Five Questions For Roman Catholics

127 thoughts on “Five Questions For Roman Catholics”

1. Did anyone answer Phil’s question (17th Sept)?

   Phil said: “The issue for me, I guess, is “how convinced is ‘convinced’”; what exactly does this mean? Is a certain amount of faith asked for? What level of conviction is required for faith to be expected?
   Sorry to butt in, but I hope a Catholic can answer these corollary questions for me as well.”

   I can only think of the Prodigal Son whose first reason for returning home was that his father’s servants had more food than he did! And what was the father’s response? To run to him, to embrace him, to dress him, to put a ring on his finger, to throw a party for him and to defend him against a hard-done-by older brother.

   I’m not saying, Phil, that you’re the Prodigal Son 🙂 but what amazing love the Father showed when his son arrived home – and the reasoning/conviction the son had was not so strong!

   Home was the best place for the son to experience that love. Just like the Catholic church (imho) is the best place to experience Our Heavenly Father’s love.

   Mercy, mercy, mercy.

   I hope this helps.

   Blessings.

   PS On the point of blessings… Theologically and within tradition they may not have a strong basis, but my Dad received a blessing every week for over 30 years. He converted 10 years ago. My question would be: why stop at a blessing when you can be fed and nourished by the truly life-giving Body and Blood of Jesus? Kind of like having a sip of water instead of the best champagne.

   LikeLike

2. Really excellent questions and the answers I have read are excellent. One concept I have not seen yet is that of continual conversion.
   Many cradle Catholics of today received less than a complete training in the Faith. As they discover parts of the Faith that are new to them and contrary to the World’s truth it can take time to accept them. Especially if your main training was in forming your own conscience instead in following Christ, through His Church, without reservation.
   My husband and I were Cradle Catholics. I had more Faith training than he, but he accepts Christ’s discipline far more readily than I. Still while the burden is light it is there, and not always easily accepted.
   I for one, need to be more moldable.

   LikeLike

3. 1. Your ministry may have been authored by God, but not in concert with His Church. That a person FEELS called noone can dispute; but only the bishop can recognize that calling sacramentally.

   2. It should be. Unfortunately an entire generation of American Catholics in the baby-boomer generation bought into the notion that the Second Vatican Council was about enthroning the individual conscience to the exclusion of all prior teaching of the magisterium. Vatican II merely recognized the role of the conscience in the acquisition of belief in a way the Church hadn’t previously. So individuality in belief (when backed by the claims of libertarian social movements of the time) has become more secure in some Catholics than obedience to all sources of teaching, including those that exist outside the individual.

   3. Your journey into the fullness of Truth cannot be forced or coerced under threat of sin; pray for the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will nourish seeds planted in fertile soil.

   4. The practice of receiving a blessing in lieu of Communion is not universally observed, though its meaning can hardly be denied: the gesture says to non-communicants, “You are loved and blessed too.” It also emphasizes, without intending to, that you are clearly NOT in full communion, a fact that may have been overlooked if you’d merely stayed in your pew. I suggest praying for Holy Communion with Jesus at this time during the mass rather than shuffling up for a blessing. Your prayer will be answered in the fullness of God’s time. The fact that you’re not partaking in communion is clear evidence that you do not seek reception. Why is that so? Consult Jesus in prayer.

   5. Loaded question, Mr. Monk. Clearly you’ve been giving way too much thought to the subject for someone “not” seeking reception. But I digress…

   Husband and wife are given to each other– not even the priest can sunder the two once joined. If a non-Catholic marries a Catholic, that spouse has already made a submission, for the Catholic spouse cannot do otherwise. If both are non-Catholic and one wants to join, that should be the occasion for much prayer on the part of both. Ultimately we are all free children before God. It would be a heartlessly unfit husband who would prevent his wife if she truly believed Christ was calling her home.

   You see, the Church does not teach union to the point of individual dissolubility. Both must come to the sacrament freely. And both live out their faithfulness to Christ in each other. Catholic marriage means self-donation to the other, who represents Christ. So— your scenario figures remarkably well: if Christ has willed the wife to fulfill her communion with Jesus, then husband must obey as he would obey Christ himself.

   LikeLike

4. I see you have many responses, but I can’t help piling on:

   1. Valid ministers of what? The sacraments? No. God’s grace? Interesting question. I thought Protestants believed that no intermediary between the individual was necessary or possible. I don’t understand the Protestant theology of ordained ministry. But as a Catholic, I can readily believe that God wants you, a Protestant minister, to help bring people to Him.

   2. My view is that a Catholic is obligated to accept all of the authentic Magisterial teachings of the Church. Now, there can sometimes be legitimate debate about just what those include, but for the most part it’s pretty clear. A Catholic, to take a common example, who rejects the Church’s teaching that the use of artificial contraception is a grave sin, is choosing to place his own preferences above the teaching of the Church founded by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit. The essence of Catholic faith is the idea that God is able to provide us an institution, which, through its Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, is capable of reliably preserving and teaching the truth throughout the ages. To me, rejecting any part of that deposit of faith, or improvising any new part, rejects that essential kernel of what the Church really is.

   3. Yes, and a mortal sin, too. If you know that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and teaches the divine truths passed down from the Apostles, and yet leave it or refuse to enter, that’s a sin of pride and aloofness of (to me) appalling degree.

   4. It strikes me that, if you were to seek a blessing (but not Communion) from a Catholic priest, it would indicate your acceptance that the priest is, in some sense, a minister serving the same God you work to serve. If I were to witness such an occurrence, I would take it as a gesture of respect to the celebrant, a statement of Christian solidarity (though not complete communion) with the congregation and, not least, an act of worship of God.

   5. I’m not competent to authoritatively give the Church’s teaching in such a matter, but my opinion is this: If a woman were to be convinced that the Catholic Church was where she belonged, what sort of husband would prevent her from following her conscience?

   I hope you find these answers interesting, useful, and/or entertaining, and may God bless you. I probably won’t check back here, but please feel free to email me if you should want to discuss these comments further.

   LikeLike

5. A couple of points raised here at the end might need clarification. Baptism is required to be accepted into the Catholic Church ( I used to be Jewish – I know). However nearly all non Catholic Christians have valid Baptisms in the eyes of Catholics. Catholics also have the sacraments of confirmation and confession which are both required before the first reception of the Eucharist (i.e sacraments are received in stages).

   This brings me to the second point: conversion also occurs in stages and is viewed as a continual life long process of sanctification. Thus you are not expected to fully grasp or agree with all of the Churches teachings. You are only expected to believe the Creed, have faith in the Church, and to continue your education as you deepen in faith and practice.

   Further many (including me) will never fully understand all the doctrine and we don’t need to. Today is the Feast of Saint Joseph of Cupertino who although Holy, was never strong on doctrine, rather his faith was childlike in it’s purity. As an official Saint the Church recognizes his heroic virtue is possible without intellectual understanding. We don’t reason our way to Christ we open ourselves to Him through faith. Faith first understanding comes later as needed. To be Catholic you have to trust the worldly representatives of the faith even over personal revelation (conflicts between personal revelations and the Church occur in the lives of several Saints such as St. Faustina).

   Over time you learn the reasoning behind the rules you begin to appreciate the time and care that went into formulating the documents that clarify the faith. Whether is the Theology of the Body or Pope Benedict’s “God is Love” encyclical there is more there than can be picked up in a typical Journey to Catholicism class.

   LikeLike

6. Wow! I’m edified by the nuanced unity of these comments, especially considering that about 100 of them were posted without seeing the answers of others…

   LikeLike

7. Holy cow, what a thread.

   I was raised Catholic but would hardly call myself educated or informed enough to address any of Michael’s questions. A couple comments, however:

   Derek writes: Understanding what the Church believes is essential to furthering Christ’s mission in the world. Unfortunately we have not done a great job in that department recently.

   I have to say, I don’t think that fault for that can be laid at the feet of the Church. The reformulation/republication of the Catechism in paperback form was a great step, but while its existence is now part of USA awareness, actual cognizance of its contents lags seriously behind because, to be honest, the USA is not currently a culture of readers.

   (Moment of silence.)

   That’s the fault of the people, not the fault of the hierarchy, but nevertheless that leaves the Church with two choices: either promote the book even more heavily and hope that more people will be willing to crack it open, or expand to other media. Video runs a great risk of looking silly, unless it takes the Mormon approach of “affirming good values” without engaging in discussion of doctrine — which would eliminate the point of the exercise. Podcasting, perhaps?

   Which sort of points to a big problem inherent to the RCC in America: democratic spirit and top-down dogma don’t always mix well. And considering the breadth and depth of RCC doctrine, I can’t help wondering that if all American Catholics really, truly knew all of what they were expected to believe and endorse, 50% of them, or more, would fly the coop.

   Which brings me to my other comment. Carrie writes: As a person seriously looking into the RCC, this frustrates me, too. I can’t take the church dogmas lightly, and won’t join unless I can support them. I know plenty of cafeteria Catholics, but I can’t rationalize joining the church if I thought I’d be one, too.

   Amen, sister. I love the RCC and, living in a thickly Protestant culture of semi-rural/suburban Indiana, often find myself defending her even when I don’t agree with her (in the same sort of spirit as those people who quote the Second Amendment: “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”). But I just can’t go back to her in good conscience; maybe I’m just too Americanized (or too Protestantized 😉 ), but I can’t promise to surrender my discernment to the Guy in Rome, even understanding the limitations placed on ex cathedra papal infallibility.

   (Which reminds me of another problem the RCC faces in the USA right now — speaking to a public who have no interest in learning arcane terminology in English, much less in Latin. But I digress.)

   LikeLike

8. 1. What do you mean by minister? We don’t believe that you’ve been validly ordained and received the sacrament of holy orders. We do believe that God can and does every human being to a vocation, and your vocation may very well be to serve others by bringing them the word of God. But if you converted to Catholicism, you wouldn’t automatically be a priest, you’d have to be ordained one.

   2. Well, if the Church has infalliably taught a doctrine then all Catholics must accept it. However, the vast majority of what the Church teaches on social issues, etc, has not been taught infalliably, and there would be a difference of opinion among Catholics on whether one can be a good Catholic while disagreeing on certain issues. If a teaching involves ‘grave matter’ and the Catholic knowingly disobeys that teaching, the Catholic is likely in a state of mortal sin and should participate in reconciliation before receiving Communion.

   3. That’s a good question. The Church doesn’t teach that baptism by water is strictly necessary for salvation, but I would expect that anyone who believes what the Church teaches is true would consider it prudent to seek baptism. I don’t see why you would be required to, but it would be prudent, because the Church also does not teach that people necessarily can be saved without baptism (although most scholars agree that there is solid support for the idea that people who are not baptized Catholic can still be saved).

   Of course, if this person had full knowledge of the teachings of the Church, this person would be committing a mortal sin if he disobeyed the teachings involving grave matter.

   4. It means you’re blessed. You don’t have to be Catholic, Christian or even human to be blessed. The priest will often bless pets on St. Francis’ feast day. People have their cars blessed. Usually, at Communion this is offered as a way to make people welcome even if they can’t receive Communion.

   5. The Church would encourage everyone to convert to Catholicism. The Church would not encourage someone to remain Protestant to please her husband. However, the Church equally doesn’t permit divorce, so if the marriage was valid her parish would almost certainly provide counseling and assistance for her marriage.

   The Church views marriage, like any relationship between the sexes, as a relationship of equality and a woman is not expected to submit to her husband.

   LikeLike

9. In the sacrament of Matrimony, it is the man and woman who are the ministers. They administer the sacrament to each other. The priest is not a minister he is merely the Church’s official witness. Can a Protestant minister validly marry? Yes, but only his own spouse.

   As for baptism, even a non-Christian can be a valid extraordinary minister of the sacrament.

   LikeLike

10. Please don’t use the term “cafeteria Catholic”. It’s insulting. The most evil person on the planet has dignity as a human person, and we should treat them accordingly, with respect. People who dissent from Church teachings are usually as sincere (and possibly successful) in trying to follow God as those of us who are “faithful” Catholics.

    We should still persist in encouraging them to accept Church doctrine whole-heartedly. But complaining about or insulting someone isn’t the way to draw them into the path you think they should be on.

    LikeLike

11. The responses have been pretty good, particularly to the first question. As for #4 I would just had that the blessing here is a pastoral act rather than a liturgical one. From a Catholic standpoint, it would be the reception of communion that would imply seeking full reception into the church. The blessing is a pastoral response for a priest who finds a person in line but who is not seeking full communion with the Catholic Church.

    LikeLike

12. I wanted to correct a misconception I saw in a couple of posts:

    The reason for this is simple: a marriage outside the Church or of non-Catholics is a valid natural marriage but not a valid sacramental marriage. A valid sacramental marriage gives grace in a way all other marriages do not.

    The marriage of two baptized Christians is a sacramental marriage, unless there is some other bar to validity. Two Protestants who are married in their own church have a sacramental marriage. A Catholic and a Protestant who marry in accordance with the Catholic Church also have a sacramental marriage. It is not true that “mixed marriages” aren’t sacramental, if we are talking about marriages between Christians.

    See here for better information about Catholic-Protestant intermarriages (Scroll down to IV C.). This happens to be something that many Catholics are misinformed about.

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

    LikeLike

13. “Michael Bates

    Related to point 2, I have often wondered why Catholic Bibles don’t include all the authoritative dogmatic statements by the Magisterium — conciliar documents and papal bulls — since they are regarded as authoritative as the 66 Books. ”

    This is worth a new thread, somewhere else perhaps.

    Because the Bible would weigh like 70 pounds? Joking.

    The Bible is the Word of God. Scripture is revelation, not dogma or doctrine. Dogmatic statements and conciliar documents carry authority, but it isn’t the same authority (although it is derived from the same authority), and it isn’t revelation. Specifically, no one can add anything to the body of revelation passed on to us by the apostles.

    Besides, have you ever actually read any of these? Dryer than Leviticus. Typically, these documents are written for the Bishops and Priests and Theologians, the average Catholic is better served with a Catechism summarizing and explaining. Although, for the ambitious, I do recommend reading some of the documents of Vatican II. As for Bulls and Encyclicals, they are not infallible documents.

    LikeLike

14. Here’s the best go of a guy w/ 16 years of Catholic schools:

    1. The church would not recognize you as a minister in the way that we would recognize a priest, but that is not to say that we would reject the idea of you having a calling. It seems clear that God would object to the sad state of division that exists among Christians and we would believe that all are called to Catholicism. That certainly does not means that God does not tap non-Catholics to take on a shephards role for those who love Him but cannot bring themselves to the Catholic Church.

    2. We are sinners. We are bound to accept the authoritative magisterium. That doesn’t mean we all succeed.

    3. This could be a tough one, but I believe that an individual may not deny the truth which he believes but is not required to advertise everything he believes. Looking at early Christians during periods of persecution as a model it is clear one cannot deny Christ or the truth. They also did not go looking for the nearest imperial soldier and started preaching at him. If someone believes that Catholicism holds the truth there is a duty to not deny it and to move toward it in prudence.

    4. What it means to the party coming forward is highly individual, but what it means to us is that this person seeks the grace and blessing of God. We would not assume that seeking a blessing implies complete union in belief but that the individual honors us and God by seeking Him through our worship.

    5. A husbands leadership in marriage does not extend to the point at which the wife must act in bad conscience. Her first duty is always to God and the truth. She must honor and respect her husband, but cannot be bound to deny the truth or act contrary to rightly formed conscience.

    Hope it helps.

    Pax vobiscum.

    LikeLike

15. I know you’ve gotten far more answers than you could want, but as a Catholic married to a Reformed Protestant man, I wanted to tackle #5.

    5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage?

    I don’t think there is a clear answer for this one, which suggests that “submission” is simply not as big of an issue in Catholicism as it is in conservative Protestantism. John Paul II seemed to teach “mutual submission” rather than the kind of strict male-headship model. However, I don’t think his vision of mutual submission is authoritative, and Catholics are free to hold other models. Short answer, then: the Catholic Church doesn’t officially teach much about submission at all.

    One thing that I think all Catholics would agree, though, is that submission does not apply to matters of sin. (My Presbyterian husband agrees with this too, by the way.) One spouse can’t force another to violate his or her conscience. In a Catholic-Protestant marriage, this has implications not just for attendance at worship, but also for sexual practices and possibly (with a younger couple) child-rearing.

    Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

    I think the answer is “Yes, in some cases.” As I mentioned above, Catholics do not think that submission applies to matters of sin. If a spouse is conscience-bound to join the Roman Catholic Church, then the other spouse has no authority to prevent him or her.

    Having said that, I think the best way to understand this is to look at the matter not in terms of “sin” but in terms of grace.

    Catholics are sacramental Christians, as you know. We believe that the sacraments are means of salvation. We believe that they help us grow in holiness. They are -or ought to be- at the heart of Christian life.

    And yet, Catholics do not believe that Protestant communities can offer all of the sacraments. In particular, we do not believe that Protestant celebrations of the Lord’s Supper are equivalent to the sacrament of the Eucharist as it was meant to be. And as for the sacrament of reconciliation -the other sacrament most regularly needed by the average Christian- it isn’t available in any form in many Protestant communities. From a Catholic perspective, then, a husband who prevents his wife from receiving the sacraments in the Catholic Church is attempting to prevent her from receiving the most basic aides to sanctification. The question to my mind is: what Christian husband would do that? How is preventing your wife from receiving the graces she needs for daily life showing Christ-like love?

    I understand that the husband in question may feel that the Catholic Church is in grievous error, but a man cannot make up his wife’s mind -or her conscience- for her. Nowhere does the Bible say that a wife is to let her husband make her profession of faith FOR her. If a wife believes that the fullness of grace and truth are to be found in the Catholic Church, and not in her Protestant community; if she hungers to receive the sacraments as celebrated in the Catholic Church; if she believes that her current church is flawed and cannot offer her what she needs to grow in Christ, then her husband has no right to prevent her from receiving these things.Family unity is important, but you cannot have a spiritually healthy family if the individual members are not allowed to thrive.

    LikeLike

16. I feel the need to comment on the responses for question number two. The term “Cafeteria Catholic” might make it sound to some that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on those who pick and choose their own tenets of faith.

    I note a significant amount of apologizing going on for these people who are obedient to part of their church’s teaching but reject others, as if nobody but a Catholic would ever do this.

    Please don’t forget that this is a very common human condition. It just becomes more obvious within a church that does not offer over 4000 versions of it’s doctrine as the Protestant church does. If another Christian was faced with a similar disagreement, he or she would have the opportunity to find the the denomination that conforms to their beliefs rather than having to reflect more deeply on the possibility that it is their beliefs that are in error, rather than the church’s.

    What I see is a problem with so many people who desire to be Catholic without realizing that it is not a club that one just belongs to. A practicing Catholic is called to be obedient to God as he manifests himself through scripture, tradition and the Magisterium.

    LikeLike

17. Me again.

    Re: the blessing/communion line thing.

    One view I have heard mooted about this is that the new idea of people traipsing up to get “blessed” when not participating in the Sacrament of Communion is that it goes along with the post-Second Council liturgical innovations, many of which moved the human actors to the centre of the Mass. For instance, while the addition of the altar of sacrifice allows the presider to face the people, it changes the equality of all before the Blessed Sacrament: in the Tridentine Rite, everyone faces the same direction, all focussed on the miracle of transubstatiation. Latterly, it appears that it is the celebrant who is “doing something” to the bread and wine. Similar innovations, like moving the altar of repose to the side and moving the presiding chair to the middle of the sanctuary, have a similar effect of promoting the importance of the celebrant and the humans over the importance of the Blessed Sacrament itself.

    But this is sort of off-topic for this thread, so I’ll shut up now.

    LikeLike

18. Some comments on 1 & 2:

    1: Many are saying that Protestant ministers “can’t administer the sacraments validly” due to a lack of holy orders. This might be confusing to some Protestants for whom the sacraments are the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Protestant ministers *can*, and do, validly baptize, as can any other person. I think it wouldn’t be going too far to say that baptism is one of the proper and appropriate functions for a Protestant minister. Likewise a Protestant marriage officiated at by a Protestant minister is perfectly valid (assuming no prior impediments, such as a previous existing marriage, etc.).

    Further, the Lord’s Supper in a Protestant church, while not in Catholic understanding including the Real Presence (in the sacramental sense–I’m sure Christ is present in the sense of two or three gathered together in His name), is surely “valid” in the sense intended by the Christians there present.

    I just don’t want any readers thinking “The Catholics think our baptisms and marriages aren’t valid!” And as others have pointed out, “validity” is a technical term in Catholicism. I think you mean something like “recognized by Christ,” to which I would say, why not? Does any Catholic here doubt that Fred Rogers (a Presbyterian minister) in his ministry to children, or Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., were chosen by Christ to the ministries they held? If *they* didn’t hear “Well done, thou good and faithful servant,” I think I’m toast.

    2: This question left me uneasy, because of the number of times on the blasted internet I’ve seen something like this: “I just demonstrated to you, benighted Romanist, that the Council of Trent, teaching x and y, inexorably entails a doctrine of z [some abominable evil thing], which therefore you as a Catholic must believe.” And the Catholic says “Hey, don’t put words in my mouth!” And from there on it’s all downhill.

    It’s not cafeteria Catholicism if the Magisterium consists of Truly Reformed Blogger’s Infallible Interpretation of Sixteenth-Century Documents. On the other hand, if it’s a matter of something plainly taught by the Church, forthrightly in the Catechism, then the Catholic is fair game.

    Fangirl moment: Your blog rocks, Michael! I’ve already been impressing Baptist friends in my book club with my (recently acquired) knowledge of Baptist theology. Cafeteria Baptists, look out! Ha!

    LikeLike

19. I have experience on the last question (marriage). While the Catholic Church clearly teaches that a man is the proper spiritual head of the household, it also expects the children to be raised Catholic. I have direct experience of this. We went through an official Catholic engaged encounter with a priest. At that time I was Jewish, I’m now Catholic, in order to be married in the Church by a priest in the Church I was obligated to promise that we would raise the children as Catholics.

    If you have a pair that married outside of the Church and did not make this promise the marriage is still presumed to be sacramental and valid (as a default all marriages are presumed so).

    In general Catholics teach that Protestants have 2 of the seven sacraments available to them (Baptism and Marriage). There are missing: confirmation, confession, ordination, last rites, and most crucially communion. This last is the single biggest distinction and the reason the Pope holds that Protestant communities are groups bestowed with blessings but are not Churches. The Church is where the Eucharist is (Jesus in Person, in the Real Presence).

    What might not be obvious is that the sacraments are “stacked”. That is, a proper Eucharsit can only be received (from Heaven – literally) by a properly ordained priest who obviously must also be baptized and confirmed. Interestingly the priests personal state of grace is not a barrier to reception – even priests under mortal sin can receive valid Eucharist. Because it’s not about the priest: Christ wants to be joined with us in the Eucharist (see St Gertrude St Faustina etc). Catholics teach that the Eucharist is the source of many blessings if we receive it validly (after confession) and with humility. He pours His graces out on us through it. It is meant to be transformative in that Christ literally replaces us with Himself to the degree that we submit and obey.

    Doubtless there are many better comments than this one in this thread – I haven’t read them all. In any case thank you so much for being so polite and open to discussion on our faith.

    I would like to make one small point however. I just read last night in one of the Popes many books a comment that seems appropriate here. In a nutshell he said that faith is not a matter of persuasion and should not be. We can not reason/argue our way to the truth. It is matter of truth and must be found through faith. Further faith is the foundation upon which love of God and the Church must rest. Doubtless you know this already because your approach is so refreshingly Christian in the best sense.

    LikeLike

20. Somewhere up in all those comments (sorry, I can’t seem to find the person’s name again), someone said something to the effect that Protestant ministers can’t administer valid sacraments. I am assuming (and I could be wrong) that the poster would then mean that sacraments administered by a Protestant pastor would not be recognized as valid by the Catholic church. In practice, I know this is wrong. The Catholic church recognizes any baptism done in the ordinary (Catholic speak for “normal”) way: using water and using the name of “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” In fact, the Catholic church is very cautious *not* to rebaptize. Also, marriages performed by Protestant ministers are valid sacraments of marriage recognized by the Catholic Church. You don’t have to get “remarried” by a priest.

    While I realize there are sacraments Protestant ministers cannot perform, such as the Eucharist, it is by no means true that they cannot perform any valid sacraments.

    LikeLike

21. “Related to point 2, I have often wondered why Catholic Bibles don’t include all the authoritative dogmatic statements by the Magisterium — conciliar documents and papal bulls — since they are regarded as authoritative as the 66 Books.”

    That’s 73 books, darlin’.

    Why would the Bible contain the operating documents of the Church? The Bible is God’s inerrant Word, Spirit-breathed. Please don’t start an unpleasant and inaccurate sidetrack in what has been an interesting and respectful thread.

    LikeLike

22. Thanks to Orthodox and others for straightening me out re: the #4 question – that the blessing of folks during Communion who don’t receive is an innovation and not a traditional practice. (God really used it for His glory in my case, though.)

    LikeLike

23. Your interesting questions demonstrate fairly clearly that evangelical Protestants and Catholics really speak two different languages when it comes to church.

    Your first question, for instance, is basically meaningless in Catholic terms. A priest or deacon is “validly ordained” in Holy Orders by a bishop, who participates in the apostolic succession. Other people have been called to forms of lay ministry within the church, but are not in Holy Orders. Since you are not in Holy Orders, in the Catholic sense, you are not a priest, but there is no reason to say that you have not been called to ministry within your own community.

    Your second question, about cafeteria Catholics, is common to us all. It’s the result of ignorance in some cases and of deliberate refusal in others. Of course, as others have pointed out, not everything Catholic is infallible. This can be very confusing to Protestants (and to Catholics as well). It was a real breakthrough with a friend I was counseling when he realized that infallibility is clearly defined. However, while there are some things that Catholics are not required to believe (private revelations, for example) they are required to believe clearly defined doctrines and to give very serious consideration to everything taught by the ordinary magisterium.

    My understanding of your third question is that if a person is sincerely convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith and deliberately chooses not to join the church is committing a grave offense against the Holy Spirit. It is, in effect, refusing to come to the wedding feast (and we remember what hppened to those who delayed showing up). The precise degree of gravity would have to be judged by a priest in the sacrament of Reconciliation.

    My response to your fourth question, is what do you mean by it? If you disagree with the church’s teaching and do not want to be received into the church, why would you come forward at Communion, even for a blessing? You could always ask a priest for a blessing after Mass, but again, why would you? Communion means just that, that you are in communion with the church. If you’re not you shouldn’t be on line. We don’t see this practice very much in my parish. It’s only young children who have not yet made their First Communion that do this. I think I’ve only seen an adult do it once. No one is requird to approach the altar.

    I have no personal experience with your fifth question, never having been married. But from what I see in the marriages of friends marriage is more a partnership than a “leader/follower” relationship. Such a marriage would seem to be not the best. Perhaps a question could be raised here. If you reverse the direction, what would be the position of your church if a formerly Catholic wife wished to become an evangelical and her husband refused to let her?

    LikeLike

24. Peggy, your understanding of how we Catholics have always understood the procession to Holy Communion has validity. In the older times, no one thought twice about Catholics staying put in their pews. If anything, it was an indication of faith–I am truly not disposed to receive you, Lord–God help me and bless me. In the current time, however, it has become a matter of course for many priests to accept that a person may come forth, reverently, to receive a personal blessing. It may not be my way, or yours, but it is not that which is proscribed by the Church (to the best of my understanding). And therefore, what is not forbidden, is, in charity, acceptable.

    Oooh, BTW, I am more than thrilled to see Fr Alvin Kimel commenting here. We have missed your insights, Father. God bless you.

    LikeLike

25. Related to point 2, I have often wondered why Catholic Bibles don’t include all the authoritative dogmatic statements by the Magisterium — conciliar documents and papal bulls — since they are regarded as authoritative as the 66 Books.

    LikeLike

26. I see you have plenty of input more expert than mine.

    I will, however, echo Fr. Stephen above about the general problems with the blessings during communion. The blessings during communion are not appropriate as a general matter. Please stay in your pew if you are not in a position to receive Our Lord, whether you’re Catholic or not. [Sure, we have to take small children up with us, but they don’t need to be blessed. They’ll get over it.]

    LikeLike

27. Maybe you got 100 replies because your comments are moderated. Each of the hundred repliers saw your question and saw “Zero replies” under it, so they said “He certainly deserves at least one answer!”

    At least, that was the case with me! Have fun reading!

    LikeLike

28. OK, Michael, I’m going to take a shot at answering these, even though I wouldn’t call myself the most knowledgeable Catholic. I hope I understand my faith well enough to answer.

    1) The Catholic church would not consider your ordination valid, because ordination (of a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop) must be administered by a validly ordained Bishop in direct succession of the Apostles. However, we would certainly consider you a valid minister, in the sense that people are called by God into different ministries, which do not necessarily involve ordination to the priesthood. We believe in the universal priesthood of believers who must minister in many ways: teaching, preaching (not during the homily at Mass, but certainly outside of that), comforting the dying, ministering to the sick, etc. God gives different gifts and calls different people to different ministries. It is not for us to say whom God calls, but the Church must determine if there is a vocation to the priesthood or religious life.

    2) Absolutely correct here. If you can demonstrate that the Church teaches Y infallibly, then Catholics must accept the teachings of the Church. Period. We are allowed to struggle, even doubt, but not dissent from these teachings. (Yes, I know Catholics do dissent, but, you are correct, one’s personal opinions are not important. Obedience is a dirty word in today’s lexicon, but Catholics are called to obedience to the word of God, as given to us by the Magisterium –Sacred Tradition–the teachings of the Church.)

    3) This one is difficult. If you are convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus Himself created, and the Holy Spirit protects, and you choose of your own free will not to convert, then yes, I would say this is a grave sin–in essence, rejecting God’s Will. If, however, there are reasons that you believe that you cannot convert at this time, that is really a matter between you and God Almighty. Basically, therefore, my final analysis is–we cannot judge your heart and soul (and should not pretend that we can)–that is for God alone.

    4) You may go forward and receive a blessing, if you believe that such a blessing is valid. Even if you do not believe all that the Church teaches, it does not follow that your fellow person (Priest or not) cannot ask God’s blessing upon you. For Catholics, a priest’s blessing is different, as he is acting in Persona Christus (apologies for lack of Latin). Catholics should also not receive Jesus’ Body and Blood if they are not properly disposed to do so. Going forward for a blessing, is not wrong, in my opinion, be you Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise.

    5) Most difficult question. Although I believe that the Catholic church teaches the husband’s headship of the family, a wife always retains free will as a personal creation of God. She would have to consider, prayerfully, if her formal, public conversion would injure the family. No one should deliberately injure others that good may come of it (my opinion). On the other hand, we must follow God before our husband and family. As you might guess, I am ambivalent here. I hope that you will get a better answer from a more knowledgeable Catholic than I can give.

    On a personal note, I know that you do not agree with all the Catholic Church teaches, but you can discuss your differences without becoming confrontational or insulting. I wish more of my Catholic brothers and sisters could discuss our differences as charitably as you do here. May God bless you, Michael, and your family with you. We are very lucky to have you and our other non-Catholic brothers and sisters to show us what true Christian charity is. We have much to learn from you. Thank you.

    LikeLike

29. If we’re talking about ancient practice, anyone not the faithful was kicked out half way through the service so that the authorities would not know who the real Christians were. Thus no-one not of the faithful would get a blessing in the actual service, though presumably they would at other times if asked.

    Speaking as Orthodox, and presumably Eastern Catholic, the blessing comes at a different time in the service (later) and is traditionally for the faithful not taking communion, but later become for everyone.

    LikeLike

30. Hello, Mike,

    What thoughtful and interesting questions you have asked. I hope you will receive many answers from faithful Catholics who have been serious about their faith for quite some time, and that these will be helpful to you.

    1.Q. Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers?

    A. Of course, they are valid ministers, and are to be respected by all as men of the cloth. There can be no doubt in the mind of a Catholic that a sincere and faithful Protestant minister receives special gifts from God to do his job.

    That said, a validly ordained Catholic priest has the power to do things that no Protestant minister is able to do – particularly to confect the Eucharist. And a validly ordained Catholic bishop has the power to do things that neither a non-episcopally ordained Catholic priest nor a Protestant minister can do, which is to ordain priests who have the power to confect the Eucharist.

