Jim McCrea shared a link to an article in Le Croix which I take to be a cry of anguish from a Catholic married to an Anglican. The object of anguish is the Catholic Church's policy which forbids many/most non-Catholics from receiving communion.
The author's life situation is as follows:
We live an interchurch marriage, I being a life-long Catholic, she a deeply faithful Anglican. Together we worship and participate in both our churches to whatever extent we are able.
Scripture tells us, and the Church has always believed and taught, that in marriage two individuals are made one, a unity so real and so strong that it cannot be dissolved short of death. As well, Jesus told us that unless we eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of His blood, we can have no life in us. We therefore ask where that one made so by God in marriage is to take and eat, take and drink? Surely, if Christ demands it, the Church/His Body must be able and willing to provide.
After 27 years of marriage, we have come to know how fraught can be the whole issue of receiving communion together, not just as individuals, but as the one made so by God in marriage.
This juxtaposition of marriage and ecclesial membership certainly deserves to be taken seriously. It is worthy of reflection, prayer and discernment.
Here is how they have worked it out in their own marriage:
I came to the conclusion that, whenever my wife is not welcome to receive (with the proviso always that she is asking for the Eucharist of her own free will, that there is no Anglican minister present at this worship time to whom she may go to receive, that she has a Catholic faith in the Eucharist, and that she is suitably disposed to receive), then I, too, will not receive, and instead join her in a Eucharistic fast.
The couple clearly is trying hard to navigate these requirements in a way that is respectful of the churches' authority.
I would never dismiss the distress of married couples trying to work through this situation. I can certainly understand the desire a person may feel to take communion with his/her spouse, and thus experience an ecclesial dimension to the unity they experience in their marriage.
FWIW, my views and advice are as follows:
1. As distressing as the policy is, it does possess the virtue of reflecting reality. The reality is that the Catholic Church and the Church of England are not fully in communion with one another. They surely are in communion with each other, but the communion is not full.
2. I would always encourage someone in the author's shoes to raise his/her voice in anguish, especially in the respectful way that this author has, to spur those who are charged with ecumenical dialogue to redouble their efforts to achieve full unity.
3. I encourage the couple to abide by the churches' rules regarding intercommunion. This means that Catholics may not receive communion in many/most non-Catholic churches. It also means that many/most Catholic spouses may not receive communion in Catholic churches. To be sure: in the anonymity of Catholic parish worship, it is not difficult for just about anyone to hop into the communion line without being challenged or stopped. But for a person to receive communion who is ineligible by the church's rules to receive it: it just seems - to coin a phrase - incoherent. If, in seeking to unite myself to an ecclesial body, I'm violating the ecclesial body's rules regarding unity, then - am I really uniting myself? The act seems self-contradictory and futile.
4. I encourage each spouse to continue to receive communion with her/his ecclesial body, Thus, I wouldn't endorse this couple's decision to engage in a eucharistic fast in solidarity with one another. I think it's better for each spouse to take communion in solidarity with her/his respective church. Even though in a mixed marriage, the spouses remain in communion with their respective churches, and it is important for the spouses to take part in the sacramental life on offer to them.
That a single marriage will bridge genuine doctrinal differences is a beautiful notion, but I fear it is not rooted in reality. Spouses who intermarry should do so understanding that their faith commitments will be something which they don't hold in common. Each should support the other in establishing and sustaining a life-giving relationship with the respective churches. That strikes me as a genuine way to support one another in marriage.
Jim, spoken like a true, blue cleric. But is it what Jesus wants? I don’t think so.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I should copy/paste my response to the article JimM posted here. But it’s on his email thread so anyone interested in our experience can read it there.
The point of the sharing of bread and wine is to remember Jesus and to try to learn to become Jesus for others. And his sharing of bread and wine with his followers, and his command to “ do this in memory of me” should not be forgotten because of man-made canon law. The husband and wife in this case, as in my own marriage, are both followers of Christ and denying both of them communion in either of their churches is a betrayal of Jesus’ commandments. However, only one church is betraying Jesus’s commandments here. Her church does not. They recognize that they are not the Christ and have no right to ban any of Jesus.s followers from the spiritual food he invited them to share.
