hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) (02/19/85)
> It's because of the doctrine of transubstantiation, ...
[In the following discussion, I have to use somewhat odd terminology. The
term Catholic Church is sometimes used for the Universal Church, containing
all Christians, and sometimes for the Roman Catholic Church. Sometimes it
is also used by people who think that these are the same thing. Since I
need both concepts, and need to keep them distinguished, I am going to use
the terms RC Church and Universal Church.]
As I understand it, the critical theological issue about Communion from the
RC perspective is not transubstantiation, but the "real presence" of
Christ's body in the sacrament. Transubstantiation is one model of how the
real presence is implemented, but there have been other models during the
history of the Church, and I think transubstantiation is not obligatory even
now in the RC Church (though it may sometimes be presented as such).
Protestants from both the Lutheran and Reformed traditions also believe in
the real presence, although they do not believe in transubstantiation. (The
Methodist and Baptist traditions normally see Communion as a memorial only,
and thus do not believe in the real presence in this technical sense.) I
had a detailed conversation with an RC expert on ecumenical affairs a number
of years ago. My memory of it is somewhat hazy, but as I recall, the
conclusion was that no difference in theological understanding about
Communion separated the RC's from the Presbyterians (and presumably also
Lutherans and Anglicans). I was never very clear what the remaining
stumbling block was. Here is my best attempt to reproduce the argument:
It seemed to be that for RC's the Church is by definition a communion.
(After all, the term for being thrown out of the Church is excommunication.)
When the Protestants withdrew from the RC Church back in the 16th Century,
we therefore withdrew from communion with it. For us to want intercommunion
without also reuniting is a contradiction in terms.
Most Protestants have a two-level model of the Church, with a single
Universal Church that is divided up into individual denominations. We don't
see that division as being all that serious. Most of the denominations
maintain amicable relations with each other. There are a number of
organizations for them to cooperate where that is cost-effective, or where
it is useful to present a unified front. Who would want the sort of
bureacracy that would be implied by having us all in one big church, or the
sort of colorless compromise that would result from doing so?
I recently read over some of the pronouncements of Vatican II. It seems
likely that the RC Church has never accepted this model. They believe that
there is one Church, which is a single organic whole. They realize that
there are Protestants, who are not part of their Church, and they sort of
agree that these folks are Christians and their sacraments are even OK in a
certain sense. But except when they are making that concession the wording
uses "Church" interchangeably to mean both the Universal Church and the RC
Church. From that perspective it makes sense that they would be puzzled
about Protestants wanting to maintain communion with the RC Church. We have
separated from Mother Church (a term still used in Vatican II), so for us to
ask to maintain Communion with it is effectively a contradiction.
I hesitate to make statements about RC theology. That is probably best left
to the RC's on this mailing list. However if, as I suspect, the real
difference is with our unconscious assumptions about what the Church is,
then we could go on forever talking about things that don't matter.
Let me say that I do not see this attitude (if I am right) as have the sort
of arrogance that would be present if (say) the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) suddenly decided that they were the Christian
Church. At the time of the Reformation, even Luther and Calvin agreed with
the basic model that there could only be one Church. Initially no one
wanted to split up into denominations, nor did most people think it could be
justified. About all that can be said is that nobody seemed to be able to
see any way to stop it. Much of the rhetoric during the 16th Century can be
explained by the fact that Luther and Calvin had to show that the RC Church
was not a Church at all. The point is that if it continued to be a Church,
then everybody agreed that it was The Church, and nobody could justify
splitting away from it. (It was generally agreed, except among the Radical
Left, that even if there was corruption within the Church, it was your duty
to stay around and fix it.) So we have all these arguments in which they
try to prove that the Mass is sacrilege, the Pope is the anti-Christ, etc.
In retrospect, that is clearly totally fallacious. But only after hundreds
of years have some of us begun to become comfortable with the concept that
the unity of the Church does not consist in a single episcopal
administration, and there can be differing Christian organizations without
having it be a threat to the Gospel. And even now, there is still
considerable attractiveness to the idea of a single Church. So I can
understand that RC's could in good conscience still adhere to that model.
Given that they do, of course for historical reasons they would obviously be
the single Church (at least in the West).
It is fairly easy to show that this concept of the RC Church as the One
True Church continued to have a fascination even among Protestants
until very recently. It is amazing how many things could not be done
in Protestant churches because they were "Roman". Aside from a few
high churches (primarily Anglican and Lutheran), liturgy was essentially
dead in most of the Protestant world until fairly recently. A serious
concern with liturgy was Roman. In many circles, so were
- candles
- the liturgical calendar
- Communion on Christmas eve [many churches celebrated a "Watch night"
service on New Year's eve instead]
and various other things. This seems not to have died away until sometime
around the 50's or 60's. My parents still remember all of this strongly.
Whereas I don't think I have ever heard the term "Roman" used in this
special critical way at all. During the 60's, we finally began to see a
liturgical revival in much of the Protestant Church. Many younger ministers
want to celebrate Communion more often. Liturgies have been improved. We
are using banners, having processions, generally trying to turn liturgy into
a celebration. I think only now have the Protestants freed themselves of
the concept that somehow the RC Church is still Special. It would not
be surprising if the RC Church itself did not yet see any need to do so.