Catholics and Closed Communion

My wife teaches 3rd grade at a Catholic School. She has enjoyed working in that environment and has utmost respect for the system and the Church, but as a Protestant she is barred from taking Communion, even though most of her students receive it. She doesn't question it (well she does, but she accepts that these are the rules), and she's willing to abide by them.
But the Roman Catholic position, which is rooted in its theology, is troubling to me. I grant them the right, as I grant every church the right, to determine its theology and practice. But the Pope's recent declaration of support for restrictions not only of refusing non-Catholics communion but of insisting that Catholics not go to the Protestant tables is a step backward, in my mind, from seeking unity. It also commands the exclusion of the divorced and the remarried from the Table. This is taken from the UCC Blog of Chuck Currie:

Quoting from "Sacramentum Caritatis", the Pope confirmed "the Church's practice, based on sacred scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church, signified and made present in the Eucharist."

I'm sorry but I fail to see the love in this. I also don't see Jesus' own table practice present in this policy. But that's me.
All of this is part of a document released yesterday entitled: "Sacramentum Caritatis." It also revives the Latin Mass, which had been effectively ruled out of order after Vatican II. Again, they are entitled to do as they wish, but isn't this really another step backward?
Benedict seems to be in a position of retrenchment. The question is, how long will this be able to sustain itself?

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm going to try posting about this document soon, probably early next week. Just a few comments now, though.

First, while I totally agree about how wrong their policy is on communion generally and specifically regarding divorced people, this isn't really retrenchment. On many issues, Benedict is actually extraordinarily moderate, and he has angered a lot of people who didn't understand his theology and thought he was a reactionary conservative. The clamp-down on divorced people has always been pretty severe, even in the US, and a not-insubstantial number of Independent Catholics joined the Independent movement because of this. (Not me, of course. :-)

Second, Sacramentum Caritatis did not revive the Latin Mass, nor was the Latin Mass abolished by Vatican II. Vatican II opened up the possibility of vernacular Masses, but the Latin Mass was still officially normative and should be the primary form of the Mass in all communities. That the vernacular Mass became the norm is a radical departure from the spirit of Vatican II. (A good departure in my book, but definitely a departure. :-)

So this document just reiterates what is already supposedly the case. It's pretty thin beer, though -- the Vatican is not going to force any churches into compliance on this, and even officially there is quite a bit of freedom for vernacular Masses.

There is another issue, though. The current Mass can (and officially, should) be celebrated in Latin. But this is not the issue for many people. The issue is the so-called Pius V (or Tridentine or pre-conciliar) Mass vs. the Novus Ordo (or Paul VI) Mass. After VII, the Church made radical changes to the language of the Mass (changes which, for all my liberalism, I actually find very, very bad). Lots of traditionalists want the right to celebrate the Mass using the 1962 Missal. Currently all bishops (since the late 80s) have the right to authorize priests to celebrate this Mass, but priests can't publicly celebrate it without that authorization from their ordinary. The Motu Proprio that is supposedly coming soon will apparently universally authorize the 1962 missal.

Another issue that wasn't addressed in this document but I wish would have been was celebration facing East. I wrote here among other places why I think ad orientem worship should still be the norm (though other postures should not be forbidden). Ratzinger agrees that it should be, but has been unwilling to be pushy on this (or really any traditionalist issues).

The situation in the Roman church, and Catholicism in general, is quite a bit more complex than the media portrays it. And although I respect Chuck immensely, he doesn't really understand Catholicism either, so I wouldn't take his word when it comes to Vatican documents. :-)
Anonymous said…
Oh, one clarification on my comment. What I meant was that Benedict has disappointed a lot of conservatives in the Roman church. They all thought he was going to be a rottweiler, and he has actually been very pastoral on a lot of issues. And despite the Vatican's strong statements about gay marriage and such, the bishops he has appointed have actually been very pastoral, too, seeking compromises that give civil unions to all couples for legal reasons instead of banning them outright for gays. It's not great, but he has been moving the church in a far more moderate direction than John Paul II, who was never really seen for the stone-age conservative he was.
roy said…
Bob,

interesting what different folk pick out of a document. Another friend, Fernado Gros, in his blog at http://fernandogros.com/?p=858 pulls out a section that is very positive in speaking of the ties between caring for creation and observing the eucharist.
Robert Cornwall said…
Chris and Roy,

Thanks for the clarifications and expansions you've made. I'll admit not to have read the document, but taking my cue from Chuck, I focused on what for me is a central issue. The Disciples practice weekly communion. It is the center of our worship, at least in theory. Ours is a more memorialistic than realistic feast, and so we don't have the issue of real presence to worry about -- at least not in the Catholic sense of Transubstantiation.

For me it is Jesus's own practice that defines my practice. His was an open table, which suggests to me the need for an open table. To say that we are all Christians and yet refuse to eat together (and the Catholics aren't alone in this) seems out of character with Jesus' call to remember him at the table.
Anonymous said…
Just to clarify, the Roman Catholics have that practice. Most Independent Catholics and many Old Catholics practice open communion. My parish -- I believe every parish under my bishop's jurisdiction -- has an open Table. All who discern the Body are welcome.
Joseph Fromm said…
The importance of the Communion can be found in the quotes of the Church Fathers. I invite you and your wife to be received in to the Catholic Church, so that you maybe united in John chapter 6.


"The Early Church Fathers
I Never Saw"


“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80

"You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107

"The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things 'just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the Tradition is one and the same."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, 10, 2, c. AD 190

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, AD 107

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66, A.D. 151

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved…Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80

“Ignatius…to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110

"It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times…But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’…On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 1st edition, A.D. 251

“(T)hey have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” And the vessel of divine election himself said: “If ye have forgiven anything to any one, I forgive also, for what I have forgiven I have done it for your sakes in the person of Christ.”
St. Ambrose of Milan, On Penance, Book One, Ch. VII, v. 33, c. A.D. 390.

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 3.2, ca. A.D. 110

“There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.”
St. Augustine, Treatise On Baptism Against the Donatists, Bk 5, Ch. 1, A.D. 400

Popular Posts