Anglican/Catholic Endings

Reading with some lament the abandonment of shared Sunday worship at Holy Apostles in Virginia Beach. The description of two separate altars, one each for Catholics and Anglicans strikes me as somewhat cringe-worthy. But it’s been a liturgical practice there for thirty-four years and hasn’t yet emptied the pews.

It reminds me of the situation my late brother found himself in many years ago. In California, he was a “high-church” Lutheran, and once found himself at a Catholic wake of a friend. The priest didn’t show up to lead the rosary, and my sister-in-law reported that after a brief check-in among those present, my brother drew upon his experience and offered his leadership services to the gathered Catholics.

A bishop is morally and theologically obligated to work for Christian unity. If indeed the time has come to end the Holy Apostles Sunday experiment, it is incumbent upon the bishops involved to forward other substantive ideas.

 

One Easter, Not Two

Vatican Insider reports that Holy Land Catholics will join their Orthodox sisters and brothers in observing Easter on 5 May 2013.

Is the Catholic/Orthodox separation on Easter a big deal? About half the time the dates are separated by a week. One-fourth of the time, as in 2013, it’s about a month. Otherwise we’re aligned 25% of the time. How did things get out of whack on such a basic Christian thing?

The difference between the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582, and how Easter is placed as the Sunday after the first full moon of Spring.

Why now and not earlier? Who knows? Vatican II endorsed the idea of a single celebration of Easter across Christendom. The last bishops’ synod endorsed the idea, repeatedly. Obviously, we’d need to get all of the Reformation Churches with the program, too. A lot of them took a century or two to adopt Pope Gregory XIII’s initiative. Britain and its colonies came aboard in 1752. Here’s a good trivia question: which was the last US state to align with the other states in the Gregorian reform? Hint: it was before its own statehood.

Here is the 2010 USCCB statement on a shared Easter.

Hopefully this development will cut down on fistfights and other unseemly behavior.

 

 

 

 

Sunday Masses for Various Needs and Occasions

The third edition of the Roman Missal includes a host of “Masses for Various Needs and Occasions.” Forty-nine in all. In doing research on the Roman Antiphonary and on our running topic of evangelization, I uncovered an interesting fact. Four of these Masses are permitted on Sunday. The anniversaries of a pope (election) or bishop (ordination), Christian unity, and evangelization.

Even in ordinary time, I’m deeply reticent about switching out Masses and their readings, even when the minimal option of reading number two is presented. That said, it’s rather heartening to see Christian unity and evangelization so well regarded that they are functionally on the level of a solemnity.

Also those anniversaries of a bishop and pope. Has any reader ever celebrated these on a Sunday? Or even on a weekday? Cathedral parish when the bishop is present, or even when he is not?

And Christian unity may be celebrated on a Sunday. Christian unity week falls predictably every January. It would seem a strong recommendation to observe it on a weekday–there I would be far less squeamish about substituting out an ordinary time weekday or even a memorial.

The rubrics are as follows:

2. FOR THE POPE, Especially on the Anniversary of Election

This Mass is said on the anniversary of the election of the Pope in places wherever special celebrations are held, provided they do not occur on a Sunday of Advent, Lent or Easter, on a Solemnity, on Ash Wednesday, or on a weekday of Holy Week.

3. FOR THE BISHOP, Especially on the Anniversary of Ordination

This Mass is said on the anniversary of the Ordination of the Bishop wherever special celebrations are held, provided they do not occur on a Sunday of Advent, Lent or Easter, on a Solemnity, on Ash Wednesday, or on a weekday of Holy Week.

17. FOR THE UNITY OF CHRISTIANS

This Mass may be used whenever there are special celebrations for the unity of Christians, provided it does not occur on a Sunday of Advent, Lent or Easter, or on any Solemnity.

18. FOR THE EVANGELIZATION OF PEOPLES

This Mass may be used even on Sundays of Ordinary Time, whenever there are special celebrations for the work of the missions, provided it does not occur on a Sunday of Advent, Lent or Easter, or on any Solemnity.