Too many Catholics are so hyper involved with “ official Catholic teachings “ that they not only forget what Jesus himself taught, they actually go against Jesus’s teachings. They need to learn to open their minds and souls and listen to the Spirit instead of marching lockstep in conformity with ma made doctrines and rules and laws. They need to think for themselves and not let canon lawyers and bishops and other clerics do their thinlking for them.
I think Catholics and Anglicans who are married to one another should take seriously the hard fact that the two churches are not fully in communion with one another. Of course it's painful. Our lack of unity is painful. Let that be an impetus for us to work through what divides us. But I repeat myself.
DeleteJim, you still don’t get it. Focus on what Jesus taught through words and actions and compare all the manmade stuff to what he taught. There was no doctrine then’ and not for a very long time. Perhaps it’s long overdue for churches and their clerics and rules- makers to shed the manmade stuff, instead of clutching on to it desperately. Why the clutching’ - human pride maybe ? Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodon, Lutherans ne other Christians are all doing their best to follow Christ, all are Christians, and all are invited to Jesus’s table by Jesus himself. Petty men are stopping this,. Jesus weeps.
DeleteSure Anne, I get it: you have little or no patience with churches and denominations. You think these all are human constructs which set arbitrary rules and basically obstruct what Jesus wants.
DeleteI say this with the utmost respect: I don't agree with your views. I think they are ahistorical and unbiblical. But certainly many people hold that view these days, not only about churches but about many other sorts of social affiliation. It's a great crisis for churches, as well as for other social institutions.
"If, in seeking to unite myself to an ecclesial body, I'm violating the ecclesial body's rules regarding unity, then - am I really uniting myself? The act seems self-contradictory and futile." The question is, are we seeking to unite ourselves to an ecclesial body? I thought we were seeking to unite ourselves to the Body and Blood of Christ.
ReplyDeleteBut that said, I do have a little experience of abiding by the rules of intercommunion. We could have had a nuptial Mass at our wedding (50 years ago in 2022). We didn't, for the reason that my husband wasn't Catholic at that time, and would not have been allowed to receive Communion. He didn't join the church until 10 years later. I could have taken Communion any time in his church, but I didn't. For one thing, it was considered a commemoration, not a sacrament (they only recognized Baptism) and for another, they only had it once a quarter, and I was likely not there when they did. We worked out our own acceptance of the situation. But regarding other family members, there were some awkward moments. And more than once I mentally rolled my eyes and thought Catholics are lousy hosts, would we have guests in our homes sit there and watch us eat, because they didn't belong to our family? Would they have any reason to want to belong to our family?
"is, are we seeking to unite ourselves to an ecclesial body? I thought we were seeking to unite ourselves to the Body and Blood of Christ."
DeleteI would say that the ecclesial body - the local faith community - is the Body of Christ as it appears on earth at that particular moment. Naturally, there are parts of the church - and the Body - which aren't visible. And the Body is not whole: Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans et al are not fully bound to one another.
Jim, yeah. I get that. To a degree. But the bottom line of the Real Presence is that it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. And I don't believe that the fact that we are not fully bound to one another changes that.
Delete"the bottom line of the Real Presence is that it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. And I don't believe that the fact that we are not fully bound to one another changes that."
DeleteRight.
In the Catholic view, communion is on offer to those who have reached a certain point of initiation into the Catholic faith. For a Lutheran visitor, there are many possibilities: s/he wishes to forsake a Lutheran heritage and become Catholic; s/he is committed to Lutheranism; s/he was baptized as a child but never really became "churched" in any meaningful sense and knows very little about what Christians profess and believe - much less the distinctions between Catholic and Lutheran versions of those professions and beliefs.