    More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    I don’t think that is the case, at all. The Protestant communions are here; they are with us, and through them Our Lord Jesus Christ ministers to millions of His followers. As a Catholic, my supposition would be that Jesus would very much prefer that all Christian believers – Protestant as well as Orthodox – would join the Catholic Church at once and without delay. But I also believe that He would also prefer lots of things that aren’t going to happen any time soon, and in His wonderful kindness, mercy, patience, and Providential love, the Lord leads each one of us on our journey to Him. “God works all things together for the good for those who love Him.” And so, the Protestant communions, through which the Lord ministers to His people, must have buildings and seminaries and ministers, and to that end, the Lord must certainly call ministers to serve these communities of Christians.

    This is not to say that having once been called, one day the Lord might not see fit to call such a Protestant minister out of his own congregation and into the Catholic Church. If such a call should come, he should follow. “As it seems good to the Lord, so let it be done.”

    2.Q If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?

    A. Thank you! I have a particularly unChristian urge to klunk together the heads of cafeteria Catholics when I hear them speak in their cafeteria-ish ways.

    I just pray for them, anymore.

    Such people are, unfortunately, dunderheads. Some day, some day, God willing, many of them may come around. I hope they do! Meanwhile, there are plenty, plenty of Catholics with their heads screwed on straight who are not like that. Those are the ones who are worth talking to.

    3. Q. What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?

    A. That’s a bit of a sticky wicket, Mike. In a hypothetical case, the man who is convinced that the Catholic faith is true, but steadfastly refuses to embrace that truth, will have to answer for it. In real life, I don’t believe it’s really proper for one Christian to inform another categorically, “that one is committing a sin!” Instead, I would say that such a one ought to beseech the Lord to enlighten him so that he might find the way to follow where the Lord wishes to lead him. Perhaps such a person would also benefit from a few conversations with a wise and holy Catholic priest.

    4) Q. Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

    I think it means that the Church wishes to invite everyone in the congregation to join in the Communion procession, but that those who know they ought not to receive the Sacrament may discretly signal to the priest distributing Communion that they would like a blessing instead. Persons who disagree with the Church’s teaching are welcome to participate and receive the blessing.

    5) Q. What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage?

    A. The Church’s view is well summarized by Saint Paul’s dictum, “Wives be submissive to your husbands.”

    Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

    The Church does enjoin upon wives a spirit of submissiveness to their husbands but even more so, submissiveness on the part of both, to the Lord. I don’t think the Church would ask a wife to be submissive if her husband asked her to do what was unlawful or objectively sinful. I think the Church would point out to such a husband and such a wife that there are transcendent truths that supercede all human considerations – “If any one comes to me without hating (i.e., preferring) his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple”. What Christian man in good conscience would dare to interpose himself between her and God, attempting to deprive his wife of her liberty of conscience? That seems a shocking usurpation of her human dignity and freedom, most disrespectful of that which God has bestowed on her and requires of her. How could such an attitude on the husband’s part not be viewed as disrespectful to the Lord Himself?

    Thank you, Mike, for the opportunity to correspond with you. May God bless you and your family.

    LikeLike

31. I’m not a Church authority, and I don’t play one on TV. I’m a Catholic wife and home schooling Mom of 8 kids, who has been studying the Faith since Jesus and His incredible love became real to me at the age of 15. I’m now 43. If there are ANY errors in the following it is due to my own sinfulness and ignorance.

    1) The Church recognizes a difference between a minister of a denomination and valid ordination. You are a minister, not an ordained priest. The Church sees the difference in that you cannot, in persona Christi, consecrate bread and wine to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. You cannot, because you are not validly ordained, bind and loose sins confessed to you by a repentant sinner as was given the Apostles to do by Jesus. You can baptize, as any baptized Christian can do,(Catholics may only in an emergency).

    2) Many Catholics have been consumed by consumerism. They try to pick and choose between teachings. Our nature is fallen, and of its own volition, it can’t get up, so to speak, and like Jacob-Israel struggle with many teachings they don’t properly understand. Many Catholics were quite poorly catechised from the early 1960’s until the present day because many priests and bishops began substitution pop psychology for the Sacred Teachings and Traditions passed on to the Catholic Church by the Apostles. Here’s something for you — hold their feet to the fire, and don’t let go until they think through their inability to accpet Church teaching. Thousands of martyrs have died horrid deaths for those Teachings and Traditions!

    3) The Church recognizes that there are many reasons – some quite valid – that total conversion is not possible at the time. The decision to put it off for whatever reason is between them and God, but the reason must be very serious, because at the time of judgement, we will be accountable to God.

    4) If you are seriously struggling, like Jacob-Israel, over issues of the Catholic Faith, going up to a priest at the time of Communion for a blessing is asking the Lord to assist you in that struggle. The priest is a man of Christ, and is standing in the place of Christ on the altar. It is asking the blessing of Christ, through the priest, when you are not free for whatever reason to receive Holy Eucharist. Anyone may ask a priest for a blessing, whether seeking to join the Church or not.

    5) The Church has always taught that women had a particular dignity that must be cherished and respected, even when the culture did not agree (and often it did not). Husbands are to lead, but women are the family’s heart, and submission must be seen in light of Ephesians – “as Christ loves the Church”. You may want to read John Paul II’s letter to families “Familaris Consortium” to get a better understanding, or the catechism of the Catholic Church.

    About part two of 5) re conversion of a wife over the objection of a husband, this is something that an individual must work out with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. I have known women who have converted, and women who have patiently waited. If they know their marriage is in jeopardy – they usually wait. However, if a woman understands that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus and passed on to the Apostles to ‘go into the world baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” and preaching the Good News – would a husband who claimed to truly loved her hold her back from “working out her salvation in fear and trembling” where she believed the Lord Himself called her to go?

    LikeLike

32. You have come up with some excellent questions. I’m Catholic, so here’s how I’d respond.

    1. Ministry is a call from God. Among the ministries, as Paul enumerates them, are teaching, exhortation, healing, etc. I think all Christians are called to ministry. So, obviously, I think Protestant ministers are called by God to ministry; and that many of them are highly gifted, as well.

    2. Probably one of the reasons a lot of your dialogue with Catholics gets around to the topic of “cafeteria Catholics” is that there are so many of them. Protestants by another name. Some Protestants I know are better Catholics than most Catholics, even without being able to enjoy the sacraments. Go figure.
    That said, assent to Church teachings is not meant to be blind and robotic. In my experience, it took me a while to appreciate the logic and wisdom of a few of them, and, in those cases the appropriate responses were to obey them while continuing to grapple with them intellectually, and to refrain from complaining publicly about them. As a practical matter, I should mention, I’ve had a lot more irritation with non-doctrinal, non-dogmatic aspects of Catholicism like sappy music and various bureaucratic personalities than with doctrine.

    3. You probably should have a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the documents of Vatican II, especially Lumen Gentium, for solid definitions of the church. THe following is “theology according to me.”
    The church has a doctrine of “baptism of desire”: A person counts as baptized if it is their desire to be baptized. I suspect that a person who truly desires to convert to Catholicism counts as Catholic in the eyes of God. Their experience is terribly sad, though: being on the outside looking in; hungering for Eucharist but not able to taste it; longing for the solace and grace of Confession, etc. etc.
    My mental picture of such a person is a child with his nose flattened on the outside of the bakery window while the baker is inviting him to come in and get a free eclair. The concept of “sin” does not come to my mind when I contemplate this situation, but why would anybody want to continue any degree of separation from God?
    That said, I feel terribly sad for one dear friend, the wife of a retired Protestant minister who still works as a weekend preacher. What would happen to their pension and income if they converted to Catholicism? Would they spend their “golden years” alienated from all their friends and colleagues? Heroism is the word that comes to mind. Jesus talks about it in the middle of Luke, and it’s not easy.
    One thing lots of Protestants don’t know is that they really are allowed to read Catholic books (e.g. Fulton Sheen, Chesterton), to pray “Catholic” prayers like the stations of the cross and the rosary, and to receive “radiation treatments” in front of the tabernacle in a Catholic church. A lot of the delight of Catholicism does not require swimming the whole Tiber right away.

    4. Asking for a blessing is asking for a blessing. I think that’s what it means. When I attend a Methodist communion service with my husband’s mother that’s what I do, and I feel blessed.

    5. As a very happily married Catholic woman, I think the biblical ideas of love and submission make perfect sense. Guys already learn submission on the football field and in the army, so Paul reminds them to love. Women find love quite natural, so Paul reminds them to submit. Actually both are supposed to be “submitting to one another.” If a husband truly loves his wife, and she is convinced that her spiritual life (as opposed to simply her feelings) would be enhanced by becoming Catholic, he owes her very very serious consideration and respect. If the husband is truly rooted in his Protestant congregation, it seems to me that it would be loving of her to continue to go to church with him and to attend Mass at a different time. Catholic Mass schedules are remarkably accommodating. Her genuine growth in holiness should eventually attract him to the fulness of the faith. But in the meantime, her access to Protestant music and other graces that are often abundant in Protestant congregations should help her be a good Catholic.
    Incidentally, my husband is a convert from Methodism. At first, he was merely attracted by the idea of us worshipping together. (We were dating at the time.) But then, when he, an intellectual, discovered how much fun there was to be had studying Catholic theology, he truly felt he had come home.

    Blessings and peace,
    Kathleen Miller

    LikeLike

33. I’m not going to swear that I’m a knowledgeable Catholic but I try not to be cafeteria.
    1) I’m not sure what minister means in this context. Are you asking if you were really called to be a priest if you were Catholic? Or are you asking if God has a mission for you to call others to a knowledge of him? I would guess no, and yes.
    2) It should be the end of the conversation, yes. Especially if you find it in the Catechism. (Unless you are talking about just war since people disagree passionately about what the Catechism means there. The precepts of the Church are another tricky Catechism point but I doubt if that’s your problem either.)
    3) I think the Church believes that you should always follow an informed conscience, meaning in this case that the hypothetical would certainly be sinning on some level if he/she chose not to openly convert, if able. What does unable mean? If we’re talking about physical abuse or possible divorce, prudence and a really good priest counselor would have to weigh in on what to do.
    4) As Father Fox has remarked on his blog, going forward at communion for a blessing, while common, is not a prescribed action. I think that would mean that doing it can really mean anything. I think the least assumption would be that the blessee had enough respect and reverence for the priest to think that his blessing meant something.
    5) Ultimately you need someone better than me for this but, I am fairly sure that the Church teaches the primacy of conscience. I do not think that is ever delegated to the husband in the Catholic Church. In the New Testament a wife who converted to Christianity was supposed to give her husband a choice as far as staying or going but if he wanted her she was supposed to stay. I’m not sure how relevant that is nowadays.

    LikeLike

34. 1) The difficulty with asking whether Protestant ministers are valid ministers is that “ministers” is not really a category in Catholic theology. Certainly Protestant ministers are not considered to have validly received the sacrament of ordination (aside from some debate over Anglicans). Thus, they can’t do things reserved only for ordained priests, like administer the sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation.

    But they may have been *called* to do such things. The life of a Protestant minister may be the incomplete living out of a vocation to the ordained priesthood. (Incomplete in that it doesn’t include all the sacraments, and in that all Christians are called to full communion with the Church, not necessarily incomplete in holiness).

    I suppose that if the minister were a woman, a Catholic might be obliged to confess that they are not called to the ordained priesthood.

    2) Dissent within the Church is a difficult issue. Probably most Catholics in America disagree with at least one official doctrine: contraception, homosexuality, abortion, and women priests being the most common topics of dissent. More conservative Catholics tend to find themselves outnumbered and are somewhat more likely to turn to the Internet to find support for their ideas. So a lot of Catholic bloggers rail against dissent from Church teachings; and they almost always mean just those ones I listed. (Sometimes they throw in disagreements over liturgical issues, or dissent on Eucharistic and Marian teachings).

    As for demonstrating the infallibility of an issue, it may be that they are not convinced by your argument that it really is infallible. It should be the case that infallibility proved means accepting the doctrine, yes, but people are people, so it is never really that easy. (If it were, there wouldn’t have been any splits over doctrine in the first place). But infallibility has a lot of subtlety to it, so “proving” it can be difficult anyhow.

    3) Certainly someone who is convinced the Catholic Church is true has an obligation to join it if they can. Does this obligation trump all other obligations? I don’t know. I suppose they ought to try to talk to a Catholic priest about it and see what he says. It might be possible to convert in secret, for all I know. (Matthew 10:37-38 might be relevant, but that’s just my own opinion).

    4) What an interesting (and amusing) question. As far as I know, someone who goes up to be blessed instead of receiving communion is saying that they would rather be blessed than sit in a pew by themselves. I’ve never heard of receiving a blessing being taken to mean intent to join the Church or a positive view of the Church. (Although I suppose it would be odd for someone who hates the Church to want to receive a blessing from a Catholic).

    5) Submission in marriage is one of those topics that Catholics in America usually deal with by completely ignoring it. Most aren’t aware of Church history that relates to this topic, except for a vague idea that we don’t oppress women anymore by holding to that ancient nonsense about submission.

    As recently as 1930, a pope upheld the principle of wifely submission (Casti Connubii). In 1988, Pope John Paul II put out Mulieris Dignitatem, which basically said there should be “mutual submission” of both husband and wife to each other. I’ve run across any number of Catholic wives online who try for proper submission. But many Catholics look at JP II’s words and reject any outright authority of the husband over the wife. Online, this gets debated sometimes, generally without anyone convincing anyone to change their mind.

    As for whether a wife may join the Church against her husband’s wishes, her submission to God outranks her submission to her husband. If she believes in good conscience that God wants her to join the Church, she is obliged to submit to Him. If she is unsure whether she ought to believe that God’s will for her is to join the Church over her husband’s objections, I would recommend talking to a Catholic priest about it.

    LikeLike

35. With regard to going for a blessing in the “communion line”, this is really an unauthorizied innovation that should not be taking place for anyone who will not be receiving communion, whether or not they are Catholic or not. This is something added to the liturgy, in some parishes, by some priests, I presume, none of whom have any authority to do so. After Communion, at every Mass, the priest blesses everyone in the church – no matter who they may be. The business of turning the Communion procession into a blessing line is part of the notion, common these days, that everybody must get something. Supposedly, bad manners and hurtful to ones “self-esteem” to make distinctions and legitimate exclusions.

    LikeLike

36. No one in particular – just liked your questions. Hope I can give you a simple persons view. (visiting from Amy Welborn)

    1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    You would not be a validly ordained priest that could give me the sacraments.
    The friends who know you would know better this answer. I don’t know you at all and don’t know the authenticity of your journey. My sister is in what I believe to be a new age type following but I believe her heart to be true (yet at the same time I see her “reasonings” frustrated at times.) Very difficult without being a reader of souls to answer this without causing more division.
    2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.” With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter? If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?

    Original sin?? Seriously, there has to be a correct understanding of infallible teaching. A good place to start would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is the doctrine of the church. (Doctrine vs dogma – another matter, you must assent to the dogmas of the church if you are a Catholic in good standing, but you can still be in good faith yet have questions about the doctrines. This doesn’t make the doctrine subject to be changed, just gives you the awareness that we all have our struggles.) Other matters are free for discussion. For instance, married priests vs women believing they are called to be priests; one is discipline the other doctrine. As you are aware there are women so convinced of their calling (and I don’t doubt they have another conscious motive except to serve) yet the church teaches NO. We fall to all sorts of judgement on the matter and the Truth continues to elude us. Blind obedience is not what the church wants from you. One can only grow if we can ask why, how, like Mary at the Annunciation versus Sarah who ended up laughing. The concern is for the development of the human person.
    So, matters may be closed for discussion publicly, as in the church will change her ways, but not ever really closed for a truly religious person who cares what these teachings mean. So yeah, you can find many people confused but not necessarily schismatic (someone who should be kicked out o the church We are a church for sinners, perfect need not apply.

    3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?

    HMMMM, If I were in love and never told the person I would never know what I could have. This is an unreasonable position. Forget “sin.” I would say the person is already damned. There are risks that must be taken.
    4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

    The Blessing is a gesture I don’t understand. It isn’t a necessary part of spiritual communion during mass. This can be done by desire in the pew. Any one can do this. But anyone can receive a blessing. My six year old gets a blessing. If you openly disagree with Church teaching, (and are not seeking reception) I don’t see why you would want a blessing from a Catholic priest. I don’t have my daughter receive a blessing from a lay Eucharistic minister. This is silly to me. I am her mother. I give her blessings. Her father and the priest are the others that I can reasonably desire blessing my daughter.

    5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

    I wish there would be a specific example. Would her spouse have her seek an abortion? This is scandalous! IF I knew her I would personally support her through this to help her keep her humanity intact and not be reduced to a damaged delusion of happiness. This can get really sticky. For this kind of scenario. I wonder what other scenarios are there??

    School; the children should be raised Catholic, but I can see how this can be a problem. Especially if the spouses are in conflict over the faith. I would hope both parties would be supported in their faith journey (we’re never done) and help the family maintain unity over as many matters as possible. The wife needs a priest that she can trust and she should not be afraid to seek one to help in these matters. One that is orthodox and full of faith (I think one can be verbally orthodox and have no idea what they actually follow) One that can be open to dialogue with the husband’s minister and help the wife. My first recommendation for the wife would be to foster a devotion to the mother of St Augustine. His dad was pagan (I am not calling my Christian brothers pagan!). The point being her incredible faith. Her faith was rewarded with the conversion of her son. Beautiful witness.

    We can agree – one should always preach the Gospel, using words only when necessary. (Live it in your very flesh)

    God bless you and may you find a friend in Christ

    A mom, not thoroughly “learned” – no degree in theology. Just on this journey to the Infinite!

    LikeLike

37. Hello!

    Just call me “Joe Catholic”… I’m ready to try to answer your questions:

    Q1. “Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers?”

    For a Catholic, the words “valid” and “invalid” are applicable to sacraments. E.g., A Catholic might ask, “Is the baptism performed by a Mormon valid?”

    So when a person combines “valid” and “minister” as you have in your question, that person seems to me to be asking if the minister has been validly ordained as a priest or deacon. The answer to that question would be “no.” I suppose that if “Protestant” includes “Anglican” and “Episcopalian,” then there’s some wiggle room for the case of Episcopalian priests who were ordained by bishops who were in turn ordained by Orthodox bishops (I understand that this has happened).

    Q2.: “More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?”

    My answer would be “no.” I think that I can believe that a particular Protestant preacher is neither priest nor bishop, yet he is responding to a real call from God to preach the gospel. This is like my responding to the call in my parish to teach catechism, be a lector, direct adult faith formation, etc.

    It seems to me that calls are movements of the heart caused by the Holy Spirit, and these movements are based upon what the person knows of God. So God can move the heart of a non-Catholic to preach the Word, etc.

    2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” … etc.

    I share your frustration with Cafeteria Catholicism. For example, I believe that there is a “seamless garment” between the Church’s sexual ethics and its ethics of responsibility for helping the poor. I try not to be a Cafeteria Catholic. But maybe you have some other “difficult teaching” in mind.

    I may not embrace every single teaching with 100% enthusiasm–“ah this makes complete sense to me.” To some I say something like what Peter said to Jesus “…to whom shall we go…” But I accept.

    3. “What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time?”

    It seems to me that it would be a sin to decide NEVER to enter into full communion (as in the case of a Protestant)/or/convert (as in the case of a non-Christian). The question of whether to do so immediately versus delaying entry into the Church, on the other hand, may be a matter of prudence. And prudence doesn’t fall under general rules.

    In any case, it seems to me that one who “sees the light” (please excuse what must seem like chauvinism to you) must normally make a decision to take action at some time. But it may be impossible in principle to say how far that delay might reasonably stretch into the future.

    4. “Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake?”

    I don’t think it has any definite objective meaning beyond your request that another person bless you. I suppose such a request implies you think you would benefit from being blessed by a Catholic. But it does not imply that you think you will benefit from that blessing solely for the reason that the one giving it is a Catholic. In other words, it’s pretty open ended.

    I think Catholic theology would call the act of blessing a “sacramental.” It is not a sacrament instituted by Christ, but a pious action that may play a role in one’s growth in faith, hope and love.

    Q5. “What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage?”

    This question is outa my league.

    It seems to me that the prospective Catholic should make a firm committment to becoming Catholic, but may also decide to spend some time overcoming obstacles resulting from one’s spouses hostility to the faith.

    Certainly, Catholics understand non-Christians as having a right to leave their spouse in order to become a Christian (this is called the Pauline privilege). But I am pretty sure that no such privilege is given to non-Catholic Christians who are already sacramentally married. Such marriages are indissoluable. Period.

    I don’t know the solution to the problem you hint at (being indissoluably married but separated by a spouse who is hostile to Catholicism). But I DO believe that the mere fact that a spouse who wishes to join the Catholic faith might end up being dumped by their anti-Catholic spouse… this objection is not sufficient to justify the decision not to become a Catholic. That sort of practical reasoning seems to me to be consequentialism that is foreign to a Catholic understanding of morality.

    Sorry if this is muddle-headed: it’s the best I can do.

    Thanks for your blog: I do appreciate it very much!

    What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

    LikeLike

38. Here are some attempted answers from a grad student in theology.

    1a. The term “valid” is only used in certain limited situations. “Valid” with respect to a sacrament means that the sacrament has actually taken place. (Thus, if my baptism was invalid, I should be baptized anew.) “Valid” with respect to a juridical act, juridical decision, or juridical procedure means that it has actually taken place. (This is how it is used in civil law, too: if a president appoints an attorney general without notifying the Senate, this appointment is invalid.)

    So if you have ever heard Catholics discuss whether Anglican priests are “valid”, they were using sloppy language. What they should have asked was whether these are “validly ordained priests”. In other words, the question of validity refers to the sacrament of Holy Orders that ordained the person, not to their ministry.

    Protestants and Catholics both agree that Protestant ministers are not ordained by the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore, these clergy are not “validly ordained”. But they aren’t really “invalidly ordained” either, because they don’t even claim to be ordained in the Catholic sense.

    But the question as you posed it — are Protestant ministers “valid” — uses the word improperly, so it’s an unanswerable question.

    1b. Your second question in #1 was hether “if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?” The answer is no, the Catholic Church in no way denies that God can call people to be ministers in Protestant Churches. We are taught by Vatican II that the Holy Spirit works among all Christians. Whether the Spirit’s working might sometimes include calling specific people to ministry has never been discussed in any official Catholic teachings. Any Catholic is free to believe that this never indeed happens, and is free to believe that this does sometimes happen.

    2. If anyone (Protestant, Catholic, atheist, whatever) has shown that the Catholic Church has indeed infallibly taught ‘Y’, then someone who denies doctrine ‘Y’ is not representing Catholic teaching. So yes, if you wish to dialog with Catholicism, you will find yourself frustrated if your dialog is with someone who is Catholic but doesn’t hold such teachings.

    As a side point, a Catholic who denies doctrine ‘Y’ might still be a good Catholic, if their denial is based on real ignorance or on certain other factors.

    In other words, dialog with them might still be, in your phrase, “dialogue with Catholics”, even if it isn’t “dialogue with the teachings of the Catholic Church”.

    Finally, the number of doctrines that have been taught infallibly is much smaller than the number of doctrines that have been taught with a very high level of magisterial authority. If a Catholic accepts the former but denies many of the latter, is he or she still a “cafeteria Catholic”?

    3. Your question has two parts. If someone is actually unable to convert, no sin is committed, because no one is ever obligated to perform an act that they are unable to perform.

    If someone is unable to convert, and chooses not to, this is very possibly a sin, perhaps even a serious sin. To take an extreme case, if someone is truly convinced that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, and that person refuses to join the Church, then (absent any odd mitigating factors) that would be a grave sin. Grave sins, when performed with full knowledge and consent, are mortal sins. So this is not something to lightly be toyed with.

    At the other extreme, if someone is convinced that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and goes to a Catholic pastor and says “I want to join your Church,” and the pastor says, “Okay, you should take our RCIA class, and you can join the church at the end of it”, then this person would certainly not be sinning, even though this class is causing a “delay” in their joining the church.

    Most cases are between these extremes, and depend on a lot of factors. Is this person avoiding converting because of embarrassment or selfish reasons? Or are they honestly only 99% convinced, and are spending a lot of time to investigate and consider converting?

    4. Most of the sacramental theologians I have talked to have no idea what this blessing-at-communion means. Traditionally the blessing at Mass is the one that happens at the end. Is the blessing at communion somehow a variation of this? I don’t know and I don’t think anyone knows. It’s a recent development and seems to have been the creation of local pastors.

    There are a few theologians who think that this blessing-at-communion should not be happening. But I don’t know if anyone thinks it’s a good idea but should only be given to certain people! In particular, if this blessing IS a good idea, it seems odd to restrict it to Catholics in good standing, when the entire pastoral reason for its creation was to allow non-Catholics and Catholics not in good standing to approach the communion table.

    5a and 5c. I can’t answer these!

    5b. Traditionally the Church has taught that no adult should ever be impeded from joining the Church because of a marriage bond. If the other spouse is unbaptized, then the Church can even dissolve the marriage, in the cases of the “Pauline privilege” (1 Cor 7:10-15; Code of Canon Law 1143) and the “Petrine privilege”. If both spouses are baptized Christians, then the marriage is (presumed to be) valid and sacramental, and so the man and wife are required, in certain ways, to submit to each other. But this submission cannot include things that are sinful or which jeopardize one’s soul, and thus religious conversion cannot ever be compelled or forbidden by a spouse.

    LikeLike

39. 1. There’s a certain validity to your ministry. You are not an ordained priest or deacon, but you do exercise leadership according to your baptism, charisms, and training for the benefit of the Christian people in your congregation. Technically, your status is roughly similar to lay ministers in the Catholic Church (officially, the Catholic Church reserves the term minister to the ordained, but there is a certain middle ground that lacks nomenclature). Now, lay people do receive charisms from the Holy Spirit and also have a calling to a particular mission in the Church. Would Scott Hahn say that his original call to the ministry was invalid? I don’t know, but I doubt it.

    2. You got me. The reception of the faith is more nuanced than many will admit. Pope John Paul II once said that the Church proposes but doesn’t impose. My experience is that the Church educates me over time. Over time, I am led to become more obedient to the ever greater call of Christ.

    3. This situation strikes me as one of primarily intellectual assent. Such a person would do well to persevere in prayer and increased familiarity with the Church until their heart and will are moved toward the Catholic Church.

    4. You might ask the priest ahead of time about this since the gesture is not universally recognized (indeed, in Eastern Catholic parishes, everybody crosses their arms to receive Communion). The main question a Protestant might ask would be: what authority does this man have to bless me? Typically, blessings are to consecrate persons or objects to God. I’m not sure that this gesture is clearer than sitting in one’s seat and praying for Christian unity…

    5. The Catholic Church teaches that marriage should be a union of love and respect, with the partners submitting to one another in love. The spouses should help one another draw closer to God and not impede each other. A husband can’t prevent a wife from coming into the Church, nor a wife her husband.

    Questions 3 and 5 remind me of Charles Peguy, the great French poet…

    LikeLike

40. If you don’t mind, I’ll elaborate on #5 (I posted a link to the catechism on marriage above): The wife’s informed conscience should trump her husband’s desires as it sometimes does for each partner for other issues during a marriage. And it would “fit into the church’s teaching on marriage” – and marriage should also be considered in context as a part of the “whole” of Catholic doctrine & dogma.

    LikeLike

41. 1.yes&no..(i’ll be short) no, to the fact that there maybe no aposotlic procession(i dont know your denomination)and YES,because we are all called in some way(maybe you could be a good evangelist)…2. yes,they should follow the teachings of the church(lets give them time and see what God does)its like a parent teaching their child,they teach them right from wrong,but do they themselves do right,and if they dont,does that make what they taught wrong…..3. yes,for if you know,REALLY KNOW,it would be sin,it would be denial of Christ and what He left, a visible church,with a visible head(Peter,Pope)….4. I would think simply to be blessed,the reason for them not receiving Our Lord could be many reasons(ask them)…If a person openly disagrees with the church(protestant) they probably dont know,(really dont know) 5.wifes be submissive to your husbands,Husbands love your wifes!!If a spouse knows they should join,then they should join.the church would say follow your co nscience.not and overbearing spouse(thats me saying that)

    LikeLike

42. Regarding number 5 – the wife should join the Church despite her husband’s objections. The wife feels that God is calling her to join the Catholic Church. Should she value her husband’s objections over what God may be calling her to do?

    LikeLike

43. And, I didn’t link to the ESV bible. I’m not sure how that happened. I prefer drbo.org for citations with notes.

    LikeLike

44. I’ll give it a shot, but you’ll have to help clarify a few points.

    The questions in order:

    1. You’re actually asking two questions here, I think.
    1a – Am I validly ordained (from a Catholic point of view)?
    1b – Have I received a legitimate call from God to ministry (again, from a Catholic point of view)?

    1a – No. I’m pretty sure the Church would not recognize your ordination as valid for lack of apostolic succession. A priest, to be validly ordained, must be ordained by an equally valid bishop. For a lay minister within the Church – a deacon, for example – a bishop also confers valid ordination.
    1b – It’s entirely possible that you have received a valid call from God to minister in some capacity. You minister within your capacity. People need God. Though some refuse the Church, their need for God is not diminished. You may well be a tool of the Spirit to minister to these people in whatever capacity you’re able (by that I mean that you don’t have the fullness of the Catholic Church, so it’s impossible for you or your congregation to gain that fullness without a validly ordained priest).

    2. “If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?” The short answer is yes, but of course, the short answer won’t work here. First off, you have to be careful what you see as “infallibly taught”. I’ve had plenty of Protestants claim that the Church has taught Doctrine Y, but it really hasn’t. A classic example is the idea of limbo. It was never taught by the Church, but I’ve had several occasions when I was told that it was Church teaching. Another reason that this idea fails is the fact that, given Rome’s view of abortion and contraception, you still have John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Sean Hannity professing to know better AND be in full communion with the Church. Remember, the Catholic Church is one big family. We squabble just like one big family. Not every kid is going to agree with dad.

    3. This one isn’t answerable in its current form. You’d have to know a good bit more about the specific situation. A simpler way to look at it is this – there is a chance that the person would find themselves in a state of serious sin, and a very good chance at that – but the nature of that sin and the culpability thereof would be very dependant upon the situation.

    4. Again, a little clarification is needed. If someone goes forward to receive a blessing, it’s just that. They’re being blessed by the priest in the presence of Christ. Someone that openly disagrees with the Church’s teachings isn’t likely to go forward anyway, so maybe you could clarify a bit here? Are you talking about someone going forward to receive the Eucharist who isn’t Catholic, or is it someone going forward for a blessing?

    5. “Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse?” Matthew 10:32-40, assuming that the person was convinced that what the Church teaches is true. Again, as in #3 above, it would depend on circumstances. But familial objections wouldn’t really hold water. Imagine a slightly different scenario. Would a wife that is brought to believe in Christ be compelled to become Christian over the objections of her pagan husband?

    That’s all the time I have at the moment…and I’m short on time to proof this as well. Regardless, I hope it helps. Short answers are always bad because they never answer enough, but it’s a start.

    Oh, and one last note, if you think you’re frustrated in trying to deal with cafeteria Catholics, you should try doing it from the inside…

    LikeLike

45. 1) I hate to answer a question with a question, but what is a valid minister? All Christians are called to minister to others. For example, I am a husband and father of two, and therefore it is my vocation to minister to them. So, the answer is no, they are not required to believe that you were never called to be a minister because we all are called to minister in some way, shape, or form.

    2) How can a protestant denomination demonstrate that any of their teachings are infallible if their “church” is fallible? I mean if the Methodists claimed that their teachings were infallible and the Catholics claimed that theirs infallible either one of them is wrong, or all of them are wrong. We know that all of them can’t be wrong because St. Paul even said that the Church was the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) So, to a Catholic, our infallible teaching beats your infallible teaching because you are not really infallible.

    3)You say “unable” – that can mean anything. If someone thought the Catholic Church was true and the moment after I believed that something happened that caused them to go into a coma or vegetative state, then there would be no sin involved. However, I can’t think of any good reason why someone should choose not to convert to Catholicism if they believed it to be the Church Christ founded.

    4)It is just an indication that you are not a full member of the Church yet.
    Here is a good resource on recieving communion:
    http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

    If you read the document there are some non-Catholics who can recieve communion and some Catholics who shouldn’t.

    5)The Church’s view is pretty much what St. Paul said. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. The wife is to obey the husband. The love of Christ for the Church was sacrificial unto death. If the husband fufilled his part, the wife would naturally fufill her part.

