Hello Catholic friends. I’ve got a good one for you.
The passing of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has been noted on many Protestant blogs, and, unfortunately, some of the commentary has been a far cry from the classy tribute of Paul McCain.
More typical is this post by Greg Gilbert, who can’t quite see how Fr. Neuhaus could become or remain a Catholic. But with the quoted material from 2001’s Death on A Friday Afternoon in mind, there’s “some hope” that Neuhaus was saved by believing the Protestant Gospel.
When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers throughout my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of “justification by faith alone,” although I will thank God that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood formulation was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways—these and all other gifts I have received I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will, with Dysmas, look to Christ and Christ alone.
Then I hope to hear him say, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” as I hope with all my being—because, although looking to him alone, I am not alone—he will say to all.
Gilbert’s comments are also typical of the mindset of many young, restless and reformed, who believe the RCC is absent the Biblical Gospel.
So my Catholic readers, here’s your chance to speak directly to many young Protestants: Is the Neuhaus quote true to Roman Catholicism and what the church teaches, or is it an example of bringing the Protestant Gospel into one Catholic’s experience, but real Catholics know it’s not what the church teaches?
The Internet Monk Archives 
Be careful, Boethius. There may some Scotsmen listening ….
LikeLike
Martha:
I believe you.
Of course evangelicals do all the physical work. Your men in authority find it difficult to work in dresses. Sorry, I could not resist.
LikeLike
This is from Neuhaus’s statement on converting to Roman Catholicism in 1990:
I cannot express adequately my gratitude for all the goodness I have known in the Lutheran communion. There I was baptized, there I learned my prayers, there I was introduced to Scripture and creed, there I was nurtured by Christ on Christ, there I came to know the utterly gratuitous love of God by which we live astonished. For my theological formation, for friendships beyond numbering, for great battles fought, for mutual consolations in defeat, for companionship in ministry—for all this I give thanks. . . . As for my thirty years as a Lutheran pastor, there is nothing in that ministry that I would repudiate, except my many sins and shortcomings. My becoming a priest in the Roman Catholic Church will be the completion and right ordering of what was begun all those years ago. Nothing that is good is rejected, all is fulfilled.
LikeLike
First I can’t type, then I can’t read. Martha was right. Gilgoff meant Catholic head, Evangelical heart.
HR: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/1/9/richard-neuhauss-death-and-the-catholicevangelical-tension-in-politics.html
It still takes a Lutheran to bring ’em together, I say.
I’m outa here. Off to Mass.
LikeLike
Blew my own punch line: Only a former LCMS Lutheran could pull that off.
Oh well, you know what I meant. Teaches me for blogging on a Sunday morning, though it is not 10:06 am.
LikeLike
“…Neuhaus’s death also reminds us that Catholics remain the brains of a conservative movement built on evangelical brawn.â€
I think the author means that Neuhaus embodied both Catholic brains and Evangelical brawn. Only a former LCMS Lutheran to pull that off. ; )
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
LikeLike
It’s too bad that this discussion which began with the death of Fr. Neuhaus has turned into a discussion on communion practice, though it is not surprising. Communion practice and ecclesiology go hand in hand. As one believes about the Body of Christ, so one communes in the Body of Christ.
This would be a great topic for the Liturgical Gangstas to kick around. I would love to hear from my fellow Gangstas on this, and the comment stream is sure to be long and vigorous.
LikeLike
Getting back on topic – we were supposed to be talking about the late Fr. Neuhaus, yes?
According to Dan Gilgoff of the God & Country blog at “U.S. News & World Report” (thanks to the ‘GetReligion’ blog for pointing this one out):
“The foot soldiers in the American Christian right have always been evangelical, but the movement’s intellectual armature is undeniably Roman Catholic, a dynamic personified by the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, the Catholic theologian and polemicist who died yesterday at 72.
…Neuhaus’s death also reminds us that Catholics remain the brains of a conservative movement built on evangelical brawn.”
So, Michael, apparently we’re the brains of the operation, the power behind the throne, the éminences grises lurking in the shadows pulling the strings of our puppets, and we graciously allow the Evangelicals to do the heavy lifting, knuckledragging, threatening grunting, and lurking menacingly in public – isn’t that a heartwarming example of ecumenism in action? 🙂
LikeLike
There is a portion, and probably a rather large portion of catholics who could care less what rome has to say if it conflicts with their own personal beliefs. That doesn’t change what catholicism really is, it only helps to explain why it is so often mis construed. To surfnetter and really anyone that feels that they should be sitting ex cathedra… please just shut up. If you cannot agree with what the church teaches then don’t claim to be a part of it. Don’t try to fashion it into your image because in reality is that many of us catholics are catholic because we do agree with the church, even on the difficult issues. This thread started because someone was startled at the claims of Neuhaus, and I suspect that part of the reason they were startled is because too often the only exposure to catholicism is from those catholics who aren’t really being catholic.
LikeLike
In my heart I am, Boethius 😉
LikeLike
Martha:
I am anathema. Your’re supposed to be shunning me. 😉
LikeLike
Boethius – my blushes 🙂
(Yes! I knew being an embittered hold-out against all the warm fuzziness would pay off someday!) 😉
LikeLike
“Because the Pope says it will cause confusion.”
I think the Pope is right on this one, Surfnetter, because you’ve certainly confused Michael 🙂
Michael, the answer is: no. Same way with the Baptists you know who visit the off-licence (liquor store?) Church says “No drinking.” They’re buying alcohol, but that’s different – it’s for medicinal purposes only, or it’s for non-Baptist guests, or come on, it’s only a beer not white lightning, or geez, this *is* the Century of the Anchovy now, you know.
LikeLike
Just a quick thought on some earlier comments,
It might be semantics, but in my mind the english word “refrain” means something quite different than the phrase “absolute prohibition.”
If I want to lose weight, I must refrain from eating M&Ms. This is not an absolute prohibition against eating them, but a recommended guideline. Am I off base with my thought here?
LikeLike
Maybe I should try it, then, Patrick, if you really think I might get a following. Definitely be covered on the talks shows. As L. Ron Hubbard used to tell his friends: “If you want to get rich start a religion.” We could call it the
Church of St. Dismas, and we would ONLY use legitimately stolen bread and wine (or grape juice,) and we could not take communion with anyone who used materials they owned legitimately — although a member could attend their services and would be encouraged to steal what he could for use in the legitimate practice of the True Faith.
I like to use the “alien anthropologist” POV from time to time — as a reality check, so to speak. They’d be scratching their bald green heads and asking, “What are these crazy earthlings fighting about now?”
LikeLike
“Iknowverylittle” hits it right on the head. Catholics in these postings, and some of the Catholics I know, are not much different than the average American mystical evangelical – they believe what they feel is right, regardless of whether it lines up with Rome or not. And maybe in America Neuhaus and those who think and speak like him are indecipherable from Lutheran or Reformed. But if that is the case, then there really isn’t anything left of the difference and the Reformation. We wouldn’t need the Reformation and the distinction after all. But RCC “orthodoxy” would disagree. Realistically, the RCC still sees Protestants as apostate. I couldn’t marry my wife in the RCC.
Its nice that we have “common ground” on some doctrinal points, but does that ultimately make any difference? The RCC would still recognize us Protestants as apostate and beckon us to abandon our Protestantism and return to the One True Church.
LikeLike
Wow,
First, it is apparent that the “roll your own” version of “chinese menu theology” (I’ll have two fom column A and one each from columns B and C.) is alive and well in the American RCC.
Also, to Surfnetter and DanD, what about integrity and faithfulness to your chosen cofession? When you join the Lutheran Church, you vow before God and the congregation to faithfully uphold the confession and teachings of the Lutheran church, even in the face of persecution and death. I’m not an expert on the RCC, but I’m sure they must have something similar for adult converts and confirmands. What does it say about you and/or your church that you so easily choose to ignore or reject certain teachings? (Not minutiae either.)
If you guys are to be believed, it seems that there is enough latitude in RCC teaching for you guys to refute each other all day in regard to what is “Real” catholicism.
LikeLike
Michael,
As a recent convert to Catholicism, I have all of the obnoxious fervency that you so often reference of converts. Nevertheless, having read the CCC and just about everything Joseph Ratzinger has ever written, I think that you were mislead by Surfnetter. I would suspect that he/she might be more of a Baby Boomer Catholic. As a relatively young Catholic who converted after the election of Benedict XVI, I assure you that most faithful Catholics TRY to follow the teaching of the Magesterium, and accept that teaching to be true and right.
LikeLike
For the doctrinally-minded, some info. on the LutheranWorld Federation – RCC Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which might have a bearing on what Neuhaus said… 😉
LikeLike
… pray for us. We do need it.
“Amen” – from this corner. 🙂
LikeLike
Holy Mother of God – pray for us
Thomas Merton – pray for us
Richard John Neuhaus – pray for us
Killian Mooney – pray for us
Karl Rahner – pray for us
All ya’ll up there, please – pray for us
We do need it.
LikeLike
I’m sorry to see that this has devolved into a back-and-forth over who is more (or less) Catholic.
If you believe Christ is truly present in the bread and wine, well… he is. At least, that’s per Luther and other early Lutheran cathechists. I’m with them on that (consubstantiation).
Things aren’t as black and white, either-or as some folks are (I think) trying to make them, but that seems to fall more into the realm of practice than that of official doctrinal statements (from any church or branch thereof).
Ah well.
LikeLike
Surfnetter, if anybody listened to your insane Mass on the steps of the Vatican and believed what you were doing or saying, you’d be considered by the RCC a heretic and you’d eventually be excommunicated. So, no, you wouldn’t continue to be A Catholic if you knowingly acted in such a way as to cause confusion about the Church’s teachings.
Also, Martha is my favorite.
LikeLike
Martha:
I think I have figured out why I like you. I really like RCs who know what being an RC is and are not afraid to say it.
LikeLike
CCC 1400:
Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible.
LikeLike
What I’m driving at is that the impression that Catholicism is a “closed” communion is in doctrine only. And the open communion in all of the Protestant churches I have been a member of is in theory only. Protestants will bounce you out faster than you can blink for whatever is the Pastor’s pet peeve. I have never seen anyone denied Communion in a Catholic Church. Even for the horrible sin of communing with Protestants.
