Canada, which might not be as secularist as people have assumed, is undergoing a religious and political controversy occasioned by Prime Minister Stephen Harper going up for Communion at a Roman Catholic funeral mass. Here is what happened:
It began last Friday when Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper attended a Catholic funeral mass for a former Canadian government official. Harper, who is Protestant, went to the altar during communion and received a sacramental wafer from the presiding priest. A 40-second video clip shows Harper accepting the wafer but not putting it in his mouth.
What did the guest do with the host? Did the Prime Minister pocket the Body of Christ? As a non-catholic, should the Prime Minister have even received or accepted the communion wafer? Is this really what constitutes a political scandal in Canada?
Wafergate might not rise to the U.S. level of a true political scandal, but it does highlight the challenges of respectfully observing the religious rituals of others, even when those others are fellow Christians. For Roman Catholics, unlike their Protestant brothers and sisters, the bread and wine of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist are more than mere symbols.
“(The wafer) is not a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, but is in fact the body and blood of Christ,” Neil MacCarthy, director of communications for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, told the National Post. “We believe we are holding Jesus in our hands, so to put Jesus in your pocket or to put Jesus on the ground (is serious). If it falls on the ground it has to be consumed. We never throw Jesus out,” MacCarthy said.
The Prime Minister’s Office said Harper did no such thing. “The priest offered the host to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister accepted the host and he consumed it,” says press secretary Dimitri Soudas.
But Monsignor Brian Henneberry, vicar general and chancellor in the Diocese of Saint John, says there are two issues: First, if Harper did pocket the wafer, “It’s worse than a faux pas, it’s a scandal from the Catholic point of view.” Second: “If the prime minister is not a Catholic, he should not have been receiving communion and if he comes up it places the priest in an awkward position, especially at a national funeral because everyone is watching,” he told the Telegraph-Journal.
As Notre Dame professor M. Cathleen Kaveny pointed out in an On Faith discussion on this issue last year, if anyone is at fault in this sort of situation, it’s the priest who serves communion, not the person who receives it.
“The canon law of the Roman Catholic Church specifies that “Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to Catholic members of Christ’s faithful” (Canon 844), Kaveny wrote. “It does not, however, specify that people . . . may not present themselves for communion (since canon law claims jurisdiction only over Catholics), and it does not specify how a priest ought to respond if a non-Catholic presents himself or herself for Communion, especially at a funeral mass. Other norms apply, particularly the norm of avoiding scandal. The sound application of canon law in particular cases requires pastoral judgment — that particular combination of prudence and charity that good ministers of all faiths seem to have in common.”
In the same discussion, Catholic theologian John Dominic Crossan raised a larger issue: “Who should accept the eucharistic ritual? Those and only those who are intentionally, self-consciously, and publicly committing themselves to live like Jesus and, if unfortunately ever necessary, to die like Jesus.”
It sounds like Mr. Harper too realized he should not be receiving Communion, which is why he didn’t eat the host, though apparently he did later, which would go back to the original problems. But I’m struck by that last paragraph. Here again we see that the issues of the Reformation still remain. Though Lutherans appear to outsiders to be similar in many ways to Roman Catholics–believing in Christ’s real presence in the bread and wine, practicing closed communion–they remain nearly opposites in their views of what it all means and whether communion and salvation itself are a matter of law or gospel. Is Christianity all about having to live like Jesus, or is it about receiving His forgiveness because we fail to do so? Contrast the paragraph above with what the Catechism teaches:
18. Finally, why do you wish to go to the Sacrament?
That I may learn to believe that Christ, out of great love, died for my sin, and also learn from Him to love God and my neighbor.
19. What should admonish and encourage a Christian to receive the Sacrament frequently?
First, both the command and the promise of Christ the Lord. Second, his own pressing need, because of which the command, encouragement, and promise are given.
UPDATE: Commenters have pointed out that Crossan is the radical theologian of the Jesus Seminar, which denies the truth of the Bible and is not an orthodox Catholic at all. (I wonder if he is allowed to commune!) My understanding, though, is that Rome does teach that receiving the Sacrament is seen as a good and meritorious work, that it requires moral preparation, and that the grace it gives conveys the power to do good works, which play an essential role in salvation. I’d be interested to hear from Catholics if this understanding is correct and if they agree with Crossan on at least this one statement that he makes.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
“Wafergate.” I like that. Well, I guess it’s a far less worrisome scandal that my Prime Minister has found himself in, compared to the one in the recent past which almost ousted his government from power.