There is a path for our Lutheran visitor for each of these "use cases". In the first case (wishes to become Catholic), it is a path of initiation; that could mean a confirmation program, or some sort of private instruction; each of these options is geared toward initiating the visitor sufficiently to be able to receive communion (which is to say, to be personally united with the ecclesial body).
The second case (a staunch, believing Lutheran) is the case of the wife of the author of the original article. She wants to remain an Anglican yet take communion in a Catholic church with her husband. For her, the path is ecumenism, which means that she'll be united with her husband's church when her own denomination achieves a critical mass of unity to enable us to engage in "table sharing". That may not happen tomorrow, or in any of our lifetimes. But it is the tragic, painful reality of a shattered, fragmented church. But in the meantime, she has an ecclesial body which seemingly gives her life and sustains her.
In the third case (a person who never has been immersed in Christian life beyond the initial immersion of baptism), if the person would like to become Catholic then the path is RCIA.
All of these cases presuppose initiation and commitment. That's what is missing in the analogies of 'why would we leave our guests to starve?' The answer is, We don't leave anyone to starve. Like the king in the parable, we invite everyone to the feast, even going out to the roadways and byways to invite the thieves, hookers and other less-than-respectables who are to be found on street corners and lurking in dark alleys. But we also join the king in his expectation that the guests he has generously invited are appropriately prepared for the occasion.
Oh, Jim. You still don’t really see. The Catholic Church is trying to force God into a little box of it’s making. The church tries to usurp God’s rights, deciding who may receive the grace of God’s unlimited love in the sharing of bread and wine. The church’s laws are manmade and seem to have little understanding of God or Jesus. The churchmen seek to replace God, and assert a right that doesn’t belong to them to close the door on millions of christ- followers whom Jesus himself invited to HIS table - exclude them’ simply because they aren’t members of a specific institution, of their little christian country club..
DeleteThe feast does not belong to the Catholic Church. They are not the hosts. It is Jesus who invites his followers to share the bread and wine at HIS table. Too often the Catholic Church makes itself into a god, idolizes itself.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
ReplyDeleteThe People of God, the Body of Christ, the saints, the brethren, the disciples, the Way, all these names for what is a divine mystery. We don’t know who ultimately will be in or out. At judgment day Christ will decide that. The Gospel says He will dismiss some who thought they were in because they did not recognize Him in the poor, the homeless, the imprisoned, etc. That says that we should see all human beings as potentially members of the Body of Christ.
Notice that I did not include Church in the above list. That is because in our culture it calls up images of buildings and the clergy. Those are misleading. The Greek word Ecclesia might be translated by gathering, assembly or (a modern term) network. Paul used it to describe household, city, regional and universal (gatherings, assemblies, networks).
Christians are members of multiple organizations (household, family, neighborhood, civic, professional, business, educational, recreational, hobby, parish, diocesan, denominational, etc.). The Gospel invites us to be Christians always and everywhere not just when we are in church organizations.
Households, marriages, and families are all communities, i.e. primary organizations in the language of sociologists where we interact with each other over a large range of our roles, e.g. son, husband, father, friend, worker, teacher, student, worshipper, etc. In other words people experience each other as persons rather than just as roles. Some neighborhoods, and small villages are also communities.
Although parishes and congregations advertise themselves as families and communities. sociologically they are secondary organizations where we interact with each other around religious themes and practices. Sometimes we know something of each other’s families, and work environments. However being family (brothers and sisters) to those with whom we interact frequently, and being neighbor to every one we encounter is part of the Gospel message. But those are ideals not realities. Parishes are more like non-profit business than primary communities.
In a pluralistic society as our own, Catholics are called to be brother and sisters and neighbors to many Christians who are not Catholic. And as a secular society we generally relate to other people by appealing to transcendent values such as truth, good, beauty, love, caring, that unite us rather than to specific religious values such as Scripture, Catholic Social Teaching, etc. As Christians we should be developing all our organizations into communities in which the talents of all are fostered and shared.
Proposal of An Anglican-Catholic Marriage Community
ReplyDeleteIf I were in such a marriage I would found it upon on Lauds (Morning Prayer) and Vespers (Evening Song) drawing upon both Roman and Anglican traditions. There are now plenty of internet resources for doing that. Part of the aim of Vatican II was to recover the importance of the Word of God as an equal partner with the Sacraments in the Sacred Liturgy. We accomplished that well in the Revised Mass, and the Sacraments. We failed however reforming the Liturgy of the Hours, and bringing it into a healthy balance with the Sacraments such as exists in the Eastern Churches. The Anglicans, however beginning with the Book of Common Prayer provided two hours (Morning and Evening Prayer) full of scripture readings.
This is not just a theoretical proposal based on the study of liturgy. Betty and I (although we are both Catholics who know few Anglicans) celebrate the hours supported by both Catholic and Anglican websites, as well as the local Orthodox parish which livestreams its services.
On Sunday mornings Betty and I listen to Heart and Voice for two hours (its founder was Anglican), then Betty does Canterbury Garden morning prayer while I go downstairs to exercise on the treadmill during Roman Lauds, we then join the monks at Meinrad for Mass, afterwards Betty listens to Eucharist from National Cathedral. She is more the musician than I. By that time I am ready to read and write, or do gardening.
On any evening we may join the Monks at Meinrad to sing Vespers with their beautiful psalm tones, and/or the choristers of Canterbury for their beautiful Choral Evensong.
So perhaps an Anglican-Catholic marriage can solve the problem of communion by livestreaming Eucharist liturgies. Livestreaming not only offers the opportunity of choosing from many excellent sources of homilies and sung music, one can be creative about where and with whom one does the livestreaming.
The last few Sundays we have been enjoying the fine weather by celebrating our Saint Meinrad liturgy at a picnic table in Headlands Beach state park using my new ipad. That not only offers a great deal of intimacy of the table but also the grandeur of the trees, and lake view, like being in a great cathedral. The ipad provides good sound for the immediate sounding area One could provide a circle of chairs around the table area. (Tables are far apart in this park)
Persons in such a mixed marriage could invite friends and relatives from both traditions to join themselves at home (or elsewhere such as at the park) for Eucharist, Lauds, or Vespers followed by a meal. We have lost the tradition of the Agape, or sacred meal with song and prayer that continued to celebrated once the meal had been separated from the Eucharist. Vatican II suggests this tradition might be revived especially in the context of feeding the poor.
The research behind American Grace emphasizes the importance of religious networks of family, friends and small groups in providing the extensive health, happiness, and giving of time, talent and treasure that characterize churchgoers. Simply put those who go to church without such networks don't receive any benefits. Also the benefits of such networks do not depend upon people being in the same denomination. So Anglican-Catholic networks should work without extensive involvement in two separate congregations without the tensions of one member being an outsider.
I have been very flexible in how, when and where I celebrate the hours over the course of my life; such flexibility would be a great advantage of doing all this liturgy at home.
Centering prayer groups are ecumenical, and most include people from multiple Christian denominations. That is one reason that CP is so powerful. There is no concern about doctrinal differences, differences in rites, or music, or prayers, or rules. The only prayer is silence. In CP we are one in Christ. The man-made divisions disappear,
ReplyDeleteI follow a FB group called Contemplative Monk. Its founder’s background is Protestant, but I don’t know the denomination’ but maybe Baptist or 7evangelical. It doesn’t matter. Today this post appeared, written by the founder (Bob Holmes).
When I write, I'm writing to the whole Body of Christ, not to, or out of one denomination, movement, or sect. You may exclude me but how could I ever exclude you if you're in the Body of Christ.
When I'm with Baptists, I'm a Baptist. When I'm with Charismatics, I'm a Charismatic. When I'm with AME, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals, Lutherns, Catholics, and Orthodox I am one.