But I’m sure there will be examples posted.
LikeLike
Is it over yet? Can I look?? Father, please…
LikeLike
What Surfnetter is saying is wrong, and can be corroborated as incorrect according to the Catechism and the practice of actual Catholics throughout the world. There’s always going to be some people doing and saying differing things, picking and choosing which parts of the whole to believe in.
Protestants are no different than Catholics on this one. You said on the BHT that Southern Baptists would agree almost entirely on the important essentials. I found a report ( http://www.kybaptist.org/kbc/welcome.nsf/pages/discstudy200710 ), though I’m somewhat skeptical about the source, which indicates that 2 in 5 Baptists in Kentucky believe that Jesus Christ sinned while on Earth, among other things. No group has 100% adherence to it’s teachings (except for controlling cults, but that’s another story). I can say, with no reservations, that Surfnetter is absolutely wrong according to the universal teaching of the Catholic Church, because the teaching exists objectively. I can also say that Richard Neuhaus (on-topic, yay!) is teaching nothing other than the universal teaching of the Church, from Pentecost to Nicea to Trent to Vatican II to present day priests in San Francisco, California, because it exists objectively, and can be known.
That Surfnetter is acting wrongly has no bearing on the existence of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
LikeLike
Oh, honestly. IM didn’t ask – “Is there anyone who is a member of the Catholic Church and/or who considers themselves to be Catholic who thinks it’d be ok for my Catholic wife to take communion with me at my Church?” He asked DOES THE CHURCH ALLOW IT? And the answer is no, and nobody said it’s the same as murder by anyone’s lights so you’re just being goofy. And you’re being disrespectful to everyone with that picnic comment – when protestants take communion they don’t think it’s the same as “eating bread and juice at a picnic”. And if you do then I wonder why you participate in something you don’t value.
LikeLike
iMonk: thanks for this post. I strongly suggest that anyone interested in this question compare Father Neuhaus’ comments with the Catholic Catechism online at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM. I am amazed that no one has quoted it in response to your question! In particular, please note the following (the numbers are paragraphs, for those inclined to look):
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. However, according to the Lord’s words “Thus you will know them by their fruits” – reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty. A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: “Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'”
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. the saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
“After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone…. In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.” St. Therese of Liseaux
I hope that you’re starting to get the picture. One of the joys of Catholicism is that it has a magisterium that one can consult, instead of relying upon individual judgment like that of “Surfnetter” and others. And the unavoidable assessment after reviewing the Catechism and its cited authorities is that Father Neuhaus’ was squarely within the heartland of Catholic doctrine in the writing at issue.
But I am sure that Surfnetter will have an alternative opinion! 🙂
May Father Neuhaus rest in peace and rise in glory! Let light perpetual shine upon him.
LikeLike
Are you all going to sit there and say that there are no degrees here –[Mod edit]
I can sit down and have juice and bread at a Protestant picnic, but not in the Sanctuary. Why? Because the Protestants say we’re wrong about Communion and it doesn’t change. OK — so it’s still juice and bread –why can’t I have some then? Because the Pope says it will cause confusion, and the Protestants and i[mod edit] Catholics who like to blog here say that I have to listen to the Pope or I won’t be Catholic. But if I stole a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine and dressed up like the Pope and said Mass on the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, I’d just be an insane criminal, in need of much prayer and forgiveness. But I’d still be Catholic.
LikeLike
Yes, the communion thing is A or B. Not allowed! Seems like Surfnetter was making the argument that it is allowed because, like, he does it and the pope police haven’t come to take him away… which is unhelpful because you were clearly looking for a doctrinal answer.
LikeLike
Okay, one last thing, and then I’ll shut my beak.
I did comment before that it’s a good job that I was never in line to be Pope, because I’d have slapped an interdict on the American church, and if they didn’t toe the line sharpish, I’d have declared them in schism and excommunicated the whole lot of them.
Given the 70s experiences as related by eC2, are you surprised at my attitude? 😉
LikeLike
e2c: If we were discussing some theological minutia, I would agree, but if Catholics speaking IN PUBLIC contradict each other on major areas like communing in other churches, then the problem isn’t my desire to understand. It’s complete chaos. It’s either A or B. Can’t be both on everything, even in Catholicism.
LikeLike
To be honest,the Rev.Neuhaus quote does not sound very Roman Catholic to me. I grew up in the Catholic Church here in New England ,became an evangelical for a while and have since gone back to The Catholic Church. The Church teaches us that we are saved by proper belief in the teachings of the Church and by striving to live a holy life. His writing sounds very protestant evangelical to me. Opinions and personal beliefs are like a particular body orifice, everbody has one ,but what the Church officially teaches is what really matters.
LikeLike
Surfnetter, that’s not the point. It doesn’t matter if the Pope does or does not do it – it matters if *you*, Mr. and Ms. Average sitting in the pew, do it.
If it doesn’t matter if we all receive communion in each other’s churches, then we’re saying it’s just a symbol. And a sham symbol, at that, because communion means what it says: we are agreed on these common things, we are gathered together in this group, we have these beliefs and not those, we accept and are joined together.
If I commune with the Anglicans this week and the Baptists next week, I’m at one and the same time saying “Yes, I agree children should/should not be baptised; that baptism is/is not a sacrament; that there is/is not a hierarchical priesthood” and many, many other things.
Now, either I believe ten contradictory things at once, or (what is more likely) I believe none of them, and I’m just doing what a visitor to a mosque would do in taking off his shoes – observing the forms of behaviour in the place without meaning that I am one of the congregation.
LikeLike
iMonk, I’ve been thinking of previous discussion (on your blog and elsewhere)about the Schaeffer family while reading this post and the many replies.
I remember feeling a little crazy when I was at Swiss L’Abri (back in the day) because there seemed to be so many things that were in tension – not anything wrong, but highly paradoxical for sure. For years, I thought that my perceptions were probably somewhat off (I wasn’t there for very long, didn’t “live the life” the way some friends who became workers did) – until I started reading Frank’s Crazy for God. Lightbulbs were flashing in my head – ditto for now, reading his Calvin Becker novels. (Although I must add that I don’t know Frank or his parents.)
Some people get freaked out, or angered (or whatever) by the things Frank says about his parents – because to them, the things he says with no ill intent are *so* against the grain that they know (or are used to). The inherent paradoxes are just so hard to grasp. That doesn’t make them any less real or true, though.
I think it’s much the same when coming to grips with Roman Catholic doctrine vs. actual, everyday practice. And I’m really an “I must figure it out!” kinda gal, so I really sympathize with you in your effort to wrap your mind around it all, and in wanting to support your wife.
But – maybe – figuring it out isn’t the solution? (As others have suggested.)
LikeLike
Which is pretty much what I meant, Am. Yes, if you don’t formally defect, you’re still Catholic.
Of course, then we get to play the fine game of “What is the thinnest thread we can spin?”
If someone says “I’m a Catholic, but…” then we have to look at what they say and do. If you disagree with 99% of church doctrine as currently propounded, what does it mean to you to say “I’m Catholic”? What does it mean to you? Why stay, instead of moving to somewhere that fits better?
Again, there has to be a distinction between not knowing what the teachings are through no fault of one’s own, and being told and rejecting them. Saying “Officially, Catholicism doesn’t permit (for example) contraception, but 86% of American Catholics are on the Pill (have no idea of figures, so don’t quote me here!)” – well, are they or are they not Catholics? They may not have formally defected, but if they don’t bother to examine the teaching and the reasons for it, let alone make up their minds one way or the other, then what are they but Catholics nominally?
The point is – if we start making distinctions between Official Teaching (that those old guys in the Curia promulgate) and What’s Really Believed (the rest of us layfolk out here in the Real World), then something is wrong somewhere. It’s like saying “I support the exercise of the plebiscite in free elections, not army coups, as a means of deciding government” and then advocating that martial law be instituted, the senior general take over, and all civilian instruments of government be shut down for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
Oh, I know you don’t want to be Catholic – I’ve been reading the blog, I’ve got the whole story. By “other side” I meant – feeling at peace with Mrs. Monk’s decision (and that’s what I meant by “under duress”).
Also, to answer your question, no there’s nothing odd or surprising or un-Catholic about the passage you quoted.
LikeLike
Am:
I am not attempting to become Catholic. Not going to happen. Not interested in joining any closed communion fellowship. Haven’t changed my mind about any of the 5 reasons I’m a Happy Enough Protestant.
My wife converted and I’m just trying to be less ignorant and more supportive of her. And to help other people on a similar journey for whatever reason.
peace
ms
LikeLike
OK, I’ll do an about-face on “plead” (Neuhaus), based on Hebrews ch. 7.
Can’t believe I somehow missed that! 😉
LikeLike
If one rejects them, then one may call oneself Catholic, but one isn’t.
Not so (according to Catholicism) but it’s an interesting distinction and it points to a major difference in Protestant thinking. If you were baptised Catholic (and haven’t formally renounced to a “a competent authority”) – then you’re still a Catholic! Maybe an ignorant one or rebellious or lapsed or in a state of mortal sin or whatever… but they’ve still gotcha. While what you think in your head matters and can be a form of sin… what you think in your head doesn’t define your status or membership in the way it does for other christian churches.
To IM – I feel for you. Catholic doctrine can be PROFOUNDLY frustrating, and I can’t imagine how frustrating it’d be to try to come to some kind of acceptance under duress and without the benefit of having grown up with “that way” of thinking. Maybe butting your head against the wall of “ugh do they REALLY BELIEVE THAT OR NOT?!?” isn’t helpful – but maybe it’s something you have to spend some time in to come out on the other side. I don’t know.
LikeLike
To return to iMonk’s original question about that Neuhaus quote, I can see absolutely nothing in it that would be in conflict with Catholic teaching. Maybe (- I wouldn’t know) the language he used is more traditional within Lutheranism than within Catholicism, but so what?
