| | Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos
I have not had much opportunity lately to
write, nor have I had occasion to do so since we have mined out so many
apologetic topics here. In fact, the myriads of equestrian corpses with post
mortum blunt trauma wounds are stacked so high that it is likely to drive
away all but the most determined apologist, Catholic or Protestant.
But recently, I have seen something come up
more than once which really drives me to ire and is something I have decided to
address. The broader topic is the Catholic practise of closed communion,
something that has been practised in the Church since the earliest days. And in
spite of the many objections often made by Protestants, the fact is that all
but the tiniest minority of Protestants practise it. Protestants will not
hesitate to bar Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mohammedans, &c. from their
table. True, most Protestants would allow fellow Protestants to commune with
them, but they all (with the exception of the extremely liberal Episcopalians)
draw the line somewhere.
Nevertheless, these same Protestants, when
confronted with the Catholic practise of closed communion, object vehemently,
insisting that all Christians should be allowed to take the Sacred Host at a
Catholic Mass. What is their reasoning? Most of them insist that we are all
part of the same religion and therefore should all share the same Sacraments.
Following this line of reasoning, all baptised peoples should be equally
admitted at everybody’s version of the Eucharist, be they Baptist, Methodist,
Episcopalian, Catholic, Orthodox, &c.
But from the earliest days of the Church,
there were many people who possessed valid baptisms who were denied the
Catholic Sacraments for their unreconciled public sins or their association
with hereticks or schismatics. The ancient teaching of One, Holy, Catholick,
and Apostolick Church is foundational to understanding this. Not everybody who
is baptised is automatically in the Church regardless of what he believes or
does. And despite what the Protestant and Catholic false œcumenists say, the
Catholic religion and the Protestant religion are not the same religion. As if
this needed demonstration, here are a list of things that the few Protestants I
have in mind most assuredly reject in the teachings of the Catholic Church:
- We declare, say, define, and
pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human
creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Unam Sanctam]
- We declare, pronounce and define
that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first
instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the
Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of
mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been
revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by
all the faithful. [Fulgens Corona]
- We teach and define that it is a
dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra,
that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all
Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a
doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by
the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of
that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church
should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that
therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not
from the consent of the Church irreformable. [Pastor Æternus]
- There is one Universal Church of the
faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In which
there is the same priest and sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood
are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread
and wine; the bread being changed (transsubstantiatio) by divine
power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the
mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And
this sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly
ordained in accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ
Himself gave to the Apostles and their successors. [Fourth Lateran
Council]
- By the authority of our Lord Jesus
Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority,
we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that
the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the
course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
[Constitution Munificentissimus Deus]
- An indulgence is a remission before
God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been
forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under
certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as
the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the
treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. [Catechism of
the Catholic Church]
Now these doctrines are not mere side
issues. These doctrines are central to salvation, dogma, truth, and the person
of Christ. These are issues over which Catholics and Protestants disagree
substantially and cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant or unimportant. One
question immediately comes to mind. Why in the world would a Protestant who
denies such things vociferously even want to have Sacraments from a religion
who believed and taught all of these things, and taught that they must be
believed for salvation?
One such Protestant, Jon Amos, writes:
I tend to think as charitably as
possible of [Catholics]…to the extent that I try to forget that there are
actually Catholics out there, like you, who zealously cling to the worst and
most dangerous-to-body-and-soul of Catholic errors.
Of course, part of being a Catholic is
believing what the Catholic Church teaches. If I wanted to be a Protestant, I
would not have gone through the trouble of being reconciled to the Church.
According to Mr. Amos, however, the only truly faithful Catholics are
those who reject the Church’s teachings. For more on this, read his comment
here.
Mr. Amos continues:
That said, my position is – and has
been for some time – that Holy Communion is what it is, regardless of what
Catholics say it is or believe it to be. And it’s for this reason that I
receive without hesitation whenever I go to a Catholic Mass (rare as that may
be). I know it’s against the rules, but the rules are against Jesus’s rules, so
screw them. I also know that there are probably folks there (including even
maybe the priest) who, like you, are wilfully committing idolatry, but that
doesn’t make the Mass idolatry, just as an idolater performing Holy Baptism
doesn't make the Baptism idolatry.
It is hardly even believable. This man
obviously has little respect for the Catholic faith, less respect for Catholics
who actually take their faith seriously, and finally, no respect for the laws
of the Church. Now I ask you, why would any such soul who had so much scorn for
the Catholic Church want anything to do with the Catholic Mass? Let us suppose
that Jon Amos is correct and that the Catholic Church teaches bad and dangerous
“body-and-soul” heresies, and that Catholics are idolaters as he believes.
Where does Jesus ever say that you should involve yourself in the rituals of
idolatrous hereticks?
He does not believe what the Catholic
Church teaches, neither about herself, nor about the Sacraments, nor about
salvation, nor about anything. Yet he insists that the Catholic Mass is “Jesus’
meal” and that both he and every other soul on the planet are entitled to eat
it. Why does he even think it is the same religion as his? On a side note, I
wonder why he just does not become Catholic if the “faithful” Catholics reject
the Church’s teachings? Of course, I know why – he does not believe the
teachings of the Church and obviously acknowledges the folly of joining a
religion with which you do not agree. So why he continues to insist that the
Catholic Church is the same religion as his is beyond me. By his own words,
they are not even close.
If my church is celebrating the meal
that Jesus instituted for His whole church and you can’t receive with us, our
divisions are being deepened, not healed. Our Lord has given us this wonderful
sacrament - a meal that is (among many other things) powerfully, mysteriously
unifying, but, no, we know better than Him. What a shame. If it's Jesus’ meal
for all of His people, and if we recognize one another as brethren, we must be
able to commune together.
This is what continues to baffle me. The
Catholics do not think that you are part of His people, and historically
Protestants have denied that Catholics are part of His people. There is one
tiny minority here, a veritable church-of-one that has asserted his own
authority in all these matters, declaring that what he believes and only what
he believes are “Jesus’ rules” and that all others are guilty of dividing the
Church.
What the Catholics think of the Sacrament
is extremely different from what he thinks it is, yet he continues to insist
that they are really the same. And amidst all this inane double-talk is the
absurd claim that everything he is espousing is really Jesus’ teaching.
Yet Mr. Amos insists, against every
rational cue:
…if the priest won’t serve me, I’ll go
get in another line, mumbling to myself, “Bullshit. This is not your table,
man. This is Jesus’ table.”
One thing here is for sure: it is not your
table either, Mr. Amos. The priest who denies you the Sacred Host is merely
being faithful to his bishops and to his Church. By your theft of the Host, you
are not being faithful to anyone or anything other than your own precepts,
which have no place in the history of the Church and no place in Catholic
theology.
I do not expect you to become Catholic, or
to change your position on the Church, or anything else. But if the Catholic
Church does not allow you to receive her Sacraments because you are not
Catholic, the absolute very least you could do is show some decency and some
respect for the Church. Your ecclesial community probably does not allow its
own share of things in its liturgy. I would never dream of showing up to
disrupt your worship in any way, or do things contrary to what your sect
allows. I may not agree with anything which your sect does, but interfering
with another person’s religion is just rude.
Stealing the hosts may make you a
progressive in your own mind, but it does nothing to further Church unity. If
you want unity in the Church, pray for unity and encourage your bishops to seek
dialogue with the Catholic Church. Please do not profane Catholic Sacraments as
a means to unity. There are legitimate means to promote unity amongst
Christians. This is not one of them. |