How can that be? Because we are all in Christ. I look at our source and not our divisions. With 46,000 church divisions, they come and go. Christ remains the same. Exclusion is not Jesus.
Contemplation helps bring us back into the unity from which we were all born, by getting us out of our dualistic heads into our unitive and intuitive hearts. It's a consciousness jump into the mind of Christ. #returningtothesource
It's time for a conscious shift.
In the Catholic wing of Christianity, it’s long overdue to invite ALL members of the Body of Christ to the table.,
Anne, I follow a FB group, Contemplative Practice, moderated by the same person. I believe he is an Episcopalian.
DeleteAnne, yeah, that guy's views are pretty interesting. He's actually saying some good ecumenical stuff - except that it's all written in the first person singular. Ecumenism is about "we", not "me". It's not about an individual uniting with other individuals, it's about separated groups of adherents becoming closer to one another.
DeleteIt has occurred to me that ecumenism (the subject of my most recent homily!) is becoming obsolete, or at least less relevant, because folks' ecclesial bonds have become so much weaker. Maybe the task for the new century isn't to reunite churches, it's to call individuals from whatever spirituality they're in, into some recognizable form of discipleship. In other words, the imperative shifts from ecumenism to evangelization.
Jack and Anne - you make great points that praying with people of other faith backgrounds is a powerful way - perhaps the most profound way available to us - of expressing and deepening unity.
DeleteJack, I think your idea of people of other faiths making a spiritual communion together is intriguing. Spiritual communion certainly expresses a longing for communion.
"My Jesus,
I believe that You are present in the Most Holy Sacrament.
I love You above all things,
and I desire to receive You into my soul.
Since I cannot at this moment receive You sacramentally,
come at least spiritually into my heart.
I embrace You as if You were already there
and unite myself wholly to You.
Never permit me to be separated from You."
That prayer, which our pastor prays at our weekend liturgies for the benefit of people watching mass at home (not all of whom necessarily are Catholic) is not precisely ecumenical (as I mentioned in a prior comment to Anne, this prayer is a "me" prayer, not a "we" prayer), but captures something of the desire which may burn in people's hearts to be in communion with one another.
"In the Catholic wing of Christianity, it’s long overdue to invite ALL members of the Body of Christ to the table."
DeleteThe Fathers of the 2nd Vatican Council strenuously agree with you. I do to. And as I mentioned, it can be done. But it's more difficult and complicated than just doing it.
When I stand each week and profess my faith by reciting one of the creeds, I'm uniting my faith with that of the church I belong to (the Catholic church). When I receive communion, I'm uniting myself even more closely with the church, of which Jesus is the head.
What would it mean for me to go to an Episcopal church, recite their version of the creed, and receive communion with them? Well, for the most part - not entirely, but for the most part - I'd be affirming the same things I already believe as a Catholic.
The rub is the "for the most part". There are differences between what the Catholic church believes and what the Church of England believes. We're not ready - yet - to accept all their ordinations, they're not ready - yet - to accept what we believe about the pope, they don't accept the Deuterocanonical books of the bible as being scriptural, and so on (and so on).
One can't simultaneously be an Anglican and a Catholic. Of course, I'm oversimplifying it: what does it really mean to "be" a Catholic or an Anglican? It's not as simple as a light switch which is turned on or off. There are intermediate shades of gray - and interdenominational married couples surely live in the gray zones. Anyone who attends a spouse's church regularly, forging communal bonds and getting involved in ministries and activities, probably is living in a gray zone.
The Eucharist is not the property of the Roman Catholic Church. It is not the property of Anglicans, or the Othodox, or Lutherans. It belongs to all who follow Christ. The different Christian churches will never be one church as far as institutional structures are concerned. They will never agree on various doctrines and rules such as who may be ordained, or who should be the head of the institutions because all of that stuff is really missing the entire message of Jesus. Those are all man- made things, and they create man- made divisions.
DeleteBut the Eucharist was given by Jesus - to ALL his followers. It is not man-made and men have no right to go against what Jesus intended - that the bread and wine should be shared by all his followers in memory of him.
Bob Holmes is right when he writes “ Exclusion is not Jesus.”
Read it all again - he is all about the “ we”. He is part of the Baptist “ we”, the Anglican “ we”, the Catholic “we”. He is becoming closer to others - the RCC and some other Christian churches set themselves apart from other Christians. Their “we” is exclusionary. It’s about them - anyone who isn’t part if the club is unwelcome at the table. They are not part of the “ we”.
Many people do not see themselves as Christians, but as Catholics, or Orthodox, or Baptist or Methodist. That’s how you see it, Jim. You are far more a Catholic than you are a a christian. Identifying so strongly with a denomination trips people up. What Bob Holmes is saying to those who replace being christian with being Catholic, or Baptist or whatever is the crux of the matter
“ You may exclude me but how could I ever exclude you if you're in the Body of Christ.”
Years ago I knew a wonderful priest. He was an Episcopal priest. When he said his last mass at the EC parish i was attending then ( he was leaving to teach at Sewanee, an EC college) tears ran down my face the whole time. Most priests turn me off. (The two I’ve liked the best were EC priests). He once talked about his views of the different churches. He said the churches were like the spokes of a wagon wheel, all connected to the hub in the center. Jesus is the hub. Each church is connected to the hub, focused on the hub, but each views the hub from a slightly different perspective. But all are part of Jesus’ church. You say that when you take communion you are uniting yourself with the church of which Jesus is the head. Yet you exclude all members of Jesus’ church who don’t happen to be formally Catholics. But they too are part of the church of Jesus. You aren’t uniting yourself with Jesus’s church, but only with the part that calls itself Roman Catholic. You are uniting yourself with a religious club, not with the church of Jesus.
I don’t consider myself Anglican or Catholic. When I joined an episcopal parish I deliberately chose to not formally join the ECUSA. I consider myself to be a person who tries to follow the teachings of Jesus, aka, a christian. Denomination doesn’t matter to me anymore. It does nor matter to my EC parish. I am welcome at the table. I am part of their parish community. I don’t need a membership card. I believe that their approach is much closer to what Jesus wants than the triumphalism of the RCC.
When I go to Orthodox services I often wear my St. Catherine's cross named after the monastery at the base of the mount where the ten commandments were given.
DeleteWhen JP2 visited them, they pointed out to reporters that they do not consider themselves to be a part of any patriarchy either East or West and therefore not part of their mutual excommunications. Rather an an independent diocese with the rank of archbishop they consider themselves subject only to the Gospels and the Ecumenical Councils.
As monks they considered themselves descendants of Saint Anthony, often called the father of monasticism. Monks in general did not consider themselves to be subject to bishops. The saying among them was "Keep away from all bishops and women." they thought both spelled trouble for their independence.
The Orthodox and Communion
ReplyDeleteAt Vatican II our bishops decided it was acceptable for our people to approach the Orthodox for sacraments when no Catholic church was available and we were willing to accept Orthodox for our sacraments when no Orthodox church was available. The Orthodox rejected this idea. Since there are few Orthodox churches in many Western countries while there are many Catholic Churches they really want to encourage their people to travel far distances and to establish Orthodox churches in their local areas. They don't want them to take the easy route of going to the local Catholic church.
For the last thirty years I have gone to the local Orthodox church for Vespers and other Divine Offices, and for weekday Divine Liturgy on their major feasts, e.g. Annunciation, Transfiguration that are not celebrated much as holy days in the West. When I began to do this more frequently after I retired the pastor invited me for coffee to discuss my interest. I was, of course, doing exactly what Vatican II said, celebrating in his parish when equivalent services were not available in mine. He appreciated my ND degree and the fact I was taught by Father Taft, the eminent Byzantine liturgist.
