How to understand 2 Thes 3:6? What can Catholic Christians do at Protestant ecclesial communities?

[ethereality]

(Edit: The third poll option should have read, “Two or three times per month”. I cannot edit polls, so please treat it literally, “Two or three times per week” …)

(This post was originally made last week in the Ask An Apologist forum. They have apparently decided not to answer it. Therefore, I am posting it here.)

What activities are appropriate for Catholic Christians to participate in at Protestant ecclesial communities? How are 2 Thes 3:6 and Matthew 18:20 to be understood in relation to such participation?

(I use the phrase “ecclesial community” rather than ‘church’ after hearing Karlo Broussard mention in your radio show “The Bible Blueprint for the Church” that this was the terminology preferred by the Church for Protestants.) I have been attending a morning Bible discussion at a Stone and Campbell church (they call themselves “Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)”), sometimes participating in the first portion of their worship service, leaving when they come to the communion portion of their liturgy.

However, today they read from 2 Thessalonians 3, a larger excerpt of the reading we had, and I noticed verse 6: [BIBLEDRB]2 Thes 3:6[/BIBLEDRB]
Is God calling me to stop coming to this ecclesial community and participating in their Bible meetings, prayer meetings, and the first part of their worship service, because they walk “not according to the tradition which they have received” prior to Luther et al.?

As I type this, they’re holding their communion service, and the pianist is playing a song whose title and lyrics are, “Jesus, yes Jesus, is in this very room!” As Catholic Christians, we would strongly disagree in light of the Eucharist. Am I committing scandal by coming here, even though I don’t participate in their communion liturgy? The Protestant may respond with Matthew 18: [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 18:20[/BIBLEDRB] A key part of this verse, though, seems to be “in my name”: Are they meeting in Jesus’ name, or in the names of Stone and Campbell? One may argue that Jesus established the Catholic Church, not the so-called “Disciples of Christ Church” of Stone and Campbell.

[Last week] they [held] their congregational Thanksgiving feast, and I [was] invited to join them [and did so]. Should I [have done so]? [Was it a wise decision?] Am I permitted to participate in their services, excluding communion, to share the knowledge I have, to try to lead them to the fullness of truth, and to pray and worship with them? Or is God calling me to “withdraw from them” and stop participating in events held ‘on their turf’?

 

[ethereality]

I’ve been invited to begin playing the organ at their worship services, including the communion portion of their liturgy. My pastor told me I could do so with the following provisions:

1. 
   *]I must meet the Sunday Mass obligation (attending the Mass on Sunday or Saturday Vigil).
   *]I must not place my own faith in danger.
   *]I must not receive their communion.
   
   I had left a voicemail with the associate priest of our parish; it was he who had asked him and told me what he’d said (above). The associate priest would not give his opinion on the prudence of doing so, regarding the opportunity for scandal. I asked him, as I ask you, “Wouldn’t playing the organ for them, participating in their worship services in general, confirm them in their thinking that this worship service was a sufficient replacement for the Mass [and thus be a source of http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Scandal”]scandal for them]?” He said he could “see how that argument can be made,” but would not tell me what he thought of it, saying he didn’t “think that was [his] place to say.”

 

[UbiCaritas15]

As far as the Thess reference, I think that those who didn’t leave the Church for Protestantism never got the tradition of the fathers. Therefore, unless one left the Church, he didn’t abandon anything.

As far as Matt, to be “in the name” is synonymous with liturgical worship… liturgical worship is in reality only found in Rome and our close but separated brethren.

That having been said I think the main “spirit” behind Thess is not to appear approving of the activities of those who have left the Church. This needs to be understood under the message of retrieving the lost sheep. (I think) We should be reaching out to these people.

As far as gathering in prayer, I would not refrain from your worship as you worship. Sign of the cross, etc… Your playing there could surely let them draw their own conclusions. You could also use your presence to break the ice and have conversations.

I am personally of the opinion that the beauty of the Bride of Christ is such that even the hardest of hearts can be softened with time and conversation.

 

[lantheria]

I use the phrase “ecclesial community” rather than ‘church’ after hearing Karlo Broussard mention in your radio show “The Bible Blueprint for the Church” that this was the terminology preferred by the Church for Protestants.

it’s certainly not the term any protestant church i know prefers. i personally consider it rather insulting.