LikeLike
I’m slow. Thought you were either referencing him or being ficitious. I read his post and your comment and agreed with you. My point is that we Protestants can be as stiff-necked and unflexible as anyone. Funny, I read Gilbert for the 1st time on Dever’s site this morning (book review of a favorite book ‘The Jesus I Never Knew’)—I found him pretty unflexible myself (and I don’t mean with the truth). Us Calvinists can be pretty proud about the truth we feel we somehow have by our own accord.
Thanks for the post Michael.
LikeLike
I really hope that you all are taking note of Rev. William M. Cwirla’s comments … he’s got some good ones here.
LikeLike
I was referring to the Gilbert post I linked.
LikeLike
Well well.
Maybe the page can turn and we can get back to the topic at hand and put down the stones.
As an old school Protestant I have my own opinion. I know you invited your Catholic friends to comment, but the spirited conversation got me thinking about your intro Michael… “the quoted material from 2001’s ‘Death on A Friday Afternoon’ in mind, there’s ‘some hope’ that Neuhaus was saved by believing the Protestant Gospel.”
Not sure if you are using disparagement here but just for kicks after reading his (Neuhaus) comments the only conclusion I could come to was this: There is all the hope in the world that Neuhaus was saved if he believed the only (biblical) gospel—the gospel Jesus delivered via himself and the one Paul preached without apology. Just as Gentiles have no corner on grace, or dare I say it here, election—so us Protestants certainly can’t think we have exclusive rights to something we were freely given due to no merit of our own. For to do so would be to undermine justification by faith alone.
LikeLike
Martha — you are aptly named. “Mary has chosen the better portion …”
What was quoted of John Paul II above elucidates what the Catholic prohibition is all about. We don’t want to cause confusion by our behavior. But my receiving communion in a non-Catholic service will not cause as much problems as if the Pope were to do it. So the Pope can’t do it and he can’t say it’s alright to do it.
So maybe me here intimating that it’s alright to do it is causing some confusion. I’m sorry about that, but I’m just speaking to my experience with and among other Catholics. I’m trying to give an honest appraisal of the Catholic “experience” as opposed to the Catechism and Canon Law. That such a dichotomy exists — and it does, big time — may scandalize some, and infuriate others. It just makes me feel at home. What can I say …?
LikeLike
Surfnetter: I will not post another comment with anything as condescending as your last two paragraphs.
LikeLike
Look up “confraternity” and “sodality”; tradesmen’s guilds fall into into these categories, too.
There were medieval lay movements, like these, to pick just one example.
I’ll just add one more thought: the whole idea of “a Protestant Gospel” strikes me as a contradiction in terms. There is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism – one Gospel only. How we human beings have chosen to define and follow that Gospel (or not follow it) is another thing entirely (I think). But then, I’m coming from a particular background (old LCA Lutheran), and the confessions of faith in both the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds are kinda bedrock. (Sadly, differing interpretations of “one baptism” led my German ancestors – Catholic and Lutheran – to persecute and kill Anabaptists – and on and on…)
LikeLike
Surfnetter, I do imagine you’re not saying that I’m ill-adjusted and non-devout since I *don’t* make a practice of receiving communion at the services in my Church of Ireland brother-in-law’s church?
And Ireland fighting religious wars. Yep, that’s right. Us Paddies are killing one another for no reason – just ask the nice English, who have no idea how they got dragged into it (ahem). Though we have stopped that now for the past couple of years, so maybe there’s hope for us?
If you go receiving when in a non-Catholic church just to be polite, then – may it be to your good. But I’d love to know how you reconcile stating that you’re simultaneously Roman Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, and whomever else – like “The Yarn of the ‘Nancy Bell'” by Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan fame?
“‘Twas on the shores that round our coast
From Deal to Ramsgate span,
That I found alone on a piece of stone
An elderly naval man.
His hair was weedy, his beard was long,
And weedy and long was he,
And I heard this wight on the shore recite,
In a singular minor key:
“Oh, I am a cook and a captain bold,
And the mate of the Nancy brig,
And a bo’sun tight, and a midshipmite,
And the crew of the captain’s gig.”
And he shook his fists and he tore his hair,
Till I really felt afraid,
For I couldn’t help thinking the man had been drinking,
And so I simply said:
“Oh, elderly man, it’s little I know
Of the duties of men of the sea,
And I’ll eat my hand if I understand
However you can be
‘At once a cook, and a captain bold,
And the mate of the Nancy brig,
And a bo’sun tight, and a midshipmite,
And the crew of the captain’s gig.'”
Then he gave a hitch to his trousers, which
Is a trick all seamen larn,
And having got rid of a thumping quid,
He spun this painful yarn:
“‘Twas in the good ship Nancy Bell
That we sailed to the Indian Sea,
And there on a reef we come to grief,
Which has often occurred to me.
‘And pretty nigh all the crew was drowned
(There was seventy-seven o’ soul),
And only ten of the Nancy’s men
Said ‘Here!’ to the muster-roll.
‘There was me and the cook and the captain bold,
And the mate of the Nancy brig,
And the bo’sun tight, and a midshipmite,
And the crew of the captain’s gig.
‘For a month we’d neither wittles nor drink,
Till a-hungry we did feel,
So we drawed a lot, and, accordin’ shot
The captain for our meal.
‘The next lot fell to the Nancy’s mate,
And a delicate dish he made;
Then our appetite with the midshipmite
We seven survivors stayed.
‘And then we murdered the bo’sun tight,
And he much resembled pig;
Then we wittled free, did the cook and me,
On the crew of the captain’s gig.
‘Then only the cook and me was left,
And the delicate question,”Which
Of us two goes to the kettle” arose,
And we argued it out as sich.
‘For I loved that cook as a brother, I did,
And the cook he worshipped me;
But we’d both be blowed if we’d either be stowed
In the other chap’s hold,you see.
“I’ll be eat if you dines off me,”says TOM;
‘Yes, that,’ says I, ‘you’ll be, ‘
‘I’m boiled if I die, my friend, ‘ quoth I;
And “Exactly so,” quoth he.
‘Says he,”Dear JAMES, to murder me
Were a foolish thing to do,
For don’t you see that you can’t cook me,
While I can and will cook you!”
‘So he boils the water, and takes the salt
And the pepper in portions true
(Which he never forgot), and some chopped shalot.
And some sage and parsley too.
“Come here,”s ays he, with a proper pride,
Which his smiling features tell,
“‘T will soothing be if I let you see
How extremely nice you’ll smell.”
‘And he stirred it round and round and round,
And he sniffed at the foaming froth;
When I ups with his heels, and smothers his squeals
In the scum of the boiling broth.
‘And I eat that cook in a week or less,
And as I eating be
The last of his chops, why, I almost drops,
For a wessel in sight I see!
“And I never larf, and I never smile,
And I never lark nor play,
But I sit and croak, and a single joke
I have–which is to say:
“Oh, I am a cook and a captain bold,
And the mate of the Nancy brig,
And a bo’sun tight, and a midshipmite,
And the crew of the captain’s gig!”
LikeLike
“Divine authority to its pronouncements …”
Now who determines those limitations?
If you want to have a good experience in the Catholic Church — or living with a Catholic spouse — you are going to have give up needing to have everything fit neatly together. The Church is the oldest continuous institution in existence. And not too long ago they ruled the world — even naming and pulling down monarchs. The Church used to be the criminal justice system and they were saving the soul of the (often falsely) convicted by slowly stripping off his skin, etc., while a priest stood by with an ear horn up to the tortured one’s mouth to hear the slightest whisper of a confession so he could be given sacramental absolution and be killed clean.
No longer is there the executive governmental authority in the clergy (thank God) but the “divine” legislative authority remains. They do this because this is what they do. And when things change, everyone wonders why we were doing things the old way, when what God really wanted was something else. And then the apologists take over.
Jesus is in the Eucharist in a real and very special way. I’m sorry for you if you don’t see that. It is so beautiful, helpful, illuminating. Mary is so sweet and accepting. Her smile takes away all my suffering and doubt.
If you want to talk about Catholicism with Catholics, you have to expect that at least some of us will speak like Catholics and not Protestants ….
LikeLike
Michael, I think soon you guys will be treated to the edifying sight of Catholics hitting one another over the head with the crozier 🙂
Surfnetter, that’s exactly the attitude that drives many spare: “This is America – we’re different!” There’s actually a proto-heresy called “Americanism” that Pope Leo XIII wrote an Apostolic Letter about to the Archbishop of Baltimore in order to nip in the bud; the worry was that American Catholicism was becoming too liberal, taking upon itself to decide doctrine, and softening or abandoning traditional distinctives in order to ‘blend in’ and become more acceptable to the non-Catholic majority.
Sure, I could go to a Protestant service and receive communion and not be read off the altar in my local parish church – because (gasp!) there really isn’t an Inquistion out there spying on every little move every Catholic makes.
I could do this – but I shouldn’t. And if I decide that I know better than the Church, then I am disobedient and in rebellion. And if I really have difficulties, it might be more honest for me to leave and become Protestant. Or Buddhist, or atheist, or whatever.
Modern catechesis is dreadful, and has been for a long time, so there probably are many, many people out there genuinely ignorant of what the teachings are and how they should behave. But if you know what the teaching is, and still say “I can decide for myself and I think this is wrong”, then you’ve got very few choices: either row back in line, or formally defect. None of us can pick and choose the bits we like, the bits we find personally inconvenient, and the bits that are embarrassing.
It’s not just a matter of “Oh, some old guys in robes over there in Rome make rules, but that’s all way above the heads of ordinary people who do differently.” Those are the beliefs and practices. If one rejects them, then one may call oneself Catholic, but one isn’t.
LikeLike
My take: start looking at the history of lay movements in Western history and… while I’m not Catholic, and don’t agree with everything Surfnetter says, he’s got some really good points about lay people. (Francis and Clare, anyone? ;))
LikeLike
“Consulting the encyclicals and Canon Law journals as to what the Catholic Faith is “really†serious about is like reading the U.S. Code and Constitution to find out how our government “really†works.”
It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea if a few citizens actually acquainted themselves with the US Constitution to find out how our government is supposed to work. It might shape the rhetoric differently in election years. Likewise, it would probably be a good idea if a Christian were well acquainted with the specifics of what his or her church/church body formally and publicly teaches. It might come as a bit of a surprise.