    LikeLike

46. Wow, these are good, thoughtful questions.

    1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    This question can be answered in more than one way, depending on what you mean by minister. I would say most Catholics would view a Protestant minister’s leadership of his flock valid in a teaching sense; but ordination is a different matter. In the Catholic Church, ordination (at least, full ordination, but now we’re getting into a different matter, so I’ll skip that one for now)is an initiation into the priesthood, which enables one to perform sacraments that lay people cannot perform. Doctrinally, a priest is able to consecrate the Eucharist and hear confessions/give absolution. Further, he is able to give the sacrament of Confirmation, but is allowed to do so only with a dispensation from his bishop. (This dispensation is automatic under certain circumstances, like for confirmations done on Easter.)In this priestly sense, Catholic teaching would not accept the ordination of a non-Catholic as valid, because the ability to enact priestly sacraments must be passed through apostolic succession. However, this does not nullify the minister’s role as a leader in other ministry. Does that make any sense? (Sorry to be so long winded.)

    2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.” With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter? If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?

    That’s a tough one to answer, without knowing the specifics of the conversation. It could be that the person who accepted one thing and not another was simply in the wrong. Or it could be that X is a dogmatic issue, and Y is not. Unfortunately, many Catholics are not fully aware of what is dogmatic (required belief) and what is either untested doctrine or discipline (rule that can be changed). A discipline must be obeyed by Catholics, but they do not have to agree, whereas a dogma is a teaching considered infallible.

    I will say that for many Catholics, coming to that point of full assent and belief is a difficult struggle. That does not negate, though, the fact that the Church teaches dogmatic things as infallible. I know some people who do not fully agree with some teaching in their minds, but give their “assent” and obey the dogmas.

    3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?

    Is it a sinful act to reject what you know to be true? Yes. (And that, of course, applies to all people of faith.)On the other hand, God is aware of any mitigating facts that we may not be aware of. To be fully culpable of serious sin, the sinner must be choosing in complete free will to commit the sin. I would suspect that in many cases where a person chooses not to follow what they believe, there is some reason, either external or internal, that interferes with their fully free choice. This mitigates the person’s guilt.

    4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

    Anyone can receive a blessing, whether they are Catholic or not, even whether or not they are Christian. A blessing is not a sacrament, and going up for one is fully optional.

    5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

    The Church teaches that submission should be offered, but never demanded; and that it must be reserved only for when it would not involve sin. If a wife feels bound by conscience to join the Church and her husband opposes it, she is not obliged to obey her husband in disobedience to her conscience. However, if she does go against her conscience because of submission to her husband, that would certainly be a mitigating factor in the level of her guilt.

    By the same token, if a woman felt led to anywhere, and was convinced it was where God wanted her, she should obey God above husband. However, whether it is the Catholic Church or any other expression of faith, she should pray long and hard to be sure that this is where God wants her before making light of her marital unity.

    I hope this helps.

    LikeLike

47. I’d like to take a hand at answering your first question, Michael. I’m a Catholic layman, recently received into the Church from Anglicanism.

    1) Yes, you are a minister. No, you are not a priest.

    Clearly you are a servant in God’s Kingdom. The Holy Spirit is working through you. You are actively engaged in ministry and are responsible for a community of God’s people. In fact, I would venture to say that you are a more sincere and effective minister than many of our priests are. But you do not have Holy Orders — you cannot confect the Eucharist.

    This is a baffling truth. I’d like to use three metaphors to illustrate Protestants’ position in the Body of Christ which I think will save volumes of explanation and should adequately address your question.

    a) Take a look at John 15. To quote Keith Green, “He is dee-vine and you are dee-branch.” There is no denying that Protestants are bearing fruit — we can see the evidence of it. That being said, it stands to reason that a Protestant draws sap from the living Vine. But a Protestant has cut off a number of key capillaries. There are channels of grace that you have left dry. I’m thinking namely of the Sacraments, the See of Peter, and the intercession of the Saints.

    Now I know that you’re saying, “What about these idiot Catholics? They’ve been barren for years, and _I’m_ the one separated from grace?” Michael, I’ve been saying that for years. These stinking Catholics have the full deposit of the faith and the accumulated wisdom of two thousand years of our forefathers. They have the Sacraments, the Papal See, the Blessed Virgin; they’re in the Ancient Church, up to their jowls in the Historic Mainstream, sitting on the Rich Root of Israel, and they’re twiddling their thumbs! They have every channel of grace and every one of them is dry!

    b) Lets take a page out of Paul and use military symbolism. You are a soldier in God’s army, no doubt about it. More specifically, you’re paramilitary. You don’t fit into the normal categories. You can’t confect the Sacrament because you’re not a regular. You’re separated from the approved hierarchy. We’re on the same side (when there’s no friendly fire), but there are undeniable differences.

    c) Consider Pentecostals. We both would say that doctrinally, they don’t have a full deck. There are things missing. And yet you can see that they’re about God’s business with all they’ve got. It’s like they’re driving a fleet of jalopies. The engine isn’t the greatest and the suspension sqeaks, but by God they’re out there on the highway every day with the pedal to the metal. They’re making full use of what they have.

    Now saunter down the block to Catholicism Blvd. Now despite the empty street, I guarantee you that every one of those garages contains a tricked out Lamborghini, straight out of Italy. It’s in there under a dusty tarp and it’s doubling for a work bench. To be fair to the Catholics, they do take the cover off every once in awhile. Some of them even drive it out to the end of their driveway and back.

    Would you be surprised if you heard that a lot of people with Catholic upbringing are joining Pentecostal churches? Heck, at least they’re moving. But Michael, if we could awaken the Church — we would fly.

    LikeLike

48. Surprised no one has taken a run at these yet. All right, here are my shots:

    1. Yes, because “minister” is a term with different connotations than “priest.” I have no problem acknowledging a Protestant (please accept this term in its broadest shorthand sense) minister as “Reverend.” Far be it from me to dispute the ministerial calling of another Christian.

    Now, if we’re talking about claims to a priestly (read: claims to celebrating a Eucharist as Catholics understand it) role, then there’s a different story.

    2. “If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?”

    Yes. That is supposed to be the case. I may have doubts or concerns about it, but dogma is not up for debate.

    3. It depends, as we are now wading into the roiling waters of moral theology. “Unable” can cover a lot of grounds which would make non-entry into full communion non-sinful.

    4. One who goes up for a blessing is acknowledging a desire to receive, but is also stating that he/she is unable to do so for some good reason. I can’t think of any problem with what you are doing.

    5. The question of submission is one that’s a bit of a third rail, so permit me to deftly sidestep it. In short, there is an established teaching of submission that mirrors that of conservative classical Protestantism. However, Pope JPII made reference to mutual submission of the spouses in a way that did not clearly reference the older teaching. Hence, some fireworks. But I don’t think that’s determinative here. In the situation you posit, the Church would say that the wife has the right–perhaps even duty–to convert. Even under the older submission idea, the husband cannot override his wife’s conscience or the Church’s teaching.

    LikeLike

49. Questions about Catholicism by non-Catholics should always begin with an examination of context and presuppositions. If you’ve can at least temporarily suspend the Americanist (Calvinistic & Gnostic) conceptual framework, then the answers are simpler. But unwavering fidelity to the Americanist worldview makes it almost impossible for one to comprehend Catholic teachings. Roman Catholic teachings today are almost always aimed at clarifying confusion among Catholics first and foremost. You can read whatever agenda you want INTO the official statements, but then you’re just rereading your own agenda and not fairly reading the RCC. If you approach with the attitude of “What does the RCC have to say to ME as a non-Catholic?” then you’ll invariably distort the intent of the teaching.

    1) “Valid ministers” is not a cognizable canonical category for Catholics, unless you’re talking about “extraordinary ministers” of the Eucharist. It seems valid holy orders, on the other hand, is what you’re after. Valid holy orders determines the validity of the sacraments. So the RCC is not really concerned with anyone’s personal, privately-derived “calling” if it hasn’t been sacramentally recognized by the visible Church. It’s not that the RCC automatically denies one’s private experience of being called; it’s just that it’s 1) insufficient by itself (Catholic or not) and 2) immaterial if one is not Catholic. The clarifications that the RCC issues on holy orders are meant to avoid the confusion and error among Catholics of receiving just anyone’s “ordinations,” and thus sacraments, as if they were valid. Anglican orders are deemed invalid while Orthodox orders valid. The rest of Protestantism has so many discordant and changing views on sacraments it’s hard for the RCC to even keep track. So the bottom line is that the RCC can easily recognize the bare fact that your church has ordained you as a valid minister, but because it can’t separate your ordination from the entity that ordained you, it doesn’t recognize your office as valid for Catholics. It makes sense if you apply the same logic to your own denomination, which I’m sure doesn’t accept Branch Davidian “ordinations” as valid.

    2) Not sure what you’re really asking here. Is it “why are there cafeteria Catholics?” or “why do some Catholics emphasize some teachings and not others?” or “when do the beliefs of an individual Catholic matter?” or something else?

    3) Is it a sin to knowingly and willfully reject the Catholic Church and all that she professes as true? Sure. It’s telling the Church of Christ and the Apostles, “Yeah I ‘agree’ with you, but I don’t want to have anything tangibly to do with you.” “Agreement” for Catholics is not just a mental act and only Cartesian Gnostics would think cognitive assent sufficiently establishes anything with the Body of Christ. It would be worse if you were once Catholic and have explicitly gone apostate, ie. there’s less personal fault if you don’t know any better due to circumstances beyond your control. But I also wonder if we’re operating on differing definitions of “sin.”

    4) Receiving a blessing during Communion is canonically permissible. But whether it’s a wise or prudent thing is another question. What’s the point of receiving a blessing from a priest of a church you effectively reject? Even if I had a very, very close Protestant minister friend, I would at most ask for a personal blessing outside of the liturgy. The Mass is not a time for private expressions of interpersonal affection; it is the re-presentation in time of the timeless Paschal Mystery through the Eucharistic Body of Christ made present in the synaxis of liturgy. Ecumenism’s preoccupation with ritualizing individualistic sentimental acts seems bound up with the inflated egotism and self-consciousness of our Americanist age. The early church would not have permitted a non-member to even be present during the unveiling of the sacred mysteries, so the RCC is still relatively permissive in this matter. Blessings are also available to Catholics who refrain from partaking according to the Eucharistic discipline of 1Cor, but most stay on their kneelers since it’s a relatively modern idea of debatable merit.

    5) The RCC again has bigger fish to fry when addressing non-Catholic spouses than whether they’re submitting to each other. Of course, the RCC would only be happy if the world adopted more Catholic principles of marriage. But other than tautologically informing you that your marriage does not share in the sacramental life of Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, there’s little else the Church can say to non-Catholic couples. It makes public arguments about marriage via natural law, but that’s different from the Christ-governed oikonomia of Catholic marriages. As for the spouse who seeks the RCC against the wishes of the non-Catholic, clearly the salvation of one’s soul takes priority over marital unanimity. As a concrete pastoral matter, however, prudence may influence the timing and approach.

    LikeLike

50. I’ll try to answer these the best I can.

    1. It depends on the understanding of the word “ministry.” In the Roman Catholic understand, holy orders have to do with administering the sacraments. Thus the catechism says that “anyone who thinks he recognizes signs of God’s call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responisibility and right to call someone to receive orders” (CCC 1578). So you would not be considered a priest in that sense, of being a minister of the sacraments, for which you would need to be ordained by a validyly ordained bishop. However, the Church does recognize what it calls “the common priesthood of the faithful” who live out their baptism as laymen, but who are not able to be ministers of the sacraments. So you may have a call to be a minister, but you could not, according to the Church’s teaching, exercise it until you were properly ordained. Which as far as I can tell means your friend is not required to believe you have no call to be a minister.

    2. As far as the cafeteria Catholics go, there are simply a lot of them, and yes, they are wrong in thinking that their individual opinions can decide dogmas. Perhaps that’s why you run into them more often than those who accept the Church’s teaching tout court. Though of course it is a bit different when one is talking about doctrines that are not taught infallibly (such as the celibacy of the clergy, teachings on capital punishment, etc.) for on these issues there is room for legitimate disagreement.

    3. I’m not sure what you mean by “not openly convert,” but I assume you mean family, friends and coworkers would be opposed to it? I know the Church teaches that each person must be free to act according to one’s conscience in religious matters (CCC 2104-109), and this probably leaves some room for prudence in such a matter, though I am not sure. It may depend on why one does not want to choose to enter, though if one is still hesistant about it, it probably means the person is not ready ready to embrace the Church fully. But that’s merely my opinion.

    4. Again, this is my opinion, but the blessing for someone who is not Catholic and not seeking to enter into communion with it seems similar to the blessing given to Catholics when they come to mass but are not fit to receive because they have committed a mortal sin. They too, if they are faithful will cross their arms and receive the blessing of the priest, because they are coming to the altar for God’s grace, but recognizing that they are unfit to receive it (because of sin, in this case). Whereas you on the other hand, are separated because you have not accepted the Church’s teachings. But either way, a blessing can be given to all Christians alike, and I think the reason for it is to acknowledge you as someone who is a) a Christian, baptized already and b) seeking God’s grace in a Catholic church, at the altar of God, even though he does not believe.

    5. The Church does teach that the male is the head of the family, and that wives should submit to their husbands. Just to give one example: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays” (Pope Leo XIII, his encyclical “Christian Marriage”). This has been reaffirmed by Popes all the way up to John Paul II (Familio Consortio). I’m not sure actually what the Church teaches about the particular situation you describe. I would think the wife’s desire to enter the Church and seek her salvation there would be set above her husband’s wishes, since the Church but I just don’t know for sure. The wife’s wishes in this case obviously have to be weighed against the harmony of the marriage and family, which might be disrupted by her becoming Catholic. I suppose this is why the Catechism advises weighing the potential difficulties of “mixed” marriages (i.e., with Christians outside the Roman Catholic Church, CCC 1634).

    These probably aren’t the fullest answers you can get, but I hope they help you somewhat.

    LikeLike

51. I am just a simple man of 68 years and not in any way could be called a theologian. I am a practicing Roman Catholic but leagues away from being perfect but I did find your questions interesting. I will endeavor to answer them (perhaps not all) as best I can. I am most assuredly not as knowledgeable as you may be desiring.

    1. I would answer that in the affirmative. I don’t actually know any personally but I have seen Billy Graham and I have found him to be a man of God. As for the second part I ask you how one would know if you were called by God to your profession? I cannot know your heart. I believe that some one who preaches the word of God is described as having a “calling.”

    2. I would never presume to tell anyone what they must or must not do. The Lord gave us all the right to choose right or wrong. If you are talking to true Catholics then you should not be hearing them say they do not believe a particular teaching of the Church. Whether they practice that teaching or not is another question. I do not believe that you can demonstrate undemonstratable.

    3. I can not speak for the Church. Personally I would doubt the sincerity of the conviction, for to truly follow Christ one must put Christ foremost. I would need to know what is in the person’s heart to know that but thankfully only God knows what is in our hearts.

    4. I do not know.

    5. First part: I don’t know. Second part: again I say, Jesus says that we must put all worldly things, all attachments aside, if we are to follow Him. Third part: I don’t know.

    LikeLike

52. My doctoral work was in the area of ecclesiology and ecumenism. I would say, quickly in response to your questions:

    1) In the eyes of the Church, you are a valid Protestant minister. That sounds tautological, but what is meant is that you are not a valid Catholic minister–which is fine. If you converted to Catholicism, and wanted to pursue ordained ministry in the Church, you would be not be “re-ordained” but ordained absolutely as a Catholic priest. In so doing, a statement is not made about your Protestant ordination except to say the obvious: your previous ordination was not as a Catholic priest, and so we are now ordaining you as one. What you did previously as a Protestant minister was valid in those terms.

    2) The only dialogue worth having (I say this after having spent a decade working in the World Council of Churches and elsewhere in ecumenism) is one in the truth; the only dialogists worth talking wtih are those who know the full truth of their own tradition and are prepared to describe it and take it seriously. The beliefs of an individual Catholic are really of, at most, secondary importance and interest: it is what the Church teaches that counts. Everything else is, at best, theologumena. Those who ignore parts of the Catholic faith while playing up other parts are putting themselves in danger and are clearly being dishonest and deceptive with themselves and perhaps with others.

    3) Hard to say in the abstract. In general, if one knows that Catholicism is true and refuses to convert, when one is freely able to do so, one is endangering one’s salvation by rejecting the truth. If, however, that person cannot convert because they are, say, in a gulag somewhere, or 10,000 miles from the nearest Church and priest, or converting would place them and others in mortal danger, then that’s a different matter and one most likely would not be judged for failing to do what the truth obliges him to do.

    4) It’s just that–a blessing, nothing more. It recognizes that one has an imperfect relationship to the Church and cannot therefore participate fully in the Eucharist. Going for a blessing while disagreeing does not imply or entail anything. It’s a very simple gesture.

    Your friend, and all Catholics, are not “required” to view you as not being called by God; indeed, doing so would be presumptious of God and a sin against charity, so I would say that no good Catholic should say such a thing or treat you in that regard.

    5) Men and women are equal by virtue of their creation in the image of God. The questions of submission and headship addressed in, eg., Ephesians, need above all to be interpreted ecclesially and ecclesiologically: that is to say, inter alia, that the man and woman submit, but the man loves the woman as Christ loves the Church–fully, totally, being ready to die for her, and in no way attempting to “lord it over her as the Gentiles to” (to paraphrase the gospels).

    As for mixed marriages, the Church wants everyone to join. She by no means encourages strife or division in marriages as a consequence, so each individual situation needs to be carefully considered, but she would still encourage one spouse to join even if the other did not or resisted the spouse’s conversion. The reason for this is simple: a marriage outside the Church or of non-Catholics is a valid natural marriage but not a valid sacramental marriage. A valid sacramental marriage gives grace in a way all other marriages do not. The Church wants marriages to receive all the grace they can, so she encourages people to convert.

    LikeLike

53. Giving it a quick shot…

    1.Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers?…
    Validity in such a case, to a Catholic, would be a reference to sacramental validity, which in this case does not apply. There is no such animal as “valid Protestant minister” to a Catholic – other than whether or not that minister’s denomination considers his ministry to be valid. But again, that’s an internal matter for the denomination in question with no bearing on the Catholic Church. If you and your denomination both agree that you are a validly ordained minister of the church, then you are and we would treat you as such. But that ministry has no relationship whatsoever to the Catholic orders of the episcopacy, presbyteriate or diaconate.

    2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?”…
    Presuming that what you are referencing in something that, in fact, must be held with divine and Catholic Faith, then the answer to your question is, “because there are a lot of bad Catholics who either don’t understand their faith, are too lazy to learn it, or too enamored with a particular sin (usually sexual in nature) to be honest with God and with themselves.

    3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time?…
    Paragraphs 846 and 847 of the Catechism deal tangentially with this. Knowing the Church is true and is what She says She is and refusing to be in Communion with it may very well be sinful, but guilt may, in fact, be mitigated by other factors (just one example, fear of physical harm for conversion). This is something that should probably be handled in private spiritual direction where specifics can be addressed with more discretion than an online forum.

    4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake?…
    Frankly, I don’t know what the point of such an act is, though I suspect it arises from a desire to “fit in” and get in line like (most) everyone else. I can understand the feeling of not wanting to “stand out by sitting down”, but you can make a perfectly good Spiritual Communion with the Lord from your pew. Besides, if you wait a few minutes, a final blessing is given to all in attendance.

    5) …Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?
    The Church’s teachings on marriage can be found in many places, but a nice (unofficial) summary has been written here – http://www.dads.org/article.asp?artId=185.
    An idea to keep in mind – a wife is subject to her husband, but this submission is not absolute. It would be limited if the husband requires her to violate the truth or commit an unjust act.

    LikeLike

54. 1. I will leave this answer largely to others as I don’t know technically how the Church would regard your ministry. I cannot imagine that God would judge you harshly for following Him in the way that you know best. For my part I respect that most if not all Protestant pastors are humbly seeking God for their own lives as well as trying to bring the Gospel to others. This is good.

    2. Unfortunately all Catholics do not follow God’s teachings. Of course we are all sinners, Protestant and Catholic alike. And when we sin we often rationalize that sin. So, in a sense we are all “Cafeteria Ten Commandmenters.” In areas where Biblical/Catholic teaching is clear and known, it is dishonest for a Catholic to not follow that teaching or at least to acknowledge this as sin. You will not find less hypocrisy in the Catholic Church than elsewhere. Sometimes there is some (honest) debate about what the Church teaches, but this is not usually the problem. More commonly it is an individual not being willing or ready to follow that teaching.

    3. I don’t know the answer to this. Probably you should ask these technical questions of Catholic Answers or a knowledgeable and orthodox priest.

    4. Is it wrong to be blessed by a fellow Christian? For this is at least what the priest or Eucharistic minister is. We believe that in a special way you are being blessed by the actual presence of Jesus Christ in his eucharistic form.

    5. I do not know but doubt that our Church teaches that a woman should convert in obedience to her husband. I think that obviously she should deeply discern what God is calling her through her spouse’s spiritual journey. As for the submission dynamic, Pope John Paul II wrote on this extensively. Perhaps we place more emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the love that the husband is called to: (to paraphrase) you shall love her as Christ loves the Church. This does not negate the wife’s role, but shows a mutual relationship of sacrificial love.

    I don’t really know where you are in your Christian journey. All who walk with Christ are spiritual brothers and sisters. I will pray that God brings you closer to Him through this exercise and that we as Christians may be united in our desire to be with Him and bring as many to Him as we can. God bless and keep you.

    LikeLike

55. 1. Yes you are a valid minister, but, not to be confused with a priest. In the Church, anyone can be a “minister” in some form or fashion, depending on their calling. Lay Catholics normally cannot pastor a Church. But ministries inside the Church customarily have lay persons in those positions. For example, Minister of Holy Communion, Catechist, Music, etc…

    2. Catholics are required to believe all that Holy Mother Church proposes for their belief. Period. If they do not (by that I mean they are obstinately opposed to one or more teachings on faith and morals), they are defacto protestants. The name heretic is often used for such people as well. But, that doesn’t mean we don’t struggle with this or that teaching. We have and do. You just have faith in the teaching and give full assent in the Wisdom of God and His Church.

    3. Unable to convert is one thing. But, the desire to convert places one in a very good position. However, choosing not to convert can mean the loss of one’s salvation. It depends on if they are fully informed and they understand what they are doing.

    4. To receive the blessing at communion perhaps is a show of unity of heart with the Church, a family member, etc. But. There is a grace imparted at such blessing and it is a good thing and hopefully leads to their full conversion.

    5. One’s conversion to the Church is a gift of the Holy Spirit and shouldn’t be thwarted in any way. What problems or divisions that result are crosses to bear. But remember, Jesus said that He did not come to sow peace. He came to sow division, father against son, mother against daughter, etc… What initially divides will ultimately unite in the end. Be thankful that the grace is infused in this person. Her faith and sacrfice will have salvific ramifications for those around her. It will radiate to her family.

    God’s blessing to you, my friend.

    AMDG
    James Brady

    LikeLike

56. I’m going to try and answer the questions individually and if the question have multiple parts answer them. You will probably get better answers than from me from more knowledgeable people but here goes.

    1a) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers?

    One of the problems is that Catholics define ministers differently than Protestants do. The use of the term minister is an English use that started before the Reformation for clergy who actually take part in liturgical functions as distinguished by assistants. Calvin appropriated the term minister so he wouldn’t have to use the word “priest”. A good definition of the term “minister” could be found at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10326a.htm . Since our definition of what a minister is differs the simple answer is no we wouldn’t define you as a minister.

    That doesn’t mean that we don’t think what you are doing is valid or helpful for other Christians. Proably in some cases what you do is good and bad. What Catholics generally believe is that non-Catholic Christians by not enjoying the full sacraments of the faith deny to themselves the full power of the Holy Spirit to help them on their spiritual journey.

    1b) More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    Hmm, I guess a good answer would be under a classical definition of ministry the answer would be that person would be required to believe that you are not a valid minister since as part of the Nicene Creed, Catholics are required to believe in
    “And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” which in Catholic doctrine means that we submit to the teachings of the Church.

    However, we Catholics often use the term ministry, which as far as I know is almost exclusively a Protestant term, for almost everything that pious Christians do.

    Also any polite friend is not going to say “hey Michael, now I’m Catholic do you know I don’t think you are a valid minister.” No, he is going to encourage you on your path to being a good Christian and pray that you become Catholic.

    Personally, one of my best friends is a Protestant minister. Do I consider him a valid sacramental minister. No, but I honestly pray that he brings others to Christ and I hope that someday he will join the Catholic Church.

    2a) “Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?”

    From an early age, Catholics are required to go to Mass and are strongly encouraged to go to a Catholic school. Unfortunately the quality of cathecisis available from the pulpits and schools (and many RCIA programs) has declined so badly that a many a Catholic can say honestly, “as a kid I went to Mass every week, I was never taught X or Y”. Many people believe that at least a generation (or maybe even two) has been been lost due to this. What you see often in many Catholic churches are often many who think that taking artificial contraception is OK and so forth.

    Another problem is that assimilation of most Catholics into society. Instead of cathecizing society most Catholics have let society cathecize them. Part of the problem was the dropping for most of cathecisms after Vatican II and the reluctance of many (except for lip service) to accept the new Cathecism of Pope John Paul II.

    Another reason is that for many people they didn’t pay too much attention in their religion classes (usually because of bad materials and or teachers but that is not always the case). A good example is to ask yourself: what do you remember from your state history class. If it is anything beyond that the state flag, flower, bird, capital and the order in the Union congratulate yourself. We were probably much more interested in our doodles or dreaming about person A who was very attractive in in the front row.

    Another more complex issue is that not all pronouncements from the hierarchy of the Church are equal to other pronouncements. For instance a pronouncement from an individual bishop or the USCCB does not have the same weight (but does deserve the individual American Catholics respect) as a pronouncement of the Pope and or the College of Bishops. What that generally means is that I have to respect what my bishop (or the USCCB) says and if I have a difference from that I generally keep it private. When the Pope speaks ex-Cathedra (which rarely happens) I am required to intellectually agree and conform my mind to that truth. When the Pope and/or the college of Bishops with the Pope speaks on something I am supposed to honestly study and try to figure out how to get my mind to agree to what they are teaching.

    2b) With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter?

    Well, the beliefs an informed conscience do matter. But unfortunately most people’s consciences are ill-informed by either ignorance or from a conscious choice to sin and then rationalize it.

    A good analogy to the conscience is to our soul is that of the stomach to our body. Sensations from the stomach tell us often when to eat and when to stop. However, someone who constantly overeats, eats too quickly, eats the wrong foods or starves themselves on a regular basis can convince their stomach that their eating process is quite normally when in fact they are becoming overweight and or undernourished.

    The same thing can happen with a conscience. Ill-fed the conscience produces nonsense to us allowing us to simply pick and chose on the basis of what society or our community friends decide is convient.

    2c) If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?

    It should, if their conscience was formed correctly. Also you have to look at issues that also effect the conscience such as fear. For example,if you properly informed a friend who had become mobster who was Catholic by cooperating in a “hit” that he was committing murder and was a mortal sin, he might try to rationalize the decision by saying that the analogy would be that of two armies with soldiers, he was a soldier on side and the victim was a soldier on another side. This is an ill-informed view of what a soldier but keeping oneself in ignorance is also a good way of keeping oneself alive since that a mobster who had a properly informed conscience would have to cease becoming a mobster. That would likely result in separation from his family (both probably biological and emotional) and quite probably an early physical (and painful) death.

    C.S. Lewis said (and I know this is a bad paraphrase) in Mere Christianity that he thought once he convinced something was true that he would eventually be the end of the matter but he eventually realized that even after an initial acceptance that people would backslide into old truths.

    People often have a nice rationalistic view of what they believe the universe is like. They can resent greatly disrupting that picture.

    But also you must be sure as a Protestant what you are teaching as an infallible teaching of the Church is truly infallible. Sometimes many Protestants think that many teachings are infallible when they are not and many teachings that just customs are really required of the faith.

    3a) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time?

    I think the question comes to how “convinced” you are and also a mitigating factor might be the desire night to cause scandal in our previous religious community. If I were the editor or columnist in a Protestant journal I would have to ask my colleagues whether they would should have me continue because my religious sensibilities have changed. I wouldn’t drop the bombshell in my latest column, “I’ve been taking RCIA classes for the last six months and I just took Communion from the St. Paul’s Cathedral last Sunday so I’m Catholic and you’re not.”

    However, if you were convinced that the Holy Spirit was drawing you to the Church and you failed to follow that call, yes I would say that it is wrong not to follow the call.

    3b) Is such a person committing a sin?

    Yes, but like all sins the severity of is diminished by various factors. Desire not to create scandal, financial fear (just imagine if you were the head of a megachurch, married with a large family and mortgage and realized that the Catholic Church was correct) and (for those who are married)
    what will happen to my family (especially those who are married).

    4a) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake?

    It means that you are being blessed by a priest. A priest can give a blessing to people and things. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

    “It (a blessing) is used to express a wish or desire that all good fortune, especially of a spiritual or supernatural kind, may go with the person or thing, as when David says: “Blessed art thou, and it shall be well with thee” (Ps. cxxvii, 2).” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm )

    I certainly think it to be good. I don’t think much of Protestants who go up to communion when they have been told that they shouldn’t. I’ve seen that happen more than once and it makes me wince.

    4b) What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

    That depends. If you don’t think the Catholic Church’s claim to be the true Church is correct. I think it shows the proper significance. You respect many of the Church’s teachings but feel that you don’t accept enough to join.

    However, if you do feel that the Catholic Church is the true Church but are not converting because you disagree with some positions of the Church the logical decision is to go to a well-informed priest and/or good RCIA program and learn for yourself. Generally I would try to find a priest who has a good respect for orthodoxy. If you can’t find that out informally, be blunt ask the awkward questions.

    Some good questions would be:

    i) If two people really love each other and are engaged is it to live with each other as long as they don’t have sex short of consummating the relationship.

    ii) If I am rich but not as rich as I think is usual for people in my line of business. Is it OK pray to God for more money to buy a bigger house.

    iii) Which is better prayer. To make up my own honest prayer, or the Rosary.

    iv) I (and my non-Catholic co-workers) don’t like Bishop B’s view on Y. Its OK if I think tell them I think Bishop B’s view is nuts, too.

    the correct answers are

    i – Having any sort of sexual intercourse is wrong. Living together is putting yourself in the moral jeapordy (tempation) and causes public scandal (everyone will assume you are having sex).

    ii – You might be allowed to pray for more money to pay off debts or to bigger house because it might be difficult with the number of children you have but to keep up with the Jones is showing an attachment to the material world rather than your salvation.

    iii- It’s a trick answer because the correct answer is both. You should honestly pray to God and you should use the Rosary since the Rosary contains the Lord’s Prayer, the Aposostle’s Creed and the Hail Mary (Angelic responses and the Church’s view of Mary). This question traps both:

    – those believes that only “heartfelt” prayer and not devotions is good
    – those who believe that only the Rosary can to lead to salvation

    If you need to learn what the Church believes try to learn it from someone who believes what the Church teaches.

    5a) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage?

    I think the correct answer is that while the man is the head of the house (because every house needs a head) the proper answer is that both spouses have to be submissive to each other. How can we be like Christ who was submissive to the will of the Father if we don’t submit to the will of our spouses. The correct answer is that our submission to creatures (even our spouse) only ends when it violates our faith or morals

    5b) Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse?

    Actually, yes. Despite the religious sensibilities of the spouse we must follow what the Church’s teachings. Otherwise, we would deny ourselves the Eucharist (unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you will not be saved).

    There have been many a spouse who was converted by the example of a Holy spouse.

    5c) If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

    If we truly love our spouse, we must want eternal life for our spouse. Now if I believe that the Catholic church is the true Church to not join the Church would result in myself not being saved. In other words if my spouse was ignorant of the Church’s role in salvation but I was not, the unusual condition could occur where my spouse might go to heaven (because of his or her ignorance) but I would not.

    Plus even I might think that my spouse might be on the correct road to salvation he or she might not. The spouse might be hiding a secret sin or there might be coming up graces that only the sacraments might help out with. Many people find out that there are secret sins that they’ve never confessed until they go into their first confession with a priest.

    Moreover, as I said above the example of my conversion would hopefully give him or her the push to examine the Church’s teachings.

    Personally if I were in that situation I would give my spouse a good warning before I enrolled in RCIA classes. I would say something like “I’ve been reading a lot the teachings of the Catholic Church and some of them are not as goofy as I thought. I’m thinking of exploring them in more depth in the class called RCIA. Would you come so I make sure that I’ve not going off the deep end?”