 

[ethereality]

lantheria: Of course they don’t, and of course you do. It’s natural to feel insulted when someone refuses to use the same terminology as you, because it is understood to be a power struggle. We studied this in English class, using the naming of rivers and land during the exploration of the Colorado River as an example: Europeans came to the United States and one of the first things they did was begin naming everything, usually with disregard for what the Native Americans had already named it. Whoever controls what something is called has a significant influence over that thing.

That being said, I’m sure the Church has theological reasons for refusing to call Protestant communities ‘churches’. I would guess it is because they lack the spiritual authority that comes from apostolic succession: The Protestant community is different in nature (not only in belief) from the Catholic community. Perhaps they gather in the name of their founder, be it Luther, Calvin, Campbell, Stone, or Wesley, rather than Jesus Christ. Yes, we should try to respect feelings and we cannot communicate effectively if we offend the listener, yet we cannot fail to stand up for the truth. For the sake of an example, if ‘Muslim’ is a political word that means ‘one who submits to God’, implying that the Christian does not submit to God (or else he would be Muslim), then we cannot use that word and must instead refer to them with a properly descriptive one, such as ‘Mohammedan’. (Christian means ‘of Christ’, and Mohammedan means ‘of Mohammed’.)

Returning to the main topic: UbiCaritas15, Good point about not leaving what one was not raised in, but how does it apply insofar as they have heard the tradition yet reject it? Many Protestant pastors are familiar with Church teaching yet reject it as flawed, or worse, “simply another perspective”. To my horror, followers of Stone and Campbell just last Sunday refused to admit that there can be only one spiritual reality! They condemned the idea as “too restrictive”, etc. They also said things like, “I think both forms of communion [Protestant and Catholic] are valid.” (In their defense, I think they do not understand the technical meaning of the word, and mean rather that both forms are ‘valuable’.)

I think the main “spirit” behind Thess is not to appear approving of the activities of those who have left the Church.

That is precisely what I am concerned about, as there may be some lapsed Catholics in attendance. I may have already met a man there who said he was ‘raised Catholic as a boy, drifted, and was “born again” as an adult later in life.’

Your playing there could surely let them draw their own conclusions.

Please elaborate on what you mean.

I am personally of the opinion that the beauty of the Bride of Christ is such that even the hardest of hearts can be softened with time and conversation.

It appears to me that the older one becomes, the less one is likely to change one’s opinion – perhaps even, the less one is able to change one’s opinion. What then?

 

[Kliska]

For the sake of an example, if ‘Muslim’ is a political word that means ‘one who submits to God’, implying that the Christian does not submit to God (or else he would be Muslim), then we cannot use that word and must instead refer to them with a properly descriptive one, such as ‘Mohammedan’. (Christian means ‘of Christ’, and Mohammedan means ‘of Mohammed’.)

Calling a Muslim that is extremely insulting. Christians worship Christ, they, Muslims, don’t worship Mohammed. The term “Mohammedan” implies that they do worship the non-divine Mohammed, they do not.

Calling a Protestant service “church” would be admitting in the invisible catholic church rather than the visible Roman catholic church. Yes, there are reasons for doing so and I understand you only are doing what the RCC says to do, but you also have to face that it is indeed an insult. Some people are bothered by that, some people aren’t. I don’t really mind what someone calls me, or a gathering of fellow believers, we are a part of the body of Christ regardless of label.

 

[ethereality]

Christians worship Christ, they, Muslims, don’t worship Mohammed. The term “Mohammedan” implies that they do worship the non-divine Mohammed, they do not.

You are wrong. It may carry that connotation for you if that is what you have been taught, but that is not the word’s denotation – that is not what the word literally implies. Do you think that Buddhists worship Buddha? They don’t, and the word does not imply that they do. Christian means “of Christ”, it does not mean “worshiper of Christ”. I am offended that you have ignored my previous explanation, so I won’t try to explain further.

I would like to return to the questions asked in the original post, as so far one or two opinions have been offered, but they have not yet been clearly answered.

 

[Kliska]

You are wrong. It may carry that connotation for you if that is what you have been taught, but that is not the word’s denotation – that is not what the word literally implies. Do you think that Buddhists worship Buddha? They don’t, and the word does not imply that they do. Christian means “of Christ”, it does not mean “worshiper of Christ”. I am offended that you have ignored my previous explanation, so I won’t try to explain further.

I aim to offend no one, as I believe you don’t either. I’m a comparative religions teacher and have had many discussions with my Muslim students. I wouldn’t suggest you call them Muhammadans to their faces, but you can do what you like.