode. That doesn’t help get to the bottom of anything. I mean that there may be something to a more nuanced, philosophical kind of view that “when everything comes down to rubber meets the road, one must answer for one’s self – heart to heart with God,” but as we live here, that’s not all there is to it.
It’s also not as cut and dried as some very traditionalist Catholics would have us all think either – lock-step, Pope says it, we do it, line by line, follow the laws and that’s it, you’re good. Yeah, I know it’s more complicated than that – I’m talking about what people hear, and they obviously hear that. This kind of lock-step mentality is not really what the Catholic Church teaches it’s children. Not really.
BUT (again with the buts) there is a teaching Authority in the Church and it’s there for a reason – to keep things in order – to keep handing down what has been handed down from the Apostles. They are not alone in this, though. The everyday faithful member of the Church is part of this keeping and hearing and sensing of the Faith. Things change sometimes because it swells from the proverbial bottom-up instead of from the top-down.
So – somebody could, can and probably has written a bunch of books on this so give me my one long comment – Soooo, balance, yes. There is an objective standard, rules, doctrines, etc. and Catholic individuals and churches are expected to respect these things and do their best to live them. It’s not JUST what the individual Catholic thinks or believes.
But (always, ALways) it also DOES matter what we all think and believe (and yes, I know we must have properly formed consciences). That both/and stuff really is there. I know that burns some Protestants up because they love their tightly wound understanding of the Romanists, but oh well, sorry. It’s tight, but it’s not tight like that. It’s rigid (sometimes too rigid) but not altogether rigid like that.
Did that help? Maybe a little – hopefully. It’s not an absolute answer, but like I said, we’re talking Catholicism here.
Peace to all in this house.
A “big no-no”…?
Maybe in Ireland where they are still fighting religious wars. But we’re in America. It just doesn’t happen here that you get in trouble for going to another church and receive communion there.
Most well-adjusted and devout Catholics I know would not deny themselves the experience of attending a Protestant service if they thought they’d get something out of it, nor would they be so ungracious as to refuse communion because of some catechetical prohibition.
Don’t get caught in the intricacies and nuances of the “teachings” — we don’t.
And Jews deny Jesus, Imonk. Just about the only way to be denied by the Jewish community as being a “Jew” is to believe in Jesus. So having a rabbi teach the Bible in the Sanctuary to to your “sheep” … as a pastor it would be worse to let them believe the bread and the wine became the Body and Blood before you ate it …?
Imonk — Brian Mclaren …?
Not that I know who that is (I’ll look that up later), but I’m sure I’ve been called worse.
Surfnetter: Taking Protestant communion is strictly prohibited in every place I can read and from every person with the authority to give an answer. Your answer tells me that Catholic Church’s unity is a fairly thin paint job.
I don’t know how relevant this is to your question IM, but most Catholics wouldn’t know what the actual teachings of the RCC *are* on this matter.
Rome has little relevance or importance in our lives. There will be many more-active (more faithful?) Catholics that disagree with me. But the majority of Catholics that I know so often disagree with Rome’s teachings that they no longer even listen.
When I became interested in doctrine, I moved from Catholic to Reformed worship. But I still go to Mass with family members when appropriate. My most important relationship is with Jesus. He has torn down the walls that separate us and commanded us to love. Any doctrine that gets in the way of that I treat as secondary.
Thanks Alan, for saying what needed to be said; you’re absolutely right.
Surfnetter,
I don’t think anyone would say that what the individual believes DOESN’T matter, in most any church. I think IMonk is trying to point out that what matters to the RC church is that the beliefs of people who are RC match up with the Church’s catechism. That’s how they make distinctions about who can take communion where, and with whom. There’s more than a couple hundred years of division in the church (and a list of differences with many more topics than closed communion) to prove that the RC church cares about what people believe. I would challenge you to find anyone with authority in the RC church who says otherwise.
I don’t see what the big hub-bub is about. Of course Catholics are not supposed to pick and choose what to believe. Of course what the CCC states goes. To be a Catholic and to deny any dogma is to commit the sin of heresy. Etc, etc. But, on the other hand, of course there are many Catholics who believe what the heck they want to believe. Is this a news flash? Is it good? Well, no. But it is the lay of the land these days.