    If the example is in reverse. My spouse is becoming or has become Catholic and I am not the following question might be asked: am I not joining the Catholic Church because of intellectual pride or fear. Do I think that I am so much smarter than all those other Catholics? Am I resisting becoming Catholic because my spouse made this decision without me and I feel bitter (if I have to ask for permission to buy a new amplifier for the stereo why shouldn’t he or she have to ask for permission from me to become Catholic)? Am I worried what other people will think of me (I’ve always derided Catholics amongst my intellectual peers)? Am I worried that business associates who thought I was a good Christian now will consider me a unsaved (and unreliable) if I become Catholic? Is it I accept all the Church’s teachings except for for these few (X, Y, Z) isn’t it much more likely that I am intellectually wrong rather than the Church?

    LikeLike

57. Not much time but hope this helps:
    1) No & No
    2) Because we are the Church Militant (sinners trying to be saints) and there’s always room for one more hypocrite…(meant sincerely) (-*
    3) Conscience trumps all, BUT we continue to seek informed conscience. “Ask and ye shall receive, seek and…”
    4) It should mean that you believe in the sacramental nature of the priesthood, of reconciliation, and penance; that you recognize you are not in union w/ Christ’s Church as taught by Scripture, sacred tradition and the Magisterium (sacred teaching) and that you desire a blessing. Otherwise, I can’t see the sense in “going forward” other than vain hope(?)
    5) http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

    LikeLike

58. 1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    For Catholics, the term ‘valid minister’ does not have a precise meaning. The Catholic Mass is served by a Priest – he is the chap outfront who consecrates the Host. A Protestant Communion service is served by a Minister, and he or she doesn’t consecrate the host, he presides over a memorial ceremony. Catholics believe that priesthood is passed on through Bishops, and runs back via one Bishop after another to the Apostles. Therefore, unless one has been consecrated as a priest by a validly ordained Bishop, one is not a priest – it works like Tag. He needs to be ordained as a priest in order to consecrate the Host, which is at the centre of his job.

    You can see that no Protestant Minister is a ‘valid priest’. For RCs, the term ‘valid’ has meaning with reference to a context of ordination by a Bishop. The term ‘minister’ has no technical meaning as a job vocation within RC doctrine.

    But that wasn’t your question. You asked whether RCs consider Protestants ‘valid Ministers’. Well, without being flippant (and I take this quite seriously but can’t help joking), why not? I would geuss that, for you, ‘valid’ might mean somehting like ‘worthy’ or ‘taken care of by God’. There may be (and in my observation are) many Protestant Ministers who are worthy
    ministers who are close to God. For an RC to regard a Protestant as a ‘valid minister’ in the Protestant sense would be a subjective judgement on their part. I personally regard many Protestant Ministers as ‘valid ministers’ in the Protestant sense. None of them are ‘valid priests’, as I said. They don’t want to be.

    2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.” With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter? If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?

    Yes, it’s the end of the matter. But many doctrines are not infallibly taught. It is quite debateable whether some doctrines are infallibly taught RC docs. You may be getting the impression that some RC friends are cafeteria RCs, simply because you think its are infallible dogma which are not. But it is true that we meet many cafeteria Catholics today, not through ill-will but through poor religious formation.

    3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?

    I don’t honestly know what the church’s view is. I would say it would depend on the reason for not choosing to convert. I know someone who says she thinks RC is true but cannot currently convert because of ‘cultural problems’. I think that if this is her real reason, it is sinful not to convert for such a trivial reason. On the other hand, very many people who say they think RC is true but can’t openly convert may actually still have some problems they are working through. They have not yet been given the gift of faith.

    4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

    If you go forward, you get a blessing. That means the priest exercises his power to give you God’s blessing.
    If you go forward you will be given God’s blessing through the priest whether or not you believe all the teachings of the church and whether or not you currently plan to become RC. The blessing happens objectively, and is good for you, and may help you to come to faith, if God chooses to use it in that way.

    5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

    RCs don’t use language like ‘submission in marriage’. It’s Protestant language. RC priests will counsel that a wife should put truth (eg the truth of the RC faith) above the opinions of her husband. Many female RC saints have had bad Christian husbands or non-Christian husbands or even Protestant husbands.

    LikeLike

59. Internet Monk,

    I’m not an expert, so I apologize to anyone if my answers are incorrect.

    1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? I would consider you a valid minister in your particular denomination according to your particular teachings, however, not validly ordained in the eyes of the Catholic Church. In other words, you may be able to minister to those in your church community, but you cannot confer any Sacraments besides baptism and matrimony. Your Christian ministry is deficient in the sense that all of Protestantism is separated from the Church because of the rebellion by the original Reformers. More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister? No, they are not required to believe that you were “never called of God to be a minister”. That’s ridiculous. They are required to believe that you aren’t validly ordained in the Church, that you cannot confer any sacraments other than baptism and matrimony (to non-Catholics), and that you are separated from the Church as a Protestant minister. But, who are we to determine who God is calling and who He isn’t?

    2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” There are alot of confused Catholics that are either a product of bad catechesis, are jaded by bad Catholic teachers, or are simply rebellious and don’t want to submit to any authority. I’m sure there are other reasons, but I’m frustrated with cafeteria Catholics as well. Some have already personally severed their communion with the Church by harboring beliefs directly opposed to Catholic teaching. Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.” With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter? If a Catholic’s individual beliefs oppose core doctrine or dogma, then they only matter in the sense that they have separated themselves from communion with the Church and they need absolution and repentance. If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic? A Catholic should believe in infallible Church teaching, otherwise they separate themselves from communion with the Church.

    3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin? I suppose it would depend on the reasons why the non-Catholic is “unable” to or “chooses not to openly convert”. For an example, if one truly believes that Christ God is visibly present at location A, certainly he will not tarry long to run and be in His presence. Is there any good excuse to say “wait, I’ll be there in a minute” to God? Especially since we don’t know how many minutes we have. At what point does waiting become a sin? God is infinitely merciful and patient, but when he gives you the grace of faith and opens your eyes long enough to believe in the Truth by the power of His Holy Spirit, at what point does it appear as a rejection of that Truth? That’s one is a difficult question for a lay Catholic to answer. I suppose if you are making an effort to follow the Truth, then it would be looked at as pleasing to God.

    4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? You’d have to ask a priest this question. I think it is a visible sign that you realize you are not in full communion with the Church, though you’d like to be and you are seeking a blessing by the priest. At this point, belief in the Real Presence isn’t necessary, after all, the lack of that belief is one reason why you would not be receiving Holy Communion. What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church? Once again, you’d have to talk to a priest, but I don’t think that you would be doing anything wrong in this situation. Some Catholics who are out of communion based on a state of mortal or grave sin cannot receive Holy Communion but may attend Mass and receive a blessing from a priest as well. In fact, they are encouraged to (example: Rudy Guliani who is nominally a Catholic but is pro-abortion legislatively, pro-gay marriage, and has been divorced twice and re-married three times). Of course, this is in the hope that they will be led to conversion (of the Catholic kind, continual life-long conversion) and repentance.

    5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Exactly how it is written in Scripture, though interpreted by the Church’s Magisterium through Tradition. This requires some reading on your part, sorry. Though you may be able to expedite the answer to your question by asking an orthodox Catholic priest. Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? The experience may be different according to the parish priest you speak with. I believe that the Church wishes that both spouses make the decision together, though, if it is not something that will cause strife in the marriage then one may seek communion with the Church without the other spouse. Generally, though, a good priest will probably suggest that one prayerfully waits until the spouse in opposition softens their stance before seeking full communion into the Church. The Church never wants a sacramental Christian marriage to be broken apart under any circumstance. The sacrifice of patience, prayer, and longing would be a valid reason to wait and pleasing to the Lord, I would imagine. But, don’t take my word for it, talk to an orthodox Catholic priest. If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage? A marriage between two baptized Christians that was consentual is sacramental. That is, the two, male and female, have literally become one flesh. No man may break this union apart unless obstinant and unrepentant adultery is committed by one of the spouses (as far as I know). There are several other factors that could destroy the sacramentality of the marriage (usually having to do with dishonesty before the marriage).

    LikeLike

60. some quick thoughts…

    1. What do you mean by valid minister? The Church does not see Protestant ministers as valid priests, if that’s what you mean. We affirm Orthodox priests because of apostolic succession and the maintenance of proper form in the sacraments. It was debatable until the mid-19th century whether there were valid Anglican orders due to apostolic succession. A change in their ordination rite sealed the deal against them, however.

    As to part b., there is nothing dogmatic/canonical that would cause someone to conclude you were not called by God to be a minister.

    2. Without examples, I don’t know why a certain form of “cafeterianism” would be present. How informed are these Catholics on Church teaching? There’s no excuse for waffling on “de fide” teachings of the Church or her moral demands (e.g. birth control, abortion, etc.)

    3. A moral theologian would need to comment. I know people in this position, and don’t consider it prudent – but that’s my personal view.

    4. Another issue I’m not totally up on. I’m not sure the “blessings” are really liturgically valid (they’re definitely not sacramental), just a small-t-tradition that’s popped up especially in the US.

    5. I don’t think the Church would give a black or white answer in this case (of a wife wishing to convert against her husband’s wishes). When it comes to morality and ethics, the Church recognizes the vital need for prudence, and would certainly encourage the wife to gain her husband’s support.

    As far as leadership goes, the Church certainly affirms Ephesians 5, but doesn’t proscribe how that relationship is to be worked out concretely (again, prudence!). If I had to boil down Catholic teaching on marriage to one sentence (which is practically impossible) it would be this: that husbands and wives are to live out their married life as an image of Christ and the Church (and all that entails!).

    Hope that helps.

    LikeLike

61. Michael,

    I’m under the gun with deadlines, so can only makes a few short remarks, hopefully of some modest use.

    1. The Catholic Church does not consider the ordination of Protestants the same as the ordination of Catholic (and Orthodox) priests, because of the absence of apostolic succession.

    “More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?”

    An interesting question, and somewhat loaded (so I’ll be very cautious). What Catholics should be believe is that God “calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par 1). Whether or not you are called to the ordained ministry in the Catholic Church is a separate matter that depends on various issues. Using the word “ministry” in a broader sense (the complexities of which I discuss in this article), all Catholics are called to “ministry,” especially the proclamation of the Faith, in home, at work, and so forth. And, of course, within the Catholic Church there are many forms of lay ministry, to be distinguished from the unique ministry of the ordained priesthood.

    2. Because I think it is safe to say that the majority of Catholics in America are “cafeteria Catholics,” that is, they believe (or at least act as though) they can 100% Catholic without embracing and giving assent of faith to 100% of Church doctrine. (Further evidence that Chesterton was correct in saying that the greatest scandal of the Catholic Church are Catholics.) So, yes, one can rightly wonder at what the beliefs of individual Catholics matter. There are, of course, plenty of issues that Catholics can disagree about, including the proper application of Catholic moral teachings to controversial issues such as biotechnology, war, medical treatment, and so forth. But those moral teachings, I think, are rather clear. And you are correct to say that once you show, for example, that the Church dogmatically teaches the infallibility of the pope (properly understood, of course), then those Catholics who deny it are, well, out of field goal range, no matter how strong they think their leg is. (Sorry, I must have watched too much football this weekend.)

    3. The Catechism, quoting Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II document on the Church, is quite clear about the seriousness of this situation:

    “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (CCC, par 846; LG 14)

    The key question, I suppose, is what involves being “unable” to convert to Catholicism.

    4. Non-Catholics can be blessed (and often are) by Catholic priests. In that context, it is a prayer for and on behalf of the person that is meant to convey God’s favor and grace. It is often a way for a person (either Catholic or non-Catholic) to indicate their love for God and desire to do His will even though they are not able, for whatever reason, to receive Communion. So even a non-Catholic who disagrees with certain teachings of the Church can receive a blessing. Also, certain blessings can be given by the laity. The Catechism states:

    “Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a ‘blessing,’ and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).” (par 1669)

    5. Another excellent (and difficult!) question, and one that likely requires far more pastoral wisdom than I possess (since I possess none, as I readily admit.) Part of this question relates back to question #3. It comes down, I think, to this simple question: does anyone have greater say in our lives than Jesus Christ? Recall Jesus’ words, “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” [Lk. 14:26] Jesus does not encourage hatred, but is emphasizing that one’s commitment to Him must come before all familial attachments and relationships. Yet we know that Christ does not desire the fracturing of a marriage; quite the opposite. This great difficulty is discussed in several paragraphs of the Catechism (pars. 1633-37), and there is much more on the subject, although I don’t have handy references at the moment. Here is part of what the CCC says:

    “Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.” (par 1634)

    A quick personal note, if I may. I have never once regretted becoming Catholic (in 1997). However, the journey to the Catholic Church was often very hard. I was incredibly blessed in many ways, including the fact that I was not in ministry as a Protestant (although I attended Bible college), and that my wife and I were very much on the same page about becoming Catholic. We were also very fortunate to find a Catholic parish (right across the street from where we lived!) that was orthodox and staffed by a priest and RCIA folks who were Catholic and upheld everything taught by the Church. I can hardly fathom how hard it have been to become Catholic if I had been a Protestant minister, or if my wife had no interest in becoming Catholic, or if I couldn’t find a decent Catholic parish. The point being, in short, that although I don’t know much about your situation or where you’re at regarding the Catholic Church, I will be praying for you and asking that God grant you the peace, grace, and wisdom that only He can provide.

    LikeLike

62. Okay, I can’t really claim to be that knowledgeable, but I’ll toss in my two kopecs…

    “1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?”

    That depends on what you mean by the words “valid” and “minister”. You may have been really called by God to do *something* – to minister in some sense, so valid in that way perhaps. Validly ordained? No. I was ordained an elder in the Presbyterian church before I became a Catholic, and some time during my conversion process I realized that ordination was not valid. Like the apostle Paul, I counted it as nothing compared to the riches I received.

    If by “minister” you mean simply someone who serves in a particular capacity, then we have a lot of ministers in the Catholic church, too. Youth ministers, music ministers (though I think the term is overused). They would probably say they were “called” by God to do these things. Again, if you think it means only “to lead a congregation as a pastor”, I would say that God might call people to do any number of things in leading them closer to the fullness of the Catholic faith, but all these things would be provisional. Once one enters full communion with the historic Church, all bets are off as far as your status in your former life. God may have called you in some sense, but the FULL sense in which He calls you will be found only in communion with the Church He established. He does not call anyone to remain outside the Catholic Church, no matter what they might have to leave behind.

    “2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.” With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter? If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?”

    Well, I don’t know who you have been talking to or what they might have said, so I can’t really muster an opinion on that. I will also point out that what one person *says* is proven (or “demonstrated”) Church teaching and what the Church actually teaches can be two very different things. It is possible that you have been mistaken on what is defined doctrine and what is not. It happens. In general, though – no – individual Catholics – at least faithfl Catholics – don’t get to pick and choose what doctrines they will accept and which they won’t. I will never knowingly do so.

    “3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?”

    Well, that would depend a lot on whether they are really “unable” or whether they “choose not to” openly convert, and why. Once one is convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, one is obliged to full communion with the Church in obedience to Christ. It is a question of “what possible reason could one have for putting off obedience to Christ’s command in the matter?”. Only for grave reasons could one do this and NOT sin.

    “4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?”

    Actually, this is frowned on… to my knowledge there is no room for this in the rubrics of the Mass. The entire congregation is blessed by the priest, so going forward for a blessing is redundant. It is also confusing. Well intentioned, maybe, but not helpful. It used to be, in my parish, that those who could not receive communion (Protestant OR Catholic) could go forward for a blessing, until the bishop communicated in a letter that this should not be done. I think it was just one of those free-range Catholic behaviors that has only recently been dealt with. If you can’t receive communion, just stay in your seat and pray. It’s what I do. Now, kids are a different matter… they often have to come up with Mom or Dad (for obvious reasons) and so they might get a little blessing, but it isn’t something that should be specially encouraged. As I said, they have already been blessed along with the whole congregation.

    “5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?”

    The Church’s view – I think – would be that the wife ought to submit to the husband as he submits to Christ. She is not, then, obliged to follow her husband in error, because in this error he is NOT submitted to Christ. The husbands headship is provisional… he stands in the place of Christ in a figurative sense. In no way should the wife remain outside the Church – against the very command of Christ – because of her husband who only stands in the place of Christ. The husband’s headship is spiritual, not literal and absolute. As the scriptures say, the husband and wife should “submit to one another in love”.

    Hope this helps, at all. I’m no expert in anything. Some of this may touch on canon law, and in that I am profoundly ignorant. God bless you in your searching.

    LikeLike

63. #1 is two questions. Protestant ministers are valid within the Protestant faith. “Called by God” presents a different question. No one can call himself or give himself a mandate to preach the Gospel. He must be called and ordained. There are three ordinations in the Catholic Church; deacon, priest and bishop. Only a bishop can ordain and only those ordinations which proceed from apostolic succession are valid ordinations, which signify a ‘calling.’ Since Martin Luther, and those after him, Calvin, Knox, Henry VIII and the others, called themselves to preach the Gospel and gave themseslves the mandate, there is no apostolic succession in the Protestant religions, therefore, no call by God.

    #2. Whether a Protestant demonstrates it or not, if the Church has taught a particular point of faith infallbly, all who profess to be Catholics are obligated to adhere to the teaching.

    #3. Put another way, the question answers itself. If one knows the truth, is he permitted to reject it? Such a person’s salvation is definitely in jeopardy and it need not be identified as sin.

    #4 is unclear. What is meant by “What is meant?” A non-Catholic is welcome to present himself at Communion for a blessing. He crosses his arms over his chest, which signifies to the priest he is there for a blessing and the priest will bless him. Disagreement with Church teaching doesn’t enter into it.

    #5. See #3. One is not permitted to reject the truth or to cause the rejection of truth by another, married or not. The Church’s teachings on marriage are beside the point.

    LikeLike

64. Great questions. I am not a knowledgeable source, so my opinions should not be understood as accurately representing the views of the Catholic Church.

    (1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    It all depends, I think, on how one defines “minister.” The Catholic Church believes (a) that the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon is ordained by God and (b) that only a bishop in the apostolic succession may induct an individual into these three orders. Most Protestant Churches disagree with the Catholic Church on both points and therefore do not understand their ministers as being bishops, priests, or deacons in the sense intended by the Catholic Church.

    One exception is Anglicanism, which quite intentionally retained the three-fold ministry at the Reformation. In the judgment of the Catholic Church, Anglican ordinations are “invalid.” What exactly does this mean? It does not mean that the Catholic Church has decreed that the ministries of Anglican bishops, priests, and deacons are spiritually ineffective. It means, rather, that in the judgment of the Catholic Church, Anglican ordinations have not and do not fulfill the necessary conditions for the conferral of holy orders and therefore cannot be recognized by the Catholic Church. See this short article by John Coventry.

    Is a Catholic confessionally required to believe that you have not been called by God to be a “minister”? No. To believe such a thing, one would have to believe that the Protestant Churches have no role in the mystery of salvation; but Vatican II expressly rejected this position in in Unitatis Redintegratio.

    (2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?”

    Specifics are needed for a responsible response. Often Protestants do not understand what the Catholic Church in fact authoritatively teaches nor recognize the legitimate interpretive latitude that exists within the Catholic Church on many different issues. The Catholic Church may look like a monolithic giant from the outside, but it is in fact quite a diverse community.

    But Catholics are not immune from the spirit of private judgment that rules our culture.

    (3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?

    I think it is accurate to say that there are many Catholic answers to this question. Vatican II states the general rule:

    “Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, [this Sacred Council] teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

    But as with all general rules, qualifications and nuances abound.

    (4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person – like myself – openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

    Most Catholic Churches do not confer blessings during the communion. This seems to be a fairly recent innovation. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, then by all means remain in the pew during communion. Do you object to the fact that Catholic priests dare to pronounce the blessing of God with authority, or are you afraid that you might be compromising your convictions by asking for a priestly blessing? Catholic priests are pretty promiscuous when it comes to blessings and are happy to bless anyone–including even Protestants!–who asks for a blessing. So relax and enjoy the blessing–but as I said above, feel free not to present yourself for a blessing if you feel in any way uncomfortable.

    LikeLike

65. Wow, some difficult questions, and probably a lot of different answers to each of them. or example, what do you mean by a valid minister? As a Catholic I would not accept you as a priest, but that does not mean that I don’t think you have been called by God to “minister” to certain people. I think that this is a good case of having different definitions of words.

    #2 is a bit stickier. I suspect that you would look far and wide to find someone that believes in everything the Church teaches. In some cases because the teaching is so obscure, in others because there is wiggle room left. There are very diverse beliefs in weather the war with Iraq is a just war or not, and probably some don’t believe it matters. There are probably fewer beliefs defined by the Church than most of us think.

    #3 I think the answer is “it depends.” I have heard a lot of people argue that Tony Sands is a secret Catholic, and he has received Communion from JPII, and I have not heard much criticism for his not coming out in the open. I think that the question might be would it cause grave harm? And certainly in some countries Catholics live secret lives to protect them from persecution. On the other hand, if it just ment that you would no longer have the same social connections, I might think it a sin.

    #4, darned if I know! Out here it is a Hispanic tradition to bring children up with the adults for a blessing but our pastor, apparently against the bishops desires, refuses to allow that practice. I doubt that he would not look kindly on a non-Catholic doing so, but that is just a guess.

    I don’t think that I care to touch much on #5. I have known a few priests and Catholics that believe the husband is lord and master over the wife. One might also ask the question what if the husband decides to become Catholic and his wife refuses. I do know that the Church has allowed remarriages based on the fact that the pagan partner refused to convert. How that would be applied to baptized non Catholics has probably been decided in Church courts, but I am not sure of the decision.

    And with all questions like these, there is always the question of conscience. Ah, if only life was so simple as to have nice neat answers to nice neat questions :-).

    Mike L

    LikeLike

66. “1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers?”

    The average RC will consider the protestant valid. As for myself I can not judge you. But are you a valid minister in the RC church? The answer is clearly no. (by your own admission)

    “More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?”

    How can we know what is is your heart? Were you called to to do Gods work and just did not hear correctly? I ponder this myself all the time. Or is God leading you to be RC the only way that he knew that you would go?

    “2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.” ”

    I have found this with many people of all religions. Is this good….No! But it is common as people do not like to get into the mechanics of the faith.

    “With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter?”

    The Individual beliefs of all people matter, I would like to see all people get to know God and be saved.

    “If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?”

    The truth is the truth, so I would say yes to this.

    “3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?”

    I am not a priest but I would say that that person is not committing a sin, that person is just denying himself communion with Gods Church on earth at this time. Will that person be denied heaven, no, if the persons heart is pure and desires the truth, that person will find salvation..

    “4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?”

    To be blessed is a gift we all seek, also all that are in communion (in communion with the RC church) with Christ can bless others. So you can go up the the altar and be blessed but not partake in the communion of the church if you want. Through this blessing it is hoped that you will find that truth you seek and with that truth seek full communion with the body of Christ.

    There is a big difference is disagreeing with marriage for the clergy and denying the divinity of Christ.

    LikeLike

67. I’d love to take a stab at your questions– but one caveat up front. I’m just a lay Catholic with a near insatiable appetite for theology; so I think I qualify as well-read, but hardly a Church authority. 🙂 That said–

    1. You’re confusing priesthood and ministry. The Catholic church holds that you are not a priest, ie. sacramentally ordained to consecrate the body and blood of Jesus during the Mass. I doubt you make such a claim about yourself! Ministry, however, is a much broader term– in its broadest sense, ALL Christians are called to minister, in some way. Your newly-Catholic friend would not at all be required to deny that God has called you to any particular mission or way of life, or that the Spirit was not working through you for the salvation of souls.

    2. I share your frustration with the cafeteria Catholics. You’re correct that the teachings are not up for individual referendum, as it were. One caution though: the concept “infallible” is one of the most misunderstood and misapplied concepts around. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve been confronted with an aha-gotcha “infallible” teaching that was nothing of the sort, I could hire Bill Gates to be my housekeeper!

    3. If a person truly believes what the Catholic Church says, but does not join, he/she commits the grave sin of schism (Catechism, 2089) Since this is so sensitive, I’m going to quote Lumen Gentium (one of the texts of Vatican II) exactly here: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.” (See also the Catechism, 846-856.) That is, if you know this is how Christ is offering you salvation, and you turn away, you are refusing salvation. This does NOT apply to people who don’t know enough about the Catholic Church to decide to join– and that includes people who have been mis-informed, deliberately or not– and those who cannot in good conscience assent to the teaching of the Church. (You yourself probably fall into that category.) Likewise, external opposition can reduce the person’s culpability, possibly greatly; but ultimately, if you choose an earthly good over heaven… you’ll get, at best, exactly that.

    (Since you might as well ask… yes, the quote from Lumen Gentium DOES meet the Cathoic criteria for “infallible”, being a solemn pronouncement from an ecumenical council.)

    4. Receiving a blessing is just that– receiving a blessing. It doesn’t imply that you agree with all the teaching of the Church, at all. You don’t even need to be Christian! It is merely a sign of goodwill and respect. (There is also no objection to Catholics receiving blessings from Protestants in their ceremonies. I have, many times, and wouldn’t miss the chance to receive a blessing from you!)

    5. The Church does not propose a one-size-fits-all response to leadership and submission in marriage. It teaches that the husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the Church, and that both spouses should submit to each other in love, as we read in Scripture. This is compatible with many possible domestic arrangements. Yet ultimately, each person’s first duty is to God, to seek His Face and to walk the path that He in His gratuitous mercy has ordained for the salvation of your soul. You don’t get to pick the path, and neither does your spouse!
    The pastoral approach to these situations is to offer factual information about the Church, in the (common) event that the Protestant spouse or family is mis-informed, and to give the non-converting spouse time to adjust. Again, many domestic arrangements are possible, and the non-converting spouse may have some legitimate concerns that can be addressed productively. The converting spouse is obliged to do all he/she can in good conscience do to avoid argument, not give scandal, stay humble, meet his/her obligations with loving attention– in short, to live out a Christian life as fully as possible. But his/her first duty is to God, and then afterward to human beings.

    LikeLike

68. Yeah, start us off with the easy questions, why don’t you? I’m afraid I’m going to go for the Jesuitical casuistry of “It depends” in answer to your questions.

    Purely off the top of my head, and as a plain lay Catholic with no special knowledge, the No. 5 question strikes me as a peculiarly Protestant emphasis. That is, I never encountered this notion of ‘headship within marriage’ so expressed and emphasised before. I leave it to experts on canon law to tease out the niceties here: broadly speaking (and I am open to correction here), a spouse who feels convinced that he or she should and must convert to Catholicism is strongly encouraged to do so. However, if this is going to cause really grave difficulties within the marriage, to the point of breaking it up, that’s a different matter.

    Regarding No. 3 – it depends. Sorry. If someone is becoming convinced of the truth, but for whatever reason cannot make that last step (something seems intellectually absurd, or it all seems no more than a lovely theory but not quite convincing), then there is no guilt. If, on the other hand, you are becoming alarmed at how close you are coming to going the whole hog and converting, and you deliberately hide your head in the sand (“But if I become a Papist, Great-Uncle Henry will cut me out of his will! No, I’d better not risk it”) so that you don’t have to take the leap, then you are guilty. “Consequent ignorance, on the other hand, is so called because it is the result of a perverse frame of mind choosing, either directly or indirectly, to be ignorant. …Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful.”

    No. 1 – if according to the rules of your denomination you were a valid minister, then nobody is required to believe you were not a minister or that God did not call you. If we’re talking about the sacramental priesthood, however, that’s a different kettle of fish. There’s a whole historical tizzy about the validity of Anglican orders which I am not going to get into here.

    No. 2 – again, that depends. If you are trying to get Catholic Friend X to accept that “According to the Council of Trent, you are supposed to burn me at the stake as a heretic!”, then sorry, no. If, on the other hand, Catholic Friend X is telling you that the Church has infallibly declared you have to separate out your recyclables from the rest of your rubbish, but that it’s a matter of conscience for him to decide if he gets married to Spouse No. 3, then he’s out of luck there.

    Okay, No. 4 – the biggie. Because the Blessed Sacrament is really, really, really, important. I’m not kidding here about this one, this is deadly serious. It doesn’t matter if you consider “But I really do believe in the Real Presence!”, if you’re not a Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox), you can’t receive. If you’re a Catholic and not in a state of grace, you shouldn’t receive either. If you cannot receive for good reasons, you can go up for a blessing – though there is nothing in the rubrics for this, and it is a matter for the local bishop to decide. Basically, if you go up to receive Communion, at the very least you are saying “I agree with and am faithful to the teachings of the Church”.

    “http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html

    Clearly, full participation in the Eucharist takes place when the faithful approach the altar in person to receive communion (169). Yet true as this is, care must be taken lest they conclude that the mere fact of their being present in church during the liturgy gives them a right or even an obligation to approach the table of the Eucharist. Even in cases where it is not possible to receive sacramental communion, participation at Mass remains necessary, important, meaningful and fruitful. In such circumstances it is beneficial to cultivate a desire for full union with Christ through the practice of spiritual communion, praised by Pope John Paul II (170) and recommended by saints who were masters of the spiritual life (171).

    Participation by Christians who are not Catholic

    56. The subject of participation in the Eucharist inevitably raises the question of Christians belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this regard, it must be said that the intrinsic link between the Eucharist and the Church’s unity inspires us to long for the day when we will be able to celebrate the Holy Eucharist together with all believers in Christ, and in this way to express visibly the fullness of unity that Christ willed for his disciples (cf. Jn 17:21). On the other hand, the respect we owe to the sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood prevents us from making it a mere “means” to be used indiscriminately in order to attain that unity. (172) The Eucharist in fact not only manifests our personal communion with Jesus Christ, but also implies full communio with the Church. This is the reason why, sadly albeit not without hope, we ask Christians who are not Catholic to understand and respect our conviction, which is grounded in the Bible and Tradition. We hold that eucharistic communion and ecclesial communion are so linked as to make it generally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive the former without enjoying the latter. There would be even less sense in actually concelebrating with ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Yet it remains true that, for the sake of their eternal salvation, individual non-Catholic Christians can be admitted to the Eucharist, the sacrament of Reconciliation and the Anointing of the Sick. But this is possible only in specific, exceptional situations and requires that certain precisely defined conditions be met (173). These are clearly indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (174) and in its Compendium (175). Everyone is obliged to observe these norms faithfully.”

    LikeLike

69. Here’s Part II on the last three questions:

    3) I’d say there’s a big difference between “unable to” and “chooses not to”. I’ll suggest three scenarios:

    – A Baptist woman somehow gets interested in the Catholic Church and finds herself accepting its teaching. She would convert in a second if she could, but her staunch, faithful Baptist husband wouldn’t allow it in a million years. I’d say that God would honor her submission to her husband and not charge her with any sin, and would give her heart peace through the working of the Holy Spirit – and give her faith that an opportunity might present itself down the line.

    – It’s said that Gandhi believed a significant portion of the tenets of the Christian faith and once considered becoming a Christian, but couldn’t bring himself to do so because he was disgusted by the sins of Christians. My hope is that God sorted out Gandhi’s good motives from his bad ones and mercifully met him halfway.

    – I have a friend who is currently living a lifestyle of apostasy from the Catholic faith. He knows a lot; he knows where to find answers to his questions; he used to love to pray. Catholic blogger Mark Shea has a saying that describes where he’s at: “Some people ask questions in order to find out. And some people ask questions in order to keep from finding out.” As far as I can see, he’s in active rebellion and sin against God’s call, though there are a few mitigating issues. I can only pray that God has mercy on him and helps him repent before he completely wastes or destroys his life.

    So, it has to do with where your heart is. No one can force you against your conscience, but woe to those who actually hear the call in their heart and reject Him to go their own way.

    4) The blessing of those attending Mass who cannot receive Communion is an ancient practice; the Orthodox do a variation on it which involves giving folks a bit of bread that has been left unconsecrated – kinda like saying, “We’re happy to have you share our food, if that’s all you think it is – this is how we can do that and be true to our Lord as well.”

    Before I was confirmed, I did that thing of crossing my arms in front of me and going up in the communion line to receive a blessing instead of the Host. I experienced it as an affirmation of the place where I was, which was in imperfect communion with the Church. I was still working on accepting those ideas that are integral to the Eucharist, the things mentioned in the Eucharistic prayer like “Keep us in union of heart and mind together with … our Pope, … our Bishop…” and “Make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God…”, and by going up in the line but not taking Communion, I accepted my status as a person who wanted to be with the Church, but wasn’t ready to make a commitment. I accepted the pain of the broken relationships betweeen Christian churches, the brokenness of the Body of Christ that broken communion is, because that’s the reality we live in. I couldn’t have stayed there, though, since God had provided a pathway in for me.

    If you can stand it, I see no reason why you can’t continue to receive a blessing during Communion, even though you’re not actively seeking membership in the Catholic Church. In those moments, I believe that you’re receiving the blessing that flows out to all Christians and to all the world through Christ’s Sacrifice as presented in the Eucharist in a very direct and concrete way, and I trust that it’s making a difference in your life. God bless you, indeed.

    5) See my answer to question #3. I often see situations where one spouse converts with the permission of the other, and then the other follows five years, 10 years, or maybe 25 years later. I can’t imagine any scenario in which a priest or other Catholic official would insist on someone damaging their marriage in order to officially become a Catholic – especially if that person is already a baptized Christian.

    The reason for this is the significance of Christian baptism and the nature of sacraments. Catholicism teaches that any person baptized in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is validly baptized, i.e. “anyone baptized Christian is baptized Catholic” (Cardinal Francis George) and doesn’t ever need to be rebaptized, because they’ve been baptized into the One Body of Christ, which Catholics believe is actually the Catholic Church. Also, the Church teaches that the sacrament of marriage is not conferred upon the couple by the priest, but rather the nature of it is that they confer the sacrament on each other. Thus, when a couple comes into the Church, they don’t have to get married again, but they simply need to have the marriage convalidated or “blessed”, to make sure it consists of the elements that should be in a marriage and to affirm that it was sacramental from the beginning.

    If you want to know what the Church really teaches on sexuality and marriage, get a hold of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body or commentaries on it by Christopher West. Good stuff – straight up, no chaser.

    My friend Sherry Weddell, director of the Catherine of Siena Institute, says, “I converted [from evangelicalism] to the Catholic faith in order to follow Jesus.” My prayer is that no matter where the path leads, you will continue to follow Jesus.

    Christ’s peace to you, Kathleen

    LikeLike

70. Michael,

    Your questions are good ones, and I’m not really qualified to answer them. But I am Catholic, and comparatively well-versed in my faith, so in the humble hope that others will pick up where I leave off or correct anything that needs correcting:

    1. Your ministry is valid, and Catholicism would not question your call to that ministry. But by the same token, Catholicism makes a distinction between priesthood and other ministries. You could not validly preside at the liturgy of the eucharist (i.e., sacrificial) part of a Catholic Mass, where Catholic theology says a priest stands “in persona Christi,” because really there is only one high priest (Jesus) and other Christian priests simply share in His ministry. But you can certainly preach the Word of God, baptize, etc.

    2. Your take on “cafeteria Catholicism” seems accurate to me. The church teaches only a few things infallibly (infallibility is not the wide-ranging doctrine its detractors seem to think it is– more akin to guardrails on the highway of faith than anything else). That said, infallible teachings are binding on Catholics. End of discussion, just as you said. Cf Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom, and saying “what you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven”

    3. No way to tell whether the person in your hypothetical example is committing a sin without knowing more about the circumstances involved. “Unable to openly convert” suggests outside pressure of some kind, and that would mitigate against “full consent of the will” necessary for sin.

    4. A blessing received at communion in lieu of the Body of Christ is just that, a blessing. It won’t do any harm, and it doesn’t signify agreement with church teaching. It should be received in an attitude of prayerful gratitude.

    5. The Church takes a traditional view of leadership and submission in marriage. You pose a hard case, but if I remember correctly, among famous recent converts, Scott Hahn became Catholic before his wife Kimerly did.

    LikeLike

71. I am not yet a Catholic, but I think I can answer some of these. (Not that I necessarily shine in these areas.)

    1) Catholics do consider Protestant ministers to be carrying out a form of lay ministry (which ain’t chopped liver — Catholicism considers evangelism primarily the work of the laity); they just don’t consider them sacramental priests. In other words, the Protestant minister has not been sacramentally ordained by the Church to act in persona Christi to provide the sacraments to the people under the authority given by Christ to the apostles.

    I would not mix this with the question of whether or not you are “called” to anything; what you are called to and what you are at any given moment are two separate things. But a Catholic should believe that you are not now a priest but a layman; what Protestants mean by “priest” and what they intend when they ordain is not the same as the Catholic Church.

    2) If the Church has infallibly taught Y, then that should be the end of the discussion. Whether the Church has indeed done so may be a matter for discussion, one that must be carried out with and through the Church. One thing about having a living authority is that it can speak for itself and clarify its own statements. Putting words in the Church’s mouth is misdirection, and possibly slander.

    One thing about cafeteria Catholics is that the sheer metaphysical reality of the Church still exerts a pull on those who aren’t ready to get with the program (even those who never do). They don’t just leave as readily as do people who stop trusting a particular denomination; the belief that there really is one Church lingers.

    3) There’s an elastic legal phrase, “with all deliberate speed”, that expresses the principle. If one is generally moving toward reception into the Church, then one has not rejected her, even if the process takes a long time. Catechumens in the early church often took years. If someone is convinced the Catholic faith is true, then he should be mentally preparing the ground for conversion at least, adopting Catholic practices and habits of thought as he is able. Anyway, he should not be comfortable in his unconversion; a person sins when he refuses to convert knowing that he ought to. To say he must be registered in an RCIA program to beat the charge of sin is a different question (not to mention a legalistic way of looking at it), and the answer is beyond me. I’m not in yet, I am ashamed to note.

    4) Seeking a blessing is just seeking the prayers of the Church on one’s behalf. There’s no obligation to it, and there’s nothing wrong with remaining seated.

    5) This is related to my thoughts on #3 above. The bonds of marriage are going to be strained by this, and one should strive not to put more on one’s spouse than they can bear, but one should not simply capitulate either. “Go along to get along” is not the way of the cross. The important thing is to demonstrate by one’s life that the Church is not a devouring monster but that growing closer to her makes one a better spouse. So I think one should always go toward the Church, just go slowly and with an extra helping of love and compassion toward the one who doesn’t want to follow. Our loyalty has to be to God first, precisely so that we can be loyal to our families and our neighbors as God desires.

    LikeLike

72. Michael,

    I am neither canon lawyer nor theologian, but I will hazard some guesses.

    1) The word “valid” has precise meaning in canon law. Such a ministry would not be recognized as a valid ordination to the priesthood in the Catholic Church, if that is what is being claimed. On the other hand if “minister of the Gospel” is more broadly understood, I suppose the Church would be agnostic on whether one had a calling to it or not. God calls all kinds of people to do all kinds of things, without any of them being ordained. I have known Protestants that I am certain were called by God to lead others to Him, but that is not a statement about validity of orders.

    2) Easy: The answer here is that many Catholics are ignorant, their education in the faith ending with the (often very poor) catechesis of their childhoods. They are much more influenced by the surrounding culture, which gives them a bottomless sense of entitlement, and a belief in the validity of their opinions simply because they are theirs. I often find that converts are much more knowledgeable about the faith because they had to work for it.

    3) I rather think this would depend upon one’s motives. Perhaps the individual requires only time, and the matter approached pastorally rather than juridically. It doesn’t sound especially sinful; caution is not a sin, haste is not a virtue, and conversion isn’t easy.

    4) As to what is meant by a person doing this, once again, one must enquire into the person’s motives. People are welcome to a blessing. But I would wonder, if the individual is not seeking conversion, why would he be there at all?

    5) I am no expert on this, but I think –at least practically speaking– the Church views these issues less traditionally than some Protestants do: roles should be reciprocal, complementary and charitable above all. As to whether the wife should convert if she wants to, it may be considered a matter of conscience. On the other hand, it may be more prudent to wait, in the hope that the spouse can be won over and the marriage protected. Pastorally, I would think it best to take time with this: Church teaching on mixed marriages is always to keep in view the hope that the Catholic party may in time effect the conversion of the spouse.

    I hope this is helpful; I claim no great expertise, especially regarding the complexities of marriage, and do not have time for research.

    LikeLike

73. I’ll give these a shot.

    1) It depends on what you mean by “minister”. Catholic and (most) Protestant conceptions of the ordained minister differ rather drastically. Let me just say this: We Catholics believe that the Christian priesthood is first given in the sacrament of baptism, then to a greater degree in Confirmation, and to an even greater degree in the sacrament of Holy Orders.

    (Most) Protestants by their own admission do not have a Sacrament of Orders. And so to your question, i.e. are you a “valid minister”, we Catholics would reply that you are a royal priest by virtue of your baptism, and the exercise of your baptismal priesthood is valid insofar as it does not contradict with what we believe to be the faith of Christ.

    You are the *sacramental* equivalent of a layman; most Protestants would agree with this as well, I suspect.

    2) I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here. Suffice it to say that Catholics are bliged to believe everything definitively taught by the Church. Human nature being what it is, the faith of individual Catholics may more or less conform to the official teachings of the Church. Failure to do so could arise from anything between ignorance or outright heresy. By the way, the same exists in Protestantism. I’ve met very few professed Calvinists who believe in predestination . . .

    3) I’m not sure . . . What would be your view on someone who is convinced the Christian faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Christianity at this time? Is such a person committing a sin? Perhaps; God reads the heart. I can’t imagine a good reason for not converting, even if there MIGHT BE a reason to convert in secret, and keep it under wraps for a time being.

    4) Strictly speaking, Catholics are not supposed to “go up to be blessed” at Communion, but this has become a custom in some places in recent years. It means nothing more than a blessing would if received outside of Mass. (By the way, lay people can bless, too: by virtue of our reception of the common priesthood of all believers, laymen can invoke the Holy Spirit and/or rebuke the devil as much as the next person. Which is not to deny that there is something unique in the blessing of an ordained minister, who shares in Christ’s priesthood to a greater extent.)

    5) It fits quite easily. One can’t ever be obedient to one authority if such would mean being disobedient to a higher one. Which is why the state cannot compel a Christian to worship idols, why a parent cannot order his child to light a baby on fire, or a husband tell his wife to allow another man to rape her. Simply put: a husband has no authority, under God or nature, to forbid his wife from joining the true religion.

    I hope that helped. For some of your questions, save the last, there is no clear-cut answer, just general principles we can explore to approximate an answer.

    Great blog!

    LikeLike

74. “1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?”

    Yes and No, a two part question and a two part answer.

    Yes, Apostolic Succession is required for valid orders (among other things-valid rites, intent etc). Protestant groups failed to preserve validly consecrated Bishops, and thus, do not have valid holy orders.

    No, you may genuinely be called by God to be a minister. How God will lead you to fulfill that call is a walk in faith. A healthy number of married former protestant ministers have been allowed to receive Catholic orders. If you are single, or after the death of your spouse you would be eligible for ordination in any case. You could be ordained as a permanent Deacon. You could minister in other capacities as a teacher, a counselor, etc.

    “”2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” …. If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?””

    I share your frustration. I endured a protracted struggle with this issue as a doubting Catholic.

    First, it is very unfortunate that many Catholic simply don’t know their faith, and don’t make much effort to find out. So, if you are dialogging with a variety of average Catholics you might hear all kinds of things. Some may be ‘cafeteria’ Catholics, others may just be confused, others may be properly representing the faith. All along there may be problems of miscommunication and misconception.

    Second, a Catholic MUST accept everything the Church has infallibly taught. When faced with something difficult to understand and accept, a Catholic MUST ascent to the Authority of the Church and faithfully pray and study. However, the Church is MERCIFUL towards those who are hard of heart and head.

    Third, and here is the heart of it, we all need to be careful when we proclaim “the Church has infallibly taught X.” This is the mistake that leads to many a misconception. If you are investigating the Catholic Church, or studying as a Catholic the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the best, primary and most reliable resource to what the Church truly does teach. I was so grateful for the CCC that ended by 10 year struggle to cut through all the arguments and confusion I found in the Church. Although to be clear, the CCC is not itself and infallible document, nor is every jot within it infallible, it is a complete, authoritative concordance of what the Church teaches.

    Finally, I am getting beyond my level of competence here, but ‘infallible doctrines’ are not as simple to spot as we would like. Even the Catechism doesn’t give an exhaustive and concise list. Some things are easy – The creeds, the Ecumenical Councils, and the very few Papal ‘ex cathedra’ doctrines formally proclaimed (the assumption of Mary). Those are the absolute infallible doctrines – my term.

    Other doctrines may also be infallible, but have not been stated so formally. This is the area where a lot of argument comes out. Papal Bulls, and encyclicals are NOT infallible in general and in now way similar to the Councils and explicit ‘ex cathedra decrees. They may restate infallible teaching, clarify, apply to current events etc.. It is wisdom to be respected, some statements are probably infallible, but the documents as a whole are not infallible. Thus, much of the argument about ‘Humanae Vitae’.

    There are doctrines that are certainly infallible that have never been formally proclaimed. It is simply that there was never a need, because they were never in dispute. Much of what was taught in the Council of Trent was in response to the reformation – the doctrines where not new, it was just necessary to formally proclaim them. Similar for the Assumption of Mary. The same might be argued today for the male priesthood, heterosexual marriage, and the evil of contraception. These are all already doctrines that the Church has consistently taught for 2000 years, and they are certainly infallible, but it may become necessary to formally proclaim them by Council or Decree, not because they are new, but because for the first time in history they are being seriously questioned.

    There are many other beliefs that are piously held by the faithful and taught by Priests and theologians, and Catechists, that are not infallible. The doctrine of limbo is/was one. It was/is widely believed, it was widely taught, but it was an idea developed in relatively recent times. It was not part of the deposit of the faith. It was never infallibly declared. Pope Benedict recently approved a document concluding that Limbo is unnecessary. Catholics may still believe in limbo, or not, but it probably will fade from being taught.

    So the two sticky points here. First, among knowledgeable Catholics, there is ‘some’ – in my opinion, not a lot – room for heated discussion of is X infallible or not under some circumstances. And certainly, for average Catholics like me, we may think some things are infallible that aren’t or vis a vie. Second, for a serious protestant studying the Church, it can be very difficult to know what teachings are ‘infallible’ what are ‘disciplines’ and what are ‘exercises of the ordinary magisterium’ (everyday guidance, but not infallible).

    Finally, no matter how many, or how respected, theologians teach X, that does not make X true. Not even if they are a Saint, or a Doctor of the Church.

    So, it is necessary to be cautious when we toss around the infallible word, and expect others to bow to authority.

    “3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?”

    Is it a sin to refuse God’s grace? The Church claims to be the True Church, founded upon the rock of Peter, by Jesus Christ with Christ as its head, guided inerrently by the holy spirit, founded upon apostolic succession, endowed with the Authority to teach, and to bind and loose, with seven sacraments as the ordinary means of God’s divine grace. If one suspects these claims may be true – if God is opening ones heart to see the Truth, is it a sin to resist? The Church teaches that to believe in the Church and not be a member is to thwart God’s will and to commit mortal sin. Exactly at one point does one’s belief become too strong to safely deny – that’s an open question but I’d hate to be on the wrong side of the answer. Of course, circumstances which prevent you from following your conscience diminish your culpability. Please, Please go to the “coming home network” http://www.chnetwork.org

    “4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?”

    Undefined. Theologically, not much if anything it is intrinsically the same as having the Priest bless you any other time. Liturgically, not much, the whole blessing during communion is debatable as to its appropriateness. Practically, whatever it means to you. I sometimes have received a blessing when I was not properly disposed to receive. To me, its just a practical decision to not have to stay out of the way in my 150 year old churches narrow aisles and pews, and not have everyone wonder why I am not receiving. The practice has arisen, only because ‘everyone’ goes to communion these days. In times past people took proper preparation for communion far more seriously. So, anyone not going really sticks out these days.

    “5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?”

    I don’t have a firm grip on what is ‘official’ but my sense, open to correction, is that the Church would never advocate forcing someone to accept the sacraments, or forcing ones spouse to attend mass against their desire (doesn’t mean that at various times and places in history people and even Priests and Bishops haven’t done that). It is OK for one spouse to join the Church. The story of Scott and Kimberly Hahn “Rome Sweet Home” details exactly this dilemma in a marriage (Evangelical anti-catholic Minister becomes Catholic, Bible believing submitting wife agonizes etc). I very highly recommend this book in particular, and anything by Scott or Kimberly Hahn.

    Please, Please go to the “coming home network” http://www.chnetwork.org

    God Bless, Your brother in Christ, Paul

    LikeLike

75. My poor attempt at answering your questions.

    “I have some questions for a knowledgeable Roman Catholic. Pretty important matters.”

    I’ll try to answer but I must state that I am only a layman, cradle Catholic with no formal education on the subject. I also am ignorant of your circumstances, having just stumbled across this post.

    “1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers?”

    It all depends on what you mean by “valid ministers.” If you mean equivalent to a priest, with the ability to consecrate the sacred body and blood; then no, because you do not have holy orders. If you mean ministry in a more limited sense as someone who is called to preach Christ as Lord and Savior, then there is some wiggle-room. As Christians we are all called to witness to our faith and to aid the church with whatever talents and gifts we possess. If your gift is to preach the gospel then I think it might be possible to affirm your ministry (limited sense) as valid under the circumstances.

    “More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?”

    Regarding your friend being required to believe that you were never called: I believe that the only requirement for your friend is to profess his belief in what the Catholic Church professes to be true. I don’t think there is any repudiation of errors.

    Since you bring up the subject; I would ask whether you have followed your call from God properly. Is it possible that God has called you to ministry but that your current position is not what He had in mind? Maybe God expects something different or more from you. I would recommend St. Francis de Sales’ Catholic Controversy (published by TAN). There is a good section where he deals with the validity of the ministry of Protestant ministers. St. Francis does not pull any punches and I would say that he denies the validity of Protestant ministers but he was also dealing with a different time and circumstances.

    “2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with ‘cafeteria Catholicism?’ Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, ‘Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.’ With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter? If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?”

    I completely agree with your frustration with “cafeteria Catholicism.” It does seem hypocritical for people to deny the Church’s teaching in one area (I assume you mean contraception) and say you must accept it in another area (like the pope). I would say the cause is our sinful natures; too many of us fall far short. Even some in the hierarchy have compromised. I too was once guilty of ignoring certain of the Church’s teaching. So yes, if you show that the Church has infallibly teaches Y then that should be the end of the discussion (with the obvious caveat that it must be agreed that you did in fact demonstrate that the Church teaches Y, such as reference to the Catechism, a decree from a Council, etc.). That some do not acquiesce only goes to show that we are all in need of better discipline in following Christ and His Church.

    “3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?”

    I would say that the person is in a very precarious position. My understanding is that this is exactly the situation that “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” applies to. That is, anyone who is convinced that the Catholic faith is true and does not enter the Church (or leaves it) is no longer “invincibly ignorant” and therefore endangers his soul by remaining outside of the Church. Therefore I would have to say that the person is thus committing a sin; but like all sins the severity can be mitigated by circumstances.

    “4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?”

    I must confess my complete ignorance on this matter. I would just say that receiving a blessing does not mean that you agree 100% but only that you acknowledge that one needs help in carrying out God’s will and that you are asking a fellow Christian to pray for you (because that is what the blessing is).

    “5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse”

    While downplayed a bit now-a-days (especially here in the West) the Church still teaches that the proper head of the family is the husband, though both are of equal dignity by being created in the image of God. At the same time the relationship is nuanced in that the relationship is one of love that is supposed to mirror the relationship between Jesus and His Church. That is, the wife should submit to her husband as the Church submits to Christ and the husband should love his wife as Jesus loves the Church, even unto death for her sake. Therefore a husband should never dominate his wife but love and cherish her and never act in a manner that is harmful to her.

    For this reason (love) a husband, even a Protestant one, should not stand in the way of his wife entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. Because Christ trumps all else, the Church does teach that a wife should enter into full communion even if her husband objects. After all, we are called to renounce all (wealth, parents, spouses, etc.) in order to follow Jesus.

    I hope my meager efforts at a response have helped to answer your questions. If I am in error in anyway I am happy to be shown where I went wrong.

    Please pray for me and especially for my wayward wife.

    James G

    LikeLike

76. #2
    This frustrates a lot of faithful Catholics also! As you point out, an individual’s view does not ever trump Church teachings. It is up to the individual to educate themselves as to why the Church teaches what she does and to thereby bring themselves into agreement with it through education. So we are on the same page there.

    #4
    What is meant when anyone goes forward at communion to be blessed is simply that. The priest blesses the person. It does not mean that you have to agree with the Church or that you are seeking reception into the Church. Simply that you are seeking a blessing and getting it.

    LikeLike

77. Well, I’m just a layperson, but my understanding is…
    1)Catholic priests and deacons are sacramentally ordained, so that is a distinction we would make. I think most Catholics would be comfortable with recognizing that Protestant ministers are responding to a call from God.
    2)You are correct, with the one caveat that although a Protestant believes he has demonstrated that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches Y (not knowing what specifically you are referring to) he may possibly be coming to an incorrect conclusion. If it is, in fact, something that the Church teaches infallibly, then a Catholic must assent to it.
    3)From what I understand, it is quite common for people to come close and then take a long time before taking the plunge. And some never do. Converts often encounter obstacles and one must address them with prayer. I don’t think it is sinful unless one willfully refuses to convert for selfish reasons.
    4)The priest imparts God’s blessing. To receive it does not assume that one is in communion with the Church, beyond, I suppose, belief in the Trinity.
    5) Well, it is different. Catholics believe in mutual submission and equality of the spouses. So, on the one hand, the wife should respect the wishes of her husband, and certainly should not jeopardize the marriage…. but, the husband should repect the need of his wife to grow in faith as she feels called.
    I would encourage you to contact the Coming Home Network http://www.chnetwork.org. Even if you or your spouse are just taking a peek at Catholicism, these folks are very good at addressing your concerns… particularly from Protestant clergy.
    May God bless you.

    LikeLike

78. Hello, Michael – I found you through a link from Amy Welborn’s blog. Actually, I’ve heard other folks mention you as well, so I’m happy to come over and visit.

    I’m a convert to Catholicism, so I want to take a stab at your questions above. A little background: I was raised Baptist, but then discovered the charismatic movement in college and had to find a new church home. I was part of a New England congregational (with evangelical ties) church, an independent charismatic church, a Free Methodist church, and a house church/”simple church” group before joining the Catholic Church in 1999. Stories of my spiritual journey can be found via links from my website, http://www.mystagogia.net, and on my blog, http://www.kathleenlundquist.blogspot.com.

    OK. Let’s dive in:

    1) Catholic teaching draws a distinction between the priesthood/ministry of the ordained (deacons, priests, bishops, etc.) and the priesthood/ministry of the laity (all persons baptized into Christ). We all start out with the priesthood of the laity/the “priesthood of the believer”, which is conferred on us via Christian baptism, but those called to the ordained sacerdotal priesthood receive a different sort of mission, with specific delegated responsibilities. In this view, a Catholic priest’s authority and jurisdiction are delegated to him from above and are attached to his office (think of a police officer in uniform). The average Christian believer’s priestly authority and sphere of influence are attached to his/her God-given individual personality (think of a father or mother, or a gifted artist). Since most Protestants (and I assume you) don’t believe in the ordained priesthood in the sense I described, we do share a common understanding that all baptized believers have been given a mission by God, and that mission can include the use of pastoring and preaching gifts – even for a layperson (from a Catholic perspective). For more on this, visit the website of the Catherine of Siena Institute at http://www.siena.org.

    2) I as a Catholic apologize to you for the confusion you’ve encountered in trying to discover authentic Catholic teaching. As you’ve noted, infallibility is a touchy subject, especially among American Catholics. I believe the issues are these:
    – The Catholic Church believes there is a hierarchy to truth. There is the Nicene/Constantinople Creed, which all believers are expected to believe wholeheartedly since we recite it together every week at Mass and it’s what you have to say you believe in order to be baptized. Then there’s the Catechism, the compendium of Church teaching which is like the encyclopedia – the definitive reference to answer specific questions. Then there’s the Pope’s encyclicals and letters, which carry great weight because when the Pope is intending to teach about issues of faith and morals, the charism of infallibility applies. Then there are statements from various Church offices in response to certain issues – position papers from bishops’ conferences, etc., which aren’t by their nature binding on the believer’s conscience, though it’s usually a good idea to take them to heart. Then there are private revelations – things like the Marian apparitions and other reports of miracles, which after they’re investigated by the Church, are declared no more than “worthy of belief”, which translates to “This is officially harmless – believe it if it helps you, but if not, that’s OK.”

    – There’s also the issue of evaluating the consistency of the Church’s teaching on a particular issue as it relates to core principles. Take the death penalty, for instance. For most of its history, the Church regarded the death penalty simply as a necessary political tool of the state and didn’t have much to say about it one way or the other; there was no specific condemnation of it, anyway. Pope John Paul II, however, made strong statements during his lifetime against the death penalty and explained that though it might have been a necessary social tool at one time, since we now have the technology to lock folks up for life, we should avoid and proscribe it. Some have taken this to mean that the Church has changed its teaching on the death penalty and to be a good Catholic, you must now be anti-death penalty. Though I’m deeply sympathetic on this issue, it isn’t really the case that my fellow Catholics are in mortal sin if they don’t agree the me; it’s ultimately a political/temporal issue. One might say that the Church’s teaching has developed on this issue in accordance with its core principles, which include guarding the dignity and sanctity of human life, but the application of this development in the real world requires realism and debate.

    On the other hand, take the issue of abortion. Some Catholics have actually written books containing quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic writers that they claim support the possibility of morally licit abortion before “quickening”, about the 3rd month. This argument is bogus because the Church’s core principles and huge, consistent body of teaching on the dignity of human life and the sanctity of the family weigh heavily against modern interpretations of medieval Catholic writings that would attempt to carve out exceptions to those principles.

    – Many prominent American Catholic leaders in the ’60s and ’70s sadly did not grasp the nature of what was actually said about “conscience” in the documents of Vatican II. The “inviolability and primacy of conscience” did not refer to that of baptized Catholics at all, but rather to that of non-Christians and adherents of other religions that live amongst Christians. The point was that you can’t force someone to convert against their conscience, not that “conscience trumps all”. The documents actually say that every believer has a responsibility to form his/her conscience in accordance with Church teaching, but this idea was obscured by influential priests and teachers who were caught up in the ’60s zeitgeist and wanted to throw everything out that window that Vatican II opened. So, the unfortunate reality now is that the average American Catholic doesn’t really know his/her faith. (I’m sure you’ve met your share of Christians from Protestant traditions who are in the same boat.) If you want to know the content of what Catholics are required to believe, go to the Catechism or study the Creeds – or better yet, the early Church Fathers.

    Sorry this is so long – I’ll go ahead and post this and then work on the last three questions.

    LikeLike

79. 1) Not to be overly semantical, but we’ll need to define “ministry” before we can deal with this constructively. My immediate response is that you may very well be called to “ministry”–I don’t know you personally ,so I can’t give an educated guess–but you are not, nor have you ever been, validly ordained.

    Let’s take a personal example: My father is a Baptist minister (who has taken my swimming the Tiber comparatively well), and once asked what I felt about women’s ordination, since he has a female associate pastor at his church. I responded that I had little to no issue with it, because she was not validly ordained and more importantly did not even claim to be validly ordained–that is, she did not claim to be ordained in the line of apostolic succession and empowered to celebrate the sacraments of Eucharist, confession, etc. Her “ministry” entailed counseling, proclamation, and perhaps even leadership, but at no point did she claim a priestly mantle–and neither did my father.

    What Baptists, and the vast majority of Protestants, call ordination isn’t. To say that Protestant “ordination” is the same as the sacrament of Holy Orders is as confused as claiming that there is no distinction between the president of a Rotary club and the President of the United States. Yet, simply because my father is not called to act as a priest, this does not mean he cannot serve as a prophet–that is, one called to proclaim the Word of God. That’s what most Protestants think of when they think of ministry–and there’s no reason I can see why they can’t do that, just as there no reason that Catholic lay people can’t exercise ministry as teachers, catechists, and the like. If that’s all that’s meant by “valid minister”, then I fail to see a conflict.

    Things get more interesting with High-Church Anglicans or Lutherans, who most likely would view themselves as taking on a priestly role. I would argue they are a bit confused on that point.

    2) Leaving aside occasional confusion on what the Church has and has not taught infallibly, you are correct that “demonstrat[ing] that the [C]hurch has infallibly taught Y … [should be] the end of the discussion for the [C]atholic.” Furthermore, the Catholic should, in general, be attentive to the teachings of the Church even when they are not infallible.

    For example, the Church has not infallibly weighed in against capital punishment (see point three in this linked document). However, the clear teaching of the past two popes and much of the upper-level hierarchy is plainly ill-disposed to see capital punishment as a useful or even legitimate action. As a Catholic, it is incumbent upon me to listen faithfully to the Church’s teaching and address it properly. Although I am (very tentatively) in favor of capital punishment, were I to hold my position without careful consideration of present Church teaching, I would not be doing my job as a faithful Catholic.

    Given this, why is it so hard to get Catholics to accept even infallible teachings of the Church, much less respectfully listen to longstanding Church teaching which happens to be an affront to their modern individualist sympathies? Basically, most American Catholics are too Protestant. Or too American. But I repeat myself.

    Being slightly less flippant: The current state of religious education among American Catholics, particularly those who grew up in the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, is atrocious. Much of this is a rather poor reflection on the priests of the period, who in many cases abandoned their obligation to teach unpopular doctrines to their congregation, or to impress on their flock the severity of their decision to flaunt the Church’s ethical teachings. (The most obvious example is Humanae Vitae and birth control.) But blame must also fall on the laity of the period, who absorbed without question the pervading cultural message that one should question authority, and then applied it with glee to their faith while not applying it at all to their societal influences. The result is basically what you would expect, and in fact very similar to what you see in many Protestant denominations. The difference is the Protestants have a theological excuse.

    Anecdotally, the situation seems to be doing much better; I have no hard statistics, but general impressions I have heard from those in the know, and my own personal experience, has led me to believe that the current generation of Catholics (those my age–mid-twenties–or younger) are far more engaged with and aware of Church doctrine than their parents. But American Catholicism still can seem an awful mess at times.

    (Some of my cynicism, no doubt, stems from my position as a Wheaton College alumnus who read his way into the Church; we are almost always “more Catholic than the Pope”, as the saying goes, and thus perhaps too unforgiving of those with less inquisitive or intellectual theological backgrounds. It is not necessarily fair to expect my fellow Catholics to have read through the Catechism, even if I really wish they would.)

    3) Let me rephrase the question: “What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced Christianity is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly accept the Lordship of Jesus Christ at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?” This question answers itself.

    From the Catholic (and Orthodox, and Patristic, and …) standpoint, Christ and the Church are inseparable. You do not approach one and pretend to be independent of the other. Again, I would blame American (and, in this case, specifically Evangelical) theology for encouraging a “Me and Jesus” mindset which denigrates and belittles the role of the Church in the plan of salvation.

    Three things are required to make something a mortal sin: 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge, and 3) deliberate consent. Rejecting the Church, like rejecting Christ, is a grave matter, and your question presupposes that full knowledge is possessed. So the only thing that would keep this from being mortal would be the “unable” qualification. Of course, it is very hard for one to judge whether someone else is “unable”–psychologically or otherwise–to do the right thing, which is why we should always be reluctant to judge others. But this is serious business. Refusing to stand with Christ always is.

    4) I don’t feel qualified to answer this question. I don’t even know precisely what the priest says during such a blessing, and thus am unaware of the precise pastoral purpose or theological rationale for such blessings.

    5) Although I am tempted to repeat my last answer, I would say that a wife should join the Church over the objections of her spouse as a general rule, but would strongly encourage prayer, conversation, etc. to bring her husband to agreement or at least acceptance with her action. In the same way, I would encourage Christians in this country to deal with infringements on their religious obligations within the legal/political system to the greatest degree possible, only resorting to civil disobedience under extreme circumstances. But there does come a time when one must obey God rather than man. Fidelity to Christ and his commands is more important than following any earthly authority, however legitimate.

    I should note that the above is just my own instinctive reaction to the problem; I don’t know of any “official” Church position one way or the other.

    I agree with you that these are “pretty important matters”–particularly the first three. I hope this helps.

    LikeLike

80. Disclaimer: of course, this is just my personal opinion.

    Answers:

    1) I was an ordained Protestant minister. Of course I thought myself valid, having been ordained by my regional presbyterate in accordance with my Protestant community practice. I was also married according to their practice.

    Since returning to the Catholic Church, which I was taken out of as a child, I have grown to realize that my Protestant ministry was well-intentioned, perhaps effective, but not really “Ordained Ministry” in the Catholic sense. I do not consider that I was validly an (ordained) minister. Nor do I consider that I was validly married, due to last years clarifications of “formal defection” in Canon Law, and so we got married in the Catholic Church earlier this year, on the 20th anniversary of our civil/Protestant marriage.

    Obviously, my answer to this question has changed over the past ten years!

    2) You and me both. I have learned that very few Catholics really know what the Church teaches in any comprehensive way. Everybody has their favorite clubs to swing and axes to grind. The Church is really big. Most poeple don’t have a lot of time, or interest, to really dig into and understand things. Sound bites from theologians and spokespersons, often very biased, abound. But nothing beats reading and study on your own, as broadly as possible, of actual ecclesial documents (prefereably not only in English, as even official English translation can lead to misunderstandings in English-only discussions.)

    3) I think that if this is a true and honest description of a person, such a person is blessed,
    and we all sin, even those who are “officially Catholic.” Time is a gift from God; feel free to use it. Better you take your time, than act hastily and then think, “Oh, nuts! This is not what I expected at all!” And then convert right out to something else. There have been some recent, very public examples of this. There is a lot of truth to the idea that the Catholic Church means “Here comes everybody!” That can be scary, frustrating, and also comforting. 2005 stats indicated about 1.115 billion Catholics in the world, about 1/6 of the global population. That is a lot of nice, sweet, holy people, and also about 1.114 billion that you could be uncomfortable with.

    4) Personally, I don’t care for the “blessing not communion” thing. You can ask a priest for a blessing any time. I feel it is better to not confuse it with Communion.

    5) Marriage is one of the most badly taught things in the Catholic Church, in my opinion. Because it is such a big thing, and such a sensitive thing, and everybody has very strong opinions. However, I don’t think you can beat John Paul II’s book, his collection of talks and documents, called “The Theology of the Body,” or whatever is the title of the new, improved translation. Just don’t expect that your average Catholic would know what you are talking about if your brought it up at a party.
    Yes, my wife and I believe the husband is the head, and has responsibilities for the family, including spiritual leadership. I don’t think the Church these days, in the US, would teach that anyone “should join the church” over objections of a spouse. On the other hand, “joining the Church” can be a very minimally instrusive matter.

    Best regards to you.

    LikeLike

81. 3. Forgot to say in connection to this question —

    But whether or not it’s actually a sin not to join the Catholic Church would depend on individual circumstances and intentions, how grave the preventing circumstances actually were, and whether the individual was actually expending any real effort to find a way to do what God wants. And that would be between the person, God, and their priest.

    You don’t have to exercise heroic virtue in following God’s will, like walking a hundred miles overnight in a driving blizzard to get to RCIA class, in order not to sin! OTOH, there are certainly circumstances where heroic virtue and martyrdom are not too much for God to ask, and are the most reasonable course. (And of course that’s happened, too.) So individual circumstances and hearts are really important here.

    LikeLike

82. Traveling for our ministry today. (Grayson, Kentucky.) Spiritual Emphasis Week happening here the next 3 days and nights. I didn’t sleep more than 2 hours last night after finishing a book and thinking through all the details of a day I’m not here, so pray for me as I drive. Plus my internet has been totally down since Sunday afternoon, so I can only check in when I’m on a computer at work. I have two posts to get up, but that won’t happen for a while. Sorry Frank.
    I have some questions for a knowledgeable Roman Catholic. Pretty important matters.
    1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers?

    #By baptism they have a part in the general priestly call of Christians, and are therefore called to live and proclaim the gospel. This, by the lights of their own ecclesial communities, suffices for ministerial leadership, as it would for many organizations within the Catholic Church. It is not part of the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders and therefore would not suffice for a pastor in the Catholic Church. Pastoral associates in the Church designated by bishops to provide leadership, including teaching (but not Mass, Confession, or the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick) have received baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist to be fully initiated members of the Cathlolic Church.

    More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    #No, they are not.#

    2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?”

    #Because Catholicism casts a very wide net. Many fish are in the net, and the sorting will only come at the End, as indicated in Jesus’ parables.#

    Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.”

    #You are correct. They are still struggling with growing into the full vision of the Faith.#

    With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter?

    #Simply in terms of what the Faith IS, it doesn’t change anything. In terms of that individual Catholic, it just tells you where they are struggling with the Lord right now.#

    If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?

    #Probably not. The old man doesn’t give up his waywardness all at once. But also keep in mind the Church’s teaching always has a growing edge, where disputes and differences of opinion can be allowed, and that the Church is quite free, and very diverse, in the many questions that have not been infallibly decided or at least regularly taught by the ordinary teaching authority. Nevertheless, on very many of the hot-button issues of our day, the teaching of the Church is clear and isn’t going to change.#

    3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?

    #Not necessarily. Why ‘unable’? Why ‘chooses not to’? This is a major change which often impacts family members, job situations, etc. It should not be done lightly or with undue haste. Sit down and have a long conversation with a priest or mature Catholic layman you have respect for and trust, would be my advice to such a person.#

    4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake?

    #This is a custom, not a universal practice in the Church. I believe it has evolved as a way to welcome and ask God’s mercy upon anyone unable to receive Communion. If you are in need of welcome and God’s mercy as you struggle with elements of the Faith or the changes such a choice might bring, it would be for you.#

    What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

    #Much better to go up as a publican than a Pharisee.#

    5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

    #In one line, the Church’s teaching is mutual submission in Christ, with both spouses seeking the ultimate good of the other. Much patience on both sides. Each should have that long conversation suggested in #3 above, then some long conversations with each other and with the Lord.#

    LikeLike

83. Good afternoon. To answer the first question about ministers, one must first have a common understanding of the word minister.

    A Catholic would tell you we are all called by God to minster to eachother. Within the many ministries God calls us to do are parents, ordained priests, deacons, teachers, religious sisters or brothers, etc.

    With this in mind, does the Church recognize a Protestant minister (leader of a congregation) to be a valid minister (Ordained priest)? No. But it is important to realize this does not mean the Protestant was not called to preach the Gospel, we all are called to do this. He or she just answered the call within their understanding of church.

    If this Protestant Minister joins the Church he is still called to live the Gospel and if he is able (and called) to the ordained priesthood he should answer that call. I do not believe we are ever complete in our answer to God – we are always striving to answer teh call as completely as we can. Only in Heaven will things be complete.

    LikeLike

84. 1 – Do Catholics consider non-Catholic ministers as valid ministers: No short answer to this one, but I’ll be as brief as I can. We wouldn’t consider someone ordained outside of the Catholic/Orthodox milieu to be validly ordained to the priesthood. Properly and strictly speaking, the Church maintains that “ministry” is restricted to the ordained – what those of us not ordained practice in bringing Christ to the world is most properly called our apostolate. That’s a pretty restricted view, however, and I would say that most Catholics – including official, bishop-type Catholics – would not have a difficulty extending the definition of “ministry” to those who minister in a non-ordained, clerical way. As a baptized person I – and you – are called to exercise our apostolate or ministry using the particular gifts, talents and charisms we’ve been given, both through our natural traits and the charisms we’ve received in baptism. That call to exercise our gifts and talents is not limited only to Catholics, but extends to all the baptized. If you have discerned your talents and charisms to give you a ministry of leadership in your community, then no Catholic would deny the validity of your exercise of those charisms. Deacon Alex Jones is a Catholic deacon of the Archdiocese of Detroit, having been a Pentecostal minister beforehand. In his book No Price too High, he states his firm belief in the validity of his ministry to his community before his conversion – that he was indeed called to lead and guide his community, and that part of that shepherding role was to help lead those he could into the Catholic Church.

    While the Catholic Church doesn’t accept the validity of Holy Orders conferred by protestants, including Anglicans, whenever Protestant ministers visit the Vatican they tend to wear clothes befitting their status as ministers, if the denomination has a tradition of clerical dress. Vatican letters addressed to them use their titles, “Rev.” “Deacon” “Bishop”, and popes have given to Anglican and Lutheran bishops gifts which indicate their status in their communities – crosiers, rings.

    More later, but I’ve got to get back to work right now…

    LikeLike

85. Howdy Monk, great questions!

    I’ll offer my own humble understanding….from a slightly left of center Catholic position…remember…it actually is (its size practically guarantees it) a large tent.

    1) Yes…and no. The Catholic Church believes itself to be to be the Church that Christ founded, and as such, the locus of the “fullness” of the Christian faith. However, as Vatican II made clear, and the Pope recently affirmed (although this bit didn’t make headlines), all Christians are united in baptism and thus members of the universal Church. Therefore, while the Church may see your call as somewhat “imperfect,” it would not say that it is invalid or require any of its members to view it in that way, and it woul see your work as having great potential for the saving of souls and the blessing of the world.

    2) As Pope John the 23rd said “Accept what you can, and pray over the rest.” Every catholic is required to take the teaching of the Church very seriously and to use it as the primary tool in the formation of one’s personal conscience. However, the catechism clearly states that individual conscience is, in the end, inviolable.

    3) In theory, yes, but as with all of the teachings of the Church, a pastoral understanding of the specific situation would be required to know for sure. In the end, the Church teaches that “sin” is the rejection of God. Sometimes membership in the Church and accepting God’s direction are not the same thing.

    4) This varies by location, but in most cases, the blessing is meant to be a broad embrace of Catholics who do not want to or are not able to receive communion, and non-Catholics who want to affirm our common bonds. Theological assent to the teachings of the Church are not a prerequisite for such a blessings.

    5) Certain fairly conservative Catholics adhere to a male leadership model that is very similar to the one found in many evangelical/fundamentalist protestant families. However, I feel safe in saying that the vast majority of Catholic families have interpreted the teachings of the Church as promoting a form of complimentarian partnership when it comes to decision making…one that recognizes differences in gifts, but not in power. As I said before, when it comes to faith, individual conscience (with a healthy regard for the greater good of the family) is to be respected.

    Hope this helps…
    Blessings,
    Joe

    LikeLike

86. 1. God can call people to be all sorts of things. Heck, you could be called to be a garbageman, if that was what God thought would be best for you. When He calls people, it’s always to something that gets them one step closer to Heaven. Just because Catholics don’t regard Protestant ministers as the same thing as priests, or as serving in the hierarchy of Christ’s Church, doesn’t mean that Protestant ministers aren’t servants of God or called by God.

    Now, that doesn’t mean that you’re necessarily called to _stay_ a Protestant and a minister. 🙂

    2. Either the Catholic is badly instructed in his faith, or your depiction of the current interpretation of the doctrine is weirding him out, or he’s dissident and disobedient.

    However, it’s not normal for somebody to confront me with what Catholics believe. Usually, it’s what they _think_ we believe, and at least 5000 miles off-target. (You’re a lot more informed than the folks who try to convert me or turn me into an atheist, though.)

    To be fair, sometimes “that’s not what I believe” really means “you’re not saying that right or there’s an important nuance that’s missing, but I can’t quite put my finger on what it is. So I will dig in my heels and wait for you to go away.” Vocabulary terms are often a problem here, especially since Catholic catechesis has used about three or four different sets of terms in catechesis over the last thirty years.

    3. If somebody knows and believes that the Catholic Church is the true Church, they are obligated to join up as soon as they can. Any reasonably serious reason that might prevent a person from doing so would probably be okay. However, it ought to be a pretty serious reason to have it prevent you very long. (Especially since converts tell a lot of stories about spiritual warfare, sometimes right up till the day of their reception into the Church.)

    This is the sort of thing where individual information about an individual case would be important, and where a priest would be a heckuva lot better judge than me. Also, there are a lot of priests who are very flexible about ways and means of admitting people, ie, you don’t always have to take a whole year of classes, you don’t always have to do it at Easter, special help for people in some kind of physical danger for converting, etc.

    4. It means you’re getting blessed. And since any Christian can give or accept a blessing from any other Christian, it’s not any kind of commitment to anything.

    An atheist or non-Christian getting blessed would probably be making more of an implied statement. If they cared. But I’ve never heard that accepting a blessing hurt anyone; it’s not a fraught thing like a big S Sacrament.

    5. Anyone can join the Church over the objections of anybody else, as far as I ever heard. (As long as you’re over the age of reason.) As you’re no doubt aware, there was no shortage of unequally yoked people back in the first century. It ain’t fun, but it’s certainly not prohibited. And rightly so. It’s the spouses’ duty to try and get each other to Heaven, of course. but nobody — not the Pope, not your mom, not the general or the president, not the Archangel Gabriel — has the right to keep you from doing God’s will and doing what you know to be right. You may disobey any lawful authority if they order you to do something wrong, and ordering you not to join the Church is wrong. (Besides, marriage only lasts till death, whereas joining or not joining the Church is concerned with eternal life.)

    But yes, wives are supposed to submit to their husbands and husbands are supposed to crucify themselves for love of their wives. Kids are also supposed to honor their parents and parents be nice to the kids. You know the drill.

    Some people call the Sundays with that reading “Elbow Sunday”. You get it both in Ordinary Time and every year for the Feast of the Holy Family (which is right after Christmas, so everybody’s there). So it’s not a secret. 🙂

    LikeLike

87. if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    Smallish point: Roman Catholics are not confessionally required to believe anything. All belief requirements come from he who (supposedly) holds the keys.

    LikeLike

88. Greetings, Michael.

    I am a post-evangelical myself, who has become a convert to the Catholic church. I am not yet even a catechumen, but have just started to attend the local RC church with my wife and chidren. My wife and oldest daughter are not yet fully convinced about the Catholic church, although they are open to it. I have decided to be very patient with them and go slow, but through my prayers and those of the saints, they have come very far, and I have little doubt that we will enter the RC church united in our belief as a family. I believe it is important for members of families to come to the Church both as an individuals and corporately, i.e. as a family. It would be tragic for a husband or wife to push too fast and leave the rest behind.

    1. The Catholic church does not view your ordination as valid; you would be considered a layman in the Catholic church. This does not mean that God has not called you to ministry. It does mean that your ministry will come to its fulfillment within the Catholic church, whether as a deacon, lay minister, monk, or whatever form is most appropriate.

    2. If you can demonstrate that the Catholic church teaches Y, then yes, end of discussion. There may be elements about how Y is understood, however, which are not defined, and they are open for discussion.

    3. Not sure. I’m guessing it depends on the situation. If it is your sincere intention to join the Catholic when the time is right, then I cannot see not joining now as a sin. I compare this to baptism, where the desire for baptism is sufficient until such time as actual baptism is possible.

    4. Don’t know.

    5. Don’t know what the church says, but family division is tragic at any rate. How long has the wife been waiting for her husband? Has he been open to at least discussing the Catholic church? Has he read the early church fathers?
    In any case, I believe that a heart conversion to the Catholic church can only be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, just as faith in Jesus must be accomplished by the Holy Spirit. The wife needs to pray fervently for but confidently, and from personal experience, it greatly helps to ask the saints to pray for our family with us.

    LikeLike

89. Here’s my take:

    1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    No, we are not confessionally required to believe Protestant ministers are not real ministers. But it also depends on what you mean by “minister.” If you mean serving and caring for others in love, sharing the gospel with them, teaching them to live as Christians, then yes, you are valid, and all Christian share this call to one extent or another. But you are not a priest, which is a special charism that includes sacramental ability to preach, hear confessions, consecrate the Eucharist, anoint the sick and dying, and be “in persona Christi,” in the person of Christ, in a unique way.

    2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.” With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter? If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?

    Many Catholics have been poorly-formed in their faith since Vatican II (though not because of Vatican II, but because of many cultural upheavals that directly affected the life of the Church in the West). There are many reasons for this historically. But there is a new generation of Catholics who are being very-well formed, and it is a joy and an inspiration to encounter them. What matters is what the Church teaches – and whether individual Catholics believe it or not.

    3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?

    As far as I know, maybe, maybe not. I think it would depends on the reasons, such as threat of death in very anti-Catholic countries, or fear of upsetting very anti-Catholic family members or losing one’s reputation in Protestant circles. It may or not be a sin, depending on the circumstances and motivations for not converting – and only God can truly know and judge the heart. The heroic thing to do would be convert regardless of the circumstances, which would be truly pleasing to God. There are people who struggle with these issues – and it is important to remember that the real obstacle is not worldly circumstances, but the ruler of this world who puts fear in the heart, so as to slow the conversion of the believer. But when a person feels ready and courageous enough to convert, it is a very rewarding experience, regardless of the circumstances.

    4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person- like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?

    This is a practice that sprang up spontaneously in the West in the past couple of decades, and has received no official approval or disapproval from the Vatican. Opinions on it vary, from bishops on downward, which causes confusion as some approve of it, and some disapprove. It is thought that Pope Benedict may eventually address it. Here is an article about it at EWTN: http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur81.htm

    5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

    I haven’t encountered that specific situation myself, but I do know that the Church teaching on marriage is that both parties must submit to and serve one another in love, and neither may dominate the other. I doubt that the Church would prevent a wife from entering the Church, even if her husband didn’t want her to (any more than any church would prevent a wife from becoming a Christian at all, if her husband was a non-believer), though they might counsel her about it. Keep in mind that the believing wife may lead to the sanctification and conversion of an unbelieving husband – which has happened many times in the Church. But someone else will have to speak to the Church’s specific teaching on this.

    LikeLike

90. I find questions 2 and 5 particularily interesting and I imagine they’re not easy to answer.

    LikeLike

91. Responses:
    1: In answer to your question I would have to say yes and no, but that must be qualified. I would have to ask what is meant by the term “valid”, if one was trying to say that transformation of bread and wine into the “Body and Blood” actually occurred, I would have to say no. This only occurs amongst validly ordained Catholics and Orthodox priests and bishops. What is at issue here is what is known as apostolic succession. Now to say that one might be called to witness to Christ, all Christians are called to witness to Him but one is never authentically called by God to teach anything other the what He revealed in its fullness. Now that is not to say that ministers of other ecclesiastical communities can’t introduce and bring others to faith in Christ and the life of Grace but this happens through the action of the Holy Spirit who works through the Church that was established by Christ. Anything that is not in keeping with the fullness of what God revealed, logically cannot be claimed as authentic. The doctrines of scripture alone and faith alone, cannot be authentically claimed as as revealed truth since neither are actually scriptural or find any evidence within the teaching of the Apostles or early Church Fathers or any Church Council.

    2. The “cafeteria” mentality is a sad consequence of relativism, and the misapplication of the concept of the formation of conscience. No Catholic is free to believe anything that is contrary to the the central tenants of the faith, such as what is contained in the creed as well as other things such as the Immaculate conception, the evil of abortion and so on. When a Catholic does this they often time place themselves out side the Church. The conscience needs to be informed by the faith and there also needs to be some personal assent to that faith even if we don’t completely understand it. Since faith and reason go hand and hand this assent to the faith/ belief is not “mindless” as some claim, but needs to be approached with good will and a diligent seeking of understanding. Let me put it this way: If a person claims to belong to a organization which holds well defined beliefs which are central to the life of the organization and this person happens to disagree with some these central common beliefs, they place themselves out side of the community to which they claim membership. A Catholic who picks and chooses in essence is founding a personal religion,which is not fully Catholic.

    3. If one is convinced of the truths of the Catholic faith, one is morally obliged to follow. One should assume that it is Holy Spirit who is leading the person to such understanding to deny it to say the least problematic. Choosing not to convert may have varying motivations, such as the potential and real pain of separation or rejection of friends, family, or the loss of income and identity. These are all real considerations and consequences of discipleship.

    4. Coming forward for a blessing is not generally problematic, for a non-Catholic. My question would be if the person thinks that the blessing is efficacious or not, if not why would they come forward?

    5. In general the issue of submission in marriage, is not quite seen from the same angle as many Protestants. If we look at Ephesians 5:21-33 we need to look at the verses 21 and 33 as bookends placing what is between in context. Verses 21 and 33 establish a certain parity between husband and wife “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (21) and “Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband” (33) both of these verses are somewhat contrary to a dominant/submission kind of interpretation, I think the point of this verse was to teach that husband and wife should love each other with the kind of love that Christ has for the Church and the kind of love that the Church has for Christ i.e. the total gift of self to the other for their growth in holiness. The spousal relationship is informed by the relationship of Christ to the Church and Christian marriage models this. I do not think that the Church would ever say that a wife or husband should prevent the other from following the prompting of the Holy Spirit, which of course trumps any claims of authority that a spouse might have. Our first obligation in life is first and foremost to God.

    LikeLike

92. This is Sherry Weddell of the Catherine of Siena Institute (www.siena.org). I’m a convert of nearly
    20 years myself (Southern-Baptist-Evangelical Quaker-Fuller-missions background) and now teach all over the Catholic world, do priestly/seminarian/lay minister formation, etc.

    I’m a world class expert in a few pretty narrow and specific areas (theology, mission, and formation of the laity, charisms and their discernment, evangelization, the secular mission of the Church to the world, the aspects of the ordained office that are specifically related to the areas above, etc.)

    Outside my areas of specific expertise, I have a pretty good general knowledge of the faith – good in the “intelligent, serious adult Catholic” sense – not in the sense of a theologian. Your questions move in and out of my area of special expertise but I’ll give it a shot.

    1) Do Roman Catholics consider Protestant ministers like myself valid ministers? More particularly, if a good friend becomes Roman Catholic, are they now confessionally required to believe that I was never called of God to be a minister?

    First of all, from a Catholic perspective, all Protestant ministry is essentially “lay ministry”, that is, it flows from the “common” or “royal” priesthood which all the baptized(Catholic or not) share – i.e, it’s real ministry but not the *ordained* priesthood as the Catholic Church understands it.

    So no Catholic is required to believe that you were never called of God to be a “minister” but no well-catechized Catholic going to believe that being a Protestant minister is the same as being a Catholic priest. Since most Protestant ministers don’t believe in, much less aspire to priesthood as Catholics understand it, this usually isn’t an existential problem. (In some Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, and emergent church circles, this is an issue, I know – but not for most “evangelicals”.)

    As a former Quaker, for instance, there is almost nothing that I could have done as a Quaker minister that I cannot do, under the right circumstances and by delegation from my local bishop, as a lay Catholic. Lay Catholics can (and do) lead prayer or communion services, lead local congregations, baptize, conduct funerals, witness marriages, do pastoral counseling, teach, bring communion to the sick, etc. What we cannot do – such as celebrate the Eucharist and give absolution was something we didn’t believe in or dreamed of doing anyway.

    2) Why is so much of my dialog with Catholics frustrated with “cafeteria Catholicism?” Catholics will tell me that I must accept the church’s teaching on subject X, but if I point out that they also must accept the church’s teaching on subject Y, I often hear, “Don’t put words in my mouth. That’s not what I believe.” With all due respect, since when did the beliefs of an individual catholic matter? If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?

    If the Church has infallibly taught X, a believing Catholic is required to give the assent of faith. Tthere are many cafeteria Catholics on the right and the left and across the spectrum.

    The issues are seldom just academic ones and what is really at stake is usually lack of faith, hope, love and intentional discipleship. The presenting problem may be intellectual but the heart of the matter is existential, not academic.

    The majority of baptized Catholics (practicing or not) are not yet intentional disciples of Jesus Christ and their sense of belonging is more familial/tribal/cultural than discipleship. Just as an adult child can disagree with her parents without losing her place in the family, so many cradle Catholics see no conflict between claiming their Catholic identity and disagreeing with various areas of Church teaching. Since this is not how evangelical Protestants proceed, especially when we are trying to figure out what the Church actually teaches, it can be very frustrating.

    However, I also have to note that after 4 years of witnessing internet debates between Catholics and Protestants, that it is a rare Protestant who grasps and can articulate Church teaching in its wholeness. A deeply believing, well educated Catholic often faces a mixture of the true, the untrue, the irrelevant, and the badly mangled in these discussions and it can be hard to know how to begin to respond. Just because a questioning Protestant is sure that they know that X is infallibly taught by the Church doesn’t mean that they are right and that the Catholic is obliged to agree with them.

    3) What would be the church’s view on someone who is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but who is unable or chooses not to openly convert to Catholicism at this time? Is such a person committing a sin?

    The fundamental principle is “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Christ would refuse to enter her or to remain in here could not be saved .”(Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 14)

    But there are many important issues invoked by your question. First of all, no one can answer it in general but only in specific. The issue is always “Thomas Corey of Portland, MA” or Gweneth Thomas of Swansea, South Wales” is asking what should I do?

    Let’s say Thomas Corey is a Baptist minister in his 50’s with a wife and 6 children, one of whom is handicapped and will always be dependent upon his parents. Thomas has no other work experience and will lose his retirement if he leaves the Baptist church. Thomas and his wife have had a happy marriage but now his wife is frantically set against such a move and her fundamentalist family is urging her to divorce Thomas if he becomes Catholic. Thomas has been drawn to the Church for years and after much struggle recently much come to the conclusion that the Catholic faith is true but now is in agony. Is Christ really asking him to leave his ministry to which he believes he was called and which seems to have been spiritually fruitful, all economic security, and risk the destruction of his marriage and family? Thomas has prayed and prayed and can’t come to clarity. What would he do? (And this isn’t a abstraction. I was recently in conversation with a Protestant minister facing something very similar.)

    The Church would never condemn such a person but at her best, would strive to walk with him/her as they go through their discernment process – and it is a process.

    The issue isn’t just entering the Church but also how, when, and under what circumstances based upon the clarity of conviction, conscience, and intention of the one thinking of doing so and their responsibility to and the probable impact, spiritual and personal, upon those closest to them, especially their spouse and children. It would be approached and discerned on a case by case basis.

    For instance, a man or woman whose spouse would probably divorce them if they became Catholic would be urged to move very slowly and would not be regarded as in sin if, after much prayer, they came to the conclusion that they needed to wait until their spouse’s heart changed and they could do so without threatening the marriage. Even unmarried and pregnant Dorothy Day was counseled to wait (in the 1920’s) to enter the Church in the hope that her anarchist lover might drop his resistance to the idea of marriage. (He didn’t and she eventually left him and she and her daughter were baptized.) The hope was that the whole family would stay together. Such a person would be urged to pray and seek personal counsel from a priest or spiritual director.

    4) Exactly what is meant when a non-Catholic goes forward at communion to be blessed, but not partake? What if such a person – like myself- openly disagrees with some of the church’s teaching and is not seeking reception into the church?
    Anyone can ask for and receive such a blessing, whether they are Catholic or not or for that matter, a Christian or not. Seeking such a blessing is a sign of some kind of faith(or why would you be there?) but not necessarily complete agreement with Church teaching or a desire to enter the Church.

    5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? If so, how does this fit into the church’s teaching on marriage?

    From a Catholic perspective, the situation of a wife desiring to become Catholic over the objections of her husband would not be significantly different from that of a husband wishing to do so over the objections of his wife. Submission within marriage is regarded as mutual.

    Pope John Paul II in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem described submission within marriage this way (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/women-cp/mulier-eph5.html):

    “However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one- sided but mutual. . . The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ,” and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behavior and customs.”

    So my answer would be the same as to question #3 above.

    LikeLike

93. I’m no longer in communion with the Church, but I think I can answer some of these.

    (1) I don’t think there’s a meaningful answer to this, because it makes no difference (as you note later) what the views of individuals are. The Church’s view, in my understanding, is that it is possible to have a true vocation without being Catholic, but only those in communion with the Church can receive Holy Orders and thereby completely express that true vocation. (This is why excommunication of those who have been ordained is so much bigger a deal than excommunication of laypeople.) There is not strong dogma, as far as I understand, on the topic of receiving blessings and such like in non-Catholic liturgy, but there is clear dogma that non-Catholic liturgies are not Mass, and communion at such a liturgy is not the Sacrament of Communion (whatever more liberal clergy might say on this matter).

    (2) Yes, that ought probably to be the end of the discussion. If the Church has a point of doctrine with which individual lay Catholics disagree, too bad for them; they are still bound by obedience to accept the teaching on Y, even if in their conscience they disagree. Behaving in disagreement is a topic for confession; of course, disagreement is also a topic for discussion with one’s priest. The problem is more complicated the further up the Church’s hierarchy one goes or the more sophisticated one’s theological argument. Also, it is terribly important to distinguish different levels of dogma on Y: for instance, many things people often attribute to RC dogma are in fact just in the category of “may be believed” (nearly everything on the topic of Mary either once was or still is in this category). It’s worth noting also that there is a long tradition of people being, at different times, heretics and saints. St Francis, Origen, and St Thomas all found themselves in very hot water at times, for example.

    (3) Yes, that’s a sin, in so far as willful error is sinful. That is, a person who knows truth and denies it is in effect violating one of the Ten Commandments. There may be mitigating circumstances, however, which might need to be taken into consideration (consider the many Catholics who kept their faith secret under, say, Stalin). So this is a matter for discussion in the context of the sacrament of Reconciliation (but of course, if one has not embraced the Church, that’s not an open option). There’s also a behaviourist question here: if one truly believed in the truth of the Church’s teaching, then one couldn’t stand to be kept from the sacraments. So someone couldn’t “choose not to” be in communion with the Church, and at the same time believe in the truth of all the Church’s teaching. Belief in this sense is different to mere belief of propositions like, “There are trees growing outside my window.”

    (4) The point of the reception of blessing during the Sacrament of Communion has, in my view, rather poor liturgical underpinning, but is intended as a gesture of ecumenicism and inclusion in the Mass for those who are not in communion with the Church (in keeping with the ecumenical principles adopted at and after the Second Vatican Council). Note that this goes both ways: by refusing Communion but asking for blessing, the individual is admitting the holiness (and authority) of the Church and at the same time admitting that s/he is not in communion with the Church.

    (5) The Church would not only teach that a wife should join the Church over such an objection; but also that if the form of marriage undergone did not include submission to the authority of the Church, then it may not have been a true marriage and might be grounds for annulment. The Church’s teaching on marriage is extremely complicated (and in my view, deeply confused), though, so much of this would depend on the circumstances, and could quite possibly only be determined by looking at the case in question (and, of course, Canon Law). In any case, the duty of obedience to one’s spouse is always superseded by the duty to Christ as expressed in the truths expounded by the Church (one of which is, of course, obedience to the Church!).

    Hope this is helpful. I am not a theologian, I should note; what you really want is someone who knows a great deal about current Church dogma. A priest would be of assistance.

    LikeLike

94. One Catholic’s (semi-knowledgeable) response:

    1. Yes you are a valid minister, but not priest. The Catholic ordained priesthood (as opposed to the priesthood of all believers) is tied in with the sacraments. Catholics have many kinds of ministers, many of them lay.

    2. Welcome to American Catholicism! This is America, where freedoms are celebrated, including the freedom to believe in what we want. That’s part of the cultural ethos. What you have to consider, though, is the grades of Catholic teaching. We Catholics must believe in dogma, which I think is the case for almost all Catholics. Non-dogmatic statements are different. However, if a Catholic personally doesn’t agree with a non-dogmatic teaching, he has the serious obligation of trying to understand more fully that teaching. He will likely find that there’s more intelligence behind that teaching than he was initially aware of, and he just might change his mind. It is most bothersome when Catholics pull the “freedom of conscience” card when confronted with a Church teaching they dislike. This exonerates them from studying the issue further.

    3. Depends a lot on circumstances and motives. Suppose a husband or wife has become convinced that the Catholic faith is true, but has a reluctant spouse, or potentially hostile family members? That person should make movements to the Church, but must do so with prudence. On the other hand, if the issue is one of laziness, or excessive, unwarranted fear of what others might think, that person is committing a sin.

    4. I think it means you have a deep respect for certain elements of the Church, deep enough to want its blessing. I wouldn’t link it to any decision to enter/not enter the Church. I attend Eastern Orthodox Divine liturgies on occasion, and receive the unsancitifed bread at the end of the service. There’s much in Eastern Christianity I admire, but I’m not looking to convert.

    5. Interesting question. I think the wife has an obligation to convert to Catholicism, despite objections of her husband. If my wife wanted to convert to a different denomination, I would be highly distressed and would certainly try to dissuade her. I would want to make sure that her discontents with the Catholic faith are fundamental ones, not just irritations due to an existing deficiency in the Church (like slovenly liturgies in the local Church). But if this were a serious calling, I would reluctantly let her do it. I figure that God may have strategic plans for her soul that might involve short-term tactical losses!

    These were very interesting, thoughtful questions. Good luck to you on your post-evangelical journey.

    Steve Hotovy

    LikeLike

95. I’ll try to answer, subject to correction by the more knowledgeable. I hope that my frankness will not be offensive:

    1. Note that there is a difference between what a Protestant minister is in Protestant theology and what Catholics believe a priest is. To some degree (depending upon the Protestant confession) the friend could continue to believe that you are called to be what you claim to be. But you’re not a priest, and don’t claim to be one. (An Orthodox priest, however, claims to be a priest and really is one.) If you believe that your calling is to preach the gospel, your Catholic friend may continue to believe that you are so called, even if you are, like Apollos at the beginning of his call, not fully informed. He would not think that you are called, ultimately, to be a Protestant minister, because ultimately you are not called to be a Protestant. But this may be a way-station on the road to whatever your calling is as a Catholic.

