Inter-Communion with Protestants

[KendraDZ1902]

You missed out 85 million Anglicans but what is a few million between friends, eh

I forget about them all the time. I don’t know why I subconsciously group them the Lutherans, but I do. I definitely know they are different. It isn’t a drop in the bucket with those Modern Protestants who have almost 430 million, though.

 

[Piwowar]

I understand what you are saying, but I would still take issue that a majority use grape juice and crackers. Even if you include the pentecostal churches - which are outside tradition of manstream protestantism - it would be a significant minority. If you just include the mainstream denominations - Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, - it would be a smaller minority. The poster who challenged this was correctly inferring that many protestants would be upset by this description of how they see the Eucharist - and this is about mutual respect to our fellow Christians.

Thank you!

 

[GKC]

right. My point was simply that the articles are fairly brief and non-polemical, and yet reconciling them with catholic doctrine is quite a stretch. It would be much harder to do so with the continental confessions.

Edwin

ok.

Gkc

 

[Novocastrian]

So I think there would have to be some kind of corporate repentance in which the Protestants repudiated elements of their heritage. And that isn’t going to happen on any sizeable scale, barring a miracle or some other radical and unforeseeable development.

Edwin - just wondering - do you think that the Roman Church has reason to repudiate elements of its own heritage?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin - just wondering - do you think that the Roman Church has reason to repudiate elements of its own heritage?

Not repudiate, no. Not if heritage is defined as doctrines and practices to which one is committed confessionally. Admittedly, there’s a lot of wiggle room there.

In other words, I think that “Roman” Catholicism has been scarred by schism, and needs healing. Certain doctrines and practices need to be renewed and placed in better relationship with the original sources. (See Raniero Cantalamessa’s Lenten sermons on justification by faith for one example of how to do this.) But with Protestantism there comes a point where that’s not enough, because the sources have been truncated in the first place.

If you are committed to reading Augustine through the lens of Luther, then there comes a point at which you will not hear Augustine (or indeed Paul) properly. If you aren’t committed to doing so (and you shouldn’t be–no one should be committed to something that narrow), then you have to be willing to say “Luther was wrong” if necessary. Wrong, I mean, in basic doctrinal claims, not just in the many crazy off-the-cuff things he said, which no one would defend.

A case can be made that the same is true for reading Paul through Augustine. I have struggled with this issue in trying to decide between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But it’s not as clear to me either that the distortion is as great or that the Catholic Church is committed to Augustine’s version of Paul in the same way that confessional Protestants are committed to Luther’s version of Augustinianism. The fact that Rome has no problem accepting the Eastern version of Paul as orthodox points to this. Confessional Protestants simply can’t do this. (See the debate in the ACNA over the Filioque–the Reformed wing of the ACNA, who do in fact see the Articles as confessional, not being wise enough to listen to GKC on this one, resisted dropping the Filioque in part because they thought the Orthodox were wrong on soteriology.)

Edwin

 

[Novocastrian]

Not repudiate, no. Not if heritage is defined as doctrines and practices to which one is committed confessionally. Admittedly, there’s a lot of wiggle room there.

In other words, I think that “Roman” Catholicism has been scarred by schism, and needs healing. Certain doctrines and practices need to be renewed and placed in better relationship with the original sources. (See Raniero Cantalamessa’s Lenten sermons on justification by faith for one example of how to do this.) But with Protestantism there comes a point where that’s not enough, because the sources have been truncated in the first place.

If you are committed to reading Augustine through the lens of Luther, then there comes a point at which you will not hear Augustine (or indeed Paul) properly. If you aren’t committed to doing so (and you shouldn’t be–no one should be committed to something that narrow), then you have to be willing to say “Luther was wrong” if necessary. Wrong, I mean, in basic doctrinal claims, not just in the many crazy off-the-cuff things he said, which no one would defend.

A case can be made that the same is true for reading Paul through Augustine. I have struggled with this issue in trying to decide between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But it’s not as clear to me either that the distortion is as great or that the Catholic Church is committed to Augustine’s version of Paul in the same way that confessional Protestants are committed to Luther’s version of Augustinianism. The fact that Rome has no problem accepting the Eastern version of Paul as orthodox points to this. Confessional Protestants simply can’t do this. (See the debate in the ACNA over the Filioque–the Reformed wing of the ACNA, who do in fact see the Articles as confessional, not being wise enough to listen to GKC on this one, resisted dropping the Filioque in part because they thought the Orthodox were wrong on soteriology.)

Edwin

Fair enough. To be perfectly honest, I’m pretty close to Roman doctrine in my own belief, but I simply can’t square one or two things with history as I’m capable of understanding it. I really do wonder if one day the Roman Church will repudiate some of its claims to infallibility.

 

[CutlerB]

Fair enough. To be perfectly honest, I’m pretty close to Roman doctrine in my own belief, but I simply can’t square one or two things with history as I’m capable of understanding it. I really do wonder if one day the Roman Church will repudiate some of its claims to infallibility.

It cannot, and will not.

Could we close off this little path now, I wouldn’t like the thread to go off the topic.

 

[andrewstx]

What you say may be true of a small minority of protestants, but those from the mainstream protestant denominations use wafers and almost all use wine, and use what to many Catholics would be a recognisable Eucharstic liturgy at their Holy Communion services . And whilst they would not share our view of transubstantation, they would generally not view communion as only a symbol. Implying that grape juice and crackers is the norm is not at all helpful.

I have been to “Lord’s Supper” services in three different mainline Protestant churches, United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Disciples of Christ. And all three mainline churches use grape juice exclusively.

I was raised in the Southern ‘churches of Christ’ and they use grape juice and matzo crackers, everyone breaks off a mini bite to "break bread’. But they are far from mainline.

 

[Contarini]

It cannot, and will not.

Could we close off this little path now, I wouldn’t like the thread to go off the topic.

I’m not sure it’s off topic at all. “Roman” claims and the Protestant rejection thereof are a huge barrier to intercommunion. From the standpoint of ecumenical Protestants, it’s a matter of arrogance on Rome’s part–they’d be happy to have intercommunion but Rome wants submission. (Not saying this is the right way to put it, but this is how many Anglicans and Lutherans and Methodists, and some Reformed, do put it).

 

[Contarini]

I have been to “Lord’s Supper” services in three different mainline Protestant churches, United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Disciples of Christ. And all three mainline churches use grape juice exclusively.

It’s an American thing. My wife literally wrote the book on this in the case of the Methodists.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have been to “Lord’s Supper” services in three different mainline Protestant churches, United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Disciples of Christ. And all three mainline churches use grape juice exclusively.

It’s an American thing. My wife literally wrote the book on this in the case of the Methodists.

Edwin

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It’s an American thing. My wife literally wrote the book on this in the case of the Methodists.

Edwin

I am impressed by the description of your wife’s book. Was the temperance movement a factor in Methodist’s using grape juice?

 

[Peter_J]

The one’s mentioned in this article are most likely Lutherans.

Right. As a life-long American Catholic, I was for a long time always confused by the use of “Evangelican” meaning Lutheran.

 

[Peter_J]

No.

From my perspective, it is the Protestants who reject the Church. Until they agree to re-join the “club,” they can’t be members. And they can’t be members because they don’t want to re-join the club. If that makes any sense.

It makes sense, but what about the ones that join the Orthodox Church?

 

[concretecamper]

I’m not sure it’s off topic at all. “Roman” claims and the Protestant rejection thereof are a huge barrier to intercommunion. From the standpoint of ecumenical Protestants, it’s a matter of arrogance on Rome’s part–they’d be happy to have intercommunion but Rome wants submission. (Not saying this is the right way to put it, but this is how many Anglicans and Lutherans and Methodists, and some Reformed, do put it).

Besides infallibility itself, what has Rome required of Roman Catholics (submission) that you find soooooooooo objectionable in that you could never be convinced to submit to?

 

[GKC]

Besides infallibility itself, what has Rome required of Roman Catholics (submission) that you find soooooooooo objectionable in that you could never be convinced to submit to?

Hmmmm.

GKC

 

[concretecamper]

Hmmmm.

GKC

I am curious…

 

[GKC]

I am curious…

One of us is behind the power curve.

Maybe.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

I am impressed by the description of your wife’s book. Was the temperance movement a factor in Methodist’s using grape juice?

Yes, definitely. Her argument is that they associated holiness with clear thinking and the restraint of the passions, and they couldn’t imagine alcohol being even a symbol of something holy. There was also a strong anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant (for that matter also anti-Lutheran) element to it. Alcohol was identified with immigrant populations who were seen as dirty and undisciplined. (To be fair, this went along with a genuine concern to evangelize these immigrants and teach them better ways.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Besides infallibility itself, what has Rome required of Roman Catholics (submission) that you find soooooooooo objectionable in that you could never be convinced to submit to?

I was not speaking for myself.

For some years, the only think I have found really objectionable was the need to break communion with my fellow-Christians who are not in communion with Rome.

I still find this difficult to accept, but I now believe that my conscience requires me to seek union with Rome anyway.

Edwin