Why Do We Want People to Stay Catholic, Anyway?
A couple of interesting posts below have worried about the number of people leaving the Church. Is it because they’re badly educated? Is it because the Church no longer resonates experimentally with them? Is it because they view the Church as morally corrupt (child abuse)?
As I thought about the question, I realized it might be fruitful to approach it from another angle: Why do we want people to stay?
First it must be said that many people don’t. They think that if you’re not 100 percent on board, leave. If you don’t accept the Church’s teaching on hard issues, well, leave. If you’re not with us, you are against us–so get out. Better a small, pure faithful Church. If you think the Church teaching is wrong on any point, well, be honest. Join the Protestants.
Another answer is, we want them to stay for extrinsic reasons. We wan their money. We want to be able to count their numbers in our group. We want to be able to exercise more political power. If only . .Catholics didn’t leave, and were faithful., we could transform America. And even if they’re not faithful, keeping them in the fold is the first step.
We could also say, we want them to stay for their sakes–they will lose something by leaving. Extra ecclesiam non salus est. But most people, I think, wouldn’t go that far. They would say that they are losing an objectively fruitful way of communicating with God, through membership in the Body of Christ, in its Catholic form. The trouble with that argument, of course, is that people tend to want to define what counts as their own good-even spiritually. And most people are inclined to respect that–not always the case in every society. It’s hard not to see that some people seem happier and better adjusted and to have a better prayer life after they’ve left.
We could say that their leaving bothers us because it says something troublesome about us. We haven’t been able to go forth and evangelize; we’re not communicating the message of Christ effectively. We are failing in our vocations –in passing on the faith. When Jesus comes back, he’s going to say, Hey, what happened here? Two thousand years and you were the ones who lost it all for me?”
But even the ideas of “leaving” and “staying” are problematic. The idea of leaving the Catholic Church, in eras and areas where life was permeated by it, by its philosophy, its imagination, its practices, was almost unthinkable. But in the US, at the beginning of the 21st century, it’s entirely thinkable –and doable. Change is in our culture. Most Catholics know and are friends with non-Catholics. Leaving the Church wouldn’t necessarily mean a great disruption in the rest of one’s life. We don’t live our lives in one place–moving is in every sense less traumatic than it was in earlier eras.
So have we, for better or worse, simply become one more Christian denomination?
“Why do we want people to stay Catholic anyway?” Because we want them to know the truth about The Truth. To Love someone in the fullness of Truth is to desire Salvation for them.
One of my professors in college left. He and his family are now in their second decade of Russian Orthodoxy. Not only were they scandalized by certain leaders, but they were deeply concerned about the liturgical and catechetical dreariness in all (ALL) the local Catholic parishes.
I thought of leaving because these scandals were real and affected me too. But, fortunately, unity is my favorite transcendental. I believe that there is a great “Church”–in the empyrean if you like, but concretely, “visibly” here too–and that this is the Church to belong to.
Orthodoxy has real sacraments, the real Eucharist, or I wouldn’t have even gone that far.
I misread the title and thought I saw: Why Do We Want the Pope to Stay Catholic, Anyway?
So have we, for better or worse, simply become one more Christian denomination?
I think we are. I don’t think that’s saying something bad about Catholicism but giving credit to the belief that other denominations are real churches too. Maybe more people wouldn’t leave if emphasis was on the unique spirituality the Catholic Church has to offer.
Hello Cathy (and All),
“Why do we want people to stay?”
Since I reverted to the Roman Catholic Church I have sometimes asked myself, “Why do I stay?”. Leave it to you to present me with an even more challenging question!
My answer to your question is I want people to stay so that the Church remains more catholic (deliberately spelled with a small ‘c’). I’ve concluded that if one wants to be ecumenical, an especially good way to start is to be Roman Catholic, because this church is so numerous and so diverse. When people leave the Church is not only diminished numerically. We also lose the contributions of people who are different from ourselves. And I’ll repeat myself, I think our differences are not merely, and maybe not primarily, a matter of some of us being “good” Catholics and some of us being “cafeteria” Catholics. A lot divides us. But much unites us, as well. I want to be in a church where even the people I disagree with, and perhaps even dislike, are welcome and contributing.
Claire–
If the Pope stops being Catholic does that mean that bears will stop…going…in the woods?
Good question; and yet another angle [even if seemingly only a play on words]: it is because some people don’t want to “stay” [Catholic, or whatever] that they don’t stay. If you stay, you’ll eventually fall by the wayside: the whole essence of Jesus message is to keep moving – towards the parousia.
“Is it because the Church no longer resonates experimenally with them?”
I suspect you intended to use the word ‘experientially,’ Cathleen?
Anyway, because I intentionally left communion with the Church of Rome rather than drift from it, I cannot answer your question.
But I do like Claire’s question :)
I don’t want people to stay but I also don’t want people to go. I want them to follow the dictates of their respective consciences after due reflection.
Yeah, I did. No need for a thread exploring my authorial intention here.
First it must be said that many people don’t. They think that if you’re not 100 percent on board, leave. If you don’t accept the Church’s teaching on hard issues, well, leave.
This is what I learned in my Catholic education. Catholicism is a package deal. If you don’t accept all of it, you’re not a Catholic. While I assume there are many who approach things “pastorally” who would not make that judgment in individual cases, I think it still is what the Church teaches — that is, that the Catholic Church speaks infallibly on a number of issues, and if you don’t agree, you are flat-out wrong.
And, strangely, it seems to me, the only two rock-solid infallible pronouncements by popes are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. How important are they? What do they even mean?
We were always taught that if you have doubts, that was fine. Just put them out of your mind and realize you are wrong.
A friend in high school (who I am pretty sure is still a practicing Catholic) used to say the genius of the Catholic Church was that it made you your own thought policeman.
Cathleen is right to point out, as she did in the earlier post, that the demise of the subculture means that it is not really fair to suggest that somehow today’s Catholics are “choosing” to leave, while they did not in the past.
But I worry about the conclusion. Surely Lumen Gentium’s notion that the Church is meant to be the sacrament of Christ to the world implies some sort of unity. De Lubac’s Catholicism is still the best text on this – that the Church represents sacramentally the common destiny of all humanity. Thus, if it becomes a denomination, it basically loses its identity.
I guess then my response is that “we” want “them” to stay because we don’t want them to think Christianity (or any religion) is an instrumental choice made to best suit one’s own happiness (or one’s political; views, for that matter)? Didn’t Cathleen publish a piece in Commonweal a couple years back saying that “instrumentalism” was the gravest problem with young people today?
I think when Archbishop Dolan talks about “certainty,” he might be better advised to talk in terms of “confidence”… or even better, faith. Not “faith” primarily in terms of statements, but in terms of really being confident in Christ’s call. I am sometimes struck by the extent to which (some) folks who express “certainty” do it in a way that betrays an awful lot of defensiveness and fear…
My first reaction is to say “because we love them and want to live with them.”
Rather than enlarge that idea, I thought it would be good to post some quotes from the CDF’s recent doctrinal note on evangelization:
every encounter with another person or culture is capable of revealing potentialities of the Gospel which hitherto may not have been fully explicit and which will enrich the life of Christians and the Church.
It is an inestimable benefit to live within the universal embrace of the friends of God which flows from communion in the life-giving flesh of his Son, to receive from him the certainty of forgiveness of sins and to live in the love that is born of faith.
The incorporation of new members into the Church is not the expansion of a power-group, but rather entrance into the network of friendship with Christ which connects heaven and earth, different continents and ages.
In 1933, Arthur Darby Nock, a Catholic and a Harvard professor, wrote a book entitled Conversion. In it he compared conversion to adherence in a very helpful way. Ancient paganism was vital and vibrant, and above all very practical. There were no doctrinal litmus tests, for religion was whatever worked for an individual. If you were in need of healing a chicken sacrificed to Asclepius would do. If you were in need of love you could turn to Aphrodite. One could hold multiple priesthoods simultaneously, and as Lucius shows in Apulieus’ Metapmorphoses one could also be initiated into multiple “mysteries”. Nock’s point was that many in the ancient world did not convert but rather adhered to a religion. As long as it worked for them they stuck with it. When it stopped working they moved on to something else. Perhaps today we would call such people “religious seekers.” I have often wondered to what extent Nock’s thesis is still relevant today. Do people stick with a given religion as long as it “works” for them? If not, what is the difference between conversion and adherence today?
Why Do We Want People to Stay Catholic?
It’s being the last patriarch of a large extended family..And I’m being supported by a great matriachal partner. Our ancestors hung on to the faith at difficult and ignorant times… We were ‘assigned’ this hill, commissioned to hold it and dying on this hill is the best work/promise we can make or do. Some call it ‘white knuckling it’
I’m decended from Irish working class in the So. Bronx.Some were educated to as much as the third grade at St Jerome’s. As a youngster I asked at a combined family dinner what INRI on the cross meant. All members deferred to my aunt Lizzy who was the family theologian. Her answer was greeted with knowing nods ” Iron Nails Ran In’ ….We have come a long way !
That’s what Andrew Greely calls ‘popular Catholicsim’
An open appeal to the one true You.
Dear God,
If Benedict and his Muslim counterparts in the Catholic-Muslim forum want to cut to the chase, they need to focus their discussions on a few key questions.
Is it possible that your Truth is present in some form in more than one religion? Do You, the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful One have the ability to save any man of your choosing?
If You have that power, and if You are a just God, does it not seem highly unlikely that You would damn a good person to hell simply for choosing [or being born into] the wrong religion?
If all men can be saved, does that not mean your truth is somehow present in other religions in ways that You have not yet revealed to man?
If no single religion has an exclusive contract with You, does it not follow that no religion has a basis for imposing its beliefs on others – either by stifling the right of any individual to freely practice the religion of his choice, or by committing violent acts against non-believers in your name?
That pious Muslims and Christians [and Jews] behave in ways that are strikingly similar seems to support the notion that your Truth might be operative in all religions in ways that You will not fully reveal until end time. Choices in the one-true-God debate are ultimately limited to two: fight it out until the last religion standing can unanimously proclaim its version of the one You true [preferred by fanatics], or acknowledge that because humanity’s understanding of You has not yet been fully realized, your truth might be present in all religions in ways that can lead to salvation [preferred by nearly everyone else].
The Church is full of highly reasoned truth. It alienetes only when it insists on its salvific exclusivity.
People differ as their cultures and traditions differ over millennia. The Catholic Church of 2009 differs from that of 109, 1009, 1509, and 1959. It is usually called “The Roman Catholic Church,” and that is the significant delimiter, without which Catholic becomes synonymous with Christian. If we erase even the second delimiter “Catholic” we come to the heart of the matter: “Church.” And that single word fits all religious or spiritual communities. Then, again, there are solipsists, a/k/a hermits – often lauded lavishly by churchgoers, not for being anti-social, but for superlative holiness in going it alone in desert or mountain cave. Sooner or later, we might even realize that most religions, spiritualities, get-togethers in communities, all under the umbrella of “Churches” are made up by human beings, who are following their heart the best they can, usually by following a person with charismatic gifts of one kind or another. God, or whatever name is appropriate, is probably behind it all. And that, to me is the most important word, ALL. There is ONE religion, for ALL, from the strictest and emptiest to the loosest and fullest, to none at all, for those who put an “Ä” before “theist,” and believe in reason, without outside influences, inner ones, too. I know, critics will say I think all religions or no religions are the same. I do. Well, at least they have similarities, and some are the same under different names. Except for those in which the individual says, “I am God.” Finally, if Faith, Hope and Love are indeed named “The Three Theological Virtues,” because no human being, charismatic or otherwise, can grant them to another, then they are gifts from God alone. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion become synonymous to those so gifted. A lot of them form communities called “Church.” And sooner or later, well-meaning leaders set up rules for inclusion and exclusion, and a small group, dismayed at discipline snuffing out hope, sets out to start all over again. I’m pretty sure that I am Catholic, not too convinced of being Roman, but if disagreement is the sole excommunicator, then I’m not American either. Perhaps, not even alive and well, just deluded and bobbing along with a smile. I am a grandfather and that makes up for everything else.
Great question! Before we attempt an answer, shouldn’t we discuss whehter we believe all religions are equal–i.e, does Catholicism have any more claim on truth (and thus people) than other religions? If not, then this really becomes a moot question. If a deep and personal relationship with Christ as a member of the Church is just as valid as being a member of any other denomination (Christian or otherwise), then people should simply find a church/group that “fits” her or him best. I guess we should simply be consumers of religion like we are of toothpaste and breakfast cereals. Just find the one that works for you! So why all the angst? If the pope annoys you, find another church. No harm done. Sure, a person might have a historical pull toward Catholicism (maybe she was raised in it), but it is really nothing more than that. Few of us live in the same house or hometown we were born in. We have moved on and found a better place to live. Why not do the same with religion?
I say this with some sarcasm but not totally. Isn’t this a question we must face before we discuss Cathleen’s very good question?
I’m inclined toward the answer given by Kathy and David C. above: I think unity is important. Not only that, I think that “unity” means (at least) the concrete, visible unity of a common profession of faith, common participation in the sacraments, and common obedience to authority. A number of years ago Mary Douglas ventured the view that a preference for the “spiritual/invisible” over the “material/visible” correlated to a valuing of the individual over the social. So I tend to think that any real social unity will always involve visible markers.
Of course, “unity” is, one might say, “analog” and not digital: that is, it’s not like you have it or you don’t, but there is something like a sliding scale of unity. That is why I am not to terribly bothered by all the “bad Catholics” who stay in the Church; in most cases (though not in all) I figure a little unity is better than complete separation.
Unity, according the the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is the quality or state of being made one, continuity without deviation or change, which would require, naturally, if we are to be one Body, that we speak with one unified Voice.
The denomination in which I currently find myself, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), is one of two denominations that split because they could not reconcile two fundamental commitments: 1) a return the earliest examples of Christian churches, and 2) a commitment to Christian unity, motivated especially by a desire to look beyond denominational differences. In the early 20th century, the movement split because a commitment to recreating the earliest church example itself proved to be a divisive commitment.
So I now belong to a denomination the core commitment of which is Christian unity. The church affirms “No Creed But Christ,” but the difficulty emerges when one asks what that means, or what it means “to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.” While clergy and lay leaders can assist the individual in answering these questions, ultimately while the individual decides for her or himself, the real commitment is not to allow any particular answer to keep the individual from participating in the life of the church.
While I sometimes find the theological openness to be frustrating from the perspective of offering guidance to those who seek God through Jesus, I am regularly moved by the church’s commitment to unity by welcoming those who have reached often different conclusions about Jesus (it’s the only way one with my beliefs gets in!).
So, I would like be polite, and therefore will not use the explitives that come to mind when I read the appeals to unity posted above. How is a church committed to unity when it will not recognize the ordination of my wife, will not allow my family to receive communion — even though the Disciples are rather unique among Protestant denominations because they have communion every week and affirm its centrality to the community building function of the church? How is a church committed to unity when the every single member of that church must do the same thing that happens in my church — come to an individual understanding of the content of Christian faith — but is encouraged only to keep silent when those understandings differ from magisterial teaching? Why not be honest about the differences?
These appeals to unity are appeals to exclusion and to silence, but not to unity.
“I don’t want people to stay but I also don’t want people to go. I want them to follow the dictates of their respective consciences after due reflection.”
Hope springs eternal. We are each on our own spiritual journey, and during various stages of our lives, we may be “in” “out” or somewhere in between. God takes us where we are, as we are, and draws us closer to Him in His time, in His way.
Having said that, I would hope that people would want to stay, so that they can continue to experience the fullness of their Catholic faith. Sometimes it takes leaving and coming back in order to realize what is missing, thus developing a greater appreciation and understanding of the impact your faith has in your life.
For me personally, I have more energy, joy, and peace particularly when I go to daily Mass and pray the rosary. I notice a big difference in my life when I neglect prayer — I feel more stressed, tired, and have less of myself to give others.
First, why of late are so many of the relevant threads coming from Cathy?
I think it’s due to the historical times we live that are changing and make her final question rather important.
It appears on the surface we are moving towards being, if not just one more denomination then an enclave Church.
The push that way is due to the desire for the “smaller,purer” Church, buttressed by “positive orthodoxy,” which doesn’t seem to be catching on to a great extent, and “continuity” with Vatican 2 which many don’t beieve in the continued lurches to the right and the approach of glorifying “muscular” Catholicism from 1980 on.
But wait, the joker in all this is the further forthcoming clash between the JPII priests and Bishops with more juice as the V2 priests die off and the burgeoning number of lay leaders as clergy/religious numbers are not big enough.
I’d be truly pessimistic about this if not for what’s been cited here as the still strong love many have, rooted in Eucharist and Body of Christ, and not in the Truth which encapsulates the Master but also many small half truths or no truths that some want to put together.
Joe Gannon is right, the love that accepts and lets members find their way in a rapidly changing world that the Church perforce will have to change with also is(to borow a curent phrase) ” a glimmer of hope.”
Joe-
I am glad that you refrained from expletives! That is always a good thing. One question: if there is no creed, does anything go? My sense is that the only thing necessary is that one shows up/participates in the life of the church. If one stands for practically nothing, is there the chance that one stands for anything?
And I am also very tired of hearing people complain that Catholics turn away non-Catholics from receiving communion. If a person believes that the host and the cup are the true body and blood of the Lord, then why wouldn’t they want to join the Catholic Church? And if they really understand Catholic teaching that holds that the Eucharist is only “valid” (not there is a scary world–hold on to your hats fellow COMMONWEAL CATHOLICS) when part of a Mass celebrated by a validly ordained Catholic priest, then what does that say about the Eucharist in their churches? Traditional Catholic teaching would say that it is not valid. Wouldn’t that be offensive to them? So then why would they want to receive?
I find this to be an old and tired canard. People who want intercommunion and want it NOW have not thought through all the implications. What would happen to the RCIA program? Want to become Catholic? Receive the Eucharist the first chance you get! We can work out the details later.
Many Americans are hopelessly optimistic about the possibility of self-reinvention, and changing one’s religion, like changing one’s career, can be a signficant component in that process. The Catholic Church in its sectarian aspect has distinct shortcomings, and it does have a sectarian aspect–let’s say Petromania for one thing, but there are many. These shortcomings can convince one in search of a new self that one could do better in the church line. Who would not prefer Rowan Williams or Tom Wright to some of our own dear bishops. For all that I feel called to stay where I am. One must obey such a call. Herbert McCabe reminds us that obey comes from oboediere which is composed of ob + audire, so that obeying is really a kind of listening from which we can learn.
Because Cathy is procrastinating on other things. Bad Cathy.
How is a church committed to unity when it will not recognize the ordination of my wife, will not allow my family to receive communion. . .
I really don’t want this to degenerate into ad hominem, s I hesitate to say anything about your family situtation, but what I would say is that:
1) Since Disciples do not consider ordination a sacrament, wouldn’t it be a bit high-handed for the Catholic Church to say that you wife has received the sacrament of Holy Orders? It seems pretty clear that Disciples and Catholics use “ordination” is different ways, to mean different things. This is one reason why unity of faith and authority are important: so that we can know that we’re talking about the same thing.
2) Sacramental unity is not, in Catholic understanding, separate from unity of faith and unity of authority. Perhaps you think it should be, and you are welcome to try to persuade Catholics that this is the case, but I suspect that this understanding of unity is so deeply woven into the DNA of Catholicism that what you are in fact trying to persuade people of is that they should cease being Catholics.
3) I don’t see the “no creed but the Bible” position as any more inclusive as any other position, since it excludes those, like Catholics, who think that the Bible by itself is insufficient as a creed (indeed, was never intended to be a creed).
The Church is full of highly reasoned truth. It alienetes only when it insists on its salvific exclusivity.
A number of questions related to this issue, such as the concept of original sin and other doctrinal issues about sin, notions of hell and the like seem to come up time and time again and are greeting with silence or unconvincing regurgitation of old dogma. This is the old Catholic Church of the Roman Empire and Christendom, where to be excommunicated meant expulsion to the outer darkness or worse. Now it means a trip through the yellow pages to the religion of one’s choice (or no religion at all).
Before we attempt an answer, shouldn’t we discuss whehter we believe all religions are equal–i.e, does Catholicism have any more claim on truth (and thus people) than other religions? If not, then this really becomes a moot question.
Anthony,
Is the implication here that if the Catholic Church is not “the one true Church,” then Buddhism has no more claim on truth than the Church of Scientology?
I’m with Nancy, it’s a pretty simple answer. It’s kind of like asking Why do we want people to breathe?
That being said, you say, “If you’re not with us, you are against us–so get out. Better a small, pure faithful Church. If you think the Church teaching is wrong on any point, well, be honest. Join the Protestants” in describing some people’s attitudes – indeed my own sometimes. However, the reason for this attitude isn’t about exclusivity.
It strikes me as odd that people who don’t believe the Church’s teachings on things like women’s ordination, same sex marriage, abortion, and even the True Presence stay in the Church, but if that was all there was to it, I wouldn’t care. The reason I care is that these same people then push to change these teachings, even sometimes distorting and misrepresenting the history and teachings of the Church to suit their own views, and never seem to appreciate what an arrogant imposition this is on everyone who does accept and believe the Church’s teachings.
In other words – if you don’t accept the Church’s teachings on these and other things – you can do something about it right now. If you impose your views on the Church – where do I go?
Prof. Bauerschmidt: Let me clarify, I do not expect the Catholic church to recognize my wife’s ordination. My point was only that I think the grounds on which Catholics can make appeals to Christian unity are rather thin, in part, for the reason that her ordination would not be accepted. I think terms like “sacrament” are ecclesiologically loaded when used in this context. My wife has been ordained, at the ordination there were many prayers, many blessings, and a laying on of hands. There certainly was a belief the the Spirit of God was present. The Disciples do not have a sacramental theology like Catholics, but there is much theological overlap in what they think is taking place.
Anthony: I have wondered often about the problem of affirming nothing meaning that one stands for nothing and have decided that in the case of the church, this does not in fact occur. At my church, we all seek God, we seek God through a communal commitment to studying texts and traditions, and using these texts and traditions in worship, that are clearly Christian. We all know that we have much to learn, and we all know that we need not agree with each other in order to pray with each other, worship together, welcome one another, care for each other, eat together, have fun together, etc. That is, we agree on much, we even disagree when doing so assists in learning. We discover God “in between” our encounters with each other.
Maybe, one might think of us as a Christian analogue of Reform Judaism. Orthodox Jews do not think Reform Jews are really Jews, and the Reform Jews simply do not care. No doubt, many Catholics do not think we are Christian, and, I am learning not to care. I just found it a bit frustrating to hear appeals to unity, when the unity appealed to, one of a community of faith — faith in God, is the same unity to which my church appeals.
What is a valid eucharist?
David-
“Is the implication here that if the Catholic Church is not “the one true Church,” then Buddhism has no more claim on truth than the Church of Scientology?”
I actually do believe that some religions are more valid than others. I was saying that partly to be provocative but also because I think unless we come to some clarity on that question, there really is not point in arguing over intra-church issues. Why bother if all religions are as valid as other?
Joe-
Thanks for taking my question seriously and I appreciate your thoughtful response. And I like this quote: “Orthodox Jews do not think Reform Jews are really Jews, and the Reform Jews simply do not care.” It helps to put into a simple and understandable phrase a very pithy topic.
Joseph-
“What is a valid eucharist?” I take it that you know what the Church means by this but that you don’t agree. If I am right in my interpretation (and I could not be), while I respect your opinion, I would disagree with it. I actually think that we (as the people of God called the Church) have to draw lines in the sand. Boundaries are important. But we need to be careful with them. Boundaries help us to preserve meaning.
Sean asks: In other words – if you don’t accept the Church’s teachings on these and other things – you can do something about it right now [i.e., leave]. If you impose your views on the Church – where do I go?
Jean asks: Isn’t there some middle ground here? Used to be that meat on Fridays was verboten. It’s still encouraged but optional (except in Lent).
Demands for the Church to change may stem from arrogance, and as a convert of only 10 years standing, I certainly don’t feel qualified to come in and ask that 2,000 years of teaching be ditched to fit my personal circumstances. I’ve ditched, so you’re safe from me.
However, the Church might wish to re-examine teachings that large numbers of people aren’t following and take a close look at why. The habit of some of the faithful of waving away the rest of us with insults about our inability to disconnect from the culture of death, material avarice and the like doesn’t really cut it, either.
Not that you’re advocating that, but the “wham bam thank you ma’am” comment on the “Liming Catholics” thread was a classic example.
Augustine was right in that we should leave the judging to Jesus and not exclude anyone. He erred when he asserted that people should be forced to come in. The hierarchy has been right in insisting that the church be universal. The conformity is really more the emperors and kings than church officials. Certainly too many church officials got into this heretical thing. Yet Jesus always stressed behavior. You have not honored your parents right. Now do the right thing. No eye for an eye but rather you must do something good to your enemy. Not just forgive but walk a mile with the person. Visit the shameful prisoners and not just a cameo appearance. Seek the last place. The humble will be exalted.
The real message of Jesus gets no press or very little. Here or in most places.
When John XXIII said let the Fresh Air in, he meant to stop the bs because that is what stinks up the place.
When Bernard Haring went to the Front even enemy soldiers and their families flocked to him When he visited a parish the lapsed flocked to him. Lo and behold the CDF forbade him to teach and preach. Rome even condemned the great Congar.
So staying or leaving may not be so much the issue as preaching Christ crucified. But that is too simple.
Someone wrote …
Better a small, pure faithful Church. If you think the Church teaching is wrong on any point, well, be honest. Join the Protestants …. It strikes me as odd that people who don’t believe the Church’s teachings on things like women’s ordination, same sex marriage, abortion, and even the True Presence stay in the Church …
There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with Church reaching and remaining in the Church. As an article at U.S.Catholic (Catholic dissent — When wrong turns out to be right) once pointed out, many past Catholics in good standing have disagreed with Church teachings, including the soon to be canonized Cardinal John Henry Newman.
I’ve been reading a book by Keith Ward, past holder of the chair of divinity at Oxford U (and a Protestant – gasp!) who thinks that diviesity in belief is a good thing and who believes the whole cosmos will be saved by Jesus, not just a few fundementalist Christians – I’m with him.
Oops – I menat Church “teaching” not reaching :)
No doubt, many Catholics do not think we are Christian, and, I am learning not to care.
Do you really think this is true? Certainly there is no official teaching of the Church that says this. Of the students I teach, the only ones I can think of who might say that you are not Christian are those who are most poorly catechized and for whom “Catholic” is largely as a cultural marker that they unthinkingly use as exchangeable with “Christian.”
Catholicism needs to accept the fact that, throughout the world, it IS one of many Christian denominations. If it ever had a legitimate “pride of place,” it no longer has any claim thereto.
Then it can focus on persuasion, intelligent scripturally based-argument, humility, and learning as well as teaching. Maybe then it can ultimatley divorce itself of the authoritarian, autocratic and cultic style of leadership that fosters an episcopal culture of addiction to power, narcissistic self-preservation and diminution of the intelligence, participation and value of the lay members of the church.
Prof. Bauerschmidt: My memory is that Dominus Iesus refers to us as “gravely deficient.” So, perhaps Christian, but barely. Now, if you point is the average person in the pew/classroom, perhaps you are correct and they are more open-minded.
Cathleen Kaveny writes about Catholics leaving the Church:
“Another answer is, we want them to stay for extrinsic reasons. We want their money”.
Sounds rather cynical. “We want them to come to Notre Dame. We want their money”.
Who’s the “we”? Any scholarly references on this? Any citations?
Joseph Gannon
I agree very much with your comment made earlier today. I remember a very gentle Irish priest who whenever he intervened during a discussion at a meeting would always begin by saying, “I have a tiny, tiny point.” I borrow his words. Am I right in thinking that it is “oboedio, oboedire.” fourth conjugation? Surely I am the last person on this site to be chasing after typos! Many thanks.
“My memory is that Dominus Iesus refers to us as ‘gravely deficient.’”
Technically it refers to you as “defective” and “not Churches in the proper sense” because you lack apostolic succession. In response to another comment, I think this is why non-Catholic Christians do not celebrate a “valid Eucharist.” Dominus Jesus described the adherents of non-Christian faiths as being “in a gravely deficient situation” when it comes to salvation. The Pope would be well-served to adopt a less dispariging, more affirmative tone when espousing Church doctrine.
John: You are right! Apologies!
“In other words – if you don’t accept the Church’s teachings on these and other things – you can do something about it right now. If you impose your views on the Church -where do I go?”
Sean, If you don’t accept the Church teachings on forgiveness, catholicity, the desire that all be saved, and other things, there is something you can do about it. I do not accept your apparent viewpoint on these things, nor does the Pope imo. I believe in allowing you to live and grow and even teach within the Church at least up to the point where you become persistently disrespectful, but if you impose your views on the Church, where do I go?
A Legionary of Christ’s perspective on liturgy and leaving:
https://webmail.nd.edu/horde/imp/message.php?index=8748#09051209
Kathy, this one’s for you to talk about.
Cathy: That is a webmail link. I doubt nonUNDers will be able to get in.
I will sleep better tonight knowing that my church is merely defective (duh!) and that I am not gravely deficient (on second thought, maybe I am gravely deficient and what is cool about my church is that they will take me anyway!).
Joe Pettit, Unity is about Christ’s desire “that they may all be one, as you, Father. are in me,and I in you…that they may be brought to perfection as one.”-Christ (John 17)
I actually do believe that some religions are more valid than others. I was saying that partly to be provocative but also because I think unless we come to some clarity on that question, there really is not point in arguing over intra-church issues. Why bother if all religions are as valid as other?
I thought the issue here was not validity but salvation. Is the implication that one must be a Catholic to be saved or that someone of a different religion or no religion at all cannot be saved? Why should salvation be dependent on the creed one ascribes to?
I am just so impressed that all those “Catholic” leaders like Justinian, Augustine, Bernard, Athanasius, Charlemagne etc, who were not gravely deficient and had valid Eucharists, were able to force people to become Catholics, chop their heads off or burn them at the stake so they could become purified. I mean this is something to build on.
Joe, thos probably isn’t any consolation either, but “defect” here doesn’t mean “something screwy and wrong.” It’s simpler than that, and quantitative. It means “missing something.” It just says that one or more of the means of salvation–scriptures, pope, sacraments (there’s a list in the Vat II documents)–is missing.
Professor Kaveny, You wrote yesterday “Because Cathy is procrastinating on other things. Bad Cathy.” A friend once said that procrastination is sloth in five shyllables.”
You ain’t got sloth, Professor. You fill 24 hours with 48 of thought, diligence and keyboard skills. Thanks.
Sean, taking your examples one at a time, it seems to me that only the real presence is what I would call a Church doctrine that is fundamental to faith and salvation, at least since 431 (and maybe before, but no one really knows and there was lots of debate for a long time before and after that date on the matter). Many respected church fathers took the “symbolic” view of the matter.
With regard to same sex marriage, I speak for myself but probably for many Catholics, that the objection relates to the prolitical program aspects of the Church’s “doctrine” on these matters and not the Church’s theological premises. I do have problems with the Church’s ultimate conclusions as well with respect to abortion, especially in the hard cases, but that’s me, not most Catholics, and I would be (or at least I would have at one time) willing to debate those within sanctioned Church forums without expecting wholesale changes.
Likewise, my understanding of women’s ordination is that it is not fundamental in the same was as resurrection and real presence and could be changed.
I see the elevation of these matters of ancillary importance to the project of salvation as being truly detrimental to the Church, and, indeed, detracting from its core message of salvation. Insisting on these matters as if they were of the same importance will change the church indelibly. It probably already has. But no need to worry, I don’t take up space in the pews anymore.
Thanks, Joe: Here’s the post.
“So Very Dry” Liturgy
And More on Priests and Bishops
ROME, MAY 12, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: Nowadays there seems to be a shift from the spirit of the liturgy to mechanical and ritualistic performance. Since our liturgy is so very dry, many Catholics in several parts of India are going to Protestant churches where the worship is spontaneous, meaningful and gives them a sense of involvement and satisfaction. Some of the questions put to you and your answers seem to be not appealing to the soul. Should we not think of promoting meaningful liturgy in the light of the local culture and its needs? — P.J., Dindigul, India
A: We occasionally receive questions of this type which touch upon fundamental issues regarding the purpose and nature of liturgy.
Over the years, this column has addressed many points of liturgy, some of which are admittedly technical and maybe even rarefied. But I always strive to give my readers the benefit of the doubt and presume that their inquiries stem from a sincere desire to celebrate the liturgy according to the Church’s heart and mind.
I do not believe that it follows that an exact and precise liturgical celebration is thereby a soulless and mechanical ritual. Nor is a cavalier attitude toward rubrics an inevitable proof of authentic Christianity. There can be both good faith and hypocrisy behind both attitudes, but these are the failings of individual human beings that do not touch the heart of the question.
I strongly defend fidelity to liturgical norms because I believe that the faithful have a right to be able to participate in a recognizably Catholic liturgy, a liturgy that flows from Christ himself and is part of the great stream of the communion of saints.
While not doubting the sincerity of my correspondent, I must take exception to his way of characterizing Protestant worship with respect to Catholic liturgy. I believe that we are before a question that goes much deeper than external forms. The crux of the problem is not that our separated brethren have more exciting performances but that we have failed to teach our faithful basic Catholics doctrine on the Mass and the Eucharist.
Any Catholic who has the tiniest inkling of what it means to assist at Mass; to be present at the Lord’s Passion, death and resurrection; to be able to unite his or her prayer presented to the eternal Father united together with Christ’s supreme sacrifice; to have the possibility of sharing the Bread come down from heaven — how could such a Catholic ever compare this privilege to any Protestant service, even though admittedly it might have better music and more able preaching?
At the same time, the Church’s liturgy is already endowed with flexibility and a richness that can readily respond to local characteristics as determined by the national bishops’ conferences. Apart from the essential problem of lack of liturgical formation there is the question of the abandonment or lack of use of many treasures, both ancient and new, that can transform our liturgies into beautiful and deeply spiritual experiences.
When the full possibilities of genuine Catholic liturgy are used, the celebration is not a tad less participative, spontaneous and meaningful than any non-Catholic service. The difference is that in liturgy, just as in sports, authentic spontaneity, participation and creativity are found within the rules and not outside of them.
Apart from the liturgy Catholicism has a plethora of forms of prayer and associations, from historic confraternities and sodalities to modern charismatic prayer groups and ecclesial movements. I believe that these multifarious expressions can satisfy all forms of spiritual sensibility and desire for involvement much better than any individual group of Protestants.
Therefore if some of our Catholic faithful are migrating to Protestant groups, I don’t think we should be blaming the liturgy but rather double our efforts to celebrate it properly and proclaim the truth of the great mystery of faith.”
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth. (LG 15)
The Latin word “defectus” in several Church documents, including, by the way, Vatican II”s Decree on Ecumenism #3, could more properly be translated as “lacks.” If Protestants think that there are only two (or maybe three) sacraments, they must think we have too many; because Catholics think there are seven, they must think that Protestant Churches lack some of them. Etc. And the question has to do with “the means of salvation” (also in that fine paragraph #), that is of the helps toward salvation. In at least three important texts of Vatican II (LG 8 and 15; UR 3), there is an acknowledgement that individual non-Catholic Christians and their communities or churches may share quite abundantly in the graces and gifts that constitute the inner core of Christianity. It could even happen that a Church that has the fullness of means of salvation has less of the spiritual core than a Church that lacks some of these means of salvation. (This last sentence paraphrases one found in a commentary on this teaching made by Joseph Ratzinger.) None of these statements is undone by “Dominus Iesus.”
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory that you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.”-John 17:20-23
I believe that Father Komonchak, as so often in the past, has with precision and concision helped to bring great clarity to this important topic. That’s not at all to overlook the many valuable comments that preceded his or to suggest that there is nothing more to say. I look forward to the discussion’s continuing. A few won’t be surprised that I would have a lot to say about Father Edward McNamara, L. C.’s response on liturgical celebration. He seems to skirt the important (in some areas [India] burning) question of liturgical inculturation as set out in the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy, articles 37-43. I think we have seen a great retreat on this issue on the part of Authority in recent years.
And the opening of the Roman Church’s liturgical celebrations to the use of the vernacular, the living languages (see, for example, articles 36, 49, 54, 63, 101 of the conciliar constitution), was a fundamental step in the liturgical inculturation process.
How you feel about giving flexibility to the liturgy probably depends on how many Protestant services you’ve sat through. I sometimes visit a “contemporary” service at my husband’s church and I will not be surprised if, one day, the service is themed “You Go God!” or maybe, “God Rocks!” complete with rap or blaring rock music. To her credit, the music director is quite talented and incorporates lots of traditions but I usually grit my teeth through much of it.
“A few won’t be surprised that I would have a lot to say about Father Edward McNamara, L. C.’s response on liturgical celebration. He seems to skirt the important (in some areas [India] burning) question of liturgical inculturation as set out in the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy, articles 37-43. I think we have seen a great retreat on this issue on the part of Authority in recent years.”
I actually thought that he said some very good things about the possibility of the mass to be meaningful and spontaneous while observing the liturgical norms, and found myself nodding in agreement on a good deal of what he wrote. But he seemed to be “blaming the victim”, i.e. criticizing the ignorance or lack of formation on the part of those drifting away as being the problem, rather than pointing to where I think the lion’s share of the blame actually attaches – to the bishops and priests who direct the liturgical celebrations.
Of course, I’m in Illinois, not India. Perhaps there are cultural aspects of the mass that just don’t seem to “work” as-is in India.
Tangentially to Fr. Komonchak’s post about sacarments above:
Anglicans believe in seven sacraments. The two major sacraments are baptism and communion. The other five are “not necessary for all persons in the same way that baptism and the eucharist are,’ according to the BCP’s catechism.
Confirmation, ordination, marriage, reconciliation and unction are sacraments that are optional (i.e., not everybody takes orders or gets married) or support the major sacraments (e.g., confirmation “seals the deal” of baptism, and reconciliation prepares one to receive communion).
I think there’s a sense among some Anglicans to see those five sacraments as less powerful somehow–they’re sometimes called the “lesser” sacraments. Correcting that notion is a problem Anglicanism needs to fix.
In my experience, there is far less liturgical “freelancing” in Episcopal churches. But perhaps that’s because the prayer book accommodates low, middle and high services.
On the other hand, there are more free-form “worship services” for younger people, typically on Sunday nights, that look a lot like the amorphous fundie-gelical Jump for Jesus Singalongs.
Barbara, lemme know if you want to come along some time. We can grit our teeth in unison. :-)
I’m grateful that God allows me to be a Catholic. The Catholic tradition, as I have learned from theologians like Rahner, Congar, O’Collins, etc., teaches me that the Church is the sacrament of Christ that exists for the sake of all mankind. The worship it offers to God is a praise that God has revealed in and through Christ, that is fitting and is a proper expression of gratitude for God’s revelation of His love for all of us. This tradition of prayer is priceless. This same tradition teaches us that God saves whom He wills as He wills. That therre is the Church is part of His salvific plan, but is not the totality of that plan.
I wish that all Catholics would have the chance to learn this grand tradition, but obviously they have not all had that opportunity. So far as I can see, many have been impeded in doing so by a sad history of goofy clericalism, by a “dogmatism” that talks too glibly about “having the truth” almost as if truth is something that one can possess like a book or a pedigree, by a preoccupation with defending the “Church’s prerogatives and hierarchical constitution.”
To the extent that people have subjected to these abuses and have, as a consequence, left the church, I am sad, but realize that God’s love for them remains undiminished. to the extent that other people have been repelled by these abuses, we all ought to ask how we could better present the church. So, to Cathy’s original question, I believe the answer has to be given more in terms of how we who stay are living our faith and thereby serving the world rather than in terms of who or how many stay or leave.
Bernard: It is because of statements like the one you just posted that Catholics remain for me Christian conversation partners that I just can’t live without.
“The worship it offers to God, is a praise that God has revealed in and through Christ”
Which is why the Catholic Church believes that Christ Has Revealed The Word of God to His Church through The Deposit of Faith in the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Teaching of the Magisterium, from the beginning.
This…tradition teaches us that God saves whom He wills as He wills. That therre is the Church is part of His salvific plan, but is not the totality of that plan.
So what you seem to be saying is that the Church is sufficient for salvation but not necessary for salvation.
“When the full possibilities of genuine Catholic liturgy are used, the celebration is not a tad less participative, spontaneous and meaningful than any non-Catholic service.”
Jim Pawels –
What in the world can Father mean by “spontaneous” here???
When I was young, the sources of faith – taught in good Catholic institutions -were Scripture and traidtion.
Now we have the three legged stool “from the begining” – maximal magisterialism displayed.
(Part of the credulity problem.)
A lovely post from Bernard and spot on that we need to lok to ourselves for the problem. We and the whole church continue a work in progress on bringing the kingdom to its fulness. There’s little place for triumphalism – think about the reasons Bill Collier spoke of and maybe reflect if we’re part of the problem and not just the solution.
” — authentic spontaneity, participation and creativity are found within the rules and not outside of them.”
Pure gobbldey gook, along with some of the rest of what he has to say.
Here’s a reason for wanting them to join us or stay with us:
“What was from the beginning–what we have heard–what we have seen with our own eyes–which we looked upon–what our hands have touched–the word of life. For the life was manifested; and we have seen and are bearing witness and declare to you the life eternal which was with the Father, and have appeared to us. What we have seen and heard we declare to you so that you may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things to you so that our joy may be full” (1 John 1:1-4)
Our joy would be less without them. What is the saying: Friendship divides sorrows and multiplies joys.
When the full possibilities of genuine Catholic liturgy are used, the celebration is not a tad less participative, spontaneous and meaningful than any non-Catholic service. The difference is that in liturgy, just as in sports, authentic spontaneity, participation and creativity are found within the rules and not outside of them.
For the sake of discussion, I’ll buy that assertion. As with any deep game, however, the question is who gets to make the rules and what rules make the game worth playing.
Here’s a thing. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901388.htm
http://www.catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml
Kathy, I thought the ad was pretty slick — although I don’t buy the notion of an unbroken line of papal succession, nor do I believe that the Church is the sole repository of wisdom and goodness in the world. Basically, it’s a nice, feel-good promo that might appeal to those who drifted away without knowing why.
I appreciate Fr. Komonchak’s point. But I am also reminded of Walker Percy’s line in one of his later novels (The Second Coming. perhaps) which asks something like “What would happen if we were to wake up one morning and there were no more Jews? So far as i can see at this time in history, it would not be good for the Church, or for the Kingdom, were there no more Jews. Or no more Buddhists. Or….
So far as I can tell, we Catholics don’t pay enough attention to questions like Percy’s. And when people like Fr. Dupuis do pay attention of this sort, they encounter distrust rather than appreciation for their efforts.
Fr K paraphrased Ratzinger’s commentary on V2′s documents:
“t could even happen that a Church that has the fullness of means of salvation has less of the spiritual core than a Church that lacks some of these means of salvation.”
This idea would have enriched Fr McNamara’s comments on liturgy. As it is, his characterization of Protestant worship is misleading. Some may delight in Protestant services not because of “better music or more able preaching” but because of a stronger spiritual core. and that demands a very different answer from the one given, one that takes the question more seriously.
Anthony, thank you for your considered response. As you surmised, I’m familiar with official teaching on the subject of eucharistic validity, albeit not with its theological and canonical nitty gritty.
According to my Catholic theological dictionary, the word ‘validity’ is derived from the Latin for ‘strong’ or ‘efficacious.’ (My college dictionary defines the latter word, inter alia, as “producing the desired results.”) Per my Catholic source, the term entered the Catholic lexicon at Trent (1545-1563) and again with Benedict XIV (d. 1758). Validity concerns the conditions that must be observed for an act to be efficacious, as canon 124 insists. Invalidity, therefore, is synonymous with null and void.
A friend once told me that the word ‘eucharist’ originally meant ‘thanksgiving,’ i.e., an action of the community. As he said then (and confirmed by subsequent reading on my part), “Eucharist was a verb, not a noun” for the Christians who were closest to Jesus in time and place. Although the consecrated bread was treated with reverence both during and after worship (during its distribution to folks unable to be present at the assembly), the focus was on community participation, not (so much) on the transformation of bread into the Lord’s body. (My friend later noted that our attempts to define the Real Presence will always be insufficient since human words cannot adequately define a mystery.) The article by Robert Egan (COMMONWEAL, 4/11/08) and the book by Kenan Osborne (PRIESTHOOD), among other sources, remind us that the earliest Christian/Catholic communities did not have priests; the Christian priesthood was a gradual historic development.
Anyway, perhaps we need to revisit this idea of validity. I agree that boundaries are important, if for no other reason than to facilitate discussion among people of good will with different understandings and beliefs. However, if, as you believe, we “have to draw lines in the sand” in order to preserve “meaning,” what is there to be gained in the ultimate scheme of things? Vatican II emphasized dialogue, which necessarily involves searching for and promoting common ground. It does not mean, of course, that we ignore differences. Perhaps it’s a matter of emphasis. Benedict seems to want to focus on differences, and I have to wonder if some of these differences are really all that important in the final analysis.
To rephrase my question, “Would God regard a Protestant eucharist as invalid, as not efficacious?”
Bernard – “So far as I can tell, we Catholics don’t pay enough attention to questions like Percy’s. And when people like Fr. Dupuis do pay attention of this sort, they encounter distrust rather than appreciation for their efforts.”
It is my understanding that progressive Catholic scholars like Father Dupuis, encouraged that Vatican II had finally opened the door to salvation for non-Catholics, but concerned that the Church’s insistence on its salvific exclusivity hindered interfaith relations, began to question the assumptions upon which this claim was based. Pointing to several New Testament passages, he argued that God would reveal himself fully to man only at the end of time. Without saying that salvation can come through channels other than Christ, he suggested that Christ’s Truth might be operative in other religions outside the Christian understanding of divine revelation. Therefore the path to salvation might reside equally in non-Christian religions.
Benedict, as prefect of CDF authored the “true to dogma” but unnecessarily disparaging decree Dominus Jesus partly in response to the work of Dupuis and others like him. Unfortunately, Benedict’s orthodoxy, when combined with his inability to communicate effectively, has led many to believe he is, if not arrogant and dismissive, at least confusing.
God love him, and I’m sure He does, Benedict can begin to build bridges between cultures simply by considering beforehand the impact that his words and actions might have and by being prepared in advance to explain them in a positive and respectful way.
[Until I checked, I had no idea so many accomplished scholars were tuning in to dotcommonweal. Thank you for not commenting anonymously.]
It is my understanding that progressive Catholic scholars like Father Dupuis, encouraged that Vatican II had finally opened the door to salvation for non-Catholics,
Isn’t it correct to say that the Church acknowleged that non-Catholics can be saved? Presumably, God did not need to ask the Church for permission to do so.
Benedict can use all the rhetoric at his disposal to dissuade Catholics from leaving the fold, but the paradoxical fact remains that the doors to the kingdom do not slam shut for those that walk away.
Jean and Barbara
Maybe a better way to make my point is this. I regularly see posters on this blog rail against “the heirarchy” over matters of doctrine – e.g. women preists or same sex marriage.
It seems to me, as individuals, people have three ways to deal with this:
Accept it
Leave
Change it
Most of the time, they want option 3. Those who disagree (the hierarchy) are treated as imposing their will. If that’s the case, then all they are saying is, if we get our way we will impose our will.
That is why discussions like this leave me baffled. For example, the Church has always taught that salvation is through the Church. The implications of this doctrine for Catholics and non-Catholics alike are certainly worth pondering, but if you are a Catholic, what could possibly be objectionable about that doctrine? When a fundamentalist tells me his formula for salvation I just think he’s wrong, I don’t make him to change it.
“Validity concerns the conditions that must be observed for an act to be efficacious, as canon 124 insists. Invalidity, therefore, is synonymous with null and void.”
Joseph, validity is used in the context of legal judgments. In a certain sense, it is what we agree on about efficacy. ‘Valid’ does not mean ‘effective’ but ‘what we recognize as effective’. Only God knows what is effective, after all. In some instances, ‘validity’ is joined to an act of faith in the rules and judgments of the Church so that ‘valid’ and ‘effective’ are synonymous. (there is a problem here since being recognized as effective may be intrinsic to effectiveness in some instances, but I am already talking beyond my comprehension so I will not go there)
I hesitate to apply this to valid acts, to judge if they are effective. If the Church says so, that is fine by me. But invalid is different from ineffective, and might be better read as ‘unrecognized’. A communal recitation of the Lord’s prayer might be as effective as the liturgy of the Eucharist and accomplish the same thing, but the Church will not recognize it as such, so it is not a valid Eucharist. As long as it is God who accomplishes the work, we cannot entirely say God did not do that there.
Having expressed that idea, let me qualify it by saying I am in no way competent in these matters, and there may be major misunderstandings behind it. I am only working from my meager understandings, and hoping to gain greater insight by posting this.
Sean, the Church has a history of deepening understanding of the faith. Some people have been named Doctors of the Church for the way they have enlightened our understanding, though not every insight comes from one of the 33 Doctors.
So “change it” (in a general sense) is recognized as a viable option in the Church. If you do not like that, you can work to change it, accept it, or leave.
““When the full possibilities of genuine Catholic liturgy are used, the celebration is not a tad less participative, spontaneous and meaningful than any non-Catholic service.”
Jim Pawels –
What in the world can Father mean by “spontaneous” here???”
Hi, Ann, I think he means that, within the liturgical norms, it’s possible to have a celebration that will leave you laughing, crying, hooting, hollering and yelling “Halleluiah!”
As an aside, I hope your parish is better at clapping along to music than my white-bread congregation …
Sean,
I don’t accept certain teachings, have not lived up to them, and personally believe that Church teaching attempts to control various aspects of family life far too strictly.
But I have never tried to change those teachings.
I stopped receiving some time ago when it was clear to me that I could not reconcile myself to those teachings. The deal with my husband is that I support our son through Catholic Confirmation, which means not attending services at another denomination in front of The Boy.
It’s exactly what you advocate. So don’t get why you’ve singled me out for more explaining and complaining. Your church is safe from me, has been for some time now.
Jean
I am not singling you out other than to respond to your respose to my post. I do not, and would not, assume anything about how you or anyone else practices their faith.
I guess my objection to some of the reasoning i often see here is that it tries to appeal to some sort of neutral principle, like respect for conscience, or forgiveness, or unity, or growth and what they mean is nothing neutral at all. So their vision of the Church is inclusive – except that it excludes me. Their vision promotes unity – but it divides them from me in exactly the same way they say mine divides them from me.
Over at http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2009/04/easter-dying.html#links, I found the following take on doctrinal herterodoxy, which I found quite helpful.
“[We should] turn away from the temptation to seek the purity and assurance of a community speaking with only one voice and embrace the reality of living in a communion that is fallible and divided … in the trust that … the confronting of wounds is part of opening ourselves to healing.” It was like, Wow! This is what being members of the body of Christ is all about – speaking the truth to each other in love, seeking the truth with each other in love, and, despite dispute, continuing to recognise each other as friends of Jesus whose divine grace is stronger than human disagreement.”
Trust those protestants to find a way of lovingly accomodating heterodoxy, without exoommunication or the other public shaming rituals of the Church.
Sean, the Church takes a pragmatic view on some teachings and not others in a way that strikes me as inconsistent.
For instance, those over 65 or those with health problems like diabetes need not observe Lenten fasts.
So why can’t those for whom pregnancy or maternal age would pose serious risks rely on something a little less dicey than NFP but less draconian than total abstinence?
I think the answer is that it’s because NFP has been deemed reliable enough by the diocesan squadrons of NFP proponents who will tell you that if the method fails, it’s your fault for getting randy at the wrong time or not observing your signs carefully enough.
Anyhoo, we’re not going to agree on this, though perhaps you could find it in your heart to pray for those of us who simply don’t have your grace and faith.
Jim McK, thank you for your thoughts on validity and efficacy. While I understand what you are saying, it does not seem to correspond to the information in my source, A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY
…oops, let me try again…
Jim, (again) thank you for your thoughts on vaidity and efficacy. While I understand what you are saying, your interpretation does not seem to correspond to the information in my source, A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY, by Jesuits Gerald O’Collins and Edward Farrugia.
“Validity,” according to the authors, “concerns the conditions that have to be observed for some act to be efficacious [more on this term below]…Sacraments, for example,…have their essential elements and thus may be valid or invalid….Invalidity is synonymous with nullity; an invalid act may be described as null and void. The valid reception of a sacrament means that it ‘counts’; fruitful reception [free from mortal sin] means that grace is imparted or augmented.”
You previously wrote, “‘Valid’ does not mean ‘effective’ but ‘what we recognize as effective’. Only God knows what is effective…”
The CCC (selected quotes) may be helpful here:
+ Paragraph 1127 states, “Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are *efficacious* because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies….[I]n the epiclesis of each sacrament, [the Church] expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit.”
+ Paragraph 1128 states, “This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ‘ex opere operato’ (literally: ‘by the very fact of the action’s being performed’).”
+ Paragraph 1996 states, “Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons [and daughters], partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.”
If my “take” on this information is correct, the CCC seems to be saying that the magisterium knows beforehand what is effective in God’s communicating grace to the recipient. In other words, not only does God know what is effective, but the church knows, as well. Perhaps at the risk of oversimplification (?), the legal term ‘validity’ is synonymous with the sacramental term ‘efficacy.’ The valid administration of a sacrament, so to speak, delivers its benefit (grace) to the front door of the soul; if the recipient is free of grave sin, grace is imparted, i.e., allowed in.
As I see it, canon law is ancillary to the teaching; the bedrock is the doctrine itself. We acknowledge this bedrock through the lens of faith.
Anthony, when I posed my initial question, “What is a valid eucharist?”, I had in mind the popular Catholic understanding (and, so far as I know, offcial teaching) that Rome regards Protestant eucharists as lacking or deficient and, thus, invalid. It would seem to follow that intentions notwithstanding, Protestant eucharists are not truly sacramental in nature and, therefore, cannot impart grace to the minister or congregation. As you surmised, I was looking at the subject from a broader perspective. Unfortunately, instead of spelling out my reasoning, I jumped to a “final analyis,” so to speak, rather than express some thoughts leading to it. In retrospect, I fear that I may have given the impression that I was brushing aside the issues involved. What follows, therefore, is an attempt to explore the official Catholic judgment, not from a theological framework but, rather, from a layman’s perspective.
Given the critical importance between holy orders and eucharist in the Catholic Church, it may help to quote pertinent passages from the CCC:
+ Paragraph 1576 states, “Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of holy orders.”
+ Paragraph 1142 reminds us that it is by reception of the sacrament of holy orders that a priest or bishop is “enable[d] to act in the person of Christ.”
+ Paragraph 1400 states, “Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church ‘have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.’ It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church.”
If not mistaken, I understand Rome to be saying that the Catholic eucharist — by definition, one that is properly administered and received — confers grace whereas non-Catholic/non-Orthodox eucharists do not do so because they cannot do so, given their absence of a validly ordained priest or bishop presiding at the service.
Without necessarily disagreeing with official Catholic teaching, I was suggesting that perhaps it needs to be reexamined in light of considerations such as the following:
a. Did the earliest Christian communities in all their diversity (and before the councils) have a valid eucharist when they accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior within the Messianic tradition — but did not possess the sophisticated theology and canonical requirements that we have today? We know they did not have sacerdotal leaders, i.e., priests and bishops. There was no ordination as we understand the term today. The presider, who chaired the eucharistic assembly, was respected for his exemplary conduct and Christian life (hence his being acknowledged by the people as fit for presidership), but he was not regarded as a sacerdotal/priestly mediator between God and man.
b. Rome attaches great (nay, critical) importance to the “unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.” Yet we know this assertion cannot be supported by the historical record. Some might argue, of course, that it would be fallacious to conclude that Catholic orders are invalid based on lack of historical evidence that simply has not yet been discovered. Yet, due to the criticality of valid orders in the Catholic Church, no provision is made for so-called conditional ordination. There is no middle ground, no yielding on this point. One has been either validly ordained or not validly ordained. Francis A. Sullivan, in his FROM APOSTLES TO BISHOPS, offers a more likely account of the development of the episcopacy in the early church. At the risk of unduly oversimplifying (or misrepresenting) his explanation, he suggests that the transition to the monepiscopal structure was informal in nature; it was necessity-based to provide leadership as the apostles (including the Twelve) died off. If I recall, there is no evidence that the Twelve and other apostles ordained others to a priestly order.
c. We cannot overlook the historical development of the eucharist and the human understanding of the eucharist, i.e., what it is and what it means.
In his CULT AND CONTROVERSY: THE WORSHIP OF THE EUCHARIST OUTSIDE OF MASS, Nathan Mitchell offers a nice historical synopsis:
“[T]he eucharist, as both ‘holy meal’ and ‘sacred food,’ rather quickly gained independence from its original setting in a full meal where other foods were shared in common….[A]s a result of this disengagement, a new interpretation of eucharistic activity could emerge: the ancient human symbols of dining together were reinterpreted as ritual drama, vivid symbolic reenactments of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. And from ritual drama it [was] a relatively short step to the dramatic allegorizations of the eucharistic liturgy…
“The change of genre, holy meal to ritual drama, symbolic action to dramatic allegory, implies a significant alteration of content, meaning, and interpretation….
“Unquestionably, the liturgical reforms mandated by the Second Vatican Council represent a return to the primitive liturgical genre of a holy meal eaten and drunk in celebration of the Risen One, present among his people in word and sacrament.”
(Keith Pecklers, in his WORSHIP: A PRIMER IN CHRISTIAN RITUAL, gives a good overview of this change in eucharistic practice and meaning.)
What seems to be important here is three-fold:
+ The Catholic Church has come full circle in readopting the same essential eucharistic liturgy found in the primitive Christian setting: we take, bless, break, and give bread and cup; today’s priest leads the service as did the ancient presider, and the people are encouraged to participate with the same understanding found in the primitive church.
+ As Mitchell has noted, “[A] change in liturgical genre gives rise to and reflects different meanings and interpretations.” As a result of Vatican II, it seems, the “eucharistic/liturgical sense of the faithful” has largely embraced a more ancient understanding devoid of the later (read: novel) Thomistic reliance on sacramental form and matter.
+ Depending perhaps on denomination, Protestant churches and ecclesial communities have either reembraced or continued to use (from the Reformation) a eucharistic service identical or very similar to those used in the primitive local churches.
d. Finally, we have Leo XIII’s “Apostolicae curae” that declared Anglican orders totally null and utterly void. I see two problems with any continued reliance on this papal bull to deny sacramental legitimacy (validity) to Anglican orders and euchaist:
+ From a Catholic perspective, the more obvious one is the presence of validly ordained Anglican clergy within this worldwide communion. These priests are former Roman Catholic and other validly ordained men who preside at the church’s holy communion services. In addition, if not mistaken, I recall hearing and reading of validly ordained bishops from other churches participating in the consecrations of Anglican bishops. With respect to this latter source, we have likely witnessed the gradual incorporation of bona fide Catholic sacramental life and theology in Anglican eucharistic belief and practice.
+ Comparatively recent access to ancient church documents has revealed — to put it bluntly — inconsistency between current and ancient belief with respect to conferral of holy orders (a specific reference here is The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus and/or related). Borrowing from Matthew 7, perhaps the Catholic Church needs to acknowledge its own historical deficiency before pointing out the deficiency of other Christian denominations. It’s been suggested that if we apply the same rigorous analysis to Catholic orders that was applied in “Apostolicae curae” to Anglican orders, we might very well come up short, too! Heaven forbid (wink, wink). In his PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, Kenan Osborne offers a nice introduction to this subject.
Whether Rome wants to or not, it has consigned the non-Catholic eucharist to second-class status. It is not valid. It is not in keeping with the “apostolic succession,” a term that most Catholics confuse with the “laying on of hands” rather than correctly understand as fidelity to Jesus’ teaching down through the ages. No amount of ecumenical “sugarcoating” can overcome this perception. Arguments based on medieval concepts of “form” and “matter” are probably of no help, either, in resolving debate. Where is the focus on the simplicity of the Lord’s Supper and its memorializing in the primitive churches?
Boundaries are important, but, if my experience is any indication, they tend to take care of themselves. People tend to gravitate to and associate with likeminded people. As a Catholic, for instance, I’m not likely to worship at a Protestant service. If I should happen to attend as a guest as I did for twelve years with my Episcopalian wife, I would pray along with the congregation, but I would not receive communion, and I would not ignore my own Catholic liturgy. We should not ignore differences: some are real; some — after dialogue — are seen not to be so. Perhaps it’s a matter of approach. To borrow from the field of labor negotiations, do we sit on the same side of the table and look at the problems before us, or do we adopt a more adversarial approach by sitting on opposite sides of the table? Do we say “Yes, but…” or “Why not?”. Without ignoring doctrinal differences, do we pursue commonality of belief, or do we fall back on our differences? Benedict XVI seems to prefer the latter approach.
Maybe we need “fresh eyes,” a “think outside the box” mentality. Jesus seems to have displayed both qualities. He didn’t hesitate to challenge the religious authorities of his day on matters considered sacrosanct, and he would be nailed to a cross for doing so! Indeed, I’m reminded of the pre-Vatican II treatment of several theologians whose ideas were considered ill-advised or worse — only to be vindicated at Vatican II when the world’s bishops overwhelmingly agreed with “novel” propositions that, upon reflection, were not so novel, after all!
Instead of medieval or “orthodox” or “traditionalist” doctrinal purity, we might want to consider embracing two scriptural references in addressing this issue of “eucharistic validity”:
+ “John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw a man who was driving out demons in your name, and we told him to stop, because he doesn’t belong to our group.’ ‘Do not try to stop him,’ Jesus told them, ‘because no one who performs a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say evil things about me. For whoever is not against us is for us. I assure you that anyone who gives you a drink of water because ou belong to me will certainly receive his reward.’”
+ “…Martha welcomed him in her home. [Her sister Mary] sat down at the feet of the Lord and listened to his teaching. Martha was upset over all the work she had to do, so she came and said, ‘Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her to come and help me!’ The Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha! You are worried and troubled over so many things, but just one is needed. Mary has chosen the right thing, and it will not be taken away from her.’”
In addition to a common following, we see here — more importantly — the divine embrace of hospitality, identified in my biblical index as “reception and entertainment of strangers.” This theme is found throughout the New Testament.
The heart of hospitality is the meal.
Maybe it’s time to revisit our theology to identify what’s really important. The “traditional” ingredients don’t seem to be working!
… [Trackback] …
[...] Infos to that Topic: commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3166 [...] …