The Heartache and the Hope

Tim Suttle, Senior Pastor of Redemption Church in Olathe, Kansas, reports via The Huffington Post of his experience attending Mass at Conception Abbey in Conception, Missouri, sharing both his heartache at our present divisions and his hope for the future of the church.

As a Protestant I am not permitted to receive the sacrament. I think of the injury which separates us and feel only sadness for the schism that keeps me kneeling in my place. Five-hundred years of Protestants blaming Catholics while we ourselves split into a million denominations; enough inhospitality to go around I guess.

The consecrated host and wine are offered first to the priests, then the monks, then the congregation. I kneel and pray, “Take and eat; this is My Body.” Someday we will all share this moment together in solidarity.

“Someday we will all share this moment together in solidarity.” Until then, we have much to learn, both from the reverent simplicity of monastic worship, and the humility and hopefulness of Pastor Tim.

Cody C. Unterseher

The Rev'd Cody C. Unterseher (1976-2012) was Priest Associate and former Theologian in Residence at Christ Episcopal Church, Bronxville, NY, and an oblate of Assumption Abbey in Richardton, ND. He held a B.A. in Theology from the University of Mary, Bismarck, ND; an M.A. in Liturgical Studies from Saint John's School of Theology•Seminary, Collegeville, MN; and an S.T.M. in Anglican Studies from The General Theological Seminary, New York, NY. At the time of his death, he was working toward a Ph.D. in Liturgical Studies at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana and serving as editor of <I>The Anglican</I>, the journal of The Anglican Society in North America. Fr. Cody died suddenly from complications associated with an aneurysm in April, 2012.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

32 responses to “The Heartache and the Hope”

  1. Joe Ski

    same sentiments can be shared with those in my parish and the pastor.

    Reply
  2. Jeffrey Pinyan

    Fr. Cody, the link to the HuffPo article is missing. Here’s a working link.

    Reply
    1. Cody C. Unterseher

      Link fixed — thank you, Jeffrey!

      Reply
  3. Dunstan Harding

    One has to wonder when Rome finally gets it. Non-Catholics are barred from holy communion because they don’t accept “transubstantiation”, or the eucharist as a sacrifice?

    If the folks at the Pew Research are to be believed and from other studies conducted, some going back as far as 1967 (the Gallup organization), perhaps the number of Roman Catholics in America today who don’t accept either doctrine could be as high as 60%. Yet, Catholics are admitted to communion because they call themselves Catholics? Are registered in the parish records as Catholics? Can present a baptismal certificate from a Catholic church saying I’m a Catholic? Because they signed a loyalty oath to the pope, or a Declaration of Faith?

    Something is very wrong with this picture. A Church of endless legalistic litmus tests for present members and maybe future ones cries out for more theologians in the mold of the late Fr. Edvard Schellebbcx, OP or another Fr. Ives Congar, OP.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      The orthodox doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass would not change if 100% of lay Catholics misunderstood it.

      Lay Catholic ignorance of orthodox Eucharistic teaching derives directly from many priests’ manifest inability to preach on the unbloody sacrifice and the fruits of this sacrifice for the living and the dead. I have heard priests, even in the confessional of all places, greatly mangle the definition of the Mass. Usually I get a vague definition that reflects consubstantialism or the doctrine of sacramental union. Didn’t these priests read Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Tridentine Catechism, and the modern Catechism before their ordination? Perhaps not, because so few are given a solid philosophical and theological education, let alone a firm grounding in Latin and Greek. The only priests that can profitably preach on the Sacrifice are almost always EF or “reform of the reform” priests, many of whom have reputable postgraduate or doctoral theological educations and can read and interpret seminal documents written in sacral languages. If many priests cannot accurately teach their parishes orthodox doctrines, then perhaps ordinaries should mandate the use of homilaries and postils.

      The state of Roman Catholic seminary education must be extremely dire if priests cannot quickly and precisely define the basic doctrines of the Catholic faith from the pulpit and in the confessional. The laity cannot bear the full responsibility for their ignorance if blind clerics are leading the way.

      Reply
      1. Joe Ski

        Here! here!

      2. Joe O'Leary

        I agree that priests are under-educated theologically, but that also includes those whose notions of theology are merely to repeat Aquinas, Trent (both in some simplified form), and the Catechism. Eucharistic theology underwent a huge renewal before and after Vatican II and to ignore this is to be part of the problem.