One of the underlying problems exhibited here is the distinction between fides qua creditur (faith that believes) and fides quae creditur (the faith that is believed). The former is personal, experiential and subjective; the latter is corporate, creedal and objective. Postmodern believers prefer the former to the latter, generally speaking, epitomized in the statement, “I don’t care what the Catholic/Lutheran/Episcopal/Baptist/YouNameIt Church says; I know what I believe in my heart.”
LikeLike
Surfnetter: I think it’s fairly clear now that you are uniquely able to explain what Catholicism is really all about, but I also think it’s clear that you are unable to affirm that the government of your church has divine authority in its pronouncements. You’re a Protestant in attitude towards your church. Your thesis that Christianity is defined by the experience of the laity and not the history and pronouncements of church authorities makes you the Howard Zinn of Catholicism. Write the book.
LikeLike
Receiving communion in a Protestant church a serious matter in the life of a Catholic …? Compared to what other “serious matters”?
You can’t mean “really” serious matters, can you?
Consulting the encyclicals and Canon Law journals as to what the Catholic Faith is “really” serious about is like reading the U.S. Code and Constitution to find out how our government “really” works.
If all the clergy did was recite the Catechism and interpret encyclicals on Sunday, parking for mass would never be a problem.
Basically the difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Protestants severely limit their experience by their dogma. And again I will say it, Catholic teaching is bottom up — the experience of the laity has always informed the clergy what to teach. It just takes a long time for it to get up there.
LikeLike
Rob…
Not an unfair point. It’s a complicated issue that I sure still do struggle with… I realize we are called to submit to the authority elders. The issue for me is that I am Christian, even in the baptized Catholic sense, there to worship God, and I believe He wants me to come forward. This is the sore spot imonk has brought up in numerous other posts. I can’t see Jesus telling me not to come recieve Him if I’ve confessed my sins and met the other considerations the Epistles lay out for communion.
LikeLike
Sorry for threadjacking – however, I honestly think you’re trying to make your definitions a little too narrow re. what Neuhaus said, and more.
I realize this is a huge generalization, but I think that on the whole, people from a “sacramental” background (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) tend to think about “absolutes” a bit differently than do folks from many “low church” backgrounds.
So, with that in mind, I think the only thing in Neuhaus’ statement that’s (maybe) “Protestant” is the word “plead.” (And the idea behind it.) However, that whole “plead” concept strikes me as not being terribly Lutheran, either. sounds much more Calvinist/Reformed to me. (Baptist, too.)
Again, apologies for the generalizations, but I’m not at all sure that there’s any way to make everyone who’s baptized Roman Catholic (or Anglican or Lutheran, let alone Orthodox) fit into neat little cubbyholes. In practice, there’s an (I think) a wider range of “allowable” belief and practice in Catholicism than is generally the case in “low church” denominations.
Could that be part of the tension here? I think the answer is “absolutely yes.” But that’s just me. 😉
LikeLike
OK…I’ve let this thread get way off topic.
Comment will be on the Neuhaus quote from now on please.
LikeLike
CATHOLICS: WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL US IF SURFNETTER IS REPRESENTING THE ACTUAL TEACHINGS OF THE RCC?
No, he/she is not. I wish it were the case, though- then my Protestant husband could receive communion with me!
LikeLike
What’s a “real Catholic?â€
I have laity relatives some of whom are so conservative that they sound like Protestant fundamentalists. And an aunt who’s a nun and whose views are so liberal she could be UU!
What he said! 🙂
LikeLike
BUT (again with the buts) there is a teaching Authority in the Church and it’s there for a reason – to keep things in order – to keep handing down what has been handed down from the Apostles.
Yes, Chesterton puts it well…
Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism. We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea. So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noisiest of nurseries. But the walls were knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice. They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.
LikeLike
I know some of you think that Protestants are tightly wound rationalists on this one, but it seems like we ought to all go see the movie “Doubt,†and then let the RCs describe the two versions of Catholicism presented there.
Dialogue and understanding are very difficult with a moving target. I realize there’s a lot of historical and cultural issues involved, as well as theological nuance, but there’s also a nagging sense, again that you can just about believe whatever you want and do whatever you please (somewhere) as long as you just join the team.
Back to the “authority†thing….which isn’t even an “authority thing†if you get to the right parish apparently.
Or is it the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law?
What I’ve described is probably a result of both Vatican II and the charismatic renewal. It’s absolutely not about people lacking in integrity. But I’m not sure that I can explain that any further – you’d probably have to meet the people in question (or others like them) to see what I’m trying to point out.
Anyway, I do hope that what I’ve expressed in my comments above will help to clarify, rather than further muddy, the waters.
Best,
e.
LikeLike
I was taught by the Pastor of the Newman Center, a Paulist (not a rigid or particularly old-fashioned order), at UC Berkeley (not the most rigid or old-fashioned parish), that taking communion at a non-Catholic church is a very serious problem. What Surfnetter is saying is patently ridiculous, and doesn’t fly with either orthodoxy or actual praxis within the Church.
LikeLike
I couldn’t stand it anymore and had to respond to Surfnetter…
What matters to you might be what’s in the catechism. What matters to God is what is in the the hearts of individual believers. I don’t think that old woman has the slightest clue what is in the catechism or what was decided at the Council of Trent.
While it may be true that the old woman is more holy, it’s not because she is uneducated in her faith. In fact, she would probably be the first to point that out. One cannot use anything to determine the position of someone heart, other than (dimly) their own. Education, pious practices, charity works, etc, none of this tells you where someone else stands before God.
But that doesn’t mean they don’t matter. You can never stand still spiritually, if you don’t move forward you will soon be falling back. Educating yourself is important, doing good works is important, etc, each of these things keep us moving towards God. (Note, it’s by God’s grace that we are able to learn and do.)
What matters is what the individual Catholic believes.
It depends on what you mean by “matters”. If you mean when we stand before God and we were never taught the truth about the Church and believed something wrong, yea it probably doesn’t matter. If; however, you mean that it doesn’t matter what any Catholic believes because it’s all up for grabs, that is wrong. We should do our best to learn our faith, so as to understand and believe the Truth. There is Truth and it Matters (and is Matter – having become Flesh…ha ha…ehem)
The Magesterium teaches Truth, if you know what the Magesterium teaches and believe otherwise then you are in error. How culpable you are for that error is between you and God.
But I don’t think the Church would interfere in your wife taking communion at your Church even if she was running for president.
While that may be true it doesn’t make it right. There are sinners in the Church’s hierarchy just as there are sinners in the whole world. There are priests, bishops, popes who wouldn’t care that the “little ones” were being led astray. It doesn’t make it right.
If you know the Truth and choose to turn away then you are culpable for that error. Only God knows your knowledge and willingness and therefore can judge your soul.
As for the Newhouse comment, I agree with TeresaHT
LikeLike
Add to last comment: I’m deeply grateful that I was able to spend time getting to know – and learn from – some of the folks I’ve mentioned above. (The “girls” – as they jokingly called themselves – with whom I lived in particular.) They were mentors and role models in ways that probably weren’t apparent to them at the time… or, maybe, to me. But at this point in my life (after some really difficult times in so-called “evangelical” churches), I find myself gravitating toward the way these folks lived and worshiped. It’s not a matter of doctrinal affinities, it’s all about nuts-and-bolts, commonsense godly living.
The religious that I knew well (of both genders) were extremely practical, not afraid to be human, and saw worship as a joy, not a duty. (Not surprisingly, they didn’t put much stock in many “traditional” practices.) One priest – a canon lawyer – told me that when he started training in canon law, he found a huge gap between the reasons for certain things having been made
official practices and the beliefs (and theologies) that evolved from those initial decisions.
He cited the original reason for withholding the chalice as based on fears of the spread of disease – that early on, before anyone knew about germs, there was concern that the common cup might somehow be a means of disease transmission, so that the decision made was entirely pastoral (keeping the saints alive on this earth for as long as possible!), not doctrinal – and further, that the whole thing was meant as a temporary measure. But (he said), in the longer term, people forgot about what brought this about in the first place…. and in doing so, created a problem while also neglecting their pastoral duty. (Which would have been to allow lay people to partake of the cup… or perhaps, from multiple cups, like so many of us Protestants do.)
I can’t verify what this fellow told me, but you know… I believe him. It was all about the spirit, not the letter (or form). His position was that the “letter of the law” had won out too many times, and that – unfortunately – it was very, very hard to convince most clergy to go back to Square 1, because they were so wedded to certain practices (and understandings of those practices).
Where did this man train as a canon lawyer? Rome, naturally.
LikeLike
Here is the full context from Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003) that demonstrates how the Roman Church views the Protestant churches and their celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. Notice that this is tied to the lack of “holy orders” on the part of Protestant ministers.
“30. The Catholic Church’s teaching on the relationship between priestly ministry and the Eucharist and her teaching on the Eucharistic Sacrifice have both been the subject in recent decades of a fruitful dialogue in the area of ecumenism. We must give thanks to the Blessed Trinity for the significant progress and convergence achieved in this regard, which lead us to hope one day for a full sharing of faith. Nonetheless, the observations of the Council concerning the Ecclesial Communities which arose in the West from the sixteenth century onwards and are separated from the Catholic Church remain fully pertinent: “The Ecclesial Communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of Orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await his coming in gloryâ€.62
The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made towards full visible unity. Similarly, it is unthinkable to substitute for Sunday Mass ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of common prayer with Christians from the aforementioned Ecclesial Communities, or even participation in their own liturgical services. Such celebrations and services, however praiseworthy in certain situations, prepare for the goal of full communion, including Eucharistic communion, but they cannot replace it.”
Even in Lutheran circles participation in the Lord’s Supper is generally viewed as a matter of confessional identity and integrity. It is not simply a personal but a corporate confession of the faith.
LikeLike
I know some of you think that Protestants are tightly wound rationalists on this one, but it seems like we ought to all go see the movie “Doubt,” and then let the RCs describe the two versions of Catholicism presented there.
Dialogue and understanding are very difficult with a moving target. I realize there’s a lot of historical and cultural issues involved, as well as theological nuance, but there’s also a nagging sense, again that you can just about believe whatever you want and do whatever you please (somewhere) as long as you just join the team.
