USCatholyc: Thumbs Up For Intercommunion!

Many of you probably avoid surfing the Catholyc publications because, well, you're sane, rational folks who know and love their faith, and choose to get your news from more reputable sites. And who could blame you? Why waste your time reading drivel from people more interested in weakening our Catholic identity than they are in strengthening it?

Plus - you got me to slog through the shallows and highlight the stupider stuff. Like this:

From USCatholyc, by Brian Cones (think Michael Sean Winters, but whinier) [my comments in blue]

The October issue of US Catholic has a Glad You Asked titled, "Can a Catholic receive communion in a Protestant church?" As if on cue, the pope's coming visit to Germany is drawing the same question from Protestants, who would like German Protestants and Catholics to be able to celebrate common eucharist.

While the Reuters story about the visit suggests that Catholic leaders are downplaying any hopes for a fuller recognition by Rome of the Reformation churches during his visit, and a major breakthrough is unlikely, I have a proposal: At one of the papal Masses, the pope should invite Christians of other churches who have "Catholic faith" in the Eucharist (many Lutherans do) to receive communion as a foretaste of our hope in full communion. [Here's an idea - exhort the country's Catholics to come to Mass and receive the sacraments, and reclaim their Catholic identity. How about that?]

Sound crazy? [yes, it does] I don't think so. The pope gave communion to Tony Blair, for example, before the former British PM became Catholic, and Catholic liturgical law does make provision for intercommunion in special circumstances. [I remember the kerfuffle over Blair receiving communion - but I also recall reading in several places (can't find them now, of course) that he only received a blessing. So I think to be more accurate, Blair allegedly received Holy Communion. Not only that, it occurred during a private Mass, not a Papal Mass. The circumstances are not synonymous.]

This would be a new step, but it would be welcome one for many Germans. [and Catholycs] Since it is an invitation to individuals, it doesn't require any further "recognition" of the churches of the Reformation. It would be up to individuals to present themselves. And since it's a special occasion--a papal Mass by a German pope on a state visit to his own country in the heart of Reformation country--it doesn't set a precedent. [A "special occasion" doesn't meet Canon Law requirements, me thinks. While Canon 844 allows for an exception "whenever necessity requires or general spiritual advantage suggests", I'll rely on the Holy Father's decision on whether this occasion provides a spiritual advantage, not Bryan Cones' opinion.] It's just a one-time opportunity for "separated" Christians to share together in a single Eucharist. [ah, rationalization. It's just "one-time". Who cares if it's just one time? Communion is the culmination of ecumenical journey, not the first step.] As GYA author Kevin Considine put it, intercommunion in this instance may allow us to gain the "needed grace" to push toward greater unity. [note: Considine's piece Cones refers to doesn't mention the Papal Mass. Here's the actual quote that Cones culls "needed grace" from: "The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism said that, as a general rule, common worship and eucharistic and other sacramental sharing should “signify the unity of the church.” But it acknowledges that such sharing can also be seen as advancing unity. In fact, according to the decree, “the gaining of a needed grace sometimes commends” it." More on that quote in a bit.]

So Cones' point is this: golly, we sure would look all friendly-like to the Protestants if we invite them to communion. So, why not? It might even get them to become Catholycs!

Well, being "friendly-like" at the expense of the Truth is how we end up with pregnant teenage girls, too. As in, hey honey, it's only "one-time". So it's a pretty poor basis for an argument.

As for the Considine quote: "The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism said that, as a general rule, common worship and eucharistic and other sacramental sharing should “signify the unity of the church.” But it acknowledges that such sharing can also be seen as advancing unity. In fact, according to the decree, “the gaining of a needed grace sometimes commends” it."

So I went ahead and read the Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redeintegratio), and this is where I found his excerpts from, in paragraph 8:

In certain special circumstances, such as the prescribed prayers "for unity," and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren. Such prayers in common are certainly an effective means of obtaining the grace of unity, and they are a true expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to their separated brethren. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them".(33)

Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circumstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops' Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.

I have found that the wording in Vat II documents to be somewhat squishy - one thing is said, followed quickly by something that seems to contradict what was just said. Which is another way of saying - any Church document or decree ought to be read many times, prayerfully, asking the Holy Spirit for guidance, or relying on authentic interpretation, in order to fully understand what's being declared. So if anything in my pithy analysis is incorrect or off the mark, it's entirely due to me not having done any of those things nearly enough, and not to any deficiency in the decree in and of itself. I defer to the Church's application of her decrees, not my own, and certainly not of those who write for USCatholic.

With that caveat -what I glean from paragraph 8 is that prescribed common prayers "for unity" are a desirable thing, and can be a means of "obtaining the grace of unity". But worship in common is not such a means. I don't see any reference to "Eucharistic and sacramental sharing", as Considine says. Which tells me the Council wasn't talking about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. So that smacks of a bit of presumption on his part.

What makes it confusing - and thus easy to misinterpret - is where it says witness to the unity of the Church forbids common worship - and "Church" here specifically refers to the Catholic Church, I'm presuming - but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends it. In other words - don't have common worship, but should you engage in it, even though you shouldn't, pray for the unity of the Church, and grace may come from it anyway.

Okay - perhaps that just means that the Holy Spirit will grace what and who He wills, and only He knows the heart and intent of those participating. The Church is admitting here, I believe, as She's always admitted, that She doesn't control what God does. But I don't believe the statements mean that common worship - which Cones and Considine seem to have interpreted as "let non-Catholics receive Holy Communion" - is an authentic means by which these ecclesial communities will eventually achieve full communion with the Church. Full communion means much much more than that

The entire Decree on Ecumenism is 24 paragraphs long, and USCatholic is hinging their argument on a strained interpretation of a segment of a paragraph. I think they should pay attention to the opening of paragraph 24:

"This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time directed toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of time."

Intercommunion is a superficial means towards ecumenism. It is the ends of the ecumenical action, not the means. I don't think Cones understands that.