Only evangelization includes that clause, “This Mass may be used even on Sundays of Ordinary Time.” That inclusion is especially striking to me. The rubrics for Masses numbers 2, 3, and 17 say pretty much the same thing, but aren’t as explicit about the substitution. Why is that so? Evangelization is clearly a “need” that seems to recommend even more strongly a special occasion, a special Mass. When do you suppose this option should be utilized for a Sunday? The annual missionary speaker? This fall’s occasion of the synod on new evangelization? Some dedicated parish observance?

 

Pope Benedict, Stalker?

I like the UCANews site for its coverage of Catholic matters across the continent of Asia. Their commentary is often thoughtful and occasionally tart, like this essay by Fr William Grimm, who suggests that schismatic Catholics aren’t the only ones in need of “pastoral solicitude.”

Obsessively pressing one’s attentions on a person who does not want them is called stalking. In many places and cases, it is a criminal offense.

Archbishop Di Nioa’s appointment even after the latest rejection of the pope’s repeatedly rejected and repeatedly renewed approaches to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) certainly looks like stalking of the SSPX by the Vatican.

By now it should be clear that despite concessions on the liturgy, offers to play down aspects of Vatican II and repeated attempts at wooing in spite of being spurned, the SSPX and the ultra-traditionalists they represent are just not interested in a relationship with the Vatican and will not be until Rome comes to them in abject and total surrender.

I think that’s about the measure of it. Bishop Fellay and company believe they are the one true church, and the whole world of Christendom has fallen away. We are the leaves, they are the trunk, and winter is here. It’s worth discussing what Fr Grimm is suggesting, because it’s not really so different from what the SSPX is demanding. And while most of the rest of us “leafy” Catholics aren’t going to go into schism over it, we’re still on the Barque of Peter, aren’t we?

Four final points from Fr Grimm:

• (A) referendum on the translations that have recently been imposed throughout the world, often to the consternation of clergy and laity alike.
• The Vatican should really listen to the voices of those whose concerns and ways of living their faith arise out of their encounters with the modern world, especially those outside of a European ambit.
• Rome must admit that the old ways so beloved by many traditionalists failed in the face of a changing world and our leaders must be humble enough to learn from places where the Church is growing in Africa, Asia and the Americas.
• (S)imply express some gratitude and admiration to all those Christians who in spite of scandals, confusion and a sense of being ignored and abused continue to engage in the journey of faith as part of the Catholic Church?

Holding that referendum would be a huge loss of face for ICEL and Vox Clara. It’s easier to blame the stupidity and limited vocabulary of the laity. I don’t see it happening. It would require a change in pope and the liturgical heads in the curia.

Points two and three should be obvious. Fr Grimm is generous about “European ambit.” The Vatican is still stuck in a pre-1790 monarchical European ambit. It’s likely a miracle that two centuries-plus of disconnect from the ordinary laity haven’t caused more of a hemorrhage from the faith. They could take a clue from the democratic substrate in the states: a lack of governing aristocracy, minimal corruption–a seemingly ripe climate for religion, and particularly Catholicism.

As for point four, the bishops are too busy calling people stupid to get a clue on that one. But they should know that many of us have taken the high road instead of the traditionalist one. We’re staying Catholics no matter how dense the leadership is.

 

Thumping Trustees, Not Bibles

By now, I should be used to stories like this. The deletion of free Bibles from public schools, and the almost-required Christian bile hurled in the way of those-who-dare-to-question.

If my daughter had attended a public school in fifth grade, I would have been opposed to her receiving a Protestant KJV too. While most small Gideon Bibles only contain a New Testament, plus Psalms and Proverbs (I have two or three in the house and my church office), even their full version omits what I could consider important items: Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, and a few others. I wouldn’t expect an evangelical Christian group to provide Catholic bibles to Catholic students, and on the same wavelength, I can see how non-Christians would insist their eleven-year-olds not be subject to even the subtlest pressure on the religion front in the setting of their peers.

