moving

The discussing will continue at theprophetjoel.com

Look for the category "protestant-catholic." I choose to move this blog to my other one so that I can write more generally rather than only ecumenical matters here. I hope to see you over there.

I Accept Jesus as My Personal Friend

In the DOC church all that is asked of an individual for membership is a rather simple affirmation of faith (we say this is not a creed, because its an affirmation of what we believe. credo in latin means I believe...hmmm...)

At my home church, and at others I have visited, the affirmation is "Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God and do you accept him as Lord and Savior?" Upon an affirmative response, the individual is accepted into the community and if they have not been baptized they are now eligible.

Easter Sunday I was at a church where I heard a variation on this affirmation: "Do you believe that Jesus is the son of the living God and do you take him to be your personal friend, guide, companion and savior? And do you accept his Gospel of unconditional love?"

Quite different. "Personal friend, guide and companion" can in no way equate to Lord. It is not even in the same ballpark. Lord is someone who has power over us; someone whom we submit to; someone so much greater than ourselves; God.

At this particular church this affirmation was given to children preparing for baptism, so I thought it was intentionally watered down for their benefit. However the same affirmation was asked of the adults being baptized.

How is Jesus Lord in the life of those who make this affirmation? Is the understanding of Jesus' lordship lost? Is he no loner Lord?

A Welcoming Eucharist

We were unable to attend our regular church for Good Friday because my wife had to work during their services. I found another local church with an evening Good Friday mass which we went to. It was absolutely beautiful. We decided to continue the Easter Triduum at this new church. So we went to the Vigil and Easter Sunday.

Easter Sunday. The sanctuary was already packed so we heading to the "overflow mass" in the social hall. This was monsignor's first mass since he had had surgery. He preached on the Gospel text, John 20, when Mary and the disciples discover the empty tomb.

He said that Peter is a symbol of authority in this Gospel and The Beloved Disciple is a symbol of love. He recognizes that The Beloved Disciple gets to the tomb before Peter. The main idea of his homily was "love always trumps authority."

Later, during the Eucharistic prayers, the priest broke from the liturgy and said a word about the church's Eucharistic practice. I cannot give a perfect quote here, but I will try to remember. He said "I invite everyone here to come forward. If Eucharist is not part of your tradition I encourage you to come forward for a blessing so that we can welcome, accept and bless you." And then he quoted Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." We are all one in Christ.

There is more he said, and he said it quite beautifully. Eucharist is part of my tradition (even as a Protestant), and I understood it has an invitation. It was the first time at a Catholic church that I felt welcome and invited to commune. I heard a radical message of Christ's love and welcoming.

Update: DOC Easter Vigil

While working on something else I found a liturgy for Easter Vigil in Chalice Worship (A worship manual for the Christian Church Disciples of Christ).

It follows very closely with what I found at the Catholic liturgy this past weekend. There is the liturgy of light, word, baptism, and Eucharist.

I will be examining it, and pray for me - perhaps even celebrating it in the next Easter season when I am serving a church.

How exciting.

Stations of the Cross at a Protestant Church

Tuesday of Holy Week the youth group at my internship church presented a modified version of the stations of the cross for the pastoral staff and their parents.

There were many positive reviews. It was rather meaningful for both the presenters (youth) and participants.

I am encouraged to see a Protestant church open to accepting practices that are so often considered to be for "Catholics only."

My First Easter Vigil

This past Eastern Triduum I had the opportunity to attend my first Easter Vigil. It was remarkably beautiful.

The evening began with the service of light, unfortunately I wasn't able to find a candle. The Christ candle processed down the center aisle and those closest to it lit their candles from it and passed it along to the fellow worshipers. By the time the Christ candle made it to the front of the worship space the entire sanctuary was full of light. It was a sign of Christ in and spread throughout the world.

Next came the liturgy of the word. It began with creation, then told the exodus story, the prophets and finally the story of Jesus' resurrection. It was a retelling and even a reliving of all salvation history. In particular I remember the Exodus reading. Someone from the church sung it and the congregation responded. It was like being part of a divine opera.

Fifteen people were baptized that night. There was one infant with her mother, two children and eleven others. As each person received the waters of baptism the entire congregation burst into song singing "Blessed be God!" I could feel the Body of Christ get larger with the reception of each new member. Following the baptisms were confirmations on those newly baptized and those not yet confirmed.

The evening concluded with a celebration of the Eucharist. With the retelling of our salvation history and the reception of new Christians, the community gathered for the climax of the evening in Eucharist.

It was a beautiful. The choir led worship wonderfully, but they did not sing to us; it was a community event. The telling of our history was done so well and vividly.

I wonder why Protestant Christians so readily adopted the Christmas Vigil (Christmas Eve service) but not the Easter Vigil. I feel like I have been missing something significant all these years.

The Rosary at A Protestant Church Camp

This past weekend I had the privilege of attending FebCamp, a regional high-school youth retreat co-sponsored by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the United Church of Christ. I was asked to develop the worship, and I enjoyed the weekend very much.

On Saturday and Sunday afternoon campers attended an interest group of their choice. The various interest groups were developed and lead by counselors or campers (with a counselor's help). I proposed an interest group: Rosary Prayer. I presented it as a medieval Christian spiritual practice of meditative prayer. I was a bit unsure about how it would be received, but I got 6 campers to sign up for the group, and another interested counselor also attended.

After I announced my interest group, a fellow counselor approached me and showed me his Rosary. It was comforting to know that I was not the only one in my tradition who is drawn to this spiritual practice. If you are not familiar with the D.O.C./U.C.C., they are Protestant denominations closely resembling a mix between Baptists and Presbyterians. My fellow Rosary-praying-Disciple graciously offered his Rosary to aid the interest group.

We began with a simple show-and-tell and I passed around the two Rosaries. As the Rosaries made their way around the circle I gave a brief history of the prayer and spoke about its use today.

Then I showed them the structure of the rosary: the decades, the crucifix, etc.

I wanted to slowly introduce them to the Hail Mary, the heart of the Rosary. Keep in mind that our Christian tradition has practically zero Mariology.

We read Luke 1:28 "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." (NIV) showing them that the prayer comes from scripture. We talked about intercessory prayer, and how it's okay for us to pray for one another. We believe that people are in heaven, including Mary, and they pray all day to God. So its not that we pray to Mary, but rather we ask Mary to pray for us. They accepted this premise quite well.

I then taught them the prayers themselves. We began with the sign of the cross. I said it is a way to mark sacred time which is set apart for speaking with God: "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." About half of the campers were comfortable with making the sign of the cross.

I skipped the Apostles Creed because I thought Mariology would be difficult enough for Disciples to grasp, I didn't need to tackle creeds today too (we are "anti-creedal"). I prayed three Hail Marys while the campers listened. I offered them a cheat sheet for the prayers, but no one seemed quite comfortable yet to pray the Hail Mary themselves.

I also taught them the Glory Be. In a Sunday liturgy Disciples often sing this following the tithes and offerings. We sung it together and many campers instantly made the connection. All were comfortable with this prayer.

And of course we prayed the Our Father together, which I explained is another name for The Lord's Prayer (a more familiar title in our tradition).

I then explained how you are supposed to mediate on a different set of mysteries for each day. It was a Sunday which is the Glorious Mysteries. These included The Assumption and the Coronation, which again may be too much for an induction to the Rosary for Protestants.

We looked at the first Glorious Mystery: The Resurrection. I told the campers to focus and mediate on this as we pray together. I then prayed a decade for them, announcing each scripture following each Hail Mary. They prayed with me the Glory Be and Our Father. I prayed the concluding prayers, and made the sign of the cross to finish.

I asked for their responses. They said "it was cool."; "it helped me to focus on the resurrection."; "I could almost see it."; "it was relaxing."

There was a small discussion which followed. The counselor asked if many other Disciples pray the Rosary, and I said it was uncommon. A camper asked "why is Jesus' body on the cross?" And we talked about how you can't have a resurrection without a cross, and how it is a visual aid to prayer. We also talked about the different focus of each tradition (see post on The Cross and the Crucifix). Another camper shared that she had a Rosary at home and now "know[s] what it is for."

I was surprised at how well it was received. A survey was taken at the close of camp and this interest group got rated a 3,4,4,4, and a 5 (with two not responding). That is an average of 4 (out of 5)!

Please feel free to share your experiences with the Rosary in a Protestant context, using the comment link below.

The Magisterium & Personal Intrepretation of Scripture

I read an article from Zenit on the Pope's priority for ecumenism. Here is an interesting excerpt:

Though agreement has been reached that Scripture and Tradition are not opposed, he said, there is still disagreement about, among other things, the role of the magisterium in interpreting it.

You can read the full article here.

For Catholics:

• what is the magisterium and how does it interpret scripture?
  
• Do they declare a single interpretation for a given scripture as valid for all time?
  
• How do you interpret the interpretation of the magisterium?
  
• Is there room for different interpretations across cultures?
  
• Is it like a commentary on scripture?
  
• How does this affect preaching?
• Where can I go to find what the magisterium says about a particular scripture?

For Protestants:

• What does personal interpretation mean?
  
• Does it mean that anything goes?
  
• How does one test their own interpretation?
  
• How are the laity (and clergy) trained to read scripture?
• What role does tradition and authority play in personal interpretation?
• Is there such a thing as a wrong reading of scripture?
  
• What happens when two personal interpretations are mutually exclusive?

Thanks for your answers and comments. Are there other important questions that should be asked?

Two approaches to being a catholic church

I observe that my Christian tradition - Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); and The Catholic Church both attempt to be catholic churches. That is, they both attempt to represent the wholeness (catholicity) of the Church. They both have very divergent approaches to their catholicity.

Disciples attempt to represent the whole through openness. Christians can disagree and yet remain united. There are no creeds, because of the division they may cause. The closest thing Disciples come to a standardized affirmation of faith is “I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior.” If you can affirm this statement (whatever it means to you), you are welcome.

The Catholic Church (capital C), on the other hand have a focus on complete uniformity. Unity in belief, practice, and structure. To be united means to be uniform. Anything outside of the predefined boundaries is not unified.

Neither approach is entirely appropriate. Disciples may err on the side of allowing unorthodoxy. This is unity in word only. That we are not really united, but we will just say we are to make everyone happy.

The Catholic approach on the other hand ignores the biblical and historical testimony of diversity in the Church (in belief, practice, and structure). This unity is not challenging because it is easy to be united to others who are just like oneself.

Disciples often put forth the saying “In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.” To a large extent I like this philosophy, except that essentials are never defined. It begs the question: to what point does liberty lead to heresy? Where are the boundaries of what is acceptable? And how far outside of the core can we venture until we are no longer preaching the Gospel?

Still, a certain level of diversity is absolutely necessary, lest we all become “hands, eyes, or ears.” Diversity is necessiary for the Body of Christ to operate.

How can we be the catholic (universal) church; unitied and yet diverse? What are the essentials which ought to unite us, and where is diversity acceptable?

The empty sacrament

I went to my church's regional (like a diocese or synod) gathering. There were several worship opportunities throughout the event in which communion was served. (We celebrate communion in every worship service)

There was no clear mark which signified an entrance into holy time - that worship was not set apart from our everyday lives. The worship leader just began to sing a song while everyone else continued their conversations. A sermon was given and someone came forward to introduce communion.

They emphasized how all are welcome, with no precondition. Neither sin, creed, nor status of baptism were reasons to separate one from the communion table. That it is a table of hospitality.

As the elements were passed I took and ate. I normally cross myself (as I learned from the Catholics) after I partake in order to mark the holy moment. But, I could not bring myself to do it this time because it felt so very profane. Not profane in the sense that it was irreverent or unholy, but simply ordinary. By the introduction to communion and a stress on symbolism, it was clear that this meal was only bread and juice. It tasted empty.

Do not misunderstand me. I believe communion is for all, invited by Christ. But it is not an ordinary meal like we eat in order to sustain our physical bodies. It is a spiritual food which nourishes the souls of those already united with Christ. It is certainly not a meal which one can approach on one's own terms - for it is Christ's table, not ours.

Emptier still.
Saturday morning we worshiped again. This time the communion elements included pretzels and gold fish crackers. I cannot recall the justification for this practice at this time because I remember feeling so empty at the thought.

Granted, nearly all Christians in this tradition believe communion to be symbolic only. But what happens when you tamper with the symbol? When I approached the communion plate and saw the pretzels and gold-fish crackers I did not think of Christ's last meal, but rather a children's party. For that is what those elements symbolize.

I did not partake. I had to leave the worship service at that point because I was so angry and I took a walk until lunch.

The church said "look how hip, cool, and open WE are that we can do this." I believe Christ was overshadowed by this novelty. It is a feat in mental acrobatics when we attempt to force a new symbol to mean what the bread and wine once meant.

Symbol or not, let us not profane (make ordinary) the Table of the Lord.

Details

It has been awhile since I have made a post here, mostly because nothing of much significance has happened in this area of my life since the summer.

However, I would like to give you some details about that summer discussion we had at chaplain school (as best as my memory will allow).

A bit of background
There was daily chapel for all students, held in the morning before classes began. One for Protestants and one for Roman Catholics. The Protestant chapel was the dominant one, attended by 90% (or more, in a class of 160). The Roman Catholic chapel was smaller with about 15. It was attended by Roman Catholics (of course), Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and myself. So, I was not the only non-Roman Catholic there. It was a small group which led to a greater sense of community.

I remember the first time I attended the chapel. Someone asked "Are you Catholic?" (because you can't tell by looking), and I answered "it depends on what you mean by catholic." He raised his eyebrow, and looked a bit confused, and possibly irritated. I continued "I am not Roman Catholic. But I am catholic, meaning I belong to Christ's universal church."

Occasionally there would be no official chapel on a given day for scheduling reasons, but the Catholics were insistent on having mass, especially on holy days and I would join them. The question eventually came up (knowing I was not Roman Catholic) "So, why do you join us for mass so often as opposed to the Protestant chapel?" And I told them a bit about my story and my struggles with the Protestant Church. This lead to the invitation to dinner and discussion with the priest, 2 seminarians and myself.

The dinner and discussion
We picked a night and went to dinner. We shared our stories. The 2 seminarians, as it turned out joined the Catholic church from Protestant traditions. The priest was a "cradle Catholic." We talked about a crazy man at the priest's church who wore a red collar and pretended to be a priest; our personal faith journey; how one of the seminarians worked for the state department prior to his call.

We were enjoying each others company so we decided to go over to one of the seminarian's room and have a theology-on-tap. Here we got more theological. And I found a great deal of agreement with them. We talked about the Eucharist and real presence, inter-church marriage, liturgy and the sacraments, and Vatican II.

There was disagreement concerning the nature of the church. I argued for a larger-than-structure, universal Christ-Church in which all Christians belonged. The two seminarians argued that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church, and Protestant Churches are only true in that they reflect the Roman Catholic Church. I brought up Ut Unum Sint, and Unitatis Redintegratio concerning the view of protestant churches and an eccumenism of convergence (not individual conversion). For inter-church marriages I brought up Familiaris Consorito, and how it says "The Eucharist is the very source of Christian marriage" (57) that if the Church does not allow a protestant husband and a Catholic wife to share together in the Eucharist we do harm to the foundation marriage. The Eucharist feeds a marriage.

So we were having a nice healthy discussion, finding points of agreement and were we differed. Enter the seminarian's (very) Protestant room-mate. He naturally joins the conversation but shows such cynicism toward the Catholics that it produced no useful discussion. He kept spouting things like "The Bible is the only source of authority, we shouldn't have a Pope." He challenged me once (indirectly) and asked "Why would a Protestant want to take Catholic communion?"

Later he offered an "analogy" of the Catholic Church saying it was like an exclusive club in which you have to jump through many hoops and learn the secret handshake in order to be "in." I offered another (more productive analogy) saying I see Protestants as similar to the Samaritans - separated from the temple with some strange beliefs according to the Jews, and yet Jesus said the Kingdom of God was for the Samaritans too. Protestants might act goofy and deny some pretty important beliefs, but we are like crazy unlce Frank at the family reunion - Still part of the family.

At this point it was fairly late and it was a "school night," so we all went home. I appreciated there time and being able to dig deep in some theology with some fellow seminarians and Christians.

A priest, 2 Roman Catholic seminarians and me

I am at US Army Chaplain School and I had a great opportunity to meet with a priest and two seminarians over dinner last night. We also meet later in their room for some discussion.

Here are just a few things I discovered from the conversation:

• You will end up where God wants you.
• Be patient in discernment.
  
• I am better able to have theological discussions with the Catholics here than I am with most Baptists.

I might dive into some more details of the discussion later, but right now it is lunch time.

How can I share communion with my wife?

The biggest spiritual hindrance to our marriage is that we are not able to share communion at the same table. My wife is Roman Catholic and I am not.

I have approached our pastor and asked to receive and was told that if I want to commune with my wife I would have to become Roman Catholic.

So that means, even though we are united in the sacrament of matrimony and we both have faith in Jesus, we cannot share that faith together at the table - the source and summit of our spiritual lives.

A proposed solution:

I could take some bread from the communion table at my Protestant Church with me to mass. And then my wife could take her communion at Catholic Church back to the pew with her, and then both her and I could communion together.

Or maybe I could just eat the "bread" as she goes forward. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, I'm just having a snack. While of course, I do understand the bread to be the essence of Christ and is thus communion for me.


What do you think?
What do you think? Good idea, bad idea, got a better idea? What are some theological implications of this solution? What are the theological implications of a husband and wife who do/can not share the Eucharist?

Infant Baptism

My Christian tradition, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) practices exclusively believers baptism, that is adult baptism. The Roman Catholic Church baptizes infants of believers.

This is a particularly difficult issue for us, being in an inter-church family. We had to decide what to do with our children regarding baptism. Admittedly at first, I agreed with my wife to baptize our infant children (when the time comes along) because I thought the Catholic Church was more stubborn on this issue than my church. With some further thought and examination I have come to the conclusion that infant baptism should be the preferred method for children of believers.

I anticipate that this decision may cause some controversy within my church, but I hope to spell out here how we arrived at this decision.

Objection 1: Not scriptural.

The number one objection I hear, or read, regarding infant baptism is that there is no example of it found in scripture. And I would have to admit this fact. Some proponents of infant baptism will point to the household baptisms found in Acts. However, this is not an explicit example of infant baptism. As many say in the Disciples of Christ Church: "Where the scriptures speak, we speak. Where the scriptures are silent, we are silent." In other words: if it isn't in scripture, don't do it.

However, there is also not a single example in scripture of a child of Christian parents who receives baptism as an adult. In fact, there is no example of a 2nd generation Christian baptism.

All baptisms in scripture are adult individuals who come to faith from no faith. If we do our job as Christian parents, this is not the pattern that our children will follow. When we postpone baptism for our children, we are saying that they don't belong to the faithful community, that they don't have faith. This is simply not true.

Scripture provides no instruction on what to do with children of the faithful regarding baptism.

Baptism should mark one's entrance into the faith. For adults this happens when they accept Jesus, repent of their sins, and are baptized. But children of Christian parents are trained in the faith from a very young age, maybe even the day they are born.

Objection 2: Faith is necessary for baptism, infants are incapable of faith, therefore infant baptism is invalid.

How much faith is required for one to be baptized? Should we administer a test? Is faith in the head, or in the heart, and how do you measure it? Also, whose faith matters?

I received baptism as an "adult" at the age of 13. (coincidently, everyone else in my church came to faith at the age 13 also) My faith has certainly grown significantly in the past 10 years. I would say that my faith was insufficient at that age, and thats okay. Our faith will never be perfect, and thats why we cannot rely on it. We need to rely on the faith of God. How little control we have on when and how God chooses us to be part of his family.

The Instruction on Infant Baptism By the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith helps explain this question (14):

The fact that infants cannot yet profess personal faith does not prevent the Church from conferring this sacrament on them, since in reality it is in her own faith that she baptizes them. This point of doctrine was clearly defined by Saint Augustine: "When children are presented to be given spiritual grace," he wrote, "it is not so much those holding them in their arms who present them—although, if these people are good Christians, they are included among those who present the children—as the whole company of saints and faithful Christians.... It is done by the whole of Mother Church which is in the saints, since it is as a whole that she gives birth to each and every one of them."[24] This teaching is repeated by St. Thomas Aquinas and all the theologians after him: the child who is baptized believes not on its own account, by a personal act, but through others, "through the Church's faith communicated to it."[25] This same teaching is also expressed in the new Rite of Baptism, when the celebrant asks the parents and godparents to profess the Faith of the Church, the Faith in which the children are baptized.[26]

What do you think? When should children of Christian parents be baptized? Did I miss anything?

Marriage, Eucharist and Unity

Some say that unity must proceed the Eucharist; others say that the Eucharist leads to unity.

We can look at Marriage to serve as an analogy for this question. When a couple first mets, there is little unity. As they learn more about one another that unity grows until one day they may express a desire to be as united in the sacrament of matrimony. That sacrament actually unites the two, and while they are still individuals they continue to grow in love and unity.

Unity is on both sides of that sacrament. A marriage does not actually take place unless both parties truly desire unity prior to the sacrament. At the same time, unity is fulfilled as a result of the sacrament.

So, both statements are true: unity must proceed the Eucharist and the Eucharist leads to unity. However, the unity preceding the sacrament will be incomplete.

I believe the unity which precedes is largely absent from both parties (Catholics and Protestants). With out the desire for unity (again, on both sides), the act unifying us is not possible.

The wide-spread sharing of the Eucharist is certainly the end goal, but this is "putting the carriage before the horse." Its like proposing on the second date. Even statements of common faith produced by high-level Church officials is a bit too soon.

Unity must begin on the lowest level; between congregations and individuals. We must know each other before we can express our unity with one another. Let us participate in ministry together, have fellowship, and study the Bible together. Through this our unity may grow to a point when we may be able to express it more fully.

Denominational Shift

I wonder what reasons are given for people who decide to switch denominations. A Lutheran becoming Methodist for example.

Just off the top of my head I would imagine that theological reasons rank fairly low on the list, excluding certain fundamentalist denomination of course.

Here is just a quick brainstorm:

1. I moved and my previous denomination does not have a church where I now live.
2. I married and we choose to go to my spouse's church for simplicity.
3. I liked the liturgy/pastor/preaching/music/amenities/etc. of this particular church in my town, so I started going there.
4. Many of my friends go to this new denomination.
5. So-and-so offended me at my previous church, so I left.
6. I wanted to get involved in a particular ministry of this new church.
7. I just wanted to try something new.
8. I believe my new denomination is more theologically correct/Biblical than my previous one.

Can you think of any other reasons why someone would change Christian denominations (non-Catholic)? If you have "made a switch" could you tell me why?

I wonder if this has ever been studied, or if its feasible to gather this information.

Sinning to Receive Christ

This post is in response to a comment left by "against heterodoxy." The comment was made on my previous post about my perceived invitation to communion. The commenter says what I did was a sin.

I have never been confronted with this issue in quite this way. I have been told that it is inappropriate or wrong but not a sin.

Sin, as defined in the Catechism:

is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." (Ps 51:4) Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," (Gen 3:5) knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." (St Augustine De civ. Die 14, 28: PL 41, 436) In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation. (Phil 2:6-9)

If sin is something that separates us from God, "and sets our hearts against Him," how can receiving Christ in the Eucharist (by a baptized, repentant Christian) ever be understood as sin? My heart was completely with Christ as I received him. If sin is something that separates us from God, then isn't not receiving Eucharist at mass a sin?

Certainly one can receive in an unworthy matter (1 Cor 11:27-29) I believe that "unworthy manner" refers to the reception of those who would not identify themselves with Christ - receiving him is a lie, and Christians who approach with an unrepentant heart. Does this warning apply to baptized non-Catholic Christians who are repentant of their sins?

A few more questions came to me as I read the comment:

When non-Catholic Christians celebrate the Eucharist in their own churches, is this a sin? If it is, why? If not, why is Roman Catholic Eucharist a sin for Protestants? How do the meals which Jesus shared with sinners relate to the Lord's Supper? (Mt 9)

How does one atone for the "sin" of receiving Christ? Does the Eucharist belong to the Church or does it belong to Christ?

Mt 9:9-13 and an Invitation

Sunday's Gospel reading was form Matthew 9:9-13. It is about Matthew's call to follow Jesus. Following the call Jesus has a meal with tax collectors as sinners, much to the disapproval of the Pharisees.

Our pastor preached a message of inclusion. He said that Jesus came specifically for sinners; he came to heal. Jesus did not ask for any membership cards in order to share a meal.

But then he started preaching a message I did not expect. He spoke of Jesus' inclusion at table with sinners and tax collectors. He then turned and pointed to the altar and said that this Eucharistic table is also an open one. He said that it is inclusive, not exclusive. Jesus invites everyone to his table.

I felt a certain conviction to approach the altar. Not only because I believe it is something that I ought to do; but now also because I perceived the homily as a direct invitation. And so I received.

I still felt a bit awkward; that it was "sneaky." It certainly was not guilt, but rather a social stigma. I was torn. To follow my conscience and participate because I believe Christ commanded this of all of his followers, and now the priest suggesting an open table. At the same time I know the institutional structures of the Roman Catholic Church forbid Eucharistic sharing.

The priest is aware that I am a Protestant Christian, and I was in the line next to his at the Eucharist. Following mass I did not feel any animosity from him. He asked how I was doing in school, and our anniversary plans. He didn't draw me aside and tell me I was wrong. One cannot preach an inclusive sermon, without willing to accept the consequences that radical inclusion entails.

The message was not quite as explicit as I would have liked, but the message was clear. Still, I wonder why I feel the need to "get permission" to receive from anyone other than Christ?

The Crucifix and The Cross

In the National Guard I am given a "chaplains field kit" which is used to conduct field services. If you look closely you can see a cross in the middle. This kit is given to both Protestant and Catholic chaplains.

The cross you can see in the middle of the picture is two sided. If you are Catholic you show the crucifix side. If you are Protestant you simply show the reverse which is a blank cross.

Protestants are not "hiding Jesus" or have any aversion to Christ Crucified. I find that the different use of symbols stems from a different focus each community has on Christ's action on the cross.

Roman Catholics tend to emphasize Christ's death on the cross. The mass itself is a re-enactment of the Last Supper. Help me with the word, is it anamesis...? Meaning more than a memory, a renewed participation in the past event.

Protestant Christians tend to emphasize Christ as risen. It is not only because Christ died that we are saved, but because Christ is the Son of God and has power over death that we find salvation in his work on the Cross.

Christ remains on the cross in Roman Catholic settings as we remember the sacrifice he provided for us. The cross is empty, like the empty tomb, in Protestant Churches to recall the power of Christ over death and Satan.

The chaplain kit has both cross and crucifix, which I think it a helpful way of thinking of Christ's work on the cross. It is not an either/or view. Rather we need to have both the crucifix and the cross in order to have a full understanding of what happened through the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord.

Sin and Liturgy: Post Script

After a bit more reflection I realized that we do have a part of the liturgy that deals with sin.

In most Disciples congregations The Lord's Prayer is recited in every worship service. "And forgive us our trespasses..." simply assumes a sinful human nature that requires forgiveness.

Still, it lacks the potency of "I confess to almighty God...that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do..."

The Lord's prayer loses more of its bite when certain congregations use "debts/debtors" as opposed to "trespass/those who trespass against us." I will save this issue for another post.