Some Orthodox pastors will admit some Catholics whom they know well and who understand Orthodoxy to communion. I did not ask him about communion and I do not know what I would have done if he had offered to accept me as a communicant. I think to do so might have caused him problems. He has many former Roman Catholics who have been admitted after instruction by Chrismation. What would these people think about him letting me to go to communion without the ritual process?
Also I am not really ready to engage in many of the practices of their congregation. They go to confession quarterly. The have a fast before communion like we had before Vatican II, and they have a very severe fast during Lent. Why should I get to skip all these things and go directly to communion?
I feel very welcomed to all their services. At communion time often several of them will bring me the blessed bread and wine that they use as a kind of mouth wash after receiving the consecrated bread soaked in wine. At vespers on greater feasts I go up at the end of the service to be have my head anointed with oil and receive the blessed bread soaked in wine all symbolic of feasting.
On the other hand there are many Orthodox practices that I do not observe such as kissing icons, and the multiple signs of the cross throughout all the liturgy. I don’t go up to the priest and receive his blessing at the end of Vespers or Divine Liturgy. He is not my spiritual father.
So I have worked out a relationship that is true both to my Catholic background and my love and understanding of Orthodoxy. The pastor considers me an associate member of the parish; I consider my self to be a honored guest, and think I should be since my practice of the Divine Office is closer to that of their monastics. Their priests are not encouraged or required to pray the Office privately.
Incidentally, I don’t think theological differences between us are important. I would be very happy if Rome accepted all their positions. I consider our lack of intercommunion to be due to clericalism, the desire of clerics to make mountains out of mole hills.
Jack - “ I consider our lack of intercommunion to be due to clericalism, the desire of clerics to make mountains out of mole hills“
DeleteExactly right, Jack.
About the differences between the Orthodox and Catholics, they mostly do seem to be mole hills. I never have understood why the "filioque" mattered. Back when it started I think it had a lot to do with politics. Seems like the Catholics would be pretty okay about intercommunion, it's the Orthodox who object. Maybe there's still some politics.
DeleteKatherine, I suspect it’s more about the “ primacy” of the Bishop of Rome that the RCC allèges ( not to mention infallibility, a doctrine put forth for political reasons also):than about the filioque dispute. They also have doctrinal differences related to the Eucharist, as well as different rules such as those on remarriage after divorce, married priests etc. They are behind even the RCC n some ways when it comes to women but apparently are giving serious consideration to having women deacons. They focus more on the Incarnation than does the RCC, a good thing. You need stamina for their services which are very long and the congregation stands for much of them. Sometimes I have had to hold on to the pew back in front of me when standing through a service. :(
DeleteThe problem is the centralization of power in Rome that took place slowly over the last thousand years but accelerated in the past several centuries. Most people do not recognize that the appointment of bishops by Rome is a product of recent centuries. Papal documents have increased in recent centuries, and the constant attention of the media on the Papacy and especially the many Papal trips are also recent.
DeleteThe Orthodox are very appreciative of Francis and his ideas about synods. They want to see how synods change our Church and how future popes relate themselves to synods before they consider reconciliation with us.
Is full reconciliation even a necessary (or possible) goal? It seems like intercommunion and recognizing one another's marriages and ordinations are worthwhile partial goals.
DeleteAnne, about the long standing through Orthodox services, afraid my behind would be sitting in the pew. I don't mind the sitting and standing through Mass, but I haven't been able to kneel for years. I feel like a slacker when some people in our parish who are 90 plus kneel through the whole Eucharistic prayer.
DeleteMy late brother-in-law had some family who were Syrian Orthodox. He said a lot of people didn't come to the whole service; some of them came for the last hour. It was mostly old people who were there for the whole thing.
While the Orthodox do stand for most of their services, it is very common for the elderly and those with disabilities to take rests during the services by sitting down usually during the less important parts of the services.
DeleteOrthodox often come later because the service begins with Matins, and there is a long Entrance Rite (about the length of one of our Little Hours. Our notions of everybody coming and arriving just in time are very modern. Gathering rites arose because people did slowly gather for services, and needed psalms, hymns, and prayers to keep them occupied. Especially since there were not pews.