When I worked in a small Iowa town a decade ago, a similar discussion came up with high-school athletes having organized prayer led by adults. One of my parishioners, a woman who worked for the school, was curious about my objection to this. Among the Christians on the team, I wondered openly, would different students be free or even willing to bring prayers from their respective Christian traditions, to these meetings? What do you mean, she asked. Would Protestant adults permit and welcome a Catholic athlete suggesting they pray the Rosary? The thoughtful silence told me all I needed to know.

Gideons International in Canada seems prepared to accept and end to the free offer. Spokesman Kelvin Warkentin:

Over time, due to the religious fabric of our country being re-woven, school boards have begun to re-evaluate their policies on this tradition. The Gideons’ response to the school boards’ decisions to discontinue the distributions has always been complete acceptance.

Evangelization is not easy. Even the Protestants would acknowledge you need a lot more than a free Bible dropped into a non-believer’s lap. There is no substitute for one-on-one ministry to another person. The threats levied at the Bluewater District School Board tell you all you need to know about this flawed expression of Christianity and the clumsy sense of entitlement some Christians insist on clutching at. Time to get to work, if you really believe what you preach.

 

Intercommunion Aftermath

The Anchoress muses on the incident of a Presbyterian minister taking a leadership role with a priest at a Catholic Mass.

I think Ms Scalia sidesteps the real matter: union with Rome. She and some of her commenters wonder about the state of grace of Rev Steve Whitney, or assume because he is a non-Catholic, he does not share our understanding of the Eucharist. Clearly, many self-styled orthodox Catholics need a deeper understanding of the real problems of ecumenism.

The offending priest has been suspended from duty, has issued an apology, and it seems a few Catholics believe enough is enough:

Some of us in the Catholic community may have the desire to metaphorically pump our fists, maybe a few will even have the urge to do this literally. While I’m pleased Bishop Brown took swift and decisive action to correct this situation, I have a heavy heart. Fr. Agustin made a terrible mistake, but I do not believe he is a terrible person or a terrible priest. He needs our prayers, our understanding, and most importantly he needs our forgiveness.

Some Catholics are still looking for a scalp on this. For them, the notion of scandal doesn’t really apply. It’s more about finding something to get angry about, churn up the bile, and round up a lynch mob.

Christians do important things aside from Sunday worship. I’m not sure why more churches don’t do more in areas outside of worship. At our parish, one of our students frequently organizes dialogue meetings: Catholic/Lutheran, Catholic/Mormon, Catholic/Muslim, etc.. He’s worked harder for ecumenism and understanding than anyone I know, including the pope. More Christians could be doing more along these lines. That would be a better avenue for Fr Escobar to explore with his colleague: dialogue, service, non-sacramental prayer, and study. We all realize that intercommunion is beyond most all of us at this time. We should be appropriately sorry for that, pray for its resolution, and cultivate a proper and public contrition. Then labor in the areas we can work in.

A good thing Bishop Brown can do is put the priest in charge of ecumenical affairs in his diocese. Tell him to study up on ecclesiology, too.

 

Ecumenical Consultation: Choose Bishops Locally

More on that Catholic-Orthodox consultation, especially a juicy point that would be a good step in sending CitE* to a happy retirement:

In harmony with the Pope’s universal ecumenical ministry, the Roman curia’s relationship to local bishops and episcopal conferences in the Latin Church would become less centralized:  bishops, for instance, would have more control over the agenda and the final documents of synods, and the selection of bishops would again normally become a local process.

I wonder how this development will fly in orthodox Catholic circles. It’s buried deep in the document, but the Catholic Culture web site put point 7d under its headline.

* Careerism in the Episcopacy

 

Toward a Common East-West Easter

The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation endorses a common date for Easter:

In 2010, Eastern and Western Church Calendars coincided so that all Christians celebrated the Feast of the Resurrection on the same day.  The dates for the Holy Day will coincide again in 2011, but will vary again after that.  As we remember the joys of a common date this year, we look forward to the entire Christian world proclaiming the joy of the Resurrection together again next year.  We are convinced that the time is at hand for a permanent resolution of this issue.

This would be a profoundly easy step to take. And to take it within the next few months, that would certainly be a welcome sign, especially to those discouraged by Roman footdragging under the last two pontificates.

The consultation suggests this scientific approach:

The key today to resolving the issue in accordance with the mandate of Nicaea is to determine the Equinox from the meridian of Jerusalem (Longitude 35° 13’47.1) using the most accurate scientific instruments and astronomical data available.  This will resolve the conflict in our liturgical observance by aligning existing Church calendars to the Nicene formula– not just the calendar from one set of Churches, but from both Eastern and Western traditions.

The full document is up on the USCCB site.

 

 

A Modest Proposal for Intercommunion

May a non-Catholic receive Communion at a Catholic Eucharist? The relevant reference from canon law gives the legal basis for no intercommunion:

Can.  844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.

844 §2 gives the conditions under which a Catholic may receive the Eucharist from a non-Catholic minister and isn’t immediately germane to the point of my post.

Eastern Christians are given a favored status, mainly because we acknowledge their sacraments as wholly valid:

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

And for most Anglicans and Protestants, the bar is higher:

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Why am I posting on this? I’ve been following the thread on PrayTell on Cardinal Kasper’s regrets about a lack of deeper intercommunion among Christians. Regret is an appropriate response. The striving for greater unity among Christians was one of four key reasons to call the Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium 1) and is part of the Church’s mandate to its own believers. Prayers for unity and concrete actions in our spiritual lives and in our dealings with non-Catholics are not optional. They are required of us, not unlike Sunday obligations, not unlike following the Commandments, or otherwise living virtuously.

I confess I don’t always see in some Catholics the outward attitude of contrition for Christian divisions and the willingness to pray (let alone work) for unity. And some might protest that they’re on the right side already, that strikes me as an empty sentimentality, especially in the face of the Gospel witness (Matthew 5:23-24, where the “brother” has something against us). And overall, there’s that Catholic laziness–a sense of entitlement that we should have all the people, but we shouldn’t have to lift a finger to get them in the door.

I was particularly struck by the example of a non-Catholic married to a Catholic–a sacramental marriage by any definition. Sacramental marriage is the basis for the Domestic Church, not political unity, and not even theological congruence. Perhaps we have arrived at a time in which the Domestic Church needs to be bolstered in some significant ways. Pope Benedict’s “laboratory of unity” deserves a bit more, wouldn’t you think? Two people in a marriage encounter Christ in a special way, and make that presence manifest through God’s grace in any number of ways, both in society as well as in the Church.

I would encourage non-Catholic spouses who, in the words of canon law, “manifest Catholic faith in respect to (the) sacraments and are properly disposed” might consider their situation sufficiently grave (read: important, serious, worthy of respect and support) to approach their bishop and pastor and ask for a fuller participation in the Catholic sacramental life.

Bishops all over have been equating same-sex union initiatives with an attack on marriage. Two things suggest to me this is empty politicking–and better left in the hands of the laity. First, that bishops haven’t insisted that the laws of the land reflect Church teaching on sexual activity outside of traditional marriage. Clearly, it is wrong, and therefore why are they satisfied to stop at legal arrangements? Bishops, were they to take their logic to its full conclusion, should be advocating for the criminalization of sexual acts outside of marriage. Shouldn’t they? Why all the timidity about visiting a sick partner and getting someone on one’s insurance. (Oh, wait–those are actually virtues, aren’t they?)

And second, that bishops offer very little in terms of actual support to married couples. At least not much that hasn’t been on their predecessor’s to-do list. Apostolic succession is a wonderful tradition, but it would be nice if the deposit of faith was used for something more than a comfortable resting place.

My serious response to the bishops is to do something positive and constructive for marriage: announce that non-Catholic spouses who “manifest Catholic faith in respect to (the) sacraments and are properly disposed” may individually ask to join spouse and children at the Eucharistic altar. I would think local pastors could handle these requests. But the bishops should all get behind it. It’s appropriate. It’s traditional. It’s in keeping with the significance of the sacramental system. And it’s time for a leadership gesture that actually supports the laity in an important and significant area of spirituality, virtue, and culture. And let’s face it: the hermeneutic of obstruction has been making too many gains recently. It’s time to slap some of that back.

 

In India, Practical Ecumenism

This news item from India: Catholics and Orthodox agree to cooperate practically on church buildings, cemeteries, and clergy for Sunday and funeral Masses.

Father Paul Thelakat, spokesperson of the Syro-Malabar Church, says unity among the Churches is the need of the hour and local Churches should have more autonomy.

“There has to be more decentralization in the Church. What divides us is the question of power,” he said.

Kerala Catholics’ link with the Orthodox Churches is stronger than their relations with Protestants, Father Thelakat said. He said he was praying for these Churches’ union. “We alone can make that unity,” he said.

I’m not aware of a long-term precedent in Catholic-Orthodox relations, but I would bow to the knowledge of Henry, Neil, or others reading. Using the same churches and cemeteries, that’s a pretty easy adaptation. But practically, what does this mean for clergy trained in one rite being available for leading prayer in another? I’m assuming Indian Orthodox churches with their long pedigree on the subcontinent, use local languages. Catholics would too, since Vatican II. Do you suppose clergy will cross-train with workshops? Or is it as simple as “say the black; do the red” in the missal in which one finds oneself?

 

Simul Iustus et Peccator: Should it Divide Us?

(This is Neil) A few days ago, while marking the signing of the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1999, the Pope said, “This anniversary… is an occasion to recall the truth about man’s justification, testified together, to come together in ecumenical celebrations and to reflect further on this and other topics that are the object of the ecumenical dialogue.” Well, then, let’s do just that. (This post can be read together with my short post about the unlikely possibility of a supposed “fundamental difference” between Catholics and Lutherans.)

In this post, I’d like to discuss a helpful article, written by Vitalis Mshanga, that asks whether the Lutheran teaching that the justified person is simultaneously righteous and a sinner (simul iustus et peccator) should be church dividing. The article, in the current Australian E-Journal of Theology, can be found here [PDF].

Luther claimed that the theological origin of the claim that the believer is both righteous and a sinner was Augustine. For Augustine, the root of all sins is found in concupiscence, which he says is “perversity and lack of order, that is, turning away from the Creator who is more excellent, and a turning to creatures which are inferior to him.” Through baptism, we are cleansed from original sin, but concupiscence remains, not being in itself a sin. For Luther, sin does remain after baptism, even if its power and much of its substance are taken away – it is a “ruled sin.” This difference about baptism and sin, as we will see, will prove to be significant.

The point of the simul, for Luther, is that we are still in need of daily forgiveness. We are righteous, but still the old Adam. Luther compares the situation of the justified to a man who is sick, but has been promised a cure from his doctor, and is living as though he will soon be recovered.  “He is sick in fact but he is well because of the sure promise of the doctor, whom he trusts and who has reckoned him as already cured, because he is sure that he will cure him.” Here Mshanga points us to Ted Dorman’s claim that the early Luther saw saving faith as looking backward to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for our sins, but also looking forward to a more complete future healing – “the forward look of banking one’s hope on God’s promises of ultimate deliverance from the presence of sin (full health!), as well as the penalty of sin.” Thus, we live “in fact,” but also “in hope.” We are now only partly righteous, “in heaven” with Christ, and partly still in the flesh.

But we can make sense of the simul another way. Mshanga also introduces a distinction between “substance ontology” and “relational ontology.” “Substance ontology” sees the identity of a being in terms of its own properties. As you might expect, “relational ontology” sees the identity of a being in terms of its relationship with one or more other beings. In terms of “substance ontology” – that is, in terms of just himself or herself, the believer is a sinner. But, when defined in terms of his or her relationship to Christ, the believer is “righteous.” Thus, as Luther says, the believer is righteous “through the forgiveness of sins, that is, though the judgment of God who accepts him as righteous for Christ’s sake,” but he is a sinner “in himself, that is, as he now exists as a human being.” Thus, we are now both totally righteous and totally sinners.

So, we can see that, even if we ultimately feel that we can’t fully embrace Luther’s teaching, we can grasp it. It is intelligible.

What has happened in ecumenical discussions? Both Catholics and Lutherans have agreed that justification is God’s work and is not a legal fiction: God forgives sins and make us righteous. But remember the difference between Augustine and Luther. Catholics want to say that in baptism, all sin, all the effects of sin, and all guilt are cleansed from us. Only concupiscence remains, and because of this we must ask for forgiveness. Catholics do not want to call concupiscence sin – the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification: “This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin ….” For Catholics, one does not have to consent to concupiscence; concupiscence is merely “incentive” to sin. But Lutherans want to call it sin, even if it is a peccatum regnatum, or a weak sin that can be “ruled over” (see here.)

The Joint Declaration did not come to a consensus about whether concupiscence is sin or merely an inclination to sin, although it was agreed that:

[The justified] are continuously exposed to the power of sin still pressing its attacks (cf. Rom 6:12-14) and are not exempt from a lifelong struggle against the contradiction to God within the selfish desires of the old Adam (cf. Gal 5:16; Rom 7:7-10). The justified also must ask God daily for forgiveness as in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt. 6:12; 1 Jn 1:9), are ever again called to conversion and penance, and are ever again granted forgiveness.

So, regarding the simul itself, are we at an impasse?

Not necessarily. First, we can ask whether the Lutheran and Catholic conceptions are really so far apart. Theodor Schneider and Gunther Wenz have asked, “[H]ow great is the difference between a conception in which the concupiscence present in the baptized is really sin, but does not separate one from Christ, so long as one does not let sin rule, and a conception in which concupiscence, because it does not separate the baptized from Christ, is only a tendency to sin and only becomes sin, i.e., only separates from Christ, when one consents to it?” If the views are relatively close, should Catholic and Lutherans regard one another as meriting condemnation based on their differences on the simul?

Well, it should be noted here that the official “Response of the Catholic Church” to the Joint Declaration claimed that the two conceptions were far apart – that the formula “at the same time righteous and sinner” was “not acceptable” because it “does not in fact seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior of man of which the council of Trent speaks.” Thus, the official “Response” claimed that it was very hard to see how the doctrine of simul iustus et peccator was “not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification.” (See the “Official Response” here [PDF].)

Given that any perceived similarity between the Lutheran and Catholic conception has not impressed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, are we at an impasse?

Again, not necessarily. The Catholic Church does teach a certain simul. In Lumen Gentium, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council maintained that the Church “containing sinners in its own bosom, is at one and the same time (simul) holy and always in need of purification and it pursues unceasingly penance and renewal.” In Unitatis Redintegratio, the Council fathers said, “this people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.” Thus, as Mshanga writes, it is presented as a clear fact that “after baptism, believers continue to sin.” The church is a church of sinners to the point where Pope John Paul II could even speak of “the Church, living, holy, and sinful” at a prayer vigil.

Thus, Catholic and Lutherans agree that the justified are forgiven, renewed, and sanctified; that there is a propensity to sin in the justified; and the justified must struggle with this propensity through life. Lutherans claim that human beings are always sinful. Catholics claim that human beings (save for Mary) are potential sinners, although this potential has apparently always been actualized. Thus, in reality, Lutherans and Catholics agree that all believers are sinners.

The question, then, is whether disagreement about concupiscence should be regarded as a stumbling block to church unity? Or can this disagreement be seen as a mere matter of theological opinion? (I don’t see that it has to be church-dividing.)

What do you think?

 

Ecumenism, Gestures, Sex, and Peter

Even before a single Anglican emerged dripping, shivering, and towelling dry from the Tiber, there was lots of cheering, jeering, and whatnot on the forthcoming apostolic constitution on absorbing Anglicans into the Roman West. The matter doesn’t interest me deeply. Back in the gool ol’ 70′s, we had an Anglican teaching high school history. He was asked about his reception of Communion at school Masses, and I recall he said something along the lines of Roman Catholics believing in the Real Presence at their Mass, and therefore it was no problem for him.

I had a college friend who, though American, insisted she was Anglican and not Episcopalian. (Her mother’s maiden name was Spencer, so my friend claimed to be a fifth cousin of Princess Di–but that’s another story.) She had no problem with Eucharistic belief either–regularly participating in the Newman Community and various groups there.

My older brother is an Episcopalian. I was stunned to learn a few months ago that, as a boy, he used to listen to the rosary on the radio. More, he used to pray the rosary as a child. Given my family’s stunted flirtation (before I was born) with Roman Catholicism, I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Every so often, he and his wife come down for Mass at the student center. They do not receive Communion, out of respect for their variance with the pope, as opposed to any lack of belief in the Real Presence. My brother actually left the Lutheran Church when he moved to Iowa because he “missed Mass,” as he put his high-church experience out west.

In my limited experience, I find many non-Catholics who have a strong belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The obstacle, it seems, is less sacramental faith than ecclesiastical governance. In grad school, I did a series of papers in different courses on Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism. I was drawn to certain liturgical elements of the East, as well as the witness of many Eastern saints, especially the Eastern Doctors. But I was aware that faithfulness to the sacramental and liturgical traditions is not enough for unity.

So now it seems that there have sprung up some nets, shoals, and rubble in the Tiber. The end of mandatory celibacy in the West seems to have been put off. So much for the Anglican Route: Roman seminarians-to-be getting married, shifting to Anglican Use, getting ordained, then shifting back. Save those Hail Mary plays for the gridiron.

It will be interesting to see how this “Benedictine Ecumenism” plays out. Can the Servant of Unity throw the doors open? Or will worries about Roman celibacy hang the effort? Will this be another rock on which non-Catholics must stumble?

 

“Vatican II is the reason”

Interesting comments from a once-Anglican bishop, now Catholic priest of Santa Fe:

I don’t have any interest at all in the extraordinary rite or in any move of retrenchment against the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II is the reason I was able to become a Catholic.

I am extremely happy with the church as I find it.

The experience with doll practice for baptism is interesting. More details, please. Do you suppose any dolls are sat in the font and immersed? Do some seminarians play at being parents and godparents for their classmates?

 

No Spirit For Joint Confirmation

I saw this piece reported on CNS and CathNews Australia: the CDWDS has vetoed a joint Anglican-Catholic Confirmation in New South Wales on Pentecost.

I’m a bit unclear about one detail. Anthony Barich of CNS writes the Confirmation was to tale place in Maitland’s Sacred Heart Cathedral. CathNews, however, linked that the liturgy was planned for the Anglican Christ Church Cathedral in Newcastle.

If the Anglican and Catholic bishops decided to hold Confirmati0n in the same church, same day, I could see why the CDWDS intervened, citing “confusing messages.” Imagine if some head-in-the-clouds kid got in the wrong line or something.

However, if the Anglican/Catholic arrangement was to celebrate Confirmation on the same day in the home cathedrals, that wouldn’t seem particularly confusing, would it? All you have to do is get to the right church on time. And if that’s a problem, do Catholic bishops around the world have to start watching the confirmation calendars of Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Old Catholics and whomever to make sure we eradicate the confusion?

Any Aussies reading who can clear this up? Was Confirmation going to be in the same building?

 

Ashes and Protestants

I saw this quick piece on Nashville Bishop David Choby’s visit to a Protestant university. Nice. Not surprising that reformation churches would latch on to this tradition. Not surprising at all. Check out Bishop Choby on video.

When I was at Michigan State in the mid-90′s, one of our ministry colleagues in the Baptist parish was a Notre Dame liturgy grad. He asked me for ashes his first year in East Lansing.  We burned our palms for ashes and had plenty to spare, I told him. I passed on a recipe and a contact with a Catholic goods store in the area.

Todd Johnson, of the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena:

We have a whole generation of people who are familiar with using symbols. Kids have grown up using icons on their computers. Symbols mean more to them than words.

Dr Johnson also thinks 9/11 sparked a deeper observance of Ash Wednesday:

(The ashes are) a reminder of your baptism, and time to examine your life. The ashes used to be a sign of sin. Now they are a sign of our mortality.

Maybe that’s part of it. One of the possible acclamations to greet the penitent is “Remember that you are dust …” and that communicates mortality on the surface.