At my Father’s funeral mass, my sister’s boyfriend (a non-catholic) went up to receive communion, the priest realized (not sure how) that he had given the host to a non-catholic and hurriedly (almost ran) walked up the aisle after him, took it out of his hand before he had a chance to ingest it.
In the past, Roman Catholic priests have given communion to other non-Romanist politicians, including Sen Bob Kerry (D-Neb), Prime Minister Tony Blair, and, of course, Monica’s ex-boyfriend, prompting Cardinal John O’Conner to note: “Some undoubtedly believe that if one has enough prestige or money, anything goes.”
To be fair, John Dominic Crossan is as representative of Roman Catholic theology as John Shelby Spong is of Anglican theology or Paul Bretscher is of Lutheran theology.
His work shouldn’t come into the conversation at all.
“Is Christianity all about having to live like Jesus, or is it about receiving His forgiveness because we fail to do so?”
That’s a false dichotomy. We receive Christ’s forgiveness so that we may be freed to live like Jesus.
“We are for this very end justified, that, being righteous, we may begin to do good works and to obey God’s Law. We are regenerated adn receive the Holy Ghost for the very end that the new life may produce new works, new dispositions, the fear and love of God, the fear and love of God, hatred of concupiscence, etc.”
From Ap.Aug., III.227-228.
And specifically on the Supper:
“On this account it is indeed called a food of souls, which nourishes and strengthens the new man. For by baptism we are first born anew; but (as we said before) there still ermains, besides, the old vicious nature of flesh and blood in man, and there are so many hindrances and temptations of the devil and of the world that we often bevcome weary and faint, and somtimes also stumble. Therefore it is given for a daily pasture and sustenance, that faith may refresh and strengthen itself so as not to fall back in such a battle, but become every stronger and stronger. For the new life must be so regulated that it continually increase and progress . . .”
LC v.23-24
The unregenreated man “gots” to obey God, the regenerated man “gets” to obey God.
It is possible that the Prime Minister did not realize that the communion was only for Catholics. I grew up in an open communion environment, where communion is available to anyone professing Christ as his/her Savior. I remember attending my first Catholic funeral as a young man and not knowing what to do when Communion was offered. Someone whispered to me that I should just stay in my seat. Particularly in the secular society in which we live, where few know or care about religious tradition, I am sure these situations arise frequently during events of this type, where those of many faiths will be attending.
Since this issue is a matter of church canonical law, rather than a biblical teaching, it is up to the pastor/priest to educate the congregants when conducting a service, such as a state funeral, where it is known that many not of that faith are attending. A simple sentence advising that Communion is offered only to those of the Catholic faith would suffice. It is not incumbent upon the attender to know all of the intricacies of the doctrine of the particular church in which the service is being held.
Above all, this should be a matter of grace. Christ was all about grace, and certainly did not get uptight about Jewish law and tradition — His concern was the heart of man.
A Head of State usually has a Principal Private Secretary, along with assorted under-secretaries, and assistant private secretaries, and an Office of the Chief of Protocol, to avoid these faux pas and FUBARs.
Maybe there will be a new position opening up soon in Canada.
Prime Minister Harper was communed a year or two ago at Foothills Lutheran Church in Calgary, a congregation of Lutheran Church–Canada. Although this certainly would not be in keeping with LCC official practice of closed communion, to be charitable one would assume that the pastor would have had an opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister before the service and explain our practice. Perhaps pastoral discretion in extraordinary circumstances might be at play. At the very least his security and PR people must have spoken with the pastor before the visit and the issue of communing could or should have been discussed.
As I recall, the church’s newsletter that month seemed to express an element of prestige associated with the PM’s communing there. Of course there is no prestige for a pastor or congregation in administering the sacrament to anyone, Prime Minister or pauper. Nor is there prestige in receiving the sacrament but rather a humility as we ‘poor miserable sinners’ come into the presence of Christ and by mouth receive His body and blood and His forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.
The PM should have known better. He is no hick – he is an economist by training – is articulate and well-educated, and he must be well aware of the Roman view of the wafer. When in Rome, do as the Romans, as they say.
Jim @ 5: Crossan states that only those who have committed publicly to live and die like Christ should receive the host. I can’t agree less; the benefits received in the Supper are certainly received in faith, but the distribution of Grace is absolutely NOT predicated on our “public commitment” to Christ, as if receiving the host is a prestigious badge of confession (as in Calgary). Man, Zwingli still has a following! And among Romans!
CL
Cypto-Lutheran,
I wasn’t taking issue with Gene’s rejection of Crosan’s characterization. It was the next step that Gene took, in generalizing his objection to Crossan’s statement.
Specifically, Gene wrote:
“Is Christianity all about having to live like Jesus, or is it about receiving His forgiveness because we fail to do so?”
It is just a false to say that Christianity is all and only about receiving Christ’s forgivenes as it is to say that Christianity is all about having to live like Jesus. And the Lutheran Confessions are chrystal clear about that: faith receives the forgiveness that transforms us into new men, even if imperfectly in this life time.
Maybe I’m straining at a gnat, but it seems to me that some (many?) ostensibly confessional Lutherans resist what the Confessions teach regarding the change that saving faith makes in the lives of the faithful, however imperfectly.
With all due respect, teaching people that “only those who are intentionally, self-consciously, and publicly committing themselves to live like Jesus” are eligible to receive Holy Communion is a plain lie and contrary to Scripture. Ironically, many churches outside the Catholic church also teach this concept, as applied to who is a “good” Christian and who is not.
Ok, Jim. Good point. Theresa sums up my thoughts well @ 11.
CL
P.s. Happy 500th, Calvin….
I should add that, unlike PM Harper, I would not attend a Roman sacrificial mass unless it was the last option in the world. Luther rightly condemned it, and if PM Harper cared at all he would have abstained. I wonder if he’s trying to garner support among secular (and post-Roman) Quebecers by looking like a fool and doing the “wrong thing” in a church which Quebecers have largely rejected.
CL
Jim,
You wrote “Maybe I’m straining at a gnat, but it seems to me that some (many?) ostensibly confessional Lutherans resist what the Confessions teach regarding the change that saving faith makes in the lives of the faithful, however imperfectly.”
The fault there lies with Walther and his “Proper Distinction….” book. It is a wonderful book, to be sure. It taught me much about dividing law and gospel and using that knowledge as a hermeneutical tool to understanding God’s holy Word. But he recommended against “Law, gospel, law” preaching. Therefore -according to Walther- a pastor may not, like St. Paul does in so many of his epistles, give suggestions for thankful living to regenerated people who have been slain by the Law and revived and regenerated by the living gospel. The BoC, Jim is quite right, allows for and encourages “thankful living” preaching.
CL
The Rev above said it but it bears repeating:
John Dominic Crossan IS NOT A CATHOLIC. At least not anymore, not for years and years. He’s the absolute worst kind of academic “Bible scholar” and is the founding member of the “Jesus Seminar,” I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to google up the shenanigans that group is involved in (and which consequently make them media darlings.)
The entire basis of this post is poor journalism that would report Crossan as a Catholic… heck even as a Christian. Or even as a theist of any stripe, I’m not even sure if the guy believes God is real.
Make your critiques of Catholic theology but please at least make sure it’s coming from a legit source.
Good point, all, about Crossan. I’ll add that to the post. But, Jim, I am certainly not denying that good works flow from faith and are stimulated by the sacrament. But the issue quite specifically is the basis for receiving Holy Communion. Do you receive it as committing a good work (which even orthodox, non-Crossan Catholics teach), or because you are a sinner to receive Christ’s forgiveness?
And does being a Christian mean living like Jesus, our great example? (Who has done that? Who can live up to His standards? And yet I hear even some evangelicals talk this way. Whereupon I ask, “How are you doing with that?”) Or does it mean admitting that we do NOT live like Jesus and so are miserable, lost sinners, but taking Him as our Savior?
The first view bases salvation on fulfilling the Law; the second view on Christ fulfilling the Law on our behalf, which is the Gospel. This is not a false dichotomy; it is the true dichotomy that we must get right.
Yes, this faith and our love for Him spills over into love and service to our neighbors, in good works.
(But, Crypto, Walther is surely right that a pastor must not preach law, gospel, law. Someone explain that!)
1 Thess. 4. Thanks, Pastor St. Paul.
CL
I was born and brought up Catholic and converted to Lutheran in my 30’s. So when my grandmother died in the middle 80’s I went to her funeral. The priest there specifically asked for anyone who wanted to partake of communion to come forward, Catholic or not. I refrained because it would be an outward show of unity in faith which I do not have with the Catholics.
Quote: “It sounds like Mr. Harper too realized he should not be receiving Communion, which is why he didn’t eat the host, though apparently he did later, which would go back to the original problems.”
I think it’s worth noting that Prime Minister Harper attends a Christian and Missionary Alliance church. It is the practice in denominations like this to wait until everyone has received the bread and “wine” (they would use juice more frequently) before consuming. Prime Minister Harper seems to have received the wafer and then held on to it, expecting no doubt to eat it later along with everyone. When he realized that everyone else had already consumed it, he then ate it. I think it’s doubtful he even knew about the practices of “close(d) communion” and had no particular qualms about taking it in a Roman Catholic church.