As far as whether the anathemas of Trent still stand, I’ve previously blogged on that pretty extensively. See the attached link.
No one on here is unaware that many Catholics- just like most other Americans- believe whatever they believe for all kinds of reasons. The cafeteria isn’t just Catholic. It’s open for all of us.
But when you say the Church doesn’t mind if you commune with Protestants or if a non-annulled divorced person communes, you aren’t stating your belief. You’re saying the Church hasn’t drawn a line between what must be believed/obeyed and what is optional.
If they church hasn’t drawn that line then we’re having a completely unnecessary episode in my house.
I’m a lay Catholic living in London, England.
I’m sure most Catholics would agree with Surfnetter’s earlier point that personal holiness is not necessarily connected with an in-depth knowledge of Church teachings. However, it does not follow that the content of Church teaching is unimportant. Think of those New Testament letters where the apostles sought to correct erroneous teaching in different communities.
The bottom line is that faithful Catholics are under an obligation to accept Church teachings in so far as they are aware of them. The only choice in the matter is whether to be faithful or not. The obligation to accept the teachings follows from the Catholic’s acceptance that the Pope and other Catholic bishops are inheritors of the authority that Christ gave his apostles to proclaim His coming to the world. Someone who does not accept the latter needs to reconsider whether it is appropriate to identify himself as Catholic.
On the question of Communion, the Canon Law of the Catholic Church prohibits Catholics from receiving Communion at the services of other denominations. What certain individual Catholics may or may not do is neither here nor there. Canon Law is unambiguous on the matter. A Catholic who is aware of Canon Law on this matter but chooses to flout it needs to understand that he/she is doing something that is a serious breach of church discipline (ref Matt 18:18 “Truly I tell you, whatver you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”). I imagine the reason for this provision of Canon Law is so that no confusion should be created in the minds of Catholics about the unique nature of the Catholic Eucharist.
Since this blog is primarily for Protestant readers, it may be appropriate to add a few words on the Catholic Church’s view of Christians in other denominations. From ‘Unitatis Redintegratio’, the Decree on Ecumenism (para. 3):
“Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church — for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection.”
“The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth.” Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003)
HR: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/
imonk.. I would be asked not to take communion at most Roman Catholic parishes if the pastor there knew I usually spend Sundays at a protestant church…and take communion there when it is offered once a month. My personal understandings of doctrines are more in line with a reformed view, but I still consider myself a Catholic too. I attend Catholic services from time to time, usually at family events and certain Holy days. I do take Catholic communion while I am there since I do believe it is the body and blood of Christ. In the eyes of the Church I shouldn’t play in both worlds, I should choose one or the other. I was raised Catholic but was never good at accepting everything that was taught. The Church thinks I’m wrong, I think I’m right, and before God all I have is His mercy because I sure know I could be wrong.
As to this post, I don’t believe the excerpt from Fr Neuhaus is inconsistent with what I was taught in my Catholic upbringing, (CCD lessons, etc), as a Catholic I was taught Jesus paid my sins on the cross above all else and it was by him I would have everlasting life. Some raised Catholic hear it and know it, some raised Catholic hear it but it doesn’t set in and they only hear the “you need to be good†part. I’ve found that to be true outside the RCC where the Gospel is preached.
I do feel some of the stuff I learned in CCD after that simple Truth was taught does confuse the issue… if we are relying on God’s mercy through the work of Jesus at the end why so much about mortal and venial sins, absolution through confession, etc. It does end up seeming contradictory. I know the semantic arguments that can be made to show its not inconsistent teaching; I can’t accept that it isn’t. Again, I submit I’m fallible and could be wrong.
Also, as to your wife taking communion at outside the Roman Catholic church, I can’t point you to where I had read this when I was looking in to such issues some years ago, but … The Roman Catholic Church’s position is that non orthodox communion is not the body and blood of Jesus and therefore not communion. In what I read some of the hierarchy in the church would say that it was therefore harmless for the Catholic and acceptable, others felt it was still unacceptable. Martha above showed a good example of the dilemma in the post Vatican II era. I never saw if this is a settled issue with an official decision either way. According to the church she should not accept it as substitute for receiving communion on Sunday at mass, regardless.