Back to the “authority” thing….which isn’t even an “authority thing” if you get to the right parish apparently.
LikeLike
Most of the Catholics you knew in the 70’s-80’s were very different from the church as shaped by JPII and B16, and very different from the vision of Catholicism promoted by apologists, Catholic media and as has been said, the Catechisms (both of them.)
As Josh the Lutheran says, “It’s A and Not A.”
Without disrespect to anyone, if it’s a matter of just finding the right priest who will wink at you in the communion line (and I’ve seen it many times) that’s a matter of integrity, not doctrine.
LikeLike
when you say the Church doesn’t mind if you commune with Protestants
Right. Catholics may not receive Protestant communion, and vice versa. To claim the Church says otherwise is simply to be…wrong. Catholics may, however, receive Orthodox communion, under certain circumstances, provided the Orthodox priest is OK with it. Which they rarely are 🙂
if a non-annulled divorced person communes
A non-annulled divorced person may commune, so long as they are not remarried.
What’s a “real Catholic?â€
Someone who has been baptized Catholic and has not formally renounced it.
I would be asked not to take communion at most Roman Catholic parishes
It would seem to be the polite thing to do, then, to respect the wishes of those people whose house you are visiting. Do you not see it as kinda weird that inherent to your act of worship, you are essentially lying to your hosts?
LikeLike
I’m not wanting to get into the heated debate here, but I’ll offer a couple of observations…
1. I spent a lot of time hanging out with Catholic charismatics after my conversion (in the early 70s). Most folks were perfectly fine with the idea of a Protestant (i.e., someone like me) who affirmed faith in Christ as Lord and savior taking communion at Mass in an RC church.
Even priests.
One priest told me that he could not, in good conscience, refuse communion to anyone who came to the altar in good faith (professing Christ). This was said in reply to my asking him if I should abstain from taking communion at a Mass where he was the celebrant.
2. I lived in a very small convent (rented house) when I was a college student, alongside 9 nuns. They invited me to live there, knowing that I was Lutheran (and much younger than they were, not planning to convert to Catholicism, etc. etc. etc.). I prayed the early a.m. office with them daily, and often attended Mass with them on either Sat. or Sun. (If on Sat., I usually went to a Protestant service on Sun.) None of these women had any problem whatsoever with my taking communion, whether in public (at a parish church) or in the course of a Mass celebrated at our house. (Priests who came as dinner guests often conducted services as part of their visit.)
3. I realize that what I’ve just told you about is at odd with the official teachings of the RCC. Nevertheless, these folks all did what they did in good conscience, and many of them encouraged me to stay in my own “tradition,” because they saw it as valid and as deeply rooted in Christ as their own. The only people I met who were somewhat gung-ho about the idea of me converting were kind-hearted lay folks. And nobody ever made a “sales pitch” about that to me, or talked about “our separated brethren” to me personally.
I know this might seem confusing, but… it’s how things can work in practical terms. Most of the Catholics I knew in the 70s-80s were far more open-minded and “ecumenical” than, well… Protestants.
In these cases, though, the essentials of the Gospel were trumping tradition.
Go figure! 😉
LikeLike
What’s a “real Catholic?”
I have laity relatives some of whom are so conservative that they sound like Protestant fundamentalists. And an aunt who’s a nun and whose views are so liberal she could be UU!
LikeLike
Looks like that excerpt from Pope John Paul II wmcwirla just posted right before me could be considered as settling the issue.
LikeLike
imonk.. I would be asked not to take communion at most Roman Catholic parishes if the pastor there knew I usually spend Sundays at a protestant church…and take communion there when it is offered once a month. My personal understandings of doctrines are more in line with a reformed view, but I still consider myself a Catholic too. I attend Catholic services from time to time, usually at family events and certain Holy days. I do take Catholic communion while I am there since I do believe it is the body and blood of Christ. In the eyes of the Church I shouldn’t play in both worlds, I should choose one or the other. I was raised Catholic but was never good at accepting everything that was taught. The Church thinks I’m wrong, I think I’m right, and before God all I have is His mercy because I sure know I could be wrong.
As to this post, I don’t believe the excerpt from Fr Neuhaus is inconsistent with what I was taught in my Catholic upbringing, (CCD lessons, etc), as a Catholic I was taught Jesus paid my sins on the cross above all else and it was by him I would have everlasting life. Some raised Catholic hear it and know it, some raised Catholic hear it but it doesn’t set in and they only hear the “you need to be good†part. I’ve found that to be true outside the RCC where the Gospel is preached.
I do feel some of the stuff I learned in CCD after that simple Truth was taught does confuse the issue… if we are relying on God’s mercy through the work of Jesus at the end why so much about mortal and venial sins, absolution through confession, etc. It does end up seeming contradictory. I know the semantic arguments that can be made to show its not inconsistent teaching; I can’t accept that it isn’t. Again, I submit I’m fallible and could be wrong.
Also, as to your wife taking communion at outside the Roman Catholic church, I can’t point you to where I had read this when I was looking in to such issues some years ago, but … The Roman Catholic Church’s position is that non orthodox communion is not the body and blood of Jesus and therefore not communion. In what I read some of the hierarchy in the church would say that it was therefore harmless for the Catholic and acceptable, others felt it was still unacceptable. Martha above showed a good example of the dilemma in the post Vatican II era. I never saw if this is a settled issue with an official decision either way. According to the church she should not accept it as substitute for receiving communion on Sunday at mass, regardless.
LikeLike
“The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth.” Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003)
HR: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/
LikeLike
I’m a lay Catholic living in London, England.
I’m sure most Catholics would agree with Surfnetter’s earlier point that personal holiness is not necessarily connected with an in-depth knowledge of Church teachings. However, it does not follow that the content of Church teaching is unimportant. Think of those New Testament letters where the apostles sought to correct erroneous teaching in different communities.
The bottom line is that faithful Catholics are under an obligation to accept Church teachings in so far as they are aware of them. The only choice in the matter is whether to be faithful or not. The obligation to accept the teachings follows from the Catholic’s acceptance that the Pope and other Catholic bishops are inheritors of the authority that Christ gave his apostles to proclaim His coming to the world. Someone who does not accept the latter needs to reconsider whether it is appropriate to identify himself as Catholic.
On the question of Communion, the Canon Law of the Catholic Church prohibits Catholics from receiving Communion at the services of other denominations. What certain individual Catholics may or may not do is neither here nor there. Canon Law is unambiguous on the matter. A Catholic who is aware of Canon Law on this matter but chooses to flout it needs to understand that he/she is doing something that is a serious breach of church discipline (ref Matt 18:18 “Truly I tell you, whatver you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”). I imagine the reason for this provision of Canon Law is so that no confusion should be created in the minds of Catholics about the unique nature of the Catholic Eucharist.
Since this blog is primarily for Protestant readers, it may be appropriate to add a few words on the Catholic Church’s view of Christians in other denominations. From ‘Unitatis Redintegratio’, the Decree on Ecumenism (para. 3):
“Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church — for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection.”
LikeLike
No one on here is unaware that many Catholics- just like most other Americans- believe whatever they believe for all kinds of reasons. The cafeteria isn’t just Catholic. It’s open for all of us.
But when you say the Church doesn’t mind if you commune with Protestants or if a non-annulled divorced person communes, you aren’t stating your belief. You’re saying the Church hasn’t drawn a line between what must be believed/obeyed and what is optional.
If they church hasn’t drawn that line then we’re having a completely unnecessary episode in my house.
LikeLike
I don’t see what the big hub-bub is about. Of course Catholics are not supposed to pick and choose what to believe. Of course what the CCC states goes. To be a Catholic and to deny any dogma is to commit the sin of heresy. Etc, etc. But, on the other hand, of course there are many Catholics who believe what the heck they want to believe. Is this a news flash? Is it good? Well, no. But it is the lay of the land these days.
As far as whether the anathemas of Trent still stand, I’ve previously blogged on that pretty extensively. See the attached link.
LikeLike
Surfnetter,
I don’t think anyone would say that what the individual believes DOESN’T matter, in most any church. I think IMonk is trying to point out that what matters to the RC church is that the beliefs of people who are RC match up with the Church’s catechism. That’s how they make distinctions about who can take communion where, and with whom. There’s more than a couple hundred years of division in the church (and a list of differences with many more topics than closed communion) to prove that the RC church cares about what people believe. I would challenge you to find anyone with authority in the RC church who says otherwise.
LikeLike
Thanks Alan, for saying what needed to be said; you’re absolutely right.
LikeLike
I don’t know how relevant this is to your question IM, but most Catholics wouldn’t know what the actual teachings of the RCC *are* on this matter.
Rome has little relevance or importance in our lives. There will be many more-active (more faithful?) Catholics that disagree with me. But the majority of Catholics that I know so often disagree with Rome’s teachings that they no longer even listen.
When I became interested in doctrine, I moved from Catholic to Reformed worship. But I still go to Mass with family members when appropriate. My most important relationship is with Jesus. He has torn down the walls that separate us and commanded us to love. Any doctrine that gets in the way of that I treat as secondary.
LikeLike
Surfnetter: Taking Protestant communion is strictly prohibited in every place I can read and from every person with the authority to give an answer. Your answer tells me that Catholic Church’s unity is a fairly thin paint job.
LikeLike
Imonk — Brian Mclaren …?
Not that I know who that is (I’ll look that up later), but I’m sure I’ve been called worse.
LikeLike
A “big no-no”…?
Maybe in Ireland where they are still fighting religious wars. But we’re in America. It just doesn’t happen here that you get in trouble for going to another church and receive communion there.
Most well-adjusted and devout Catholics I know would not deny themselves the experience of attending a Protestant service if they thought they’d get something out of it, nor would they be so ungracious as to refuse communion because of some catechetical prohibition.
Don’t get caught in the intricacies and nuances of the “teachings” — we don’t.
And Jews deny Jesus, Imonk. Just about the only way to be denied by the Jewish community as being a “Jew” is to believe in Jesus. So having a rabbi teach the Bible in the Sanctuary to to your “sheep” … as a pastor it would be worse to let them believe the bread and the wine became the Body and Blood before you ate it …?
LikeLike
OK, I’ve been summoned so here we go…
I think, in a sense, Surfnetter and iMonk are talking past each other. You guys seem to be talking about similar things on a different level. In the first mention Surfnetter made about “What matters is what the individual Catholic believes,” it seemed to have been in a direct rhetorical response to Boethius’ comment about “buying Masses for merit.”
It seemed to me like Surfnetter was making a point that (at least partly here) it really matters what the Catholic who gives the donation for a Mass believes he/she is doing when they do this. Some actually do believe they are somehow paying down the Purgatory debt of their loved one. Some aren’t thinking about it that way at all, most I’d say. So, in that case, you can’t put the blanket over all Catholics about what they’re doing when they do this.
Of course, some also take too heavily what might be done in any given Catholic parish as some kind of “imprimatur” as well. Not so.
As Surfnetter continues, there seem to be more statements that need balance. Of course a sort of debate started after that so everybody’s in argument mode. That doesn’t help get to the bottom of anything. I mean that there may be something to a more nuanced, philosophical kind of view that “when everything comes down to rubber meets the road, one must answer for one’s self – heart to heart with God,” but as we live here, that’s not all there is to it.
It’s also not as cut and dried as some very traditionalist Catholics would have us all think either – lock-step, Pope says it, we do it, line by line, follow the laws and that’s it, you’re good. Yeah, I know it’s more complicated than that – I’m talking about what people hear, and they obviously hear that. This kind of lock-step mentality is not really what the Catholic Church teaches it’s children. Not really.
BUT (again with the buts) there is a teaching Authority in the Church and it’s there for a reason – to keep things in order – to keep handing down what has been handed down from the Apostles. They are not alone in this, though. The everyday faithful member of the Church is part of this keeping and hearing and sensing of the Faith. Things change sometimes because it swells from the proverbial bottom-up instead of from the top-down.
So – somebody could, can and probably has written a bunch of books on this so give me my one long comment – Soooo, balance, yes. There is an objective standard, rules, doctrines, etc. and Catholic individuals and churches are expected to respect these things and do their best to live them. It’s not JUST what the individual Catholic thinks or believes.
But (always, ALways) it also DOES matter what we all think and believe (and yes, I know we must have properly formed consciences). That both/and stuff really is there. I know that burns some Protestants up because they love their tightly wound understanding of the Romanists, but oh well, sorry. It’s tight, but it’s not tight like that. It’s rigid (sometimes too rigid) but not altogether rigid like that.
Did that help? Maybe a little – hopefully. It’s not an absolute answer, but like I said, we’re talking Catholicism here. 🙂 Peace to all in this house.
LikeLike
I wonder if Pope Benedict’s words here are relevant to this discussion. Perhaps the Pope’s words carry some weight as to what Catholic’s teach?
The wall — so says the Letter to the Ephesians — between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary: It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.
That is why Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14).
Paul knows that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love. We will see the same in next Sunday’s Gospel for the solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What I ask is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked? So justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel, we can say: love alone, charity alone. However, there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St. Paul. It is the same vision, the one according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the realization of communion with Christ. Thus, being united to him we are just, and in no other way.
LikeLike
It’s a beautifully written excerpt, but it focuses mostly on what Neuhaus will do when he stands before God. Although he states he will plead no merits of his own the entire excerpt is about his one single merit he has earned heaven for all the things he has denied himself from doing.
To be fair, this is only piece of a longer work and is unfair to judge the man on this short excerpt. Only a careful, thorough reading of the work can we make a judgment on his life for which Neuhaus has invited us to do.
In the end all that matters in a man’s life, (women included), is this:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. (14) For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil (Ecc 12:13-14).
LikeLike
>…Interesting that some good folks here are complaining about the lack of monolithic thought-controlled RC sheep, whom they can be sure of believing X,Y, and Z (along with A – W).
Geee…..who could that be? Hmmmmm…..so subtle and nuanced….I may never be able to guess….
I guess I’ll go throw out my Catechism and everything else I’ve studied.
This is more than frustrating. It’s infuriating. You can believe whatever you want about the Eucharist. You can believe whatever you want about Protestant communion. You can believe whatever you want about believing whatever you want.
Is this just an attempt to wind me up and watch me go, or is this seriously the way Catholics view the confessions and laws of their church?
LikeLike
And the intercommunion thing? Got our own President in trouble 🙂
“Back in 1997, Mrs McAleese was accused of breaking Canon Law when she received Communion in the Protestant Christ Church Cathedral in what she saw as a bridge-building gesture against a backdrop of the evolving Northern peace process. However, the then Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Desmond Connell, took a dim view and said it was a “sham” for Catholics to receive communion in a Protestant church.”
In 2001, there was more trouble:
“Archbishop Desmond Connell of Dublin – who will be created a cardinal by Pope John Paul in Rome on Wednesday – has criticised the Church of Ireland for inviting Catholics to take Communion at Protestant services.
Three years ago, the Archbishop spoke out following the decision of President Mary McAleese to receive Communion at a Church of Ireland service. He said that it was a “sham” for Catholics to partake of Communion in a Protestant church.
In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Business Post, the Archbishop said the Church of Ireland knew that the Catholic Church had “a very clear position” on the question of Catholics receiving Communion in non-Catholic churches. “It is all very well [for Anglican ministers] to say that everybody whose conscience permits is welcome to come to Communion, but…that fails to respect the faith and obligations of our members and, consequently, the cause of ecumenism,” he said.
“I do feel bound to say that the cause of ecumenism would be greatly helped if the Catholic Church’s rules for its own members could be respected.”
So it’s still a big no-no 😉
LikeLike
I find it interesting that some of the best and most convincing comments are left by non Catholics.
LikeLike
Interesting that some good folks here are complaining about the lack of monolithic thought-controlled RC sheep, whom they can be sure of believing X,Y, and Z (along with A – W). This implies to me that Catholics really are human too, with free will and individual faith… imagine that. Furthermore it implies that maybe faith is always messy, and few religions can handle that. Every group is only doing what they can do – describe the Gospel as they best see it, and come up with a creed, and catechism, and rules and arguments and …
Like Neuhaus was writing about about, when it comes to salvation, where the rubber meets the road… is Jesus going care about your understanding of the Trinity or Mary or why you think you are saved, or rather your openness to grace and faith working through love?
LikeLike
I am a Reformed Anglican who loves Fr. Neuhaus. The odd thing to me is that he and Cardinal Dulles profess such doubt about their own status with God, and yet believe with Balthasar in wanting to affirm universal salvation. They “hope” that in the end, all will be saved.
LikeLike
Surfnetter, I hate to drop the hammer here, but you’re skating very close to being wrong.
It does matter what you believe – I’m a bit confused here, since I’m not quite sure what your position on the Blessed Sacrament is. Do you believe that it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity, true God and true Man?
If you believe in a ‘not changed’ form of Transubstantiation, that’s a very difficult concept. It’s a Mystery; the formulation that the essence changes but not the accidents is an attempt to approach it, but in the end, how it is done is the work of God and unintelligible to unaided human reason.
I think you may be misunderstanding the ‘it can be determined with scientific equipment that the bread and wine do not change in substance’ part; that’s the ‘the accidents do not change’ element. The way I learned it was, if you looked at the Host under a microscope, it would look like bread. Any scientific test would come back “bread” not “flesh”. That wasn’t the point; we can’t humanly ‘prove’ according to scientific evidence that it has changed.
Yet we are bound to believe that it has changed. It is really, truly, substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, not just bread and wine, not just spiritually present while the rite is ongoing or giving a blessing, but there – actually there.
LikeLike
I didn’t say Catholics couldn’t sit under Jewish teachers or go to Protestant services.
I said they couldn’t take Protestant communion.
And someone needs to tell Catholic Answers that non-annulled divorced Catholics can commune, because they are spending hours telling people otherwise.
My Lutheran friend Josh says Catholicism is the ultimate in “Both A and Non-A are true.” Apparently.
LikeLike
Imonk: In theory, none can — in practice many do — and in reality who cares ….
LikeLike
CATHOLICS: WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL US IF SURFNETTER IS REPRESENTING THE ACTUAL TEACHINGS OF THE RCC?
PLEASE!!
LikeLike
I know plenty of Catholics who go to all different kinds of services and participate completely. There’s no scandal, no threats. I think even priests do this. I’d be very surprised to hear otherwise. We have a non-Christian rabbinical student come to the Shrine of Our Lady of the Island once a month to teach us the Torah. Fr. Roy sits right up front and is its greatest enthusiast.
I betcha our Communion, in practice, is more open then yours ….
LikeLike
I was being quite facetious.
Surfnetter: No Catholic can take communion in a Protestant church.
If what you were saying were the position of the RCC, my whole life would be different.
Catholic Friends: What you’re reading here in my conversation with Surfnetter is what drives some of us to distraction. He sounds like Brian Mclaren.
LikeLike
“I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.”
That’s the one thing that sounds Protestant to my cradle-Catholic ears, but I hasten to add, just in how it’s phrased, not in what it means.
I’d have said “the meritorious sacrifice of Christ on the Cross” but I’d have meant the same thing. I’m mellower as I’m older, so I tend to take the “He may have been a Catholic but it’s still possible he was saved” comments in the spirit in which they were meant, which is anxiety for the salvation of us all and wishing well to all departed human souls, even us Papists.
And, thanks to Julie of “Happy Catholic”, a joke!
“I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.
So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it! There’s so much to live for!â€
He said, “Like what?â€
I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?â€
“Religious.â€
I said, “Me too! Are you Christian or Buddist?â€
“Christian.â€
I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?â€
“Baptist.â€
I said, “Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?â€
“Baptist Church of God.â€
I said, “Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?â€
“Reformed Baptist Church of God.â€
I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?â€
He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915.â€
I said, “Die, heretic scum!†and I pushed him off the bridge.”
LikeLike
I know of no prohibition on that in our Faith, Imonk. Might be something about taking communion, though.
Do you know about the case of Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani? While he was mayor he was married a second time without the benefit of annulment. He was being seen around with his girlfriend after his second wife had him kicked out of Gracie Mansion while the divorce was being finalized. And still it was well known that he was attending Mass and receiving Communion all that time with nobody saying an official word. But when he was a pro choice presidential candidate, then Cardinal Egan spoke up considering excommunication, explaining on national TV that in all but such a highly charged instances the Church considers it an individual matter of conscience.
But I don’t think the Church would interfere in your wife taking communion at your Church even if she was running for president ….
LikeLike
“Apparently my wife can continue communing with me at Protestant services. I can’t wait to tell her.”
Her priest and bishop, not to mention the Holy Father, would tell her something quite different, Protestant open communion notwithstanding.
LikeLike
The book “Death on a Friday Afternoon” does not bear a papal imprimatur. It is based on a meditation preached at the Church of St. John the Evangelist in Manhattan, an Episcopal parish, on Good Friday of 1994. It should be viewed as a personal confession of Fr. Neuhaus.
Neuhaus was ordained a Roman priest in 1991. Arch-conservative Roman Catholics tended to view him as a Lutheran in Roman priest’s garb. He was admired for his ability to fuse Christian thought with conservative Catholic politics and social policy.
Neuhaus’ stated reason for leaving the Lutheran confession in 1990 was that he might obtain “a more ordered ministry.” This is rather typical of Lutheran clergy who leave the ecclesial disorder of their Lutheran churches (espcially as they are in America) for the greater outward order of the Roman papacy or the Orthodox bishops. Somehow they manage to sidestep the central issue of justification by grace alone through faith alone for Christ’s sake alone.
I would not view Fr. Neuhaus as spokesman of Roman Catholic teaching but of catholic (universal) Christian teaching. Lutheran to Neuhaus mean “evangelical catholic.” He wrote more on what we have in common rather than the truly Roman distinctives. This is quite possible for one who is Lutheran at heart, since Luther himself, even as late as 1539, could see the marks of the true catholic church within the papal churches.
LikeLike
Imonk,
I’ve heard that too. How tough must it be to be in the position of having to nuance, paper over and reinterpret what is really pretty forthright and clear,even after long consideration. I think a close reading of the pertinent sections of Trent takes the wind out of the “applies to Martin Luther” only sails. I have no patience for such word games. When push comes to shove, any parish priest who values his ordination vows, is going to exclude the pious non RC spouses of their members, penitent divorcees, and any number of people from the sacraments. They will uphold the decrees of the Church, whether their parishioners agree or not.
LikeLike
What Protestants have to bring to the Communion rite is one of the things that is lacking in Catholicism. We are taught to venerate and adore the consecrated host because it is the real and complete presence of the Crucified Messiah. While I believe that He is present in it at the moment of Consecration, Jesus did not say, “Take this all of you and adore it for an hour, and then eat it.”
There is great benefit in being in the presence of the exposed Blessed Sacrament. [Mod edited] But the emphasis of Our Lord was on the eating and the eater, not on the meal. We Catholics are to be in an attitude of reverence when in the presence of the tabernacle in the sanctuary. But that is just a symbol of the hundreds of real human tabernacles all around us in the pews. Protestants don’t have the problem of transferring that reverence from the symbolic to the real, in this sense at least.
The further away from the tabernacle we get, the less reverent we are. I know this because I raised four children living across our main street from our parish. I used to have to remind our children every Sunday to “watch out for the crazy Catholics” as we walked home from Mass.
LikeLike
Surfnetter: Since you’re promoting Protestantism, you won’t get much disagreement with your statements about Catholicism from me. But I’m real curious about what my Catholic friends have to say, because your statement that only what the individual believes overturns the entire basis of Catholic doctrine imo.
Apparently my wife can continue communing with me at Protestant services. I can’t wait to tell her.
LikeLike
Imonk — they already know ….
LikeLike
I don’t have any hard numbers on this — Is there an expert out there who has any idea how many of those Catholics who come out in droves to wave to the Pope actually read his encyclicals? And of those, how many actually understand what they’ve read?
And thirdly, does any of that have anything to do with anyone’s spirituality …?
LikeLike
And a few million Protestants might agree with you.
But does the Catholic Church agree with you? Or are you speaking as the religion of Surfnetter? Has the RCC signed on for your version of the solas?
Perhaps you could inform my wife’s church that what matters to God isn’t what the church teaches on the Eucharist. That would be great.
LikeLike
What you must understand is what I posted a while ago in another thread: What the men with titles and degrees in their fancy habits are parsing and interpreting in their volumes at the Vatican and elsewhere are the words and dreams and visions of often ordinary people and sometimes very little girls.
The message of this reality is not lost on us modern ordinaries. In Catholicism my experience is my experience. The holiest person in the community might just be the old woman who must support herself by collecting bottles and cans and comes to Mass every week giving what she has left to the collection basket. She just might know more than all of us.
What matters to you might be what’s in the catechism. What matters to God is what is in the the hearts of individual believers. I don’t think that old woman has the slightest clue what is in the catechism or what was decided at the Council of Trent.
LikeLike
My favorite RJN quote, for what is is worth to this post (from a non-Catholic):
“The sovereign God is not obligated to save any, but He desires to save all, and so denies the necessary grace to none, which may be rejected by some, perhaps by many.”
LikeLike
Patrick: My understanding is that the anathemas of Trent might apply to Luther but not to the general Protestant. That’s hard for me to buy, but so I’m told all the time.
LikeLike
My queation is; do the anathemas of Trent still stand? Have they been repudiated? If not, what difference does it make what individual Catholics believe?
LikeLike
>> Surfnetter: “What matters is what the individual catholic believes.”
Five hundred years of history gone with that announcement! Yeah! If only it were true. Sigh.
LikeLike
>….As a Catholic converted from the abject atheism of my parents, it seems to me that it doesn’t much matter what the Magisterium is or what happened at the Council of Trent or what all those initials mean (I could Google all that, but I don’t find it necessary or that interesting). What matters is what the individual Catholic believes.
The more I think about this, the more it frustrates me. I can’t commune with my wife for the rest of my life because she’s joined a religion where it doesn’t “much matter” what the church teaches, but only what the individual Catholic believes?
Surfnetter: I’m sure there are plenty of Catholics who agree with you. They just don’t happen to include anyone who decides how much what you believe matters….like the pope or the bishop. Perhaps some of the divorced and remarried Catholics who can’t commune need to hear that all this stress is unnecessary.
I’m looking in my catechism for that page that says it doesn’t much matter what’s in there. It’s what the individual believes that matters.
That kind of statement really makes it difficult for those of us trying to relate positively to Catholicism. I feel like I need to drive to my wife’s RCIA class and straighten out the teacher before my wife wastes another half a year learning what she has to swear to believe to get to the eucharist.
LikeLike
If Surfnetter’s announcement that the only thing that matters is what the individual Catholic believes doesn’t get some kind of response, I’m going to be permanently entitled to believe that you’re all “in the cafeteria.”
LikeLike
Boethius, I was once a former catholic too. Now I’m a former former catholic. Buying a mass card isn’t like sending money to the praise a thon. It doesn’t buy salvation for anyone. If one ends up needing purification then they are saved already. Praying for such a person is really no different than praying for someone that is still physically alive. It’s a grace that is lost on a lot of modern sects because unfortunately the concept of church and christianity has changed from the body to an individual. A church should pray for it’s members, a family for their relatives and a wife for her husband… and if the problem is merit then it really doesn’t matter if the person is alive or dead in purgatory… because prayer, directed toward any individual is a way of building some form of merit for that person. We pray so that god’s grace can touch that person.
To be fair I too know people that would buy a mass card in more of a bargaining chip manner and know that in catholicism there is a lot of “catholic subculture” that really doesn’t care what the authority of the church has to say. That’s sad, but not really an excuse either.
LikeLike
As a Catholic converted from the abject atheism of my parents, it seems to me that it doesn’t much matter what the Magisterium is or what happened at the Council of Trent or what all those initials mean (I could Google all that, but I don’t find it necessary or that interesting). What matters is what the individual Catholic believes. When I pay for a Mass card to give to a bereaved family at a wake, all I see it as is an offering of special prayers for their deceased love one.
And whether or not God just “mistakes” (imputation) the identity of the sinner for the “favored” son (Jacob and Esau) or “chooses” (infusion) the faithful for intrinsic qualities (Joseph, David, Mary — who was “full of grace” before she even said her “yes”, etc.) is just semantics — it is all grace. We Catholics are “both/and” people, not “either/or”. We embrace mystery, loving the Truth for its paradox.
[MOD edited]
LikeLike
Disclosure: former RC here, born and raised, every sacrament received except for priesthood and last rites (now known as anointing of the sick).
When it comes to RC, it does not matter what any invdividual RC thinks/believes. It is the Magisterium that matters. All my relatives are still RC and they are wonderful people, all with their own interpretations of what the RC’s official teaching is; depending on which Order of nuns taught at their parochial school. The Magisterium determines the doctrine.
I could go to my old parish today and buy a Mass or Masses to be said in the name of my beloved/deceased grandfather in order to procure some merit to get him out of purgatory faster, assuming he is in purgatory. If he is not, then that merit (money, Masses) will be distributed to some other poor soul stuck in purgatory. These purchases happen all the time. The mother of one of my friends spends a lot of money for Masses for her deceased husband.
LikeLike
Doesn’t seem to be too far afield of what the catechism cites from Therese of Lisieux – “In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.” (ccc 2011)
Surfnetter, imputation vs. infusion as the sole formal cause of justification is still a big deal; it has ramifications. Regensburg right before Trent (and all the fallout after Trent) and the reaction to the JDDJ and ECT docs in our day shows it’s not just semantics.
LikeLike
Neuhaus proclaimed nothing other than the Catholic Christian faith as he received it. His pronouncement here is the Faith as understood by the Fathers of Trent, everything flows from Grace, nothing from our own merit. Purely Catholic, though phrased in a way to appeal to Protestant sensibilities to be sure.
LikeLike
Speaking as a cradle Catholic here . . .
Neuhaus’s words echo my own understanding of salvation. It was put far more simply by a member (name long forgotten!) on a Catholic message board many years ago: “It’s all grace.” That’s it, in a nutshell. It’s all grace. Faith is a gift. Charity is a gift. Hope is a gift. All our “works” are a gift. And, regarding “merit,” the current CCC makes it clear that there is no such thing in absolute sense. (I use the scarequotes because of all the contention surrounding words like “works” and “merit”). All we have and do and are is a gift.
All that aside, where I DO see Protestant influence is in Neuhaus’s choice of language. Even the very language of “pleading” seems Protestant to me, in as much as it assumes a kind of Heavenly Court, presided over by a Divine Judge, before whom we have to plead at the end our lives. I don’t think that kind of implicit imagery is how the average Catholic thinks about salvation.
LikeLike
wow! that’s great to read. i’ve known a few catholics who believe pretty much the same thing, one even telling me that he’s staying in the church and going against the grain to make a difference. neat post
LikeLike
Moonshadow — I used the “probably” because I don’t know & haven’t read the book, I’m truly not a Neuhaus fan 🙂
I’m very surprised though, that Neuhaus didn’t get the Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat!
LikeLike
Surfnetter —
I have even heard Catholic theologians teach that classical transubstantiation is no longer a tenet, since it can be determined with scientific equipment that the bread and wine do not change in substance
Who ever claimed that? That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church at all, and it must stem from a deep misconception of what substance and accident are in scholastic Catholic thought (which is of course not exactly what they were in Aristotelian thought, wherein a dead thing like bread could not be said to be a hypostasis or substance — for him it’s just an “artifact”, but I digress).
The short explanation is that true substance need not be physically observable; there is no need to resort to explanation by some other “undetectable essence”. Read Question 75, Article 5 the Summa. Sts. Thomas Aquinas & Augustine agree: “It is evident to sense that all the accidents of the bread and wine remain after the consecration.” In other words, even Sts. Thomas Aquinas (& St. Augustine whom he cites) knew there was no way to physically prove the change to the Body & Blood of our Lord. Use your naked eyes or use an electron microscope, it makes no difference.
Further, any teaching which denies that the bread & wine become the Body & Blood of Our Lord is contrary to the Catechism, see CCC 1375. To claim that anything other than that is the teaching of the Catholic Church is dishonest.
LikeLike
I don’t know if perhaps my response was too long to be posted. To answer your question briefly, Michael, my husband and I are members of a CCCC (http://ccccusa.com/)/UCC congregation (it’s conservative). I’m not a strong denominationalist, though.
LikeLike
I seem to be in the minority here … I used to believe like y’all but it strikes me now as wishful thinking … ‘though I do agree with Alan on this point: the utter humility that we must have before God, that we have no worthiness of our own.
Mack, which Neuhaus book “probably” bears the imprimatur? The one Michael quoted? Here’s the copyright page that would usually include such a signature, nothing.
I’m not familiar with all Neuhaus’s books but, as imprimatur usually go to works of theology these days, I’m hard-pressed to think which of his books qualify, fit that genre anymore.
Peace.
LikeLike
Sounds like he was “apologizing” to Protestant minded listeners. From what I hear, much of the differences in the two branches of Christendom have been reconciled. Isn’t it true that Luther’s list is all but moot? What’s left — Mary, the Saints and the Pope? I have even heard Catholic theologians teach that classical transubstantiation is no longer a tenet, since it can be determined with scientific equipment that the bread and wine do not change in substance — that it’s undetectable essence is changed so that it becomes the substance of our Crucified Lord in the hearts of the faithful communicants. What’s left to argue with there but a crumb, my perennially protesting Protestant brethren?
LikeLike
Cindy where do you worship?
LikeLike
Wow, Cindy. That was wonderful. Thanks!
LikeLike
There is, of course, nothing in what he said that is contrary to Catholic teaching.
From St. Augustine and the CCC:
“You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.”
And the great truth of which he speaks is, of course, that the beginning and end of our justification is the grace of Christ. It would be wonderful if, as a last gift to us, Fr. Neuhaus’ words enabled Catholics and Protestants to understand each other a little better. He was indeed a great man. Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and may light perpetual shine upon him.
LikeLike
Will those diabolical Catholics stop at nothing? Even now they come here trying to fool us into thinking they believe the gospel, by deceptively affirming it, hoping to lull us into their confidence. Don’t fall for it – they’ll lure you into the fire just like they did Hus!. They can’t fool us for a minute – they may SAY they believe the gospel, but we know their hearts.
(tongue-in-cheek)
LikeLike
I’m not Catholic. I’m a Protestant (from a long line of same), raised in the Boston area. At least half of my family, all of my in-laws, and almost all of my friends are Roman Catholic. That is what the church teaches.
If Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself are the sum of the law and the prophets, then I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ is a fair summary of the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and all its teachings (and of course, those of Baptists, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc.).
The RCC uses different language than much of evangelicalism to express the faith, but that is the sum total of what the church teaches. The RCC uses different methods to pass on the faith, but it’s the same faith.
To other IM Protestant readers: have you ever been to a Roman Catholic wedding mass, funeral mass, or Christening? If so, perhaps like me, you’ve been struck by how beautifully the RC Church does ceremony. They’re masters at it, and this carries into all their Christian instruction. Rather than having a moment of conversion, it is a journey — baptism, confession, first communion, confirmation. The RC child who believes what he’s doing when he takes these steps is a Christian as sure as my children who asked about eternal life and prayed for Jesus to come into their hearts, and were baptised by their own choice.
The RCC did not divorce itself from early church traditions in wake of the Great Schism, or the Protestant Reformation. The RCC presents the faith differently, but it’s the same faith, and here’s how we know — by the creeds it professes. Its praxis varies, and there are elements that seem (to me and to many Prots) extraneous, but the guts are the same.
No place in the Bible does it say we have to pray the Sinners’ prayer, or ask Jesus into our hearts. It says we must believe and be baptised. Many of us (Protestants) think of putting our faith in our Lord Jesus Christ as a moment of decision. My most faithful, most Roman Catholic friends look at it as…life.
My pet theory is that is because the New Testament mainly features the conversions of Jews and Pagans, the modern (or pomo) church (and Church) does not have a clear picture of how children of the original converts were reared in (and into) the faith — how they “came” to faith (I’ve thought of this a lot because of the issue of paedo-baptism). Sure there are those like Timothy, whom we know were raised by believers, but we don’t see how the second generation “came” to believe. We don’t have canonical reports of second, third, fourth, etc. generation Christians coming to faith. Looking at pre-Christ Judaism is probably one of our best clues, and we know from Scripture that people were born into it and reared in it — steeped in it. There wasn’t this moment of decision for those born Jews. There was a life-long journey.
I Corinthians 12:3 tells us, “Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus be cursed’, and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord’, except by the Holy Spirit.” The RCC proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Shame on us (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) who when because of our differences, fail to recognize that we have that which matters most is our common bond.
In the end, as usual, except for the Bible, I think C.S. Lewis says it best.
So far as I can judge from reviews and from the numerous letters written to me, the book, however faulty in other respects, did at least
succeed in presenting an agreed, or common, or central, or “mere”
Christianity. In that way it may possibly be of some help in silencing the view that, if we omit the disputed points, we shall have left only a vague
and bloodless H.C.F. The H.C.F. turns out to be something not only positive
but pungent; divided from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all. [bolding mine]
If I have not directly helped the cause of reunion, I have perhaps made it clear why we ought to be reunited. Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any communion. This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each
there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all
differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.
[From Mere Christianity, preface]
Peace to you Michael, and to your lovely Catholic wife. Together, may you minister to our poor, divided body.
LikeLike
It seems right on to me. I think a lot of misunderstanding surrounds the word “merits.” The fact that the Church teaches us that any merit of any Saint or any of us, the Blessed Virgin or whomever, is all because of the Grace of God through and in Christ – that it’s all HIM – Christ in us – this gets lost in the mix. Fr. Neuhaus’s statement spoke this clearly though. He also talked about the utter humility that we must have before God, that we have no worthiness of our own to hold up to Him. We haven’t been tricked. The heart of the Gospel is in the Catholic Church – not meaning “only” – more like, in this context, “too.”
LikeLike
I see it as right on with what the church teaches. My take is that because catholicism is sacramental it is often viewed as works oriented and so faith goes right out the door. It’s like receiving a gift and then being accused of earning the gift because we opened it up to see what was inside.
LikeLike
We’ll miss you, Father Neuhaus.
LikeLike
Also, for those not in the know, here’s a handy guide to the Imprimi Potest, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.
LikeLike
I think Fr. Neuhaus’s conversion was ecclesial, not theological. McCain’s tribute sounded to me so similar in tone to Fr. Neuhaus as to comfirm my suspicion that Fr. Neuhaus remained, in many ways, LCMS. I think few people can quite shake the faith formation of their early years, whatever it was and whatever they try. “Can take the Catholic out of the Church but can’t take the Church out of the Catholic” – that sort of thing.
In a 2006 interview on The World Over with Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Neuhaus expressed his appreciation in finding an “evangelizing zeal” in the Catholic Church. IOW, Neuhaus seemed to be in love with some private image of an ideal Catholic Church, maybe he even created such an ideal communion around himself, but it had little points of intersection with the Catholic Church that most of us experience.
Merit still has a place in Catholic theology. Sproul understands and explains the belief well. And, yes, for the record, I believe Catholic theology, including merit, to be biblical. From what you quoted above, it doesn’t seem as if Neuhaus believed this.
Peace.
LikeLike
I am not Catholic but I do a fair amount of reading Catholic writers and his statement seems consistent with what I have read. I really love the statement “I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own.” From what I have seen, Protestants today rely upon the Reformers for their information about the Catholic church. I don’t want to comment on whether it is a change in the RCC or change in the times or what, but the faith of the RCC today is very similar to the Protestant when it comes to the work of Jesus, faith and works. If anything, like Neuhaus, the RCC is even more radical in their reliance upon the work of Jesus for salvation versus faith in Jesus.
LikeLike
Neuhaus’s quote is absolutely accurate as far as I can tell.
His book also probably has an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat so you can trust what he says to be free of error according to the Church.
LikeLike
I was taught that, both in Parochial school and by my parents.
LikeLike