Knowing all that helps to understand why Prime Minister Harper made the mistake he made. No doubt, it’s an error that Mr. Harper will not be making again any time soon.
Isn’t it about time that all Christians (including the Catholics) reach out to embrace each other rather than being hung up on man-made doctrines?? Jesus himself was irritated by meaningless rituals, and I am sure would welcome all to his memorial table. Let’s join hands in Christian faith and invite all to the table.!! It is about time that we talk more of unity and less of division!! Kudos to the Prime Minister in his attempt to honor the late Govenor General as well as Christ’s sacrifice for Mankind
Bill @ 20:
This is no man-made doctrine. This is a sacrament where we receive Christ’s true body and blood. Treating it as a mere symbol for some ecumenical movement will meet with grave results.
1 Corinthians 11:27-31 (KJV)
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
Veith,
I dare you to start a discussion on how we might reconcile Walther and his “Proper Distinction….” and 1 Thess. 4 (and the other numerous examples where Paul is teaching (not condemning) regenerated people with the law). I understand that the law firstly condemns and the wounds it opens must be salved by the Gospel. But Paul clearly teaches that “you have been baptized” i.e. regenerated, “therefore stop committing adultery”. Could a Lutheran preacher preach this way today.
Come on…. I know orthodox Lutherans who view Walther’s assertion that the Law must NEVER follow the Gospel as not conforming to a biblical example.
Blessings,
CL
Of course, Crypto, I hear that kind of sermon all the time. (See the St. Athanasius blog at the top of my blog roll for examples.) We believe in the “third use of the law,” that God’s law guides the conduct of Christians. What Walther meant by saying pastors shouldn’t “preach the law” after “preaching” the gospel involves the “theological use” of the law. A pastor preaches the law to make his hearers feel their guilt and their lost condition, whereupon he preaches the gospel to comfort them with the work of Christ. Having done so, he doesn’t again try to make them feel guilty and lost. Exhortations to Christian living–especially based on the fact of your salvation as in the example you give–are commonplace in Lutheran preaching.
This is why I love this blog–love the discussion.
Doctrine is IMPORTANT, even if many modern churches choose to ignore it.
Our church’s worship team wants to attend a “worship team conference” put on by the Vineyard. If I had my own blog, I would love to start a discussion on why this is icky.
Hi Veith,
Thanks for your comments. Is the “third use” not also a theological one? My understanding of Walther’s book is that a pastor preaches the law, then the Gospel, and then he’s done. “A good pastor doesn’t need to offer suggestions at the tail end of his sermon” a good friend explained to me recently. I countered with 1 Thess. 4 and “is St. Paul a good preacher?” I will check out your church’s website; hopefully the pastor posts his sermons there…
God bless,
CL
We are getting tangled up in words. According to orthodox Lutheranism, there are three uses of the Law: as a curb (to inhibit our outward behavior so that sinners can live in a civil order; this is called the “civil use of the law”); as a mirror (to reveal our sinful and lost condition; this is called the “theological use of the law”); and as a guide (showing Christians the life that pleases God; this is called the “pedagogical use of the law”).
Some Lutherans have denied the third use, but they have been condemned in our confessions as antinominians. The notion that Lutherans don’t believe in the third use is a commonplace of anti-Lutheran polemics among the Reformed, but it just isn’t true. The way one preaches the law is critical, of course, and what Walther was warning against is finishing the sermon by making the hearers feel guilty instead of assured, which, ironically, is what enables Christians to truly follow the third use of the law!
Read this and, even more authoritatively. coming from the sainted theologian Kurt Marquart, this.
OK. Thanks. I appreciate your having taken the time to explain this. Still, my “criticism” (if I can call it that) doesn’t spring from my upbringing in a reformed family and church (I had no idea as a youth that the reformed considered Lutherans to be antinomian – I was brought up with a rather rosy view of Luther) – rather, my concerns come because I have heard orthodox Lutherans say that the sermon should not be finished with the third use of the Law. I am under the impression (however falsely contrived it may be) that the third use is considered too reformed for many orthodox Lutherans. You have rightly stated that the third use is not only biblical (which is enough) but it is biblical because the preaching of St. Paul abounds with examples of sermons concluded with the third use of the law. I will need to take Walther’s book down from my shelf, and read it very, very carefully again. It is possible I have the wrong impression of his work.
CL
Hi Veith,
Check this out: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14420660838
That’s the group “Antinomians Anonymous” For a good laugh at least. I recognize some LCMS/LCC guys there.