Looks like that excerpt from Pope John Paul II wmcwirla just posted right before me could be considered as settling the issue.
What’s a “real Catholic?”
I have laity relatives some of whom are so conservative that they sound like Protestant fundamentalists. And an aunt who’s a nun and whose views are so liberal she could be UU!
I’m not wanting to get into the heated debate here, but I’ll offer a couple of observations…
1. I spent a lot of time hanging out with Catholic charismatics after my conversion (in the early 70s). Most folks were perfectly fine with the idea of a Protestant (i.e., someone like me) who affirmed faith in Christ as Lord and savior taking communion at Mass in an RC church.
Even priests.
One priest told me that he could not, in good conscience, refuse communion to anyone who came to the altar in good faith (professing Christ). This was said in reply to my asking him if I should abstain from taking communion at a Mass where he was the celebrant.
2. I lived in a very small convent (rented house) when I was a college student, alongside 9 nuns. They invited me to live there, knowing that I was Lutheran (and much younger than they were, not planning to convert to Catholicism, etc. etc. etc.). I prayed the early a.m. office with them daily, and often attended Mass with them on either Sat. or Sun. (If on Sat., I usually went to a Protestant service on Sun.) None of these women had any problem whatsoever with my taking communion, whether in public (at a parish church) or in the course of a Mass celebrated at our house. (Priests who came as dinner guests often conducted services as part of their visit.)
3. I realize that what I’ve just told you about is at odd with the official teachings of the RCC. Nevertheless, these folks all did what they did in good conscience, and many of them encouraged me to stay in my own “tradition,” because they saw it as valid and as deeply rooted in Christ as their own. The only people I met who were somewhat gung-ho about the idea of me converting were kind-hearted lay folks. And nobody ever made a “sales pitch” about that to me, or talked about “our separated brethren” to me personally.
I know this might seem confusing, but… it’s how things can work in practical terms. Most of the Catholics I knew in the 70s-80s were far more open-minded and “ecumenical” than, well… Protestants.
In these cases, though, the essentials of the Gospel were trumping tradition.
Go figure!
when you say the Church doesn’t mind if you commune with Protestants
Right. Catholics may not receive Protestant communion, and vice versa. To claim the Church says otherwise is simply to be…wrong. Catholics may, however, receive Orthodox communion, under certain circumstances, provided the Orthodox priest is OK with it. Which they rarely are
if a non-annulled divorced person communes
A non-annulled divorced person may commune, so long as they are not remarried.
What’s a “real Catholic?â€
Someone who has been baptized Catholic and has not formally renounced it.
I would be asked not to take communion at most Roman Catholic parishes
It would seem to be the polite thing to do, then, to respect the wishes of those people whose house you are visiting. Do you not see it as kinda weird that inherent to your act of worship, you are essentially lying to your hosts?
Most of the Catholics you knew in the 70′s-80′s were very different from the church as shaped by JPII and B16, and very different from the vision of Catholicism promoted by apologists, Catholic media and as has been said, the Catechisms (both of them.)
As Josh the Lutheran says, “It’s A and Not A.”
Without disrespect to anyone, if it’s a matter of just finding the right priest who will wink at you in the communion line (and I’ve seen it many times) that’s a matter of integrity, not doctrine.
I know some of you think that Protestants are tightly wound rationalists on this one, but it seems like we ought to all go see the movie “Doubt,” and then let the RCs describe the two versions of Catholicism presented there.
Dialogue and understanding are very difficult with a moving target. I realize there’s a lot of historical and cultural issues involved, as well as theological nuance, but there’s also a nagging sense, again that you can just about believe whatever you want and do whatever you please (somewhere) as long as you just join the team.
Back to the “authority” thing….which isn’t even an “authority thing” if you get to the right parish apparently.
Here is the full context from Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003) that demonstrates how the Roman Church views the Protestant churches and their celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. Notice that this is tied to the lack of “holy orders” on the part of Protestant ministers.