    2. Of course they are, but the Protestant should be careful that he has understood Y correctly.

    3. This is not a copout: It would depend on the reason. Two principles govern in this case: first, it is wrong to go against one’s conscience; second, I have no way of judging anyone’s internal culpability. If someone (like king Charles II after the treaty of Dover) has resolved to enter into communion with the Catholic Church, but has a good (perhaps, in this case) reason for not doing it, I am not the judge. I would say that, objectively, entering into communion with the Catholic Church is the right thing to do.

    4. Exactly the same thing as if I ask a Protestant pastor to pray for me, except possibly more effective. In this case, God’s blessing might involve the Holy Spirit changing your heart.

    5. I don’t know that there is single teaching on the subject of submission in general, but in that case I think that it would be considered right for her to do so (but see 3. above). The “Pauline privilege” that permits the dissolution of the marriage of a non-Christian whose spouse refuses to continue in the marriage after the new Christian is baptized is extended into what is known as the “Petrine privilege”–but that only applies if the Protestant husband refuses to continue living with his Catholic wife (or, I suppose, if she is in danger of bodily harm if she stays with him).

    The questions you pose are not easy to answer, and any answers, like the questions themselves, admit some ambiguity. That isn’t because Catholic teaching is vague in itself, but because it has to be applied to human beings, who are messy and confused. Moreover, each human being has God-given reason and conscience, which should not be violated; and the first duty of any Christian with respect to the brethren–indeed all men–is to love. I have many Protestant friends, whose commitment to Christ I do not question, even though I disagree with them on important points of doctrine. I pray that the may in this world come to the conviction of the truth of the Catholic Church, but I believe that God is able to save them all the same. They may be a bit surprised when they see Him face to face.

    LikeLike

96. Michael,

    Thanks for asking the questions. I got to your site via Amy Welborn’s site. I am more than happy to talk to you via the phone if you would like about these questions, because I believe these questions to be more personal than an internet dialogue can properly help.

    If not me, then consider going to a good priest. If I am correct, I know a couple within a few hours of you.

    LikeLike

97. OK–I’ll try my best, with the discaimer tht I can be wrong!

    1–Catholics wouldn’t accept that you have recieved the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But, we would accept that you have been given the office of minister, and that your ecclesial community calls this ordination. We wouldn’t believe that you could validly confect the eucharist, or recieve communion in your church. That is to say, we wouldn’t believe it to be the body and blood of Christ. But we would accept that you are conducting a memorial service based upon the last supper. If you baptize in the trinitarian formula, that’s valid. Also, marriages you conduct for your co-religionists would be assumed to be valid.

    2–Cafateria Catholics are in the wrong–period. We are required to accept all de fide teachings, the fact that so many of use don’t reflects on the failures of our bishops for the last 2 generations.

    3–Depends on the circumstance.

    4–Blessing people during the Communion rite is a relativly new development. When you recieve a blessing from a priest, deacon or bishop you recieve the blessing of the whole church, linked to the sacraments. Extrodinary Ministers of the Eucharist are not actually able to impart this blessing, and their attempts to do so are an abuse, although a widespread one. A layman can only impart his personnal blessing.

    5–I got no clue

    LikeLike

98. Michael,

    I am only a moderately educated laywoman, but I do have some insights.

    1). We do consider that you are a minister, and the possiblity of serving in a parish but not at the pastor right away. For leading a congregation as a priest, there would have to be a period of discernment and some more education. (I think that Catholic men who are in the process of becoming priests get more philosophy and theology than is common in Baptist seminaries). It is possible, but after a second ordination, for a married man to become a priest and to lead a parish. Dwight Longnecker is an example (http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/)

    2. A number of us Catholics are also very frustrated with cafeteria Catholics. It also depends upon what is being talked about. While I still have some doubts about some of the Marian doctrines, I still teach them to children and adults as is. (I’d try to get someone who was more comfortable with them if possible) I trust the Church.

    3. It sounds like a person in that situation cannot freely choose, and therefore it isn’t a sin. (and frankly some Protestants are doing more for Christ where they are, than if they converted)

    4. All that a blessing indicates is that a person isn’t in full communion with the Church, no reason why the blessing is asked. Sometimes, so I’ve heard, that Catholics will come for a blessing, if they haven’t fasted for the hour before partaking.

    5. When a couple are at different places in their journey, the one that is closer to the Catholic Church is asked to slow down, to see if the other can reach the same point as the other (a number of stories in the “Surprised by Truth” series have this in them.) Obviously, a family in this situation needs some very good spiritual direction.

    LikeLike

99. I’ve been reading your blog for a long time, but I’ve never commented because of the login requirement. Glad to see that’s changed!

    Anyhow, answers based on my best understanding:

    1) I don’t believe we’re required to believe that Protestant ministers aren’t called to be ministers. There’s no teaching that only Catholics are called to ministry. There is the matter of apostolic succession and ordination, but validity of ordination and divine call are two different issues, I think.

    2) Do you mean your dialog with Catholics is frustrated *by* cafeteria Catholicism? If not I’m not sure I understand the question.

    If you mean “by” rather than “with,” I think a lot of the problem is that, like most American Christians, American Catholics tend to be more American than they are Catholic. Some people think they can obey the Church’s teaching about individual morality and leave out her teaching about collective morality and be fine. Others do the opposite. Either way it’s a very individualistic and in my opinion quintessentially American approach to faith.

    3) It’s certainly not a sin to be unable to convert at a particular time, or to wait out of respect for a spouse’s or parent’s wishes. I can imagine there are situations where choosing to wait – say out of fear or pride – would be a sin.

    4) This is a great question and I would love to hear someone else’s answer. As far as I understand blessings from the Catholic end are an expression of the desire for unity. I suppose what it means for a Protestant depends on whether one believes that priests/deacons of any tradition are really uniquely disposed to give blessings or not.

    5) What is the church’s view of leadership and submission in marriage? The teaching as I know it is that the husband is the head of the family, but it’s not a teaching I’ve ever heard emphasized or expanded on. As far as I can tell the Church seems to leave what that means up to each family.

    Would the church teach that a wife should join the church over the objections of her Christian, but Protestant, spouse? I don’t know; I imagine that would be handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the objections and the reasonableness of the husband. In my case my husband asked me to wait before converting, to give him some time to learn more about Catholicism and explore the possibility of converting himself. In that case it seemed perfectly reasonable to me to wait so that we could potentially convert together. On the other hand, he was willing to have me convert alone if he hadn’t decided or decided against converting after a few years. We’re both Catholic now and were confirmed together.

    I don’t really know what would be done in a situation where the husband was vehemently opposed to his wife converting, though.

    LikeLike

100. #1: Yes…a valid minister in your particular denomination.
     #2: With all due respect, the views of individual Catholics have always mattered to the Church, which is the Head of Christ on earth. Since we make up his body on earth, the head is very concerned what the body feels. See the Cathecism for “the sense of the faithful”
     #3: Call the Coming Home Network.They get this question alot.
     #4: By all means, come forward, Jesus loves to bless every person, all the time.
     #5: Every person is responsible before God to fidelity to the Truth..male & female, husband & wife.

     LikeLike

101. 1) You’re not a validly ordained Catholic priest. (This likely does not surprise you, though.) As Catholics, we believe that there is much that God does in terms of sanctification and grace outside the visible Catholic church. As to what God has called you to do, you’re more likely to know about that; it would be presumption to say that you’re not called by God to serve his people. Given that you’re a Protestant, God is most likely going to start working with you right where you are.
     2) Because you’re an honest man. Because maybe God is using you to help Catholics be better followers of Christ. You’re right on on this one. Hang in there.

     That being said, even Jesus kept teaching his disciples wen they said things like “That is a hard saying.” The will is hard to deal with even when reason finds its work is done.

     3) There may be sufficiently grave reasons to hold off on such a decision in your case. Best to consult with trusted advisors to help you sort through the issues involved. E.g. How are you going to provide for you and yours. That being said, Jesus said that anyone who does not hate his wife/brother/sister/etc. is not worthy of him. This is an important question and you ought not act on it lightly. You would also want to make sure you saught the council of holy Catholic clergy on this as well.

     4) If you go up for a blessing, then as a Catholic, I would assume you’re asking for a blessing and that you find the blessing of a Catholic acceptable. May it bring you peace and a closer relationship with the Lord.

     5) A spouse should consider the effects of the decision to convert on the home, but on the other hand, no spouse has the right to deny the Truth to one who finds it. Maybe this is an opportunity for the couple to share in the personal journey of the one who is considering coming into full communion with the church. Yes, the husband is the head of the house, but he is head as Christ is head. That is, he is head to serve, and not to throw his weight around because he can.

     In all of these, much prayer will help.

     I will say a prayer on your behalf for the intension that by asking your questions, you will come to see the face of Christ more clearly.

     LikeLike

102. Michael,

     I’ll try to answer your questions as best as I can. As personal background, I am a revert to the Catholic Church, having spent about 15 years in the Episcopal Church. I was a fairly “evangelical” Anglican, and so I had to wrestle with many issues before returning to the Catholic faith.

     1. The sticking point for many Catholics would be the word “valid.” To many, it might seem that the term “valid minister” implies an equality between a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest. However, the Catholic Church recognizes that there are “many elements of sanctification and truth” found outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church (Catechism, #819). Presumably, one of these elements of sanctification is an ordained ministry necessary to maintain the spiritual life of a Protestant congregation.

     As a Protestant minister, you have the task of proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to your flock; you have the responsibility for teaching them in the basics of Christian doctrine; for ministering to their spiritual and temporal needs; for conducting baptisms, marriages, funerals, and other public rites. So as a “valid minister”, you have a role that sets you apart from the ordinary layman.

     No Catholic is “confessionally required” to believe that you were never called of God to be a minister. In fact, I would counsel any Catholic against making such an assumption. Most Protestant ministers I know who became Catholic don’t look on their prior ministry as “wasted years,” but as a preparation for even greater ministry within the Catholic Church. (And some have even gone on to become priests!).

     2. I agree that discussing the faith with “cafeteria Catholics” can be very frustrating! Sadly, many Catholics are not as fully informed on what the Church teaches as are many Protestants. But on the other hand, many Protestants have a narrow view of what the Church has taught “always, everywhere, and to all.” We frequently encounter evangelical Protestants who maintain that because Pope X taught something in the 10th century that it’s binding on all Catholics today. The Magisterium doesn’t work that way, though. While the content of the faith remains the same, our understanding of it deepens over time – the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church” is a classic case of what I mean. But yes, to answer your question, if it is determined that the Church has infallibly taught something, that should be the end of the discussion. Perhaps not the discussion (we can always discuss matters of faith), but at least of dissent and debate!

     3. This question is very delicate, because so much depends on the circumstances. Generally speaking, someone who is convinced that Catholicism is true is morally obligated to join the Church – “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it” (Catechism, #846 quoting the Vatican II Constitution on the Church). However, there may be valid reasons for delaying entry into the Church (to help bring along a spouse, for example). But there may also be invalid reasons. These questions need the guidance of a solid spiritual director.

     4. The blessing at communion is a “sacramental” rather than a sacrament. It is, in essence, a prayer that God would bless the recipient. It is not required that you believe everything that the Church teaches or that you are seeking reception into the Church. (Incidentally, the practice of going forward to receive a blessing at communion is a recent and local practice; it is not uniformly observed or encouraged. Interestingly, the practice is somewhat analogous to receiving the antidoron or blessed bread in Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies).

     5. Again, this kind of question is best left to a spiritual adviser. However, I would say that a wife should do all that she can to convince her husband to allow her to convert. Failing that, I would say that she should offer her desire up to God as a sacrifice, and pray for the conversion of her husband.

     Michael, I hope these responses help! God bless you in your ministry and spiritual journey!

     LikeLike

103. Here’s a shot at these questions. I couldn’t see what others had written, so I may be repeating something that was better said elsewhere. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a really good read, if you’re interested in a concise teaching of the Catholic tradition.

     1. Catholics don’t have ministers in the same way. Priests are men who are called to do certain kinds of ministries, esp. the sacraments (which no one else can do,) and preaching (which any ordained man such as a deacon can do). There are many other ministries which a priest might do, especially if he is a part of a religious order and not a parish priest. I doubt that you see sacraments (physical modes of communication God’s grace that were established by Christ) as part of your job as a minister, so I don’t think you consider yourself as a valid priest. For an ordination to be valid, it must come down through apostolic succession. Every valid priest has been ordained by a bishop who has been ordained by a bishop where the line goes directly back to apostles. So the gift and grace of ordination come from Jesus. He ordained the apostles, who ordained others in his name, who ordained others in his name…..right down to my priest 2000 years later. This is not a claim I have ever heard a Protestant minister make, except for the occasional Anglo Catholic Episcopalian. Your RC friend is confessionally required to believe that you are not a priest and cannot administer the sacraments, but as to your being called to ministry of just about any other kind, there is no way for an outsider to know. It is possible that you would be called to the priesthood if you were RC, but you might also be called to be in a religious order with out being a priest, or called to various ministries of teaching, serving the poor, etc, that are the calling of all lay people.

     2) The reason for so much disagreement and frustration is that many people see being Catholic as a cultural thing more than a confessional thing, rather like many Jews describe being Jewish. In one way, they are right. Once you are baptized into the Catholic Church, you are always a Catholic, even if you are an apostate one. These people make the mistake of thinking they are in communion with the Catholic Church and ought to receive the Eucharist. There is a tendency in human nature for everyone to set themselves up as the arbitrator of truth instead of submitting to God’s will. Some Catholics, while respecting many things in the faith of the Protestants they know, essentially see each church or denomination as trying to be its own little Magisterium and/or Pope and interpret the Bible and history for their congregation, instead of being united with the tradition and institution established by Jesus. I am not trying to be rude, only to point out that the tendency is a human one, and since coming back to the Catholic Church I am just as confused by Protestants not accepting the authority of Church because I think history supports the Church’s claims. To a non-Christian, it all just looks like a mess and being Christian isn’t that much different than being an agnostic–you get to pick what you believe because there is a congregation that believes everything. The bottom line of this excessively long response, is that Scripture as interpreted by tradition is the teachings of the faith that all Catholics need to accept to be in communion with the Church and hence with Christ. If a teaching is not understood, or not liked, than it ought to be studied, and pondered, and one’s conscience formed through reason (the Church Father’s are very useful for this) so that one can wholeheartedly accept God’s truth. To reject a teaching flat out and still think oneself in full communion is a human failing. It is very hard for people to be honest with themselves.

     The other point to consider is the difference between dogma and doctrine. Dogma never changes (Christ is Lord, the sacraments). Sometimes we learn more about a truth, such as the trinity, which took 3 or 4 centuries to nail down. Other things, doctrine, can change. Sometimes things are just recommendations or thoughts by current leading thinkers that are promulgated even though they are never hashed out by the Magisterium and checked for agreement with Scripture and the canon of faith. I think some of the teachings on your third question fall into that category. Everything that a Catholic saint writes, even if it’s Aquinas or Augustine, is not dogma, or even doctrine, but is sometimes treated that way culturally. This can make it confusing to sort out what the Church actually teaches, as opposed to what smart Catholics have considered in the past. Catholics are required to accept dogma, but ideas such as limbo have never been dogma, and so one may reject such explanations. Even though John Paul II was very opposed to capital punishment, and wrote excellent teachings on the topic, they are not dogma and one can think differently while still being in communion. This is not true of things like the Eucharist, marriage, etc

     3)I’ll leave this one others.

     4) To be honest, I think this is partly because it makes traffic flow easier. But this is intended for Catholics too, not just non-Catholics, because one is not always in a state of grace and prepared to take communion on every given Sunday. If I have serious sins to confess but have not found the time yet, I ought to receive God’s blessing but not his Precious Body and Blood. It’s just a trinitarian blessing, in the case of non-Catholic or non-Christian, it doesn’t imply any desire to be received into the church, or any agreement with anything Catholic, just that you want God’s blessing . If you’re not Catholic than the priests orders don’t mean anything particular to you, so it would not be much different from a friend praying or asking for God’s blessing for you.

     5)Definitely check out the catechism. The Church’s teaching is the very biblical one that marriage between a man and a woman is a sign of Christ and the Church. Therefore, the as the Church serves and submits to Christ, the wife serves and submits to her husband. As Christ loves, cares for, serves, and dies for the church, so a man for his wife. Marriage is supposed to be a complete gift of self by both parties. It is a sacrament that the couple confer on each other and is witnessed by the church. The Church allows Prostestant/Catholic marriages (it calls them mixed cult) provided that a dispensation from the bishop is received, the marriage happens according to the Catholic forms and rubrics, and the children are going to be raised Catholic. As far as other, particular, situations such as the one you ask about, I am not aware of any dogmatic Church teaching. Family unity is an important consideration, but the fullness of Christ and faith and tradition subsists in the Catholic Church. The wife would not stop going to RCIA simply because her husband objected. If the husband would seek divorce if the wife converted, that would be different. A woman and family in that situation would do well to talk with priests, or deacons, as to the wisest thing to do in that particular situation.

     I hope you have received many interesting answers. Everything I have written is according my best understanding at this time. If it contradicts an actual teaching authority (or seems at all rude, it is so hard to tell tone over the internet), I apologize and did not intend it.

     LikeLike

104. 1) A complicated question. I think it is worth noting that most Catholics probably think of holy orders when a Protestant mentions “ministers”. For Holy Orders to be valid, there must be a preserved apostolic succession. That’s recognized in Orthodoxy. Anglicanism likes to argue that it too shares this trait, but I think common sense would indicate that it does not. Pretty much every other Protestant group by definition does not. Now all that is answering a very different question than whether they were called by God to minister. No, a Catholic is not required to now deny the possibility of God having worked in the calling of Protestants to the Protestant ministry. In fact, I would suggest to you, as evidence of how seriously the Catholic Church takes the fact that God works outside of the physical confines of the insitutional Catholic Church, the fact that the Catholic Church has various pastoral exceptions for married Protestant clergy who seek to become Catholic priests. This is not to say that all Protestant ministers are to be Catholic priests. In fact, many recognize that they were called to minister (Catholics would refer to serving in “apostolates”) as laity through the ordinary living of the faith and not to the unique ministries reserved to the ordained. But a good number have had their calls tested and have in fact been ordained by the Catholic Church. But if the Catholic Church didn’t see the possibility that God was at work in these men’s pursuit of ministry as Protestants, then such an exception to the West’s prohibition of married clergy would make no sense.

     2) We are sinners. Sadly, that’s the truthful answer to your question. There are plenty of Catholics who, when you pierce the shell of their cultural background, you will find a Protestant heart. You are right to recognize that “cafeteria Catholicism” is not permitted. But this is the world we live in. We are sinners, plain and simple.

     3) Michael, that’s a very tough question. Certainly, the Catholic Church would say that one convinced of the truth must pursue the truth. But it is not so cavalier to not recognize that that pursuit of the Catholic Church may take some time. The history of converts are filled with those who took a while in making those final steps, for a host of reasons. I’d say that it is better to not think of the “Is delaying a sin?” question but instead to think of the “Why delay?” question. For most, there will become a point in time that all of the reasons to delay (many of which probably quite understandable and real) will pail in comparison to what awaits. And then they will move ahead. However, to answer your question directly, it is a serious matter when someone is convinced the Catholic faith is true, but decides not to become Catholic. I wouldn’t come out and say it is sin, because I do not know the circumstances for why they do not choose to embrace the Catholic Church or for what length of time we are talking of a delay, but it is no doubt a serious matter.

     4) This is actually a cultural practice that has developed and is not actually part of the liturgy. I think it grew out of the tradition of priests blessing young children who accompanied their parents up to communion but who were not old enough to receive yet. Personally, I don’t think a non-Catholic should feel at all compelled to seek such a blessing at all.

     5) Let me deal with the middle question and point you to resources on the others. I would say that the Church fully recognizes the challenge you present of one spouse, but not the other, seeking reception into the Catholic Church. Catholics do not tend to think of marriage in the way that some Protestants do about male headship, etc. I think the very possibility of the question you raised would be foreign to many. I would suggest that the Catholic Church would do what it could to help the other spouse accept the wife’s desire for reception into the Catholic Church, taking quite seriously the tension that might have arisen from the situation. But I cannot see the Catholic Church, in a matter of such importance, in the end denying this woman reception into the Catholic Church or suggesting that she give primacy to her husband’s desires over her recognition of the Catholic Church’s true nature. In fact, I’d suggest (even just on a human level) that could present as many problems to the marriage as her reception would. Michael, your questions are challenging because they are at the crossroads of theology and pastoral care and both aspects are to be taken seriously. As for the Catholic teaching on marriage, I wish I knew an easy reference to give you. I will try to identify one, but I think the core works on the Theology of the Body would be helpful in this regard.

     LikeLike

105. I’m not much of an apologist but I’ll try. These are just my opinions, and I will probably get some things wrong.

     1) I don’t think RCs have opinions one way or another on the “validity” of Protestant ministers. It’s not something I’ve given any thought to, before now. Obviously, you’re not valid priests, but that doesn’t matter because you’re not claiming to be, and you’re not out administering sacraments, either. I would not presume to dispute that you’ve had a calling. The question is whether or not you have responded to the calling fully, but that is not for me to judge either.

     2) There’s a lot of misunderstanding around infallibility, and there are not a whole lot of infallible pronouncements to point at. So I wonder which subjects X and Y you’re talking about. Some of the flashpoint issues — the death penalty, war, birth control — are not enshrined in infallible pronouncements. Some are, for example, Mary’s perpetual virginity, and the intrinsic evil of abortion. We are tasked as individuals to properly form our own consciences, and so there is room for disagreement on many issues.

     I think your wording here is interesting: If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic? It doesn’t matter who is doing the demonstrating. If you can point to an ex cathedra pronouncement, or a decree from an ecumenical council that has received papal approbation, you’re OK; if not, then you haven’t demonstrated infallibility. The Catholic Encyclopedia has an extensive entry on infallibility.

     3) Sin is something that keeps us away from God. The scenario you’ve described makes no sense, because if someone truly believed in the Catholic faith and wished to be closer to God, he would convert. Obviously people who are unable to convert cannot be committing a sin if they are prevented somehow from worshiping as they would like. In the case of the person who “chooses not to openly convert” — I believe it is a sin to deny God if the only thing you’re sparing yourself is discomfort. The faith does not call upon us to martyr ourselves (as far as I understand it), so if being openly Catholic is going to get you executed, go ahead and hide. But in a free country where the only consequence you face is the opposition of your peers, that’s probably not a good enough reason to deny the faith that’s already in you.

     In the case of a person who does not feel worthy to join the Church, the Sacrament of Reconciliation can be administered to help heal the soul and give courage to follow the Lord’s calling to the Church.

     4) The blessing is, I think, an acknowledgment that we worship the same God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even though the non-RC does not believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. As it says every week on our song sheets, partaking of communion indicates a oneness of belief with the Church. If you don’t believe that Christ is Present, you shouldn’t take Communion. This gets back to the formation of conscience. You should know what you’re doing and know why you’re doing it. You’re not going up there for a snack, so if that’s what you believe, please don’t.

     5) I participated in pre-Cana counseling before I married 13 years ago. The idea of submission in marriage was never broached. It’s not a teaching of the Church. Respect and love, yes; submission, no. Within a marriage, spouses must work together and communicate, but that doesn’t mean that one can dictate the religious practices of the other. If one spouse joins the Church or seeks to convert and this is causing a problem in the marriage, the couple should seek spiritual counseling.

     I think one spouse preventing the other from following a true calling would be a terrible thing to do, a grave sin. Obviously there’s a difference between preventing someone from joining a cult and becoming a member of the Church, but that’s not what we’re talking about here, is it?

     As I said — my opinions, and someone will likely come and show where I’m wrong, but I will take this as an opportunity to learn.

     LikeLike

106. Ok, I’ll take a stab at it. (WIth the caveat that I’m not a theologian or a canon lawyer and I could be wrong on any of these points. If someone wants to correct me in an error, I’d be grateful).

     1) Hmmm…I’d have to know what you mean by ‘valid minister’. I know a couple of converts who were protestant ministers prior to converting. They pretty obviously had been called to that ministry by God (the same God who later led them into the Church and into new forms of ministry among Catholics). Now, it’s important to distinguish between ministry and the ordained priesthood – the priesthood confers an indelible mark upon the spirit, and only valid apostolic churches (Catholic and most or many of the Orthodox) retain the apostolic succession needed to grant sacramental priesthood. BUT…that doesn’t mean that God might not call other people, at various points in their spiritual journey, into ministry in whatever Christian community they belong to.

     2)If you can prove that the Church infallibly teaches Y, it ought to be the end of the conversation with a Catholic. That it so often isn’t is just one more proof, IMO, that indeed the tares will grow alongside the wheat until Christ returns. Because Catholicism is sacramental, a person can be a Catholic because they were baptized Catholic and confirmed Catholic – their soul is marked. But…that they have been claimed through baptism isn’t a guarantee (unfortunately) that they won’t still be lost, misled, or in error. We can continue to have hope though that they will grow in their conviction of the truth contained in the deposit of Faith, and someday adhere and avow all that the Church has proclaimed to be true.

     The short answer would be that Cafeteria Catholics would rather stay in the Church since they have a cultural or familial attachment to being Catholic than they would leave the Church and lose the ability to say, “I’m Catholic but…”. Human nature being what it is, we are all tempted to reject the pieces of God’s truth most inconvenient to ourselves and to our pet sins.

     3) I actually don’t know. I would think a lot would depend on the gravity of the reasons for not converting, and on the state of that person’s soul and conscience. CS Lewis came very close to Catholicism but some biographers suggest that he was held back either by an inborn prejudice, or by the sense that Anglicanism needed him more. Possibly by both, at various times. Despite that, many Catholics hold Lewis in a great deal of esteem. And then, of course, if one concludes that it is a sin to refrain from conversion once convicted of the truth of Catholicism, the next question would be how sinful is it? Many converts that come from a position of authority in other churches have a variety of pressing reasons to delay their conversion or to keep their convictions secret for a time…

     My guess would be that this is a similar matter to a delayed baptism…if a person fully intends to be baptised but is prevented from doing so and dies prior to baptism, then they would be considered to have had a ‘baptism of desire’. If the convicted person desires to convert but circumstance makes it impossible to do so for a time, then I would think that as long as they were working towards remedying the obstacles to full conversion and reception in the church, that there would be no sin there, and that in fact, they would have spiritually united themselves with the Communion of the Saints through their desire.

     Obviously, someone who is merely looking for excuses not to make the move that their conscience has called them to is much more obviously in danger of sin.

     4) I’ll leave this one to someone else. I mean, by itself, asking for a blessing is asking for a blessing, and nothing more. But I’m not sure whether others might feel that doing so in the context of the Mass does/ought to signify a desire for greater communion.

     5) I think that a lot would depend on the marriage, honestly. Christ tells us in Matt. 10:37 that anyone who loves Father or Mother, Sister or Brother more than Him is not worthy of Him. That would seem to indicate that the woman who seeks to follow Christ’s call over the objections of her family (even her husband) does something laudable. On the other hand, she is supposed to obey her husband, and I think she also does nothing wrong if her husband outright forbids her conversion and she obeys him in the hope of winning him over (or at least gaining his permission) in the future.

     What kind of idiot husband would try to forbid his wife from following her conscience anyway? Jeepers.

     Actually, this sort of feeds into question 3 – because if neglecting to convert once convicted is sinful, then she is not bound to obey her husband’s will, since the wife’s duty to obey her husband is abrogated if he is leading her into sin. I mean, my husband has the last word in our house. This doesn’t particularly bother me because he also takes quite seriously the injunction to husband to ‘love your wives as Christ loved the Church’ – that is to say, even to a willingness to sacrifice yourself completely. This really tempers the whole authority question a lot. 😉 But, were my husband to command me to neglect our son, or become a Hari Krishna, or to go on the Pill, I would be under no obligation to do any of those things. I would feel somewhat obligated, perhaps, to schedule a psychiatric consultation and a visit with his spiritual advisor though, since all of that would be very much out of character. 😀

     I’m aware I’ve rambled some, I hope you can extract something useful from all that.

     LikeLike

107. Michael – This is hard for most denominations to accept, but as Tony Campolo says in Adventures In Missing The Point, “. . . what you believe may be partly correct, but it is certainly not completely correct. The Point? We must always be open to further insights that will give us fuller understanding of what God is all about.” And he cites 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 (For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. nkjv)

     LikeLike

108. I’ll take a stab at question #1 for now:

     Of course, a Protestant minister is a “valid minister” of the Gospel. That’s taking the word “minister” in a very wide sense. Within the Catholic Church herself, there are many who are “ministers of the Gospel” without being validly ordained priests. That is the distinction that must be made. The Catholic Church would not recognize a Protetant minister of the Gospel as having valid Orders, i.e. with the authority to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (consecrate the Holy Eucharist), absolve from sin, administer the other Sacraments. The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Holy Orders in the Orthodox Churches and in the Ancient Churches of the East, and in some of the Old Catholic Churches and the Polish National Catholic Church.

     As Fr Dwight Longenecker (a former Evangelical-turned-Anglican vicar-turned-Catholic-layman-turned-married-Catholic-priest) wrote on his blog, blogspot.gkupsidedown.com,“On the one hand, it is wonderful to see non-Catholics desire a deeper and more real Eucharistic experience. On the other hand, it is confusing. Just what do non-Catholic Christians believe about the sacraments? Can a good Evangelical continue to deny that the sacraments are effective and also be annoyed when Catholics say that their non-Catholic sacraments are not effective? Do Evangelicals believe in the efficacy of sacraments or not? If they do, then in what way are they effective? If not, then why be annoyed at Catholic claims?”

     Fraternally in Christ,

     Fr Brian Mulcahy, OP

     LikeLike

109. I’m not a Catholic, but as far as 3) goes, I’m pretty sure that the answer is yes. This question has been the source of a great deal of stress for me personally, as I am someone who has suspicions that that Catholic faith might be true, but I’m not completely convinced of it by any means. The issue for me, I guess, is “how convinced is ‘convinced'”; what exactly does this mean? Is a certain amount of faith asked for? What level of conviction is required for faith to be expected?
     Sorry to butt in, but I hope a Catholic can answer these corollary questions for me as well.

     LikeLike

110. 1. Protestant ministers are laypeople. Laypeople are valid ministers but not in the same way priests are. Roman Catholics don’t believe God calls anyone to reject the church so if that is part of what you mean by being a minister then “yes” they would be expected to believe you had missed the fullness of your calling by being a protestant minister.

     2. It is mostly sin. I would have to know the details of your conversation to be sure but that is my guess. Just like we ask people not to reject Christ because of the sins of Christians we also ask people not to reject the Catholic church because of the sins of Catholics.

     3. Yes, part of the truth of the faith is that all Christians are to be sacramentally part of the body of Christ. To refuse to do so would be a mortal sin. I do wonder how such a person might reason. If you really believe Catholic sacraments are true, if you really believe the pope is the vicar of Christ, if you really beleive it is the heart of Jesus for all His followers to be one under the leadership of the apostolic successors, then what is the reason for not joining?

     4. I am not sure of the offical teaching here. My thinking is that it is just a blessing to allow you to receive Christ in whatever way you are open to. You are not open to accept him sacramentally as a member of His visible body but you might be open to Chirst in non-sacramental ways.

     5. My understanding is that the submission to the church takes priority over the submission to the husband. Some priests would council a woman to wait and pray for her husband for a period. The hope would be to get them to join as a family. It varies so you would have to ask your local priest.

     LikeLike

111. On number three, there are infallible positions (the Sacraments-Trent/Immaculate Conception/Assumption/ abortion-euthanasia-and killing the innocent as mortal sin (see Evangelium Vitae sections 62,65,57 respectively)and many others)and there are non infallible positions which must be obeyed (birth control’s ban) unless the exception of sincere, studious and prayerful dissent applies to the non infallible issue at hand which concept is in our approved moral theology tomes postdating Vatican II’s requirement of “religious submission of mind and will” to serious positions of Popes based on certain criteria that Lumen Gentium 25 lists. There can be no dissent on the infallible issues when they are clearly… not doubtfully infallible or maybe infallible (see canon 749-3 below).