Katherine, you made me laugh. I would sometimes be standing next to a little old lady about 4’ 10” (I’m 5’7”), who looked about 90, all in black clothes, looking like one of the extras in My Big Fat Greek Wedding. They didn’t hold on to the pew. They were ramrod straight, standing through it all. They shamed me into not weakening and sitting down.
DeleteAgree with you completely on this
“Is full reconciliation even a necessary (or possible) goal? It seems like intercommunion and recognizing one another's marriages and ordinations are worthwhile partial goals.”
And this should involve more than just the Orthodox and RC churches.
There is a saying that could apply to the notion that all the Christian churches wil reunite some day - “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. The Anglicans, Lutherans, and Orthodox will never agree to all of the RCC’s demands. Even less likely are the Baptist’s and other forms of evangelical Christianity. And there is really no need for it - as long as everyone can begin to see what Bob Holmes sees so clearly - all are part of the body of Christ. All are part of Jesus’s church.
“
“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.
DeleteRealistically the goal is intercommunion, recognition of marriages, ordinations, etc. Just think of the temptations to corruption if each city had one Christian bishop over all the other denominations. Power leads to corruption.
Well, I guess one secret to remaining a Catholic in good standing is to avoid marriage entirely as an occasion of sin. Whether as an interfaith marriage or an eventual breakup, it's "trouble, my friends, right here in River City". Unmarried and Catholic is the easiest combination. Avoiding that other sacrament, Holy Orders, makes the peace complete. Not having my life run by a Cardinal Burke or some such. Good grief, I've become terminally cynical.
ReplyDeleteNo, you are just becoming a good desert solitary. Many people in the early church believed that the solitary life was the highest life. Even Benedict in his rule acknowledges it has a higher place, although he thought that monks needed to live in a community before attempting such a life.
DeleteOne of the nice things about knowing a lot of church history is that one can usually find a good past precedent for things.
LOL! Stanley, avoiding marriage is also avoiding having children. Since the RCC DEMANDS that couples who wish to marry in the RCC PROMISE to try to have children(no birth control either), it seems that avoiding marriage might also be construed as a possible sin. :)
DeleteAfter all, Stanley, you haven't produced a new generation for the pews, and, especially, you have reduced the possible numbers of future pew sitters who toss money in the basket......
Jack,
DeleteYou definitely put a positive spin on it. I have to admit, the thought of living an isolated, solitary existence has had an appeal to me. I think I'd have to beef up my prayer life before I'd attempt it. And where to do it?
Anne,
Thanks for pointing out a third pitfall of marriage and Catholicism. The whole birth control thing. Marriage makes things so complicated for Catholics. Bad enough (for heteros) that you have to dock with beings from another planet. All this other baggage in addition.
I am a fan of Rachel Held Evans. I learned a lot from her books about the evangelical world that millions of Americans inhabit, especially in the south. She also wrote a great book about what discovering the sacraments as a new Episcopalian meant to her.
ReplyDeleteShe grew up strict southern evangelical. After leaving that religious environment she eventually joined an Episcopal parish with her husband, whom she met when both were students at the Christian “bible” college where her father taught. This quote is from her book “ Searching for Sunday- Loving,, Leaving, and Finding the church”:
She died a couple of years ago, only in her 30’s, due to an adverse reaction to medication. She had two very young children when she died. A bright light, taken too soon.
She wrote “ But the gospel doesn’t need a coalition devoted to keeping the wrong people out. It needs a family of sinners, saved by grace, committed to tearing down the walls, throwing open the doors, and shouting, “Welcome! There’s bread and wine. Come eat with us and talk.” This isn’t a kingdom for the worthy; it’s a kingdom for the hungry.”
I only read about her after she died. Yes, way too soon. I would have liked her writing.
DeleteHer books are still available. I have several of them.
Delete