An oddity in Rome. . .

Although its permission has not been uniformly or evenly granted, it has become regular enough so that it is no longer rare to have the chalice offered to Roman Catholic laity.  That said, the practice since roughly 1414 AD has been for laity not to receive from the chalice and more profoundly formulated in the Council of Trent a little more than one hundred years later.  It was only after Vatican II that this changed and it did not change universally.  Apparently some bishops are returning to a more restrictive practice and attempting to change what had become a more routine practice of offering reception of the precious blood to those other than clergy.  Some bishops are suggesting that the offering of the chalice to the laity should be reserved to more "special" occasions which, for some anyway, do not include Christmas or Easter.  It seems rather odd to me as a Lutheran and I suspect for many others as well.

The decision for this is and has always been at the discretion of the local bishop.  That is one oddity.  It means that across the invisible line from one diocese to another, very different practices may be operative.  Since Vatican II, communion in both kinds moved from an impossibility since Trent to pretty much the normal practice 400 years later.  Tradition is in the eye of the beholder and even though the first 1400 years or more did one thing, from the Council of Florence on was another practice.  So the tradition here is at best about 600 years old.  Another problem I have with Rome.  Tradition here is hardly different than someone in a Lutheran circle insisting that is not the way it was in great-grandpa's church.  This is really goofy.

What is even more goofy is the insistence that this is not "more" Jesus or "less" Jesus but that Jesus received in the bread is all the Jesus there is and so no more is needed.  Except that Jesus said differently.  If Jesus' words about this can be abrogated (Trent's words have not been overturned), then why can't they be ignored or altered for other things.  The reality is that this restriction of the laity from receiving the wine was not majority or universