I preached this past weekend on the Eucharist. Sharing here a couple of other thoughts that occurred to me in the course of reflecting on what to say about the Eucharist.
1. As the church in the US has been going through its Eucharistic Revival (which I believe came to an end last month with the National Eucharistic Congress), I've been aware of a particular thread of thought which I've been hearing all my life, and which I think is unfortunate: a chauvinistic Catholic thread which says, 'We are the best church, because only we have the Eucharist.'
First of all, that claim is blatantly untrue. The Catholic church acknowledges the validity of the Eucharist in Orthodox churches. That is no small thing: while the Orthodox presence in the US is comparatively small (perhaps a few million Orthodox in the US, according the Google machine), there are a quarter of a billion Orthodox members worldwide. It's the second largest communion of Christian believers in the world. And from the Catholic church's point of view, there is no doctrinal objection to offering communion to an Orthodox adherent, nor to a Catholic receiving communion in an Orthodox church - although as I understand it, our Orthodox brothers and sisters do have a problem with Catholics receiving in their churches, and so the Catholic church asks Catholics to respect the wishes of the Orthodox in this matter and not come forward for communion.
And there are many other denominations from the Protestant heritage who have communion in some form or other. I understand there are formal Catholic church declarations and prohibitions which don't permit "table sharing" - prohibitions which, I have reason to believe, are widely ignored at the grass roots, where the 'family ecumenism' of Catholics marrying Anglicans, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, et al is a real and growing thing, and many people have a foot planted in more than one denomination or church. My purpose here is not to make light of the prohibitions, which do have some genuine doctrinal concerns underlying them, nor to encourage the sort of interdenominational "table sharing" I'm describing, but simply to observe how widespread it seems to be. I'd like to suggest that there is no more urgent ecumenical priority than to address the barriers that prohibit such table sharing, as I know, from speaking with parishioners, that it is a genuine source of pain in the lives of many families.
But beyond the specifics of table sharing with different denominations: can we not drive a stake through the heart of the Catholic chauvinism? If a lifelong Catholic like me finds it unattractive, I can only imagine how it comes across to someone who isn't Catholic. I've always understood the Second Vatican Council as a moment to reset the adversarial stance of Catholics toward Protestants (a vestige of the age of the Reformation) as well as toward Orthodox (a vestige of separation a half-millennium or so before the Reformation). We should be working to open our own hearts and the hearts of others to Christian unity. That is what Jesus prayed for. The Eucharist is the sacrament of unity. That it can instead be deployed as a source of division must feel to Jesus like the nails are still being driven through his hands and feet.
2. If Catholics really believe what the church professes to believe as laid out in John's Bread of Life discourse:
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
... then the massive falling-away of Catholics from regular worship and church affiliation is a pastoral disaster which is difficult to overstate. Parents and grandparents should be freaked out that their children and grandchildren don't go to mass. (And don't get baptized. And don't get married in the church. And so on.) It feels like we're comfortably ensconced in sleep while the Titanic is capsizing.
As a fallen away Catholic but still Christian of indeterminate variety, I wish I had useful insights.
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that many Catholics think they've got Jesus in a Box and only they get to consume the Body and Blood, and they're going to ask a lot of intrusive questions and set up roadblocks for anybody who wants to share thru the inquisitorial squad running any local RCIA.
The Eucharist in Anglican and Lutheran churches teaches the Real Presence but does not insist that people believe in Transubstantiation, though many do. So, more than a commemoration, but not up to snuff as far as Catholics are concerned, and most Catholics don't understand or care about that distinction.
I know some Anglicans and Lutherans married to Catholics who tell the priest they believe in Transubstantiation are sometimes allowed to receive by that priest, but have to cut a deal with a new priest, who may not allow it.
Only Catholics, as far as I know, worry about unworthy people receiving Communion. There is excommunion for heretics in the Anglican and Lutheran communions. But the service includes a mass Confession and act of contrition before the Eucharist, and that is deemed sufficient.
So: I don't think you can get rid of Catholic chauvinism (if it's the truth, is it chauvinism?) as long as Catholics make it clear that the Table is for no one but them. And maybe that's not a bad thing. It may lead some who want it bad enough to go thru RCIA.
But expect that RCIA won't stick for everybody. And, again, is that bad? You've weeded out the flaccid, the ditherers, and the lukewarm.
I still find inspiration in what Catholics do with the Word.
I am sorry to be part of the "pastoral disaster," but I don't think that freaking out about whatever you think is a consequence of our falling away helps.
Freaking out never does.
I knew someone once who formulated the Catholic views about communion for Anglicans, Lutherans et al, this way: 'Who can constrain what God chooses to do? It's entirely possible that communion in these Protestant churches is every bit as valid as communion in a Catholic parish. It's just that the Catholic church can't affirm that God is, in fact, acting this way among Protestants'. I find that appealing.
DeleteTo drill down a bit further on that idea: one of the traditional Catholic objections to communion in Protestant churches is that the 'chain of continuity' has been broken: whoever is presiding hasn't been ordained by a bishop who was ordained by other bishops who were ordained by other bishops who were ordained by...all the way back to Catholic (or Orthodox) bishops who have the requisite stamp of apostolic succession. I understand serious attempts have been made to trace the apostolic succession of bishop in the Anglican Communion to try to confirm that the chain has or hasn't been broken. But as my friend would put it: even if the chain has been broken in a particular instance, couldn't God make the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, even in that case? For myself, I don't know why it would be impossible. It's just that, how would we ever know?
I am not asking for more explanations of Catholic doctrine (please, no!) or arguing with what you believe, Jim. I admire, occasionally envy at times, your faith and that of everyone here.
DeleteI will say that I don't think your average cradle Catholic, deacon, or parish priest understands Jack about Protestants except that "they're wrong." That works against being able to help Protestant converts translate their experience into the Catholic milieu.
But, by same token, people like feeling that they know better than everyone else and are on the winning team, recipients of the premium package, earning bonus points. Whatever. So that Catholic "chauvinism" probably attracts as many people as it frustrates.
In my personal experience, a scary disease has a wonderful ability to force you to be honest about what you truly believe about the Eternal. For me it's "I have no effing clue," and I made peace with that back when I got the cancer diagnosis.
What seems to matter to me is to actively look for ways I can be of service to other creatures, to say my daily prayers and learn from the saints, and to trust in God' s mercy. You never get a pass for that stuff.
If none of this speaks to the concerns of your post, my apologies.
Jean - it speaks powerfully to me.
DeleteAnd no intention to debate or dispute with you on this stuff. My apologies if my previous comment came across that way.
Although the Orthodox are stricter about who receives the Eucharist than we are, many Orthodox churches manage this well because at the end Eucharist they distribute "blessed bread" and "blessed wine" to non-Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteAfter an Orthodox person receives the consecrated bread steeped in consecrated wine from the chalice, they then proceed to the "handmaidens" (women who function like servers by don't wear liturgical garb). One holds a bowl of pieces of blessed bread which came from the same loaf as the consecrated bread, the other a tray of small plastic cups with blessed wine. The Orthodox consider this a cleansing process to make sure they have swallowed all the consecrated elements.
Any non-Orthodox may come forward to receive the blessed bread, and Orthodox who are not communing (e.g. because they have not fasted from midnight) can also receive the blessed bread and wine.
I mostly go to Divine Liturgies on weekday feasts when there are few people, most of whom know me. Usually at least one and perhaps several will bring me back a piece of blessed bread and a cup of wine. It is all very beautiful and welcoming. Over the years they have learned that I come to their church mainly for the celebration of the Hours, and that the Hours are a great part of my life. So, I feel like an honored guest rather than a second-class citizen.
On great feasts the Orthodox also bless bread steeped in wine at Vespers in anticipation of the feast. At the end of service people come up to be anointed by the priest on their forehead and then receive blessed bread from the servers. Non-Orthodox are also welcome.
So, they have a practice which is very much like what Pope Francis wants, "blessings" for everyone even though there still rules about the Eucharist.
Anglicans invite all baptized Christians to the Table, and the unbaptized to the altar for a blessing. Before baptism in the Episcopal Church, I used to receive the blessing. But that's not the RCC way, apparently.
DeleteIn RCIA, we were kept out of sight except at the Rite of Sending and another rite, maybe the exorcism, but they called it something else.
Never felt like honored guests, valued future members, or anything but conspicuous nuisances standing up there and lengthening the Mass for everyone else.
"As the church in the US has been going through it's Eucharistic Revival (which I believe came to an end last month.." Actually the remainder of this year into next year's Holy Year is supposed to be a year of recruiting people back to church.
ReplyDeleteBeginning this past Sunday, the pastor has asked us to pray for people who no longer come to church and then ask them to come back. Betty was not feeling well so we went to the live-streamed Mass. I don't know what the prayer says or about the suggestions on the back of the card. The pastor emphasized being non-judgmental and welcoming.
Next Sunday people are supposed to put these cards with first names in a basket that will be kept near the altar until Catechetical Sunday in September when they hope to welcome many people back!!! He tells us no one will look at the names (I don't know that I trust him, I wonder if this is some sort of count of how many parish members know how many nonattending parish members!)
Despite all the good intentions, I think this process still reeks of Eucharistic elitism that Jim finds objectional. I will really be surprised if many people return in September other than the usual seasonal increase that occurs because of all the people who don't go to church during the summer for various reasons. I am sure there will be more people there in September than were there last week.
Fortunately, in October parishes have taken Mass attendance over the years for their annual report to the diocese. I think this is common practice around the country because October is a good month to get the average attendance.
If the pastor starts to tell stories about how all this is succeeding, I will be tempted to ask him to produce solid data. Actually, the parish has been taking census around the year since the pandemic was over, but I have not seen any figures. I think both taking weekly census and not publishing it are probably evidence that the news is not good news.
I think it's always good to be open and inviting. And I am certain that some people leave for a while, then find their way back (at least for a while). Some people are more seekers than others.
DeleteI also think it's good for parish communities to ask themselves, "Why have people left us?"
"We are the best church, because only we have the Eucharist."
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of clericalism has formed around the Eucharist in the West. Just compare us to the Orthodox.
The Orthodox do not have adoration of the reserved sacrament. Rather icons of the saints and the events of Christ life are what receive reverence when one enters the church. One goes up to the table before the icon screen which has on it an icon for the day, one kisses it, bows, and then usually goes to some other icon and lights a candle.
For centuries the Roman Church was involved in "private" Masses by priests. All the priest monks of an Abbey celebrated private Masses as well as going to the community Mass. When I was a freshman at Wheeling Jesuit College before the Council, the Jesuit house had this room behind the chapel with all these little cubby hole altars at which the priests celebrated their Masses without servers. I knew this because I served the President's Mass in the House Chapel.
All this is unimageable to Orthodox. They have always concelebrated Eucharists in the churches. The rule is that only one Eucharist can be celebrated at an altar each day.
The Orthodox kept the chalice for the laity for centuries when we reserved it for priests. The Orthodox translated their liturgies into the vernacular when we kept ours in Latin. The Orthodox allowed their priests to marry while we reserved the priesthood for celibates.
So, we formed a very clerical church around our way of celebrating the Eucharist. The liturgical reforms of Vatican II were long overdue; they sparked a liturgical renewal in many Protestant churches that no longer saw themselves as needing to distance themselves from our ways of celebrating Eucharist.
However we might have kept right doctrine about the Eucharist for centuries we certainly errored very deeply in our liturgical practices, most of which supported a very elitist clericalism.
Jack, I'm very grateful for these details of Orthodox practices.
DeleteJust want to mention that my first instinct is to leap to the defense of "my team" (the Catholic church). :-) Maybe that's a human reaction. It's hard to see one's own family criticized. But we have to be willing to do it.
At the archdiocesan seminary where I did deacon formation, the seminary chapel basement has the altar "cubbies" you describe. I hope they're not used anymore, but the last time I saw them (which probably was 20 years ago), they looked to be in distressingly good upkeep!
Jim, thank you for addressing the "...chauvinistic Catholic thread which says, 'We are the best church, because only we have the Eucharist"
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, I have plenty of experience of feeling "cringy" about that particular thread. We were a "mixed marriage" for ten years until my husband became a Catholic in 1982. My parents were mixed too until I was 6 years old. Half my blood relatives and all of my in-laws were Protestants of one stripe or another. When we did marriage prep the priest said we could have a Mass for the wedding if we wanted, but my husband couldn't receive Communion. That was not acceptable to either of us; we had a wedding without a Mass. My parents also did, in 1950 they had to stand outside the Communion rail for the ceremony. My grandparents in 1927 got married in the sacristy, so I guess we have made a little ecumenical progress over time.
As far as different beliefs about Communion, I wish Catholics would lose the idea that the Communion of other denominations "isn't real" or doesn't mean anything, or doesn't require reverence. My husband's former church was a small evangelical denomination similar to Baptist. Their understanding was that it is symbolic, and they only had it once a month. But definitely their teaching was that one should be properly disposed and "right with God" (sounds pretty much like "in the state of grace').
I don't have much experience of the ECUSA, but I do have a copy of the Book of Common Prayer. It has this to say about reception of Communion: ".. my duty is to exhort you...to consider the dignity of that holy mystery, and the great peril of the unworthy receiving thereof; and so to search and examine your own consciences, and that not lightly...but so that ye may come holy and clean to such a heavenly feast..."
None of this is sounding like Protestants take their version of Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper lightly.
An Episcopal priest offers "the body of Christ, the bread of Heaven" and "the blood of Christ, the cup of salvation" at the Eucharist.
DeleteI understand that Catholics do not believe that an Anglican priest can consecrate the elements. I know all the objections--apostolic succession, women priests, wrong type of bread, incorrect words at consecration and distribution, etc, etc. A pale imitation of what Catholics claim to have on their table, maybe.
That leads some Catholics to assume there is some deliberate fakery or fraud going on. The idea of taking Communion in a Protestant church horrifies them.
But I wish that Catholics could see the Eucharist in other denominations as a sincere yearning toward unity and connection with Jesus.
Jean, that is how I do see it. I don't think we can know exactly how God is present in the sacrament or ordinances of other denominations. However He wants to be, I guess. Because God is God and we are not.
DeleteGod is with anyone who asks for help, sometimes in sacraments, sometimes in the actions of other people, sometimes in the words of prayers and Scripture, sometimes in the wonders of nature that take you out of yourself. I found a little toad in my garden yesterday--they've been more scarce in recent years--and it reset my crummy mood.
DeleteWell, I've expressed my feelings on the subject previously. But, to summarize, I do believe in an open table as was done in my Episcopal parish. They taught that Jesus is present in communion but they don't attempt to try to explain how. Just that Jesus is there and that Real Presence is a mystery. Jesus invited ALL of his followers to "do this in memory of me:" He didn't require a Catholic baptismal certificate. He wouldn't - after all, Jesus wasn't a Roman Catholic nor were followers. They were Jews. The church over the centuries set up dozens of mechanisms of control. This is just one of them.
ReplyDeleteNext - many Catholics (and most christians) do not interpret his words at the last supper or in John literally. They understand them to be metaphor, as they understand much of scripture to be metaphor. Not all teach Real Presence in any way - they often say communion is symbolic. The doctrine of transubstantiation means a literal belief that the wine is human BLOOD and the host is human FLESH. Even if concealed as bread and wine, the teaching really comes down to cannibalism. This is very off-putting to both Catholics and other Christians. Reese had a good article on this a couple of months ago. Augustine had a more acceptable understanding but for some reason the PTB cling to Aquinas.
As we know, and have known for many years now, there are multiple hot button issues that cause Catholics to leave, ranging from the refusal of a sacrament to women and the teaching on complementarity (which basically says that women are meant by God to be subordinate to men), to contraception, to teachings related to homosexuality (and gender in recent years), and abortion (of course) - and the bishops tacit support of trump.
The church frequently declares that it does not change teachings because it alone has Truth. And intelligent, educated people often think - "but this teaching is wrong, so I'm out of here". The church can't control by fear of hellfire any more as it did for most of its history. I wouldn't panic about the kids and grandkids (and old cradle Catholics like me) who leave as long as they are "good" people trying to do the right thing, confess to God (no need for a priest) when they know they did something wrong to hurt people, and care for others.. I suspect God is more understanding about this stuff than human beings are.
Based on the experience of my son who has remained Catholic because of his wife, it seems that the church has put up a huge number of hoops for couples wanting to marry, to baptize their kids, etc. They had to deal with far more requirements than my husband and I did for marrying or getting our kids baptised. We were a "mixed" marriage - with my husband invited by the pastor to receive communion during the nuptial mass. Three months lead time, not a year. My son and his wife were both Catholic and still had lots of hoops.. A Protestant friend's daughter married a Catholic in the church about 20 years ago and they were told they couldn't have a nuptial mass at all). RCIA sounds like a disaster based on Jean's experience.
The recent Eucharistic Congress cost $14 million and attracted hordes of conservative true believers. They had a great party apparently. But if it was meant to bring back former Catholics or keep current Catholics in the pews who aren’t already conservative Catholics, I suspect it was nothing more than a very expensive party.
Continued
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jean's last three sentences in her second comment. I don't know anything real about life after death, eternity, and I don't think anyone else does either. It's all just intellectual reasoning based on human interpretations of scome scriptures which may, or may not, have been the actual words used by Jesus. Or maybe pure speculation.
"What seems to matter to me is to actively look for ways I can be of service to other creatures, to say my daily prayers and learn from the saints, and to trust in God' s mercy".
My Greek Orthodox friend tells me that she was horrified when the priest at her church told the teenagers that the Orthodox Church is the 'one, true church" and sole possessor of Truth. So the Catholics aren't the only ones who engage in a bit of triumphalism. From what I've read of Orthodoxy, they are a bit vague about what Real Presence means - and they seem to leave it up to the individual to figure it out.
The reasons Catholics have been leaving have been clear for 30 years or more. But the church people prefer to sling arrows at those who leave rather than look in a mirror and ask what they might be doing to contribute to the problem. The fault is always with the leaver - "they just want to lead hedonistic lives:". They won't listen even though there are dozens of studies out there that report what former Catholics say about why they leave. It seems an impasse. The church has not persuaded millions of Catholics that all the teachings that they claim to be "must believes" are really believable. But they insist that none of the teachings that are pushing people out the door can be changed.
About this, "..the massive falling-away of Catholics from regular worship and church affiliation is a pastoral disaster which is difficult to overstate." I agree. I would feel badly if our kids were some of the "nones". Whether it were true or not, I would feel that we had somehow set them a poor example.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, I’f any do leave it won’t be because you and your husband set a poor example. It will be because they simply don’t accept everything about Catholicism that you accept. I’m quite sure that they are thinking, educated adults and that your grandchildren will be also, Trust God to lead them to whatever their spiritual path might be, you did your part. But young people of all religious denominations have clearly stated their disagreement with many teachings and also the rampant hypocrisy that they see in people who call themselves Christian but don’t act like it once outside Sunday services.
DeleteI suppose that for the RCC, which has arguably been around for 2000+ years, there are inevitably periods where the Church is more ecumenical and tolerant. And periods where it is more exclusive and hardline.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the finest hours, to outsiders anyway, of any denomination are the ones where they are cracking down, kicking ass, and taking names. Maybe these hardline periods are necessary in the long term. At least nobody's getting burned up or hung, drawn, and quartered.
“ At least nobody's getting burned up or hung, drawn, and quartered.”
ReplyDeleteLol! I suppose that is an improvement after almost two thousand years of torturing and executing “ heretics”
Not limited to Catholics, of course. The Protestant Tudors cut through a wide swath of Catholics. And an ancestor of mine, George Jacobs, got hanged in that Salem witchcraft deal.
DeleteThey sure did - the cruelty and violence was not confined to one group. But since the Catholic Church as pretty much the only christian game in town much of the torture and execution history was on the Catholic Church - until the split with the Orthodox and the the Reformation? The whole range of “Christians” were pretty bloodthirsty ( except maybe the Quakers and a couple of others).
Delete