“30. The Catholic Church’s teaching on the relationship between priestly ministry and the Eucharist and her teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice have both been the subject in recent decades of a fruitful dialogue in the area of ecumenism. We must give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the significant progress and convergence achieved in this regard, which lead us to hope one day for a full sharing of faith. Nonetheless, the observations of the Council concerning the Ecclesial Communities which arose in the West from the sixteenth century onwards and are separated from the Catholic Church remain fully pertinent: “The Ecclesial Communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in gloryâ€.62
The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made towards full visible unity. Similarly, it is unthinkable to substitute for Sunday Mass ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of common prayer with Christians from the aforementioned Ecclesial Communities, or even participation in their own liturgical services. Such celebrations and services, however praiseworthy in certain situations, prepare for the goal of full communion, including Eucharistic communion, but they cannot replace it.”
Even in Lutheran circles participation in the Lord’s Supper is generally viewed as a matter of confessional identity and integrity. It is not simply a personal but a corporate confession of the faith.
Add to last comment: I’m deeply grateful that I was able to spend time getting to know – and learn from – some of the folks I’ve mentioned above. (The “girls” – as they jokingly called themselves – with whom I lived in particular.) They were mentors and role models in ways that probably weren’t apparent to them at the time… or, maybe, to me. But at this point in my life (after some really difficult times in so-called “evangelical” churches), I find myself gravitating toward the way these folks lived and worshiped. It’s not a matter of doctrinal affinities, it’s all about nuts-and-bolts, commonsense godly living.
The religious that I knew well (of both genders) were extremely practical, not afraid to be human, and saw worship as a joy, not a duty. (Not surprisingly, they didn’t put much stock in many “traditional” practices.) One priest – a canon lawyer – told me that when he started training in canon law, he found a huge gap between the reasons for certain things having been made
official practices and the beliefs (and theologies) that evolved from those initial decisions.
He cited the original reason for withholding the chalice as based on fears of the spread of disease – that early on, before anyone knew about germs, there was concern that the common cup might somehow be a means of disease transmission, so that the decision made was entirely pastoral (keeping the saints alive on this earth for as long as possible!), not doctrinal – and further, that the whole thing was meant as a temporary measure. But (he said), in the longer term, people forgot about what brought this about in the first place…. and in doing so, created a problem while also neglecting their pastoral duty. (Which would have been to allow lay people to partake of the cup… or perhaps, from multiple cups, like so many of us Protestants do.)
I can’t verify what this fellow told me, but you know… I believe him. It was all about the spirit, not the letter (or form). His position was that the “letter of the law” had won out too many times, and that – unfortunately – it was very, very hard to convince most clergy to go back to Square 1, because they were so wedded to certain practices (and understandings of those practices).
Where did this man train as a canon lawyer? Rome, naturally.
I couldn’t stand it anymore and had to respond to Surfnetter…
What matters to you might be what’s in the catechism. What matters to God is what is in the the hearts of individual believers. I don’t think that old woman has the slightest clue what is in the catechism or what was decided at the Council of Trent.
While it may be true that the old woman is more holy, it’s not because she is uneducated in her faith. In fact, she would probably be the first to point that out. One cannot use anything to determine the position of someone heart, other than (dimly) their own. Education, pious practices, charity works, etc, none of this tells you where someone else stands before God.
But that doesn’t mean they don’t matter. You can never stand still spiritually, if you don’t move forward you will soon be falling back. Educating yourself is important, doing good works is important, etc, each of these things keep us moving towards God. (Note, it’s by God’s grace that we are able to learn and do.)
What matters is what the individual Catholic believes.
It depends on what you mean by “matters”. If you mean when we stand before God and we were never taught the truth about the Church and believed something wrong, yea it probably doesn’t matter. If; however, you mean that it doesn’t matter what any Catholic believes because it’s all up for grabs, that is wrong. We should do our best to learn our faith, so as to understand and believe the Truth. There is Truth and it Matters (and is Matter – having become Flesh…ha ha…ehem)
The Magesterium teaches Truth, if you know what the Magesterium teaches and believe otherwise then you are in error. How culpable you are for that error is between you and God.
But I don’t think the Church would interfere in your wife taking communion at your Church even if she was running for president.
While that may be true it doesn’t make it right. There are sinners in the Church’s hierarchy just as there are sinners in the whole world. There are priests, bishops, popes who wouldn’t care that the “little ones” were being led astray. It doesn’t make it right.
If you know the Truth and choose to turn away then you are culpable for that error. Only God knows your knowledge and willingness and therefore can judge your soul.
As for the Newhouse comment, I agree with TeresaHT
I was taught by the Pastor of the Newman Center, a Paulist (not a rigid or particularly old-fashioned order), at UC Berkeley (not the most rigid or old-fashioned parish), that taking communion at a non-Catholic church is a very serious problem. What Surfnetter is saying is patently ridiculous, and doesn’t fly with either orthodoxy or actual praxis within the Church.
I know some of you think that Protestants are tightly wound rationalists on this one, but it seems like we ought to all go see the movie “Doubt,†and then let the RCs describe the two versions of Catholicism presented there.
Dialogue and understanding are very difficult with a moving target. I realize there’s a lot of historical and cultural issues involved, as well as theological nuance, but there’s also a nagging sense, again that you can just about believe whatever you want and do whatever you please (somewhere) as long as you just join the team.
Back to the “authority†thing….which isn’t even an “authority thing†if you get to the right parish apparently.
Or is it the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law?
What I’ve described is probably a result of both Vatican II and the charismatic renewal. It’s absolutely not about people lacking in integrity. But I’m not sure that I can explain that any further – you’d probably have to meet the people in question (or others like them) to see what I’m trying to point out.
Anyway, I do hope that what I’ve expressed in my comments above will help to clarify, rather than further muddy, the waters.
Best,
e.
BUT (again with the buts) there is a teaching Authority in the Church and it’s there for a reason – to keep things in order – to keep handing down what has been handed down from the Apostles.
Yes, Chesterton puts it well…
Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.
What’s a “real Catholic?â€
I have laity relatives some of whom are so conservative that they sound like Protestant fundamentalists. And an aunt who’s a nun and whose views are so liberal she could be UU!
What he said!
CATHOLICS: WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL US IF SURFNETTER IS REPRESENTING THE ACTUAL TEACHINGS OF THE RCC?
No, he/she is not. I wish it were the case, though- then my Protestant husband could receive communion with me!
OK…I’ve let this thread get way off topic.
Comment will be on the Neuhaus quote from now on please.
Sorry for threadjacking – however, I honestly think you’re trying to make your definitions a little too narrow re. what Neuhaus said, and more.
I realize this is a huge generalization, but I think that on the whole, people from a “sacramental” background (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) tend to think about “absolutes” a bit differently than do folks from many “low church” backgrounds.
So, with that in mind, I think the only thing in Neuhaus’ statement that’s (maybe) “Protestant” is the word “plead.” (And the idea behind it.) However, that whole “plead” concept strikes me as not being terribly Lutheran, either. sounds much more Calvinist/Reformed to me. (Baptist, too.)
Again, apologies for the generalizations, but I’m not at all sure that there’s any way to make everyone who’s baptized Roman Catholic (or Anglican or Lutheran, let alone Orthodox) fit into neat little cubbyholes. In practice, there’s an (I think) a wider range of “allowable” belief and practice in Catholicism than is generally the case in “low church” denominations.
Could that be part of the tension here? I think the answer is “absolutely yes.” But that’s just me.
Rob…
Not an unfair point. It’s a complicated issue that I sure still do struggle with… I realize we are called to submit to the authority elders. The issue for me is that I am Christian, even in the baptized Catholic sense, there to worship God, and I believe He wants me to come forward. This is the sore spot imonk has brought up in numerous other posts. I can’t see Jesus telling me not to come recieve Him if I’ve confessed my sins and met the other considerations the Epistles lay out for communion.
Receiving communion in a Protestant church a serious matter in the life of a Catholic …? Compared to what other “serious matters”?
You can’t mean “really” serious matters, can you?
Consulting the encyclicals and Canon Law journals as to what the Catholic Faith is “really” serious about is like reading the U.S. Code and Constitution to find out how our government “really” works.
If all the clergy did was recite the Catechism and interpret encyclicals on Sunday, parking for mass would never be a problem.
Basically the difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants severely limit their experience by their dogma. And again I will say it, Catholic teaching is bottom up — the experience of the laity has always informed the clergy what to teach. It just takes a long time for it to get up there.
Surfnetter: I think it’s fairly clear now that you are uniquely able to explain what Catholicism is really all about, but I also think it’s clear that you are unable to affirm that the government of your church has divine authority in its pronouncements. You’re a Protestant in attitude towards your church. Your thesis that Christianity is defined by the experience of the laity and not the history and pronouncements of church authorities makes you the Howard Zinn of Catholicism. Write the book.
“Consulting the encyclicals and Canon Law journals as to what the Catholic Faith is “really†serious about is like reading the U.S. Code and Constitution to find out how our government “really†works.”
It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea if a few citizens actually acquainted themselves with the US Constitution to find out how our government is supposed to work. It might shape the rhetoric differently in election years. Likewise, it would probably be a good idea if a Christian were well acquainted with the specifics of what his or her church/church body formally and publicly teaches. It might come as a bit of a surprise.
One of the underlying problems exhibited here is the distinction between fides qua creditur (faith that believes) and fides quae creditur (the faith that is believed). The former is personal, experiential and subjective; the latter is corporate, creedal and objective. Postmodern believers prefer the former to the latter, generally speaking, epitomized in the statement, “I don’t care what the Catholic/Lutheran/Episcopal/Baptist/YouNameIt Church says; I know what I believe in my heart.”
My take: start looking at the history of lay movements in Western history and… while I’m not Catholic, and don’t agree with everything Surfnetter says, he’s got some really good points about lay people. (Francis and Clare, anyone?
)
Michael, I think soon you guys will be treated to the edifying sight of Catholics hitting one another over the head with the crozier
Surfnetter, that’s exactly the attitude that drives many spare: “This is America – we’re different!” There’s actually a proto-heresy called “Americanism” that Pope Leo XIII wrote an Apostolic Letter about to the Archbishop of Baltimore in order to nip in the bud; the worry was that American Catholicism was becoming too liberal, taking upon itself to decide doctrine, and softening or abandoning traditional distinctives in order to ‘blend in’ and become more acceptable to the non-Catholic majority.
Sure, I could go to a Protestant service and receive communion and not be read off the altar in my local parish church – because (gasp!) there really isn’t an Inquistion out there spying on every little move every Catholic makes.
I could do this – but I shouldn’t. And if I decide that I know better than the Church, then I am disobedient and in rebellion. And if I really have difficulties, it might be more honest for me to leave and become Protestant. Or Buddhist, or atheist, or whatever.
Modern catechesis is dreadful, and has been for a long time, so there probably are many, many people out there genuinely ignorant of what the teachings are and how they should behave. But if you know what the teaching is, and still say “I can decide for myself and I think this is wrong”, then you’ve got very few choices: either row back in line, or formally defect. None of us can pick and choose the bits we like, the bits we find personally inconvenient, and the bits that are embarrassing.
It’s not just a matter of “Oh, some old guys in robes over there in Rome make rules, but that’s all way above the heads of ordinary people who do differently.” Those are the beliefs and practices. If one rejects them, then one may call oneself Catholic, but one isn’t.
“Divine authority to its pronouncements …”
Now who determines those limitations?
If you want to have a good experience in the Catholic Church — or living with a Catholic spouse — you are going to have give up needing to have everything fit neatly together. The Church is the oldest continuous institution in existence. And not too long ago they ruled the world — even naming and pulling down monarchs. The Church used to be the criminal justice system and they were saving the soul of the (often falsely) convicted by slowly stripping off his skin, etc., while a priest stood by with an ear horn up to the tortured one’s mouth to hear the slightest whisper of a confession so he could be given sacramental absolution and be killed clean.
No longer is there the executive governmental authority in the clergy (thank God) but the “divine” legislative authority remains. They do this because this is what they do. And when things change, everyone wonders why we were doing things the old way, when what God really wanted was something else. And then the apologists take over.
Jesus is in the Eucharist in a real and very special way. I’m sorry for you if you don’t see that. It is so beautiful, helpful, illuminating. Mary is so sweet and accepting. Her smile takes away all my suffering and doubt.
If you want to talk about Catholicism with Catholics, you have to expect that at least some of us will speak like Catholics and not Protestants ….
Surfnetter, I do imagine you’re not saying that I’m ill-adjusted and non-devout since I *don’t* make a practice of receiving communion at the services in my Church of Ireland brother-in-law’s church?
And Ireland fighting religious wars. Yep, that’s right. Us Paddies are killing one another for no reason – just ask the nice English, who have no idea how they got dragged into it (ahem). Though we have stopped that now for the past couple of years, so maybe there’s hope for us?
If you go receiving when in a non-Catholic church just to be polite, then – may it be to your good. But I’d love to know how you reconcile stating that you’re simultaneously Roman Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, and whomever else – like “The Yarn of the ‘Nancy Bell’” by Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan fame?
“‘Twas on the shores that round our coast
From Deal to Ramsgate span,
That I found alone on a piece of stone
An elderly naval man.
His hair was weedy, his beard was long,
And weedy and long was he,
And I heard this wight on the shore recite,
In a singular minor key:
“Oh, I am a cook and a captain bold,
And the mate of the Nancy brig,
And a bo’sun tight, and a midshipmite,
And the crew of the captain’s gig.”
And he shook his fists and he tore his hair,
Till I really felt afraid,
For I couldn’t help thinking the man had been drinking,
And so I simply said:
“Oh, elderly man, it’s little I know
Of the duties of men of the sea,
And I’ll eat my hand if I understand
However you can be
‘At once a cook, and a captain bold,
And the mate of the Nancy brig,
And a bo’sun tight, and a midshipmite,
And the crew of the captain’s gig.’”
Then he gave a hitch to his trousers, which
Is a trick all seamen larn,
And having got rid of a thumping quid,
He spun this painful yarn:
“‘Twas in the good ship Nancy Bell
That we sailed to the Indian Sea,
And there on a reef we come to grief,
Which has often occurred to me.
‘And pretty nigh all the crew was drowned
(There was seventy-seven o’ soul),
And only ten of the Nancy’s men
Said ‘Here!’ to the muster-roll.
‘There was me and the cook and the captain bold,
And the mate of the Nancy brig,
And the bo’sun tight, and a midshipmite,
And the crew of the captain’s gig.
‘For a month we’d neither wittles nor drink,
Till a-hungry we did feel,
So we drawed a lot, and, accordin’ shot
The captain for our meal.
‘The next lot fell to the Nancy’s mate,
And a delicate dish he made;
Then our appetite with the midshipmite
We seven survivors stayed.
‘And then we murdered the bo’sun tight,
And he much resembled pig;
Then we wittled free, did the cook and me,
On the crew of the captain’s gig.
‘Then only the cook and me was left,
And the delicate question,”Which
Of us two goes to the kettle” arose,
And we argued it out as sich.
‘For I loved that cook as a brother, I did,
And the cook he worshipped me;
But we’d both be blowed if we’d either be stowed
In the other chap’s hold,you see.
“I’ll be eat if you dines off me,”says TOM;
‘Yes, that,’ says I, ‘you’ll be, ‘
‘I’m boiled if I die, my friend, ‘ quoth I;
And “Exactly so,” quoth he.
‘Says he,”Dear JAMES, to murder me
Were a foolish thing to do,
For don’t you see that you can’t cook me,
While I can and will cook you!”
‘So he boils the water, and takes the salt
And the pepper in portions true
(Which he never forgot), and some chopped shalot.
And some sage and parsley too.
“Come here,”s ays he, with a proper pride,
Which his smiling features tell,
“‘T will soothing be if I let you see
How extremely nice you’ll smell.”
‘And he stirred it round and round and round,
And he sniffed at the foaming froth;
When I ups with his heels, and smothers his squeals
In the scum of the boiling broth.
‘And I eat that cook in a week or less,
And as I eating be
The last of his chops, why, I almost drops,
For a wessel in sight I see!
“And I never larf, and I never smile,
And I never lark nor play,
But I sit and croak, and a single joke
I have–which is to say:
“Oh, I am a cook and a captain bold,
And the mate of the Nancy brig,
And a bo’sun tight, and a midshipmite,
And the crew of the captain’s gig!”
Look up “confraternity” and “sodality”; tradesmen’s guilds fall into into these categories, too.
There were medieval lay movements, like these, to pick just one example.
I’ll just add one more thought: the whole idea of “a Protestant Gospel” strikes me as a contradiction in terms. There is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism – one Gospel only. How we human beings have chosen to define and follow that Gospel (or not follow it) is another thing entirely (I think). But then, I’m coming from a particular background (old LCA Lutheran), and the confessions of faith in both the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds are kinda bedrock. (Sadly, differing interpretations of “one baptism” led my German ancestors – Catholic and Lutheran – to persecute and kill Anabaptists – and on and on…)
Surfnetter: I will not post another comment with anything as condescending as your last two paragraphs.
Martha — you are aptly named. “Mary has chosen the better portion …”
What was quoted of John Paul II above elucidates what the Catholic prohibition is all about. We don’t want to cause confusion by our behavior. But my receiving communion in a non-Catholic service will not cause as much problems as if the Pope were to do it. So the Pope can’t do it and he can’t say it’s alright to do it.
So maybe me here intimating that it’s alright to do it is causing some confusion. I’m sorry about that, but I’m just speaking to my experience with and among other Catholics. I’m trying to give an honest appraisal of the Catholic “experience” as opposed to the Catechism and Canon Law. That such a dichotomy exists — and it does, big time — may scandalize some, and infuriate others. It just makes me feel at home. What can I say …?
Well well.
Maybe the page can turn and we can get back to the topic at hand and put down the stones.
As an old school Protestant I have my own opinion. I know you invited your Catholic friends to comment, but the spirited conversation got me thinking about your intro Michael… “the quoted material from 2001’s ‘Death on A Friday Afternoon’ in mind, there’s ‘some hope’ that Neuhaus was saved by believing the Protestant Gospel.”
Not sure if you are using disparagement here but just for kicks after reading his (Neuhaus) comments the only conclusion I could come to was this: There is all the hope in the world that Neuhaus was saved if he believed the only (biblical) gospel—the gospel Jesus delivered via himself and the one Paul preached without apology. Just as Gentiles have no corner on grace, or dare I say it here, election—so us Protestants certainly can’t think we have exclusive rights to something we were freely given due to no merit of our own. For to do so would be to undermine justification by faith alone.
I was referring to the Gilbert post I linked.
I really hope that you all are taking note of Rev. William M. Cwirla’s comments … he’s got some good ones here.
I’m slow. Thought you were either referencing him or being ficitious. I read his post and your comment and agreed with you. My point is that we Protestants can be as stiff-necked and unflexible as anyone. Funny, I read Gilbert for the 1st time on Dever’s site this morning (book review of a favorite book ‘The Jesus I Never Knew’)—I found him pretty unflexible myself (and I don’t mean with the truth). Us Calvinists can be pretty proud about the truth we feel we somehow have by our own accord.
Thanks for the post Michael.
To return to iMonk’s original question about that Neuhaus quote, I can see absolutely nothing in it that would be in conflict with Catholic teaching. Maybe (- I wouldn’t know) the language he used is more traditional within Lutheranism than within Catholicism, but so what?
If one rejects them, then one may call oneself Catholic, but one isn’t.
Not so (according to Catholicism) but it’s an interesting distinction and it points to a major difference in Protestant thinking. If you were baptised Catholic (and haven’t formally renounced to a “a competent authority”) – then you’re still a Catholic! Maybe an ignorant one or rebellious or lapsed or in a state of mortal sin or whatever… but they’ve still gotcha. While what you think in your head matters and can be a form of sin… what you think in your head doesn’t define your status or membership in the way it does for other christian churches.
To IM – I feel for you. Catholic doctrine can be PROFOUNDLY frustrating, and I can’t imagine how frustrating it’d be to try to come to some kind of acceptance under duress and without the benefit of having grown up with “that way” of thinking. Maybe butting your head against the wall of “ugh do they REALLY BELIEVE THAT OR NOT?!?” isn’t helpful – but maybe it’s something you have to spend some time in to come out on the other side. I don’t know.