      3. Cody C. Unterseher

        Let’s be clear: while Trent affirms that the Eucharist is a sacrifice in itself, not simply a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, that Council is ambiguous as regards the nature and means of the sacrifice. It leaves room for interpretation, much as room is left for interpretation in the dogma of the Atonement. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant theologians were theorizing on the nature of the sacrifice well before Trent, and have continued to do so ever since. Some interpretations (the wholly memorialist ones, rising from the teachings of Huldrych Zwingli, for example; or those anathematized by the Council) must be excluded. But it is factually incorrect to assert that there is one “orthodox” reading of Eucharistic sacrifice to the exclusion of all others. Even the Fathers of the Council of Trent and their theological advisors had differing opinions on this matter — hence the ambiguity in the Conciliar definition.

    2. Robert B. Ramirez

      From this article it is hard to tell just what Mr. Suttle believes about the Catholic Eucharist. While he does genuflect to the tabernacle, elsewhere he refers to the elevated “bread”, and the “wine” distributed to communicants. One hesitates to draw many conclusions from a brief article, but my guess is that the author’s beliefs at this point are undecided. (One’s reminded of Charles Ryder in Brideshead Revisited genuflecting to the tabernacle for the sake of good manners.) If Mr. Suttle’s not sure what he believes, he’s right to inject ambiguity into his report, but having done so certainly isn’t an argument for anyone’s admission to Holy Communion.

      Reply
      1. Karl Liam Saur

        This is the statement on his church’s website, FWIW:

        “COMMUNION

        Communion is a sacrament or a means of Grace whereby the people of God can experience the reality of Christ Jesus. The practice of communion is an ancient practice, instituted by Jesus in the last supper and having been practiced as the center of Christian worship from the very beginning of the early church. In our commitment to maintain continuity with the ancient church, we keep communion the center of worship at Redemption as well. You don’t have to be a member to partake with us. Our hope is that every person who is trying to follow Jesus will feel welcomed in communion. We practice “intinction” which is where we come up row by row and each person takes the bread and dips it into the cup, then eats it. This is meant to inspire a sense of mystery and reverence at how the Body and Blood of Christ provides grace for the whole person. No one should ever feel like they have to take part in communion. If you are not ready yet or just don’t feel comfortable participating we encourage you to use the time for quiet reflection.”

      2. Cody C. Unterseher

        He refers to the host and wine as “consecrated.”

        It’s quite clear to me (at least) that he believes that Jesus Christ is really present in the Sacrament. That he does not specify the means of that presence does not diminish in the vitality of his belief. One would be hard pressed to force a reading of ambiguity into what he states.

      3. Robert B. Ramirez

        What Mr. Suttle means by “consecrated” is not obvious to the casual reader unacquainted with the man. I appreciate his piety, but am unconvinced that a man who refers to the Eucharistic Elements as bread and wine possesses a fully Catholic sense of the Sacrament. If he truly intends the Catholic sense of presence, considering the circumstances, he might have taken the trouble to make that quite clear.

      4. F C Bauerschmidt

        [I] am unconvinced that a man who refers to the Eucharistic elements as bread and wine possesses a fully Catholic sense of the Sacrament.

        You mean someone like St. Paul (see 1 Corinthians 10:16)?

      5. Robert B. Ramirez

        Fritz, please. No serious person harbors doubts about what Paul believed, as context makes it quite clear he had a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. Mr. Suttle may also for all I know — but he is somewhat less well known.

        In an article that pointedly mentions the regrettable fact of closed communion, it’s not too much to ask that a friendly guest wistfully reflecting on his non-admission would take the opportunity to indicate his unity of faith, if such it is.

      6. F C Bauerschmidt

        No serious person harbors doubts about what Paul believed, as context makes it quite clear he had a Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.

        If you will indulge an unserious moment: what exactly is the context that makes clear Paul’s Catholic understanding of the Eucharist? I know many evangelicals who would happily affirm that the bread that they break is a sharing in the body of Christ. Does Paul say something more than this? Even if one adds in his remarks about “discerning the body” and unworthy participation making one ill, we don’t really get a Eucharistic theology that falls clearly on the Catholic rather than evangelical side of things.

