I feel that I should correct some things, at least from a Protestant p.o.v:
Church Militant:
Here’s basically the deal…
We believe that the bread and wine miraculously become the literal body and blood soul and divinity of the risen Lord Jesus.
So do we (we being Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.). And while on the subject… it is the body and blood of Christ, AND the body and blood are ALSO symbols that point to a reality. In the case of the Eucharist, it’s a both/and. Now if someone said that they’re just symbols, I might take exception to that. Anyone who has read E. Schillebeeckx (Catholic sacramental scholar) knows the power of both. Indeed, Christ is the primordial sacrament.
I often use the following example: a man gets stopped by the police for running a stop sign. He tells the officer, “That stop sign is only symbolic of the law; it’s not the law itself.” I’d be willing to bet that he still gets the ticket… in fact, he might get two. Signs and symbols are powerful… and in the case of the sacraments, the signs are sign/actions, and the symbols are powerful, as they ARE the reality and POINT to the reality of Christ.
I still think Thomism is a poor philosophy for sacramental theology - the tenets of Thomism are nearly at odds with any understanding of
mysterion/sacramentum. Why not do like the E.O.'s and let the transubstantion dogma fade away? To me, T. takes away from the mystery of
epiklesis and Real Presence. The bread and wine become for us the body and blood of Christ… Period! It’s a mystery, and a supernatural action… and cannot be explained! (Why try?!?)
Don’t get me wrong… T. rightly understood isn’t bad… but 99.6% of folks don’t know enough Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy to accurately teach it to catechumens, much less understand it (that includes a lot of priests I’ve met, which is not a criticism of them, but a criticism of Thomism… I mean, no one’s even
teaching it anymore!). I’ve always liked Schillebeeckx’s term transsignification. It’s more accurate… and all his books got the
imprimatur and
Nihil Obstat, too.
Before the dogma of T., the Early Chuch Fathers made it pretty clear that they had no problems with Real Presence, nor did the Church as a whole. I think T. came about because the Church wanted to be
en vogue with rationalism… which came about right before the dogma was pronounced (hmmm…). I wish they’d left well enough alone. I mean, if it was good enough for Hippolytus and Tertullian, it should have been good enough for us!
Of all folks, J.N.D. Kelly, a Protestant historian (that all of us heathen Protestants had to read in historical theology classes in seminary) noted that the Early Church Fathers had no problems with Real Presence: “Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood” (
Early Christian Doctrines, p. 440). So even (some of) the Protestants put their imprimitur on it!
Unless you can agree that you believe that this is true, then it is (according to 1st Cor 11:23-30) a very bad idea for you to take commmunion with us.
Actually, I do believe in the Real Presence… but I don’t participate in a Mass, even when invited to by the priest/bishop/abbot (I attend and lecture at retreats, often at abbeys/retreat centers… strangely enough, on matters liturgical and sacramental). It sometime draws a hurt look or two, but I think the painful obviousness of it is a witness.
The same applies to us… It would be like us sitting in the pews of your church and shouting “Amen” to things that we really do not believe.
You’re assuming that all Protestants are happy/clappy churches that even shout “Amen.” That’s a bit disingenous. Be charitable!
For us to take communion (Check out the definition of that word) in your church would be like us saying that we agree with what you believe concerning it, and that would be misleading you guys and (for us) a lie and a sin.
That’s where we differ. For you to take communion in our church would be to say that you are a baptized Christian and a member of the Church Catholic. An imperfect communion, but a communion nonetheless.
There is currently a
concordat between ELCA and United Methodists, and Episcopalians and United Methodists. It doesn’t signify church union - but it does recognize our common baptism. For a Catholic to take communion in any of these churches does NOT say that you agree with what we say; it says that you are a baptized Christian. (cont.)
