The Church’s Move Towards Anglicans
October 26, 2009 19 Comments
Ross Douthat has a really interesting analysis in today’s NY Times where he discusses the move by the Catholic church to include dissatisfied Anglicans.
This is not the way well-mannered modern churches are supposed to behave. Spurred by the optimism of the early 1960s, the major denominations of Western Christendom have spent half a century being exquisitely polite to one another, setting aside a history of strife in the name of greater Christian unity.
This ecumenical era has borne real theological fruit, especially on issues that divided Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation. But what began as a daring experiment has decayed into bureaucratized complacency — a dull round of interdenominational statements on global warming and Third World debt, only tenuously connected to the Gospel.
At the same time, the more ecumenically minded denominations have lost believers to more assertive faiths — Pentecostalism, Evangelicalism, Mormonism and even Islam — or seen them drift into agnosticism and apathy.
This is spot-on. While certainly the Christian faiths mentioned above have seen a sharp increase in membership in recent years, the ‘old’ guard of Christian churches are seeing a slow drift away from their subdued and non-confrontational style of outreach and congregation-building. Young people especially have trouble connecting with churches that offer little in the way of serious theology and a willingness to defend their ‘home turf’. That apathy, as Douthat describes it, is an easy mark for the recruiting efforts of other faiths. An Anglican / Catholic alliance would be a strong force in resisting the inroads of other denominations.
But in making the opening to Anglicanism, Benedict also may have a deeper conflict in mind — not the parochial Western struggle between conservative and liberal believers, but Christianity’s global encounter with a resurgent Islam.
Here Catholicism and Anglicanism share two fronts. In Europe, both are weakened players, caught between a secular majority and an expanding Muslim population. In Africa, increasingly the real heart of the Anglican Communion, both are facing an entrenched Islamic presence across a fault line running from Nigeria to Sudan.
If the Church is going to remain strong in Africa and see any hope of rebuilding in Europe, cross-denominational efforts like these are important. What I will say though is that while the Church can reach out to certain parties, it is still fighting an uphill battle with most post-Reformation faiths. The differences have become so entrenched that theology cannot bridge the gap. So here’s my question to my Protestant readers…is there anything the Catholic Church could offer you that would make you consider a move like the one being present to Anglicans? Is there any appeal the Church has that could be better emphasized?
Mike,
Speaking from the Presbyterian tradition, I think there are two keys to getting post-Reformation Christians to look at the catholic Church. Both involve Church doctrine, and neither, as far asi can tell, has a theological basis.
First, the Catholic Church needs to acknowledge Papal fallability. Not only has history shown that Popes can, and od, get it wrong, but even Peter, who is supposed to be the “first Pope” denied Christ three times all the while claiming he never could. If Peter can get it wrong, any man elected Pope can get it wrong.
Second, Catholics need to welcome all Christians to the Eucharist. The current stance, that I as a baptized Christian, am not welcome to take the Eucharist at a Catholic table, flies in the face of Christ’s very direct teaching on the matter. When He offered the Last Supper, he gave it to “his disciples” and did not distinguish between them in any way. He even fed Judas.
Yet, to establish an Us vs. Them identity, the Catholic Church keeps me away from their table. It needs to stop.
Phillip,
On the first subject (papal infallibility) I think that is going to be a very hard one to overcome. I think it’s a pretty integral part of the Catholic faith and I often find that if you scratch deeper the problem isn’t so much with papal infallibility as it is with the idea of a Pope himself.
On the second issue, I have been doing some research on this because that is my primary issue I take with the Church since my wife is a non-Catholic and her church does offer Communion to all. Here’s what I learned: The key difference between Catholics and most other Christian faiths is that we believe the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation) and that Communion is a sacrament. Most other faiths only see Communion as a sort of symbolic moment representing Christ’s sacrafice. The current position of the Church is that any baptized Christian who accepts the concept of transubstantiation can take Communion in Catholic Mass. To take Communion without accepting this premise is seen as contradictory. I think this is a fair requirement and it makes me feel more at peace with the exclusion of non-Catholics. Essentially, the door has been left open to participation, we just ask that our belief on that subject be accepted first.
Phillip,
As Mike as already stated, the Catholic Church acknowledges that the Pope is a flawed and fallible being, like the rest of us. However, what are we to make of the Faith? Can we sit here and claim that the Bible is the spoken word of God and then turn around and say “We’ll never truly know what it means?” IOW, an infallible book needs an infallible interpreter. The apostolic faiths hold to the early ecumenical councils are making infallible statements … Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus was fully man and fully human, Mary was a Virgin when she gave birth … how are those different?
To the second issue, the Eucharist is a very real, very serious sacrament. Heck, if you ever attend an Orthodox Church they call non-Orthodox dogs as only holy things (i.e., Eucharist) go to the holy (i.e., Orthodox). If they open communion, they’re essentially saying “We have serious differences, but we don’t care about them. Partake of the single most important sacrament we have regardless.” Why would anyone really, truly want to engage such a group of phonies?
Gentlemen,
I would point out that, in nearly all the main-line Protestant Denominations, there are only (but importantly) two Sacrements – Communion and Baptism. The reasons for their preservation as sacrements is simple – Christ did them both, so we as believers need to accord them the same level of reverence and celebration as He did. So I would appreciate it if, when discussing the Eucharist, we could get away from its sacremental nature. You’ll find no arguement from me on that, nor from my denomination.
Mike, That may be the “Official Position” of the Catholic Church – the problem is that isn’t what is printed in the Service MIssals and worship guides on e find in the Catholic pew. Rather, those publications make a point that, unless you are Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, or one other denomination that escapes me at the moment, you are not welcome to the table even though you may be a baptized Christian. Ther is no mention of accpeting the concept or belief, nothing that says – if you support us you can come up. SOmeone needs to think about that.
I know all about the doctrine of Transsubstantiation, and I’d remind you that it all hinges on human interpretation of Scripture (back to the fallability argument). Christ does say, during the last supper, that the Bread and Wine are His “Body and Blood” which are given up for us. Yet, as many Protestant theologian shave pointed out, why does the the Catholic Church interpret this passage as literal, when all of Christ’s othe rteachings were allegorical and done with metaphor? The Good Samaritan story, FWIW, is as much about the ability of non-believers to do good in the world as it is about shaming the Jews for their lack of real commitment to their fellow man. No one I know, however, takes the Good Samaritan literally (excpet a few fundmanetlaists, who I postulate are apostate for a number of reasons).
So, where does that leave us? History shows that the drive to exclude non-Catholics from the Eucharist was as much about defining Catholic Christianity as it was adhereing to Christ’s teachings. Given that He welcomed all manner of sinners, Gentiles, and children to His table, how can the Catholic Church continue to keep away the rest of us who believ in Him?
Phillip – all I can say is that it should be made more clear to visitors. The problem I suppose is that you would have to probably spell out the theological interpretation and then let people sit in the pew and think about it. I’m not sure that’s really a decision we want people to make in 45 minutes.
As for your belief that Transsubstantiation is a flawed intepretation of Scripture…that is exactly why the Church prefers non-Catholics not to participate. Otherwise you have a bunch of people going up to Communion who all have different ideas of what they are actually doing and it sort of loses its meaning.
Mike,
I don’t think Transsubstantiation is a flawed interpretation of Scripture, I am just not convinced that its the only one and therefore I’m not convinced it should be the ruling one. While Christ does say the BRead and Wine are his Body and Blood, he also tells us to eat the bread and drink the cup to proclaim His kingdom until He comes again.
And I go back to this point – if the Catholic Church wants a closer relationship with her Protestant children, she needs to back off from keeping us from the table, since we all still recognize the sacredness of the table, and the meal eaten there.
The Catholic interpretation of Eucharist pre-dates Protestantism (I think). I’m not sure why the Catholic Church has to change its beliefs just in the interest of a close relationship. Certain things are non-starters towards bridging the gap.
Philip,
Here is the point when the Catholic Church talks about “closer relationship” and what we’re really seeing with the outreach to the Anglicans … for ecumenical purposes the status quo is fine, but if you want a seriously deeper relationship, you’re going to have to become Catholic. From the hierarchies standpoint, if the Catholic Church can facilitate that, great. That’s what we’re seeing with these documents about Anglicanism. Be prepared for the Catholic Church to announce an Anglican Rite. However, from the Churches POV … on matters of doctrine, there simply will not, and cannot be compromise.
To whit, there will never be open communion. The Catholic Church makes exceptions for the Orthodox in regards to Communion (though they do not reciprocate) but Communion and Real Presence is one of THE draws to become Catholic.
I’m with Tom on this one. In a perfect world Protestants would return to the fold. The problem is that they are basically insisting the Catholic Church become more Protestant in order to sway them back. I don’t really see the point of that.
1. You are both correct that the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Eucharist predates Protestantism. You are also both correct that, as a practicle matter, that doctrine will be one o fthe last to change in catholocism.
2. Here’s another way to frame our disagreement – I get the sense that Catholics (though perhaps not you both personally) don’t believe or accept that the Eucharist is “as sacred” to Protestants because we don’t subscribe to transsubstantiation. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially for me personally. As I said earlier, Protestant Churches still label two acts as Sacrements – Eucharist and Baptism. It just strikes me as silly that because I don’t believe tha the bread and wine become something else, I can’t fully participate in your version of the practice. That’s like saying I can’t come into your house because, although I’m wearing a shirt and shoes, they don’t match the color of your drapes. Which is more important:
- that all three of us, as Believers, work to make Christ’s teachings manifest in the world, while celebrating His sacrifice in our names?
- Or that we enforce human created “Brand mentalities” that exclude from the Table and thus the grace of salvation?
I think I could make a strong case for the former, based entirely on Scripture. I’m not at allsure I could, or should for the latter.
And to the other point – Catholics kicked Protestants out because we dared to question ROme’s interpretation of Scripture. I get that. But all this time, and theology and doctrine later, why is it Protestants who have to abandon their rich traditions and meaningful worship to reenter the Catholic Church? Wouldn’t the Catholic Faith be enriched by broadening to accept the best that Protestants have to offer?
Philip,
Catholic theologians have had a saying since the days of the Donatists (fourth or fifth centuries). The saying, when said in Latin is beautiful but I can’t remember it. In the vernacular, it goes: God gives grace to those who do what they can. In other words, do your sacraments confer grace (which is what everything boils down to)? Of course they do. Baptism is a non-issue because the Catholic Church holds that all apostolic churches (which includes those churches which arose during the Reformation) have a valid baptism.
Theologically, the Sacrament of the Eucharist is no small matter and much more complex (the Catholic Church claims that even an atheist could deliver a valid baptism). Arguments have abounded for ages as to whether communion could be valid with a leavened host, and in today’s day and age, the matter of the consecration (can a woman act in persona Christi?) raises issues which have led the Church to seriously question whether some denominational communions are indeed valid. I’m using valid in a theological context here.
I’m going to use an analogy here, and it’s probably flawed and may come across as condescending … I don’t mean it to be. From a theological POV, I think the Catholic Church believes that people who receive the Eucharist in a church not in communion with Rome can have receive grace from the Sacrament. Using pasta as the analogy, non-Catholic communion would be more likely viewed as Ramen Pride, where as Catholic (and Orthodox) communion would be viewed as lasagna. Sure, you can get nutrition from both, but one is more nutritious than the other.
Then there is the warning to not take communion and thereby eat damnation onto yourself. The early Church took that warning very seriously, which is why the Church today wants people to honestly know AND ACCEPT what the Church teaches for their Communion. What is hardly ever acknowledged is that the Catholic Church asks her members to refrain from taking Communion in other churches, since the Body of Christ is wounded from all the factions, partaking in such communion services brushes aside what are very real offenses.
To answer your last post Philip, I guess it boils down to what do Protestants want from the Catholic Church? As we’re seeing with the Anglicans, the Catholic Church is allowing them to keep their rich traditions and worship styles. Their bishops will be equals with the Pope (who is the Bishop of Rome, the First amongst Equals), and they will sit in Ecumenical Councils and have an equal say in all church matters. For those who do not wish to return, why should they receive all the benefits with none of the devotion and commitment?
I remember spending several weeks in classes preparing for my first Communion. It is a BIG deal in Catholic families and in the church. What you’re advocating Phillip is that we lessen that importance by allowing anyone who has the urge to receive Communion to take it, without even believing in the theology behind it. I don’t see how that is a fair request.
Mike,
I spent six weeks in class preparing to take Communion. It was a big deal in our church too – and with an ex-wife who is Catholic, and daughters being raised in the Catholic faith, I am more aware then most of what the Sacrament means to Catholics. The fact that you felt the need to point out to me how big a deal it was for you, as a Catholic, raises the question (again) of whether Catholcis really understand the role Eucharist still plays in Protestant churches.
Thomas,
from a Catholic Theological standpoint, you may be correct that Catholic Eucharist is lasagna, and Protestant Eucharist is Ramen. The challenge, however comes from Scripture, where “brand names” were’nt applied to the act. Christ commanded us to do this in His name, we do it in His name, and so we receive the grace of His salvation. To argue that the “meal” is less filling because it isn’t done your way smacks a bit of elitism.
And that strikes at the heart of the matter. To you rpoint about what do Protestants want – we want to be seen as the Christians we are, not as a secondary group who almost gets it right, but not quite.
From Phillip,
“…we want to be seen as the Christians we are, not as a secondary group who almost gets it right, but not quite.”
Phillip – I’m going to also agree with Tom again on this. If we gave Protestants equal status wouldn’t that be sort of an admission that the Reformation was necessary and Catholics have been wrong for the last 500 years? The fact remains, on most articles of faith ALL Christian faiths line up, but on numerous theological matters the gap is wide. We’re not denying Communion as some sort of punishment for the Reformation, but at the same time Protestants have made it very clear they think we are wrong on many issues. You indicated we are wrong on Communion – so why would you want to partake?
Philip,
The fact that there are multiple denominations is a clear indication that people think their church “has it more right” than the others. There is no doubt that if you look at the statements from the Catholic Church on ecumenism, she clearly recognizes that Protestants are Christians, that they are brothers and sisters in Christ. That doesn’t mean that they are not in error. From the Catholic Church POV, the Reformation resulted in some serious theological errors, which have resulted in some serious errors in practice and interpretation of the faith. Those things cannot be glossed over. They need to be confronted and discussed. Closed communion is a clear message stating that very thing … we should not act like there are no problems when there clearly are big issues which need to be resolved.
Yes, it would, but I fail to see why that is still perceived as a threat to the Catholic Church. Afterall, Vatican II rolled back many of the doctrines that lead to the Reformation in the first place.
Two reasons – one, if we’re all celebrating the sacrifice of Christ that brings us Grace, why should i be unwelcome at you rtable when you are expressly welcome at mine? Two, when I take my older daughters to Mass – as I do regularly when they are with me, as well as Presbyterian worship – I want to be able to particiapte fully in the worship. In Catholic Communities (if I’m being honest) I can’t.
If you’re suggesting that the theological gaps between catholicism and Protestantism are now moot, I think you’ve got to brush up on your theology a little better. We’ve already iscussed our different opinions on the Eucharist and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
As for being able to participate, the obvious answer is to join the Church or respect the role of a visitor. To me it’s like suggesting that non-Muslims should be able to go to Mecca, because, y’know, they just want to go. We could try to bend Islam to our will in the interest of reconcilliation, but the easiest way to Mecca is through conversion.
Philip,
If Vatican II rolled back many of the doctrines that led to the Reformation, why are there still Protestant denominations? If the roadblocks have been removed, why not return?
Rhetorical question, as we both know there are many major theological issues left to be resolved. As such, one cannot in good faith, ignore them to live some happy-go-lucky self-denial existence. For example, if I had a severe bacterial infection I knew was killing me, I suppose I could shun the antibiotics that would make me better (but make me feel like crap in the meantime) to live a life full of ignorant bliss … until I died prematurely.