        Of course the context you refer to might be the fact that he is a saint of the Church, or that his writings are Scripture. This should certainly lead us to give Paul the benefit of the doubt. I myself think that if Paul read Summa Theologiae III q. 75 a. 1, and had all the relevant terms explained to him, as well as the historical context in which those terms developed, as well as the heresies that Thomas is trying to avoid, he would surely say, “OK, that is more or less what I think about the Lord’s Supper.” But, who knows, maybe Mr. Suttle would say the same thing.

        My point was that it is silly to latch onto one word and treat it as a gotcha term for detecting heterodoxy. There were bishops in the early 4th century who thought that homoiousia was preferable to homoousia, but who are considered today to have held the Catholic faith regarding the Holy Trinity.

      7. Robert B. Ramirez

        Fritz, this is not about heterodoxy or playing gotcha. The topic was introduced by Mr. Suttle, remember? It’s about admission to Holy Communion. I have no wish to see anyone deprived of sacramental graces. The concern with what Mr. Suttle believes is grounded in charity: a concern for his own welfare (if he were to receive lacking proper disposition) as well as that of others who might be placed at risk of scandal.

    3. Jeffrey Herbert

      Dunstan;

      On this issue, Rome isn’t the one who has to “get it”.

      Reply
  4. Joe O'Leary

    Some reading tips: Louis Bouyer, David Power, Nicholas Lash (His Presence in the World), Louis-Marie Chauvet, Edward Schillebeeckx, P. J. Fitzpatrick (In Breaking of Bread), Edward John Kilmartin,

    Here is a wide-ranging bibliography: http://moses.creighton.edu/harmless/bibliographies_for_theology/Sacraments_4.htm

    for a German bibliography, look up Literatur zur Eucharistielehre on this Google page (it links to a pdf file)

    Could it be that seminary students now are just not the brightest? They clutch at the Catechism and at outdated notions of what orthodoxy is as a sort of security blanket; or else they rely on a non-intellectual approach that is pastorally anemic. The Vatican has not helped by their paranoid attitude to theological discussion.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      I agree that a seminary education, both for seminarians and the laity, does not stop at Trent or even the modern Catechism. There should be courses on modern Eucharistic theology and a healthy level of classroom discussion. Also, parish priests should discuss modern re-assertions of pivotal theological concepts, such as the paschal mystery, in a way that reflects other orthodox teachings on the Eucharist. I do not envy priests who must make these syntheses within five to ten minutes.

      Unlike a priest who is an academic, a parish priest bears a special responsibility (cross?) to educate the Catholic public. The laity need a solid grounding in the theology of the Mass that is based on succinct definitions. Without this, the laity float without a firm foundation. Such definitions might be simplistic and heavily slanted towards the Catechisms. Nevertheless, a simple explanation often provides just enough knowledge for the laity to understand what they are hearing, seeing, and saying at Mass.

      Reply
      1. Joe O'Leary

        The liturgy explains itself quite well: “See the Victim whose death has reconciled us with Yourself”.

        But see this: PROPOSED NEW TRANSLATION: Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself…

  5. Joe O'Leary

    Precisely because of the theological penury of the clergy and the laity it is very important that the language of the liturgy be transparent. If the liturgy cannot explain itself, who will explain it? The current Eucharistic Prayers contain a rich and clear eucharistic theology — which is going to be blurred in the forthcoming translation.

    Reply
  6. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    In the south where the majority of Christians at our Catholic funerals and weddings are Protestants, in the recent past they never questioned not being invited to receive Holy Communion. That’s not the case today. Many are offended when we exclude them. I normally say after the Intercessions, that we invite all practicing Roman Catholics who are properly prepared to receive Holy Communion. All other Catholics and other Christians may wish to make a spiritual communion and to pray for Christian unity. Some may wish to come forward for a blessing by crossing their arms over their chest.”
    Since technically Catholics who are in a state of “mortal sin” shouldn’t present themselves for Holy Communion but go to confession first, should we then have “open confession” and invite our Protestant brothers and sisters to share that sacrament too? Just wondering how well that would go over.

    Reply
    1. Andrew Casad

      Technically the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is open to all the baptized. In fact the RCIA specifically states that those who are preparing for reception into the full communion of the Catholic Church should celebrate this sacrament of healing prior to their being received, confirmed, and communicated. So clearly already being Catholic is not a precondition for confession and absolution.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        Perhaps the intention to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church is? At the very least, the penitent would need to believe in the ministerial priesthood and the efficacy of the sacrament!