     Infallible positions are more rare than some Catholics seem to think. On the internet, Catholics seem ready to excommunicate other Catholics based on positions that they hold to be infallible. Canon 749-3 exists for that purpose and implies that one’s personal feeling nor a theologians’s personal opinion that something is infallible is not enough: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” Thus in Catholic ecclesiatical courts for a heresy charge to be brought at all would require that the issue should be infallible and that the infallibility should be manifestly evident. That is why inter alia such trials are rare.

     Therefore when you write as you did above: “If a Protestant demonstrates that the church has infallibly taught Y, isn’t that the end of the discussion for the catholic?” I have to laugh out loud because it is hard for our theologians to demonstrate that the Church has infallibly taught XYZ if there is doubt at all due to wording. In the 5 plus named infallible cites that I gave, you will find clear wording by the Popes or Councils involved.

     LikeLike

112. 1) If you frame the question as “Do I believe that you are called by the Holy Spirit to “minister” to his people?”, I would answer yes. If you frame the question as “Is this equivalent to the priesthood?” I would answer no. The priest is given a particular gift through the laying on of hands in the apostolic succession that allows him to administer the sacraments. This does not ensure that the priest is a good speaker, or a wise man, or knows how to comfort people, or is very holy in his own life. Most Catholics will tell you they have sat through some very bad homilies to get to the Eucharist. It has to do with why I am there on Sunday. I am there to worship God and to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. If I get to hear a good homily, that’s a real plus, but not why I came. Same in the confessional. I have had some pretty poor priests hear my confession, but they still have the authority to administer the sacrament. You do have a calling to bring the Love of God to people. In my understanding, you do not have the authority to administer the sacraments.
     2) Isn’t that the end of it for the Catholic? It should be if the doctrine is presented correctly. I have found that a great deal of the protestant church, including my family (I’m a convert) do not have a full understanding of what the church really teaches. I do NOT know or claim that is the case with you. I would suggest that there are other possibilities than that the speaker is a cafeteria catholic. By the way, I found my way into the church through the cafeteria. This also can be a developmental stage in the conversion process. A great number of people get lost in the cafeteria, it is true. The Holy Spirit still calls all of us to grow in holiness.
     3) It is always sin refuse to follow where God is calling you. Is this a mortal sin? (resulting in damnation?) Probably not- but I’m no expert here, just a guy in the pew. It would be a cause for concern, if you felt God calling you to join the Catholic Church and refused His call.
     4) I see a person’s asking for a blessing as an acknowledgement of the priest’s authority to give one and openness to the prayers of the faithful on behalf of your soul. This is not a bad thing at all. This is to be encouraged. These are major steps in a positive direction.
     5) My answers here come as a paraphrase of someone I heard on the radio, I believe Fr. Thomas Loya. The wife is to be in submission to the husband, that is she is to place herself under the mission of the husband. This begs the question, what is the mission of the husband? Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for her. We husbands are called to a self sacrificial love for our wives. Wives are called to be open to that love. In light of this understanding, can a wife join the Catholic Church over the objections of her protestant husband? I would say yes insofar as the husband is failing in his role when he refuses to allow her to follow the Spirit’s leading. In the ideal world, the husband should be the spiritual leader. In a lot of cases, like mine, my wife is so much further down the road toward God that I am left trying to play catch up as best I can.
     Sorry for the length of the post

     LikeLike

113. First a caveat. I am not a Catholic theologian, merely a certified catechist. I will answer to the best of my ability, but stand ready to acknowledge that there are others who have greater knowledge of these matters than myself.
     1. The Catholic Church holds that only in the Church does the full truth of Christ reside. That being said other Christian groups are repositories of truth in so much as their beliefs are (commensurate with that of the Catholic Church. The Church does not recognize the validity of ministers who are not Catholic. This does not mean that they do not recognize your personal call to ministry. Many men who were previously Protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism eventually become Catholic deacons or even priests. The Church does, of course, recognize your temporal authority, as a leader of a specific group, so it is not forbidden for me as a Catholic to address you by your ministerial title (if you have one)or to cooperate with you in Euchumetical settings.
     2. Catholic doctrine is not a take it or leave it kind of thing. Any Catholic who holds beliefs in contradiction to Catholic doctrine is in a state of mortal sin. That being said such a sin is no greater or less than other mortal sins and can be forgiven should the sinner repent.
     But in beliefs it is not so simple as that, as all beliefs, are not of the same worth.
     There are doctrinal beliefs that are not open to interpretation. The Church’s stand on abortion is one such belief. One can not be pro-abortion and not be in a state of mortal sin. Belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist is another.
     There are other situations which are not so clear. Just War doctrine makes a judgment on the Iraq war open to interpretation by Catholics. Capital punishment also comes under this heading.
     Also no Catholic is required to believe personal revelations, such as apparitions of the Blessed Virgin or the visions of Catholic mystics, such as St. Faustina.
     Certainly there are those who call themselves Catholic who try to pick and choose which items of central doctrine they believe. They will eventually have to account to God for that.
     The actual number of points that the Church has infallibly taught on is quite small. Every papal document or missive out of the Vatican is not a repository of infallible teaching.
     3. Tough one. Coming to the Church (“crossing the Tiber”) is not so much a matter sin or not sin. The Church does not hold that every Protestant is eternally damned, which it would if it deemed them in a state of mortal sin. So by extension does not necessarily hold that someone who has, through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, (for how else is one ever to come to Christ?)been investigating conversion to the Church, and is coming to realize the repository of truth therein is in a state a sin for not moving fast enough. Eventually, though there comes a point when the individual knows, delay beyond that point may become sinful. That is a point between God and the person. Even if sin results, like all sin it is forgivable, for there is no sin God will not forgive, if asked in true repentance.
     4. I’m not a big believer in people going forward at the time of the reception of the Eucharist for blessing. There is no rule against it and it is common practice in many diocese. In my opinion the time of the reception of Communion should be just that, and reserved for those who are actually receiving the Body & Blood. Some priests agree with me. Some don’t. The Church permits it.
     5. The Church, in general, is not as institutionally supportive of marital leadership and submission as some Protestant sects. This should be obvious in the traditional rules governing marriage by a Catholic to a non-Catholic. Irregardless if the Catholic is the husband or wife for the marriage to be sacramentally celebrated it is generally understood that any children from the marriage will be raised Catholic. Previously it was even required that the non-Catholic attest to this in writing. That is no longer the case, I believe.
     Further let us parse Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. In it Paul says, “Husbands love your wife as Christ loves the Church.” So in the best case a man who truly loves his wife would not prevent her from doing what she thinks she must for the salvation of her soul.
     In worst case the Church would support the wishes of the wife over her husband, just as they would over a pagan or atheist husband. The Church recognizes non-sacramental marriages, but such marriages are not equivalent to sacramental marriages (which is why two Catholics, having both converted and previously civilly married to each other, can be sacramentally married.) In the final analysis the salvation of the wife’s soul trumps the marriage.
     This is really no different than case of a Catholic couple in which the husband ceases to believe and is no longer a practicing Catholic. The Church would uphold the right of the wife to continue to practice, even against the wishes of the husband.

     LikeLike

114. I’m sure you’ll get more learned answers than mine, but I thought I would offer my perspective.

     1) Every priest I have ever met has recognized protestant ministers respectfully. We have married lay ministers — both male and female — in the Catholic Church, so it’s probably something like believing you’ve been called to ministry but not called to the priesthood.

     2) “Cafeteria Catholicism” has been pretty rampant in certain parts of the country due to lazy catechism. It happened a lot during the 60s, 70s and 80s when, I think, Catholics were trying to make Catholicism more palatable to modern sensibilities. IMHO, this totally backfired and all you got was watered-down Catholicism. You’re also in a part of the country where the Catholic leaders were very liberal about what people were taught or not taught. Where I live in Nebraska, there is a lot of orthodoxy, and you’re a lot less inclined to find people who are openly “cafeteria Catholic.” This is not to say that every Catholic holds to the letter of the law like real sticklers. Catholicism is a journey to holiness, and we’re all at different stages of the journey. (That’s why we call it PRACTICING Catholicism — it takes practice!) When a Catholic person is heading toward holiness, they are going to grow in their faith and understanding and become more and more in line with the total sum of Catholic teaching. So one must be merciful with the “weaker brethren” who aren’t quite there yet on certain issues and trust the Holy Spirit to lead them into truth. The only time it’s really a sin is when a Catholic person knows what the truth is and flat-out refuses to head in that direction out of their own selfish desires.

     3. The Church’s view on the person who recognizes the Catholic faith as truth but can’t commit to it yet is to be merciful and prayerfully supportive of that person. But the question becomes, what is holding that person back? If you know something is true, aren’t you required to act on it no matter what? But it can be difficult. My husband came to the point where he believe Catholicism was true and I wasn’t there yet, but his biggest concern was his frail grandmother. She was a great evangelical and Bible-reading lady, and he was legitimately afraid she’d drop dead of a heart attack or a broken heart if she knew he was considering becoming Catholic. We ended up enrolling in RCIA in late September and kept it a secret from his family. His grandmother died in early October, and we told his dad in March and his mother in April (neither one of them were happy about it at all). I don’t consider it a sin that he stalled for some time (over a year) before pursuing Catholicism — it was more like “counting the cost.” Not sure what a priest would say, but it’s sort of a non-issue now, since we are Catholic.

     4) If you choose to go forward for a blessing during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, you’ll just get a blessing from the priest. (Cross your arms, hands to opposite shoulders & bow your head, and you’ll get the blessing.) It doesn’t matter if you’re not actively seeking reception into the Church or if you still have issues of disagreement with the Church. If you don’t want a blessing, don’t go — plenty of people just stay in their pews for various reasons, so it’s not a big deal.

     5) The Church teaches that a man CANNOT force his wife to convert to Catholicism, or vice versa, and likewise that a husband or wife should not prevent their spouse from becoming Catholic.

     The Church teaches that protestants are part of the Church — our “separated brethren.” So a wife becoming Catholic would not be causing a division with her husband, because we all love Jesus and we’re all Christians here.

     However, if one spouse wants to become Catholic and the other spouse considers that to be an irreparable blow to the marriage, then for the sake of upholding marriage vows, the spouse who wants to convert may be counseled to bide their time, continue to study and pray and come to Mass when possible, and wait until the other spouse is less threatened by the issue.

     I should say that when my husband told me he thought we should become Catholic, I thought he was nuts. I was positively sure that there was NO WAY that God wanted us to be Catholic, and I only agreed to go to RCIA because I knew my husband sought the truth, and I though that RCIA would show all of Catholicism faults to my husband and therefore turn him away from such a ridiculous idea. We went through RCIA together because we believe in unity of faith in marriage. I have a great deal of respect for my husband as a Christian man — I just thought he was a little misguided on this issue and a little more study would clear his head. Boy, was I wrong. I was wrong in thinking Catholicism isn’t biblical. I was wrong on pretty much every point of Catholic theology that I found disagreeable. I was wrong on my view of Catholic sacraments, etc., etc. The more I studied, the more I realized my husband was right (again!), and we were received into the Catholic Church together.

     LikeLike

115. 1) The first part of your question needs to be re-framed, because it deals with a difference of fundamental concepts between Catholic and Protestant thinking. (Well, many varieties of Protestant, anyway.) What is your understanding of ministry?

     As to the second part, no. The discernment of vocation is a matter for the individual’s conscience.

     2) This is a cultural problem whose roots are obscure, but which was exacerbated by misunderstandings of what the Second Vatican Council was meant to accomplish. In essence, some Catholics were either taught poorly or not taught at all about assent to the teaching authority of the Magisterium, and so they selectively apply it.

     3) We must distinguish between the cases you mention. Were the person truly and actually unable to do so, then there would be no sin; the person would merely defer his formal reception until the inability has passed.

     The second case is more sticky. Based on my understanding of what the Church teaches, I would say that a person who is convinced of the Church’s claims but delays his reception without good reason is committing a sin.

     4) This is not a uniform practice in the whole of the Catholic world. If one were being uncharitable, one might put it down to touchy-feely-warm-fuzzy inclusiveness without a point; however, something more substantial may be understood, I think.

     As a recent publication of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith indicates, Catholics still have some degree of unity, albeit imperfect, with those Christians who are not Catholic. We look forward to and desire the day when all will be fully one, as Our Lord desires, but at present there are things which keep us apart. Inviting non-Catholics up for a blessing can be understood as a sign and foretaste of that unity we hope for in the world to come.

     5) The first part of the question is too broad to answer in this forum, so I will confine myself to the second. In the case you mention, yes, the wife would join the church even over the objections of her husband, because her first duty is (as always) to God. Conscience is also inviolable in marriage; a husband may not command things of his wife contrary to conscience, and vice-versa.

     LikeLike

116. Mr. Spencer,

     This is the first time on your blog. I found it courtesty of Amy Welborn’s Charlotte was Both.

     Question 1:

     In Catholicism the word “valid” has a very specific meaning. It refers to the ability to confer a sacrament. One of the most common usages would be with regard to conferring the sacrament of the Eucharist. Catholics believe that the Eucharist (communion bread and wine) becomes literally the Body and Blood of Christ. However, only a “valid” minister (a priest) can make this change actually happen. In this sense, because you have not been ordained by a validly ordained Catholic bishop you are not a “valid” minister in this sense. However, it is very important to note, while the Catholic Church loves her priests, they are not the entirety of the Church. Especially in the wake of Vatican II, the involvement of the lay people and the creation of various lay apostolates seeking to spread the message and the person of Jesus Christ with the world. In as much as one shares the truth of Jesus and ministers to the needs of people, one is a minister. It would be the height of arrogance for me or anyone else to assume that we know that God hasn’t called you to spread the message of Jesus Christ. Of course, I’m bound to believe that you are called to do so from within the fold and under the guidance of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

     Question 2

     You are partially right. In as much as the Church has declared something which might be held by the faithful, we must assent. Even in non-infallible matters, we must assent to the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium. Of course, Catholics do have recourse to their conscience, though we bear a very serious obligation to allow the Church to form our conscience. There is still a lot of gray areas about which good Catholics are free to disagree. The Church is Mother not dictator. Having a bedrock of truth which I can depend to know spiritual truths definitively provides far more freedom than it does restriction.

     Question 3

     I think it depends on why a person chooses not to convert. The Catholic Church would certainly frown upon (maybe in strong terms) someone who permanently decided not to convert even though they were convinced of the truth. Exceptions would be someone who might face serious bodily harm or some other grave reason if they converted, but even still this would only be for a time, not a permanent decision. In the U.S., I can imagine very few *good* reasons for delaying entry into the Church once one is convinced that the Church is who she says she is. If one considers this, one would have to seriously consider why they think this is necessary. I think too often, if one is honest, one will understand that it might make life easier in the short term or it’ll prevent some inconveniences. These aren’t good reasons to not follow the truth. To put it in different terms, imagine it’s the greatest love story in the world. You have met the most beautiful, wonderful, virtuous woman in the world. You are madly in love with her and she is madly in love with you. She is waiting for you, desperate for you. Her entire life is on hold for you. And you make her wait. Yeah, I can definitely see how that might be sinful.

     Question 4

     An interesting question. Presumably when you go up for a blessing, you are acknowledging at the very least that the priest has some authority to bless you in the name of God. You acknowledge that this blessing is efficacious. Why? What makes his blessing efficacious and why does he have that authority? Why can’t someone else in the church bless you? Why can’t you turn to your neighbor and ask for a blessing? Objectively, I don’t see a huge problem with this. Certainly, it’s better than choosing to receive Communion against the Church’s wishes.

     Question 5

     I’m not fully qualified to answer this question as I’m certainly no expert on submission within a Christian message. I will say a few things though. First, a couple must be 100% submissive to one another in the fullest sense possible. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body emphasized that couples in the sexual act (which is the very heart of a marriage) give themselves physically, mentally, and spiritually 100%. They make a gift of themselves. This gift mirrors the way in which the Father gives Himself completely to the Son and correspondingly the way the Son gives Himself completely to the Father. Many of the questions about submission go out the window when this is properly understood. That being said, you treat a wife’s choice to join the Church like it’s a decision to go to the corner grocery or not. Obviously, it would be wonderful if the two agreed on this point. However, whatever a woman’s obligation is to her husband, it is even more so to her God. Marriage is from God. Her husband is from God. She was created by God. A person’s greatest responsibility at all times is to follow the will of God to the best of their knowledge. A woman who wants to join the Church isn’t making some simple selfish decision. If properly understood, she’s in her own way also hoping to help the marriage. Marriage is a covenant that reflects heaven. Man and wife are a foretaste of the love of God. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the husband and the wife to seek to grow closer to God and to come to the truth to the best of their ability so that their marriage can be more truly reflective of the love of God.

     I hope some of this was helpful.

     LikeLike

117. As a former Evangelical (now Catholic), I’ll try to answer this for you.

     1) The short answer is “no”, at least in the sense that I think you mean. The problem is the meaning of the term “minister”. Are you an ordained priest able to celebrate the Eucharist and part of apostolic succession? No. But have you been used by God to minister His grace to others? Of course. In the Catholic world, you would be a layperson, but that does not mean that you cannot have legitimate “ministries”.

     2) This is a frustration for many Catholics as well. If something is truly infallibly defined (and properly understood), then, yes, that should be the end of discussion to a Catholic. Unfortunately, many Catholics do not understand that concept.

     3) Whereas we cannot judge the state of someone’s soul, the situation you describe would be an objectively grave action. We are all obliged to follow the truth when we discover it, and to not do so would be, in some form, rejecting that truth, and thus rejecting Christ, who is the Truth. I am assuming a situation in which a person spends quite some time resisting converting even though he knows the Catholic Faith is true, not someone who simply takes a bit of time accepting his new-found realization and integrating it’s consequences into his life.

     4) The blessing is a pious practice that has no sacramental quality to it. Anyone can be blessed, regardless of their situation. Basically, the priest is asking God to bless and guide this person’s attempt to follow Christ in their life.

     5) In general, the traditional Catholic teaching on marriage has always been based on St. Paul’s teaching in this area. The man is the head of the household, who must be willing to give his life up for his wife. The wife must submit to her husband. In the case of a potential conversion of the wife, then the wife has a higher obligation to God over her husband, and thus should convert even over the husband’s objections. This does not mean she cannot use prudence to determine when and how her reception into the Church should take place.

     LikeLike

118. Michael, these are some good questions. Thanks for asking them. I suppose I’ll take a stab at numbers 2 and 3

     2)A Catholic ought to believe that all teachings of Catholic Church are True. They are to be accepted and acknowledged as true. So I think you have it right on this one. Unfortunately (as you point out) this is not always the case and like protestants some Catholics pick and choose what they want to believe rather than professing complete faith in Christ and His Church. This is probably were your frustration comes in, and it think can mostly be attributed to poor formation amongst the Catholic.

     3) I suppose my question for you is, how important is Truth? We know that Truth sets us free, and we know that Christ is Truth. So if one comes to believe the Catholic Faith is in fact True then I would imagine to remain Protestant would hinder their walk with Christ. Whether its a sin or not is hard to say, but I will say that believing Christ is fully present in the Eucharist and offering Himself to you every Sunday while you’re choosing not to be there because you’re not willing to make the sacrifice necessary is a bad idea. If one believes that Christ is Truly Present in the Eucharist I can’t understand while one wouldn’t run to the nearest Mass, let alone causally miss it.

     Hopefully that helps. Those are just some immediate thoughts on the matter. Hopefully others will come for the rest of your questions. Thanks again for asking!

     LikeLike

119. I can’t address all the questions, but I’ll share what I’ve learned from studying the RCC for several years. (I haven’t joined by my husband has.)

     1- This is a very Protestant question. Catholics wouldn’t view it the same way. You are following God in your life. Catholics accept that Christians in other denominations are Christians, even if the RCC thinks the they are in “imperfect communion” with the true church. I’ve never seen evidence that church leaders denigrate the work or calling of Protestant ministers. In fact, the priest who presided over Mass yesterday teaches at Duke University School of Theology training Protestant ministers.

     2- As a person seriously looking into the RCC, this frustrates me, too. I can’t take the church dogmas lightly, and won’t join unless I can support them. I know plenty of cafeteria Catholics, but I can’t rationalize joining the church if I thought I’d be one, too. On the other hand, the church take a “big tent” mentality that is also rather foreign to Protestants. They are willing for those in error (whether on points of distinctive Catholic doctrines, or on general orthodox faith issues) to remain in the church because “Where else will they be more likely to encounter the truth than in the church.”

     3- The Catholic church believes that baptized Christians are part of the true church, even if “imperfectly” a part. I’m sure they would encourage a person to come into full communion, and would think it very important, but to call it a sin? I don’t think so. I have had absolutely no pressure from anyone to join, even though I was originally the one who was interested. The RCIA director meets with me regularly to answer question or talk theology in general, but neither he nor the priest are putting any pressure. There isn’t the feeling that people need to be “saved” out of Protestantism.

     4- A blessing is a prayer. The priest simply asks for God to bless you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and sometimes touches your head or makes the sign of the cross on your forehead. It seems little different from the doxology used in many Protestant churches: May the Lord bless you and keep you, May the Lord make his face shine upon you and give you peace. The minister often says this with his hands raised over the congregation. The priests blessing is simply more one-on-one.

     5- I don’t know about this. I think the Church would support one spouse or the other joining the church if they were so convicted in their heart. I don’t think they would argue the wife, or husband, *should* join over the objections of the spouse.

     Our baptisms and marriage vows were both honored in the Catholic church, btw.

     I might add that there are plenty of “mixed marriages” in any Catholic Church. We are not the only family that goes to Mass *and* our Protestant church every weekend. These marriages, as well as non-Catholic regular attenders, are very common, and are tolerated much better there than they are in the Protestant church. As I’ve said, no one at the Catholic Churches we’ve attended have ever made me feel less a Christian because I am Protestant. I can’t say the reverse about the Protestants who find out my husband joined the RCC.

     BTW- A great look into ecumenical, theologically conservative Catholic thought is Peter Kreeft’s website. http://www.peterkreeft.com He has free audio downloads, as well as many written essays available.

     Carrie

     LikeLike

120. 1) I don’t think the term “minister” is a defined office in the Catholic Church so I am not sure whether there is such thing as valid/invalid Protestant minster. Clearly you do not share in the sacrament of holy orders but that doesn’t mean that God hasn’t called you to some sort of ministry. So the converted friend would not have to believe that you were not called; he would have to believe that God is ultimately calling you into full communion with Rome.

     2) It’s hard to answer this without having a more specific idea of what you are talking about. But certainly it is the case that if you have demonstrated to a Catholic that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches Y that Catholic is obligated to hold Y.

     4) The custom of receiving blessing at communion is a recent development. It does not signify much of anything — as far as I know — except a desire to be blessed. Receiving such a blessing does not require you to believe anything in particular.

     – – – – – – – – –

     3) I believe the answer to this one is that the person is putting their soul in grave danger. A person who knows the truths of the Catholic Church and knows that Christ has established the Church for the purpose of providing the means of salvation and yet refuses to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church is rejecting God’s grace and thus in serious sin. BUT I don’t have a citation for this so this answer is tentative.

     5) This is a very good question and not one I can answer.

     LikeLike

121. I’ll answer number 5. The Catholic view has been thrown in flux by John Paul II not being clear on this matter in two lesser documents: an apostolic letter (Dignity of Women) and a series of talks (Theology of the Body). Casti Cannubii, an encyclical and hence higher document than either of John Paul’s, was perfectly clear and linked any undermining of wifely obedience and husband jurisdictional (not just theological) headship with false prophets in section 74 of that encyclical….sentence one. Unfortunately current leadership in Catholicism has been indecisive on the matter due to inroads of modern biblical scholarship and it is therefore not in the catechism at all.

     So I will go to my view as a Catholic who places Casti Cannubii above the said talk and apostolic letter: that women are to be subject to their husband but within limitations. And the truth and Christ together are a limitation on the husband’s jurisdiction. His requiring his wife to avoid joining the Catholic Church may be a sincere conscience on his part but her sincere conscience must not obey him since in her conscience she is choosing between Christ and her husband in this matter and Christ supervenes any authority on earth. This goes to the sword that Christ said He would bring rather than peace. She must obey Christ who she sees as behind this call.

     LikeLike

122. A stab at the first two:

     1. From a Catholic point of view, you’re not a valid bishop, priest, or deacon. “Minister” does not, AFAIK, have a precise Catholic definition.

     This does not, of course, require the Catholic to believe that you aren’t serving Jesus Christ the best you know how, or to believe that God may not be using your ministry for the ends of his Kingdom. (That would be using your ministry *with your cooperation*—i.e., God may be using your work as he uses the work of those who want to serve him. We’re not talking about Balaam’s ass here.)

     Basically, Catholics aren’t going to look to you for sacraments, but you might well be recognized by Catholics as one who is a leader in his own Christian community. (“Your own Christian community” isn’t a Church in the technical sense, and is deficient because of that—but lack of sacraments and orders, and even lack of communion with the Church proper, doesn’t make y’all non-Christian.)

     2. As a convert myself, I can’t really tell you why. For me, if I become convinced that the Church has infallibly taught Y, that *is* the end of the discussion. The only way to attack that argument is cast doubt that the Church teaches Y infallibly (maybe Y is taught but not infallibly, or maybe the teaching isn’t as univocal or unequivocal as it seems at first blush). But yes, if Y really is an infallible teaching of the Church, game over.

     I’ll leave 3-5 for those better informed than I.

     Peace,
     –Peter

     LikeLike

123. 4) I don’t think the blessing at Communion means anything particularly relating to one’s relationship to the church. It is more a practice that has developed recently and doesn’t have much in the way of set rules. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

     I wish I had answers to more of your questions.

     LikeLike

124. Re #3, this question has been important to me..two years ago I became convinced that I could not remain an “anonymous” Catholic..entered the Catholic Church this Easter Vigil. Regarding this question, the Catechism states:

     “Outside the Church, there is no salvation”

     846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

     Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

     847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

     Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

     (quotes are from Lumen Gentium)

     However, also note that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of all Trinitarian baptisms so, for example, my baptism in the United Methodist Church already established a certain union with the Church, albeit incomplete.

     Grace be with you,
     thomas

     LikeLike

125. 1. Marcus Grodi often speaks of the call that we can hear vs the idea of “being sent” (quote from St. Paul somewhere). Ordained ministry (priesthood) is a sacrament that is discerned in and through the Church, the same w/ the other sacraments. The idea of authority, apostolic authority, is key. St. Paul’s ministry was confirmed w/ the Apostles. Thus, St. Paul could chose others to assist him.

     2. Catholics are required to believe all that the Church teaches, either officially (dogmas/councils/creeds) and even “unofficially”. Not all articles of the faith are solemnly pronounced dogmas. But if it’s what the Church has taught historically via Tradition, yes. You are correct.

     3. The Church teaches that if a person is convinced that the Catholic Church is the one true church, then to either leave or refuse to enter is sinful. The degree of culpability is known only to God and the person, but the guidelines for discerning serious sin (mortal) are 1. the type of sin, 2. the persons knowledge, 3. consent of the will.

     4. Non-Catholics receiving a blessing at Communion is a modern novelty. You don’t see it in the old roman rite, nor in the Eastern rites. It’s not part of the official ritual. And it’s not really the place for it, though it has become a recent custom in some places. There are plenty of places within the Mass to receive a blessing. Just attending a worship service itself is a blessing. (where 2 or more are gathered). Ask yourself this, if you don’t believe what the Church teaches, especially Holy Orders, why would you want a blessing from a priest anyway?

     5. The idea is mutual submission. You have to read the whole quote from Ephesians to the get the full idea. But the Church would teach that a person’s conscience (well formed) should be the guiding factor. A wife that believes the Catholic Church is true should be on a trajectory to full communion. How and when that happens requires prudence (a virtue) and charitable love (a theological virtue). The good of the family is important, but the individual’s soul and relationship to God should lead the way. Difficult question to answer in general terms.

     -hope this helps.
     -a former RCIA guy

     LikeLike

126. You’re absolutely in my prayers… have a safe journey!I’ll take a stab at these, but someone probably more knowledgable will be coming along in due course.

     1) The question of validity comes down to the old line, “it depends on what the definition of validity is.” If you mean valid in terms of an authentic calling, that’s probably up for debate among Catholics. Ultimately, Catholics believe you are called to be part of His Church, established by Jesus Christ. There are many paths God may take someone to reach that end and it’s really not our place to second-guess His plan for you in my opinion. If you mean valid in terms of having valid orders, or having sacramental orders, the answer to that would be no, provided you were not ordained by someone who had valid orders (i.e. a wayward bishop that was ordained validly). Then I think there are some intricacies that I am not aware of.

     2) You and me both Brother! It is frustrating to listen to members of your community excoriate this person or that person for not accepting a tenet of the faith, but then in the same breath will practice a form of birth control that is not consistent with Church teaching. Understanding what the Church believes is essential to furthering Christ’s mission in the world. Unfortunately we have not done a great job in that department recently.

     3) I almost hate to answer this one, because it is fairly damning, but the basic premise of sin is knowledge. A good paralel to your example would be the Garden of Eden. Adam knew he wasn’t supposed to eat the fruit, but did so anyway. In order for there to be sin, there must be knowledge. If knowledge is in place, and the Truth is accepted, then to not act on that Truth is sinful. Again, I’m not an expert on these matters, just sharing my limited understanding. If you believe the Catholic Church teaches the truth, then not participating in those truths is sinful. A friend of mine likes to say that in our journey with God there is no standing still… you’re either taking a step toward Him or taking a step away from Him.

     4) Actually, I don’t think there is any liturgical provision for people receiving a blessing at communion. It’s a bad practice that has worked it’s way into parish life in many parts of the country. That being said, the act of approcahing the altar to receive could be interpreted as a gesture of acceptance.

     5) I can only go by experience here as part of a married couple trying to live as good Catholics. My experience has been that if one is Catholic and in a sacramental marriage, then children in that family should be raised Catholic. It’s your responsibility as a Catholic parent to be sure your children are raised in an environment where they receive the Truth. As parents, you are the child’s first and most important instructor on matters of faith and belief. It is much more difficult to do that role when half of the parents are participating in their children’s education. However, I don’t believe there is anything that a wife would be forced to join the church (or a husband for that matter). I’ve always found that if someone keeps an open mind, the more they are exposed to the Truth the harder it is for them to turn away. Monica prayed long and hard for Augustine (granted they weren’t married, but still family), and he eventually saw the light.

     LikeLike

127. I might be able to shed some light on some of these (ok, this is getting a lot longer than I thought. This post will tackle the first question. I’ll attempt to get to the rest later):

     I believe this hinges on what you mean by ‘valid ministers’. The Catholic concept of Holy Orders brings with it several other things of note. The first would be the ability to be ministers of the sacraments, and the second would be the three ‘levels’ of holy orders (diaconate, priesthood, and bishopric).

     Each ‘level’ can do different things. The Diaconate’s main job is ‘proclaiming of the word’. That is bringing the scriptures to the people by reading and preaching. They also may be ministers of the sacrament of marriage and baptism. Priests can do all the above, plus Reconciliation, Holy Communion, and Anointing of the Sick. Bishops may do all of the above, and in addition may confirm[1] and may be the minister of Holy Orders.

     So, knowing all of this, we come back to the initial question: would a Protestant minister be a ‘valid minister’.

     If by ‘valid minister’ you mean ‘partaking in the graces of Holy Orders’, then I believe the answer would have to be an emphatic ‘no'[2]. If by ‘valid minister’ you mean ‘Someone who preaches the word, and attempts to bring his/her fellow people to holiness’, then I believe the answer would be somewhere between ‘it depends’, and ‘yes’.

     The Catholic Church has a long tradition of people being preachers who are outside the sacrament of Holy Orders. Should you ever run into a ‘brother’ or ‘friar'[3], you’re most likely not talking to someone who has Holy Orders, but someone who is trying to live a life of holiness, and bringing others to that life.

     Should a Protestant minister convert to Catholicism, and show sufficient knowledge and fidelity to the teachings of Catholicism, it wouldn’t surprise me if they could be brought quickly into the Diaconate. Note: This would be a pastoral decision made by the local bishop, rather than a specific procedure/ruling from Rome. It would depend on many other factors as well.

     So, the brief answer to the question is that a Protestant minister could be akin to a minister without Holy Orders within the Catholic Church.

     –Jason

     [1] Priests may confirm when given direct permission from the Bishop for that instance of Confirmation.
     [2] For the record, I’m leaving aside the more tangled questions of ministers from the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, and (some?) Lutheran traditions.
     [3] Though ‘friar’ may be a more generic term for someone in a religious order, regardless of their ‘level’ in Holy Orders or lack there of.

     LikeLike

Comments are closed.