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Andrew, you would be speaking of “candidates” who are baptized but have gone through a public ceremony indicating the church’s desire that they enter into the full-communion of the Church and their desire to do so also–they are on their way, so to speak. I don’t think this privilege is extended to others who do not desire full communion, unless of a real need, they cannot experience this sacrament in their own denomination, although they believe in it and the local bishop gives permission, similar to Protestants receiving Holy Communion under the same criteria.

      3. Andrew Casad

        There is no required public ceremony indicating the church’s desire that they enter into the full-communion of the Church as Fr Allan indicated. The US bishops fashioned an optional rite akin to the Rite of Acceptance into the Order of Catechumens (which is required for those seeking baptism), however, this optional rite for candidates is not specifically called for in RCIA Part II, Chapter 5 concerning the reception into the full communion of the Catholic Church of those from separated ecclesial communions but rather appears only in Chapter 4 as an optional rite concerning those baptized but uncatechized Catholics. So while I would agree with Jeffrey that the intention is to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church and that, therefore, this is not akin to fully open reconciliation it does remain the case that the only prerequisite on the part of the penitent for the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is his or her having been baptized.

      4. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Andrew, I am not sure that all of the additional rites of the Catechumenate are essential either for the unbaptized. I think what really counts is one’s intention–i.e. going through a catechetical and spiritual process that leads to adult baptism. The same can be said of those already baptized where there is clearly an intention on the part of the parish and the individual to be received into the full communion of the Church through profession of faith, confirmation and Holy Communion.
        But at any rate, I do believe protestants can receive these two sacraments independent of the intention of entering into the full communion of the Church if:
        1. There is a great need for them
        2. They do not have access to these sacraments from their own denomination or ministers
        3. That they believe what Catholics believe about these sacraments, although I think that there is flexibility as to which philosophical understanding they might have.
        4. And finally and most importantly, the bishop gives the permission.

  7. Todd Flowerday

    Lack of Communion is primarily a political rupture, not a matter of right faith in the Eucharist. If it were otherwise, how does one account for almost ten centuries of East-West schism?

    Secular polls are often cited as evidence that Catholics don’t believe, but I have my suspicions, both of how the questions were rendered, and the fruitfulness of assuming all was well before 1970, 1963, 1517, pick your date.

    The truth is that belief in the Real Presence is widespread, the root of much inspiration outside of Catholicism.

    Among Catholics, especially bishops, I find a poverty of sorrow for Christian divisions. That starting point is a blind spot for too many self-styled orthodox.

    And if the encounter with Christ were so dependent on education, in the seminary or otherwise, why is it a matter of faith?

    Reply
  8. Joe O'Leary

    I think we should conceive of the entire meal-event as transsubstantiated into a participation in the Paschal Mystery — all orthodox teaching about the Real Presence can be subsumed into that model, and it avoids the magical fetishism of what some African theologians accuse our theology.

    Reply
  9. Jack Feehily

    I regard all claims that practicing Catholics fail to grasp the essence of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist as little more than a canard. This assertion, in my opinion, flows from the fact that in common speech the word real implies a physical reality. The people easily intuit that we are not, in holy communion, being offered pieces or portions of Christ’s body and blood. Without being able to express it in precise theological parlance, they sense that the reality involved here is a sacramental one so that what their senses fail to fathom they grasp with faith’s consent. When I listen to the self-styled orthodox clergy and laity, I sometimes wonder if they don’t think that real means physical. I can hear them now asking me if substantial doesn’t mean physical. My response, with the teaching of thomas aquinas, is “no”.

    Reply
    1. Rita Ferrone

      Jack, thanks for this. I think your point about a “sacramental” presence is well taken.

      Reply
    2. Jeffrey Pinyan

      When I listen to the self-styled orthodox clergy and laity, I sometimes wonder if they don’t think that real means physical. I can hear them now asking me if substantial doesn’t mean physical.

      I’m not sure how much of this is hypothetical and how much isn’t. Are you actually asked by “self-styled orthodox clergy and laity” whether the substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is physical? And do you venture to ask those “self-styled” folk if they believe “real” means “physical” so as to settle the matter?

      Reply

Posted

in

, ,

by

Cody C. Unterseher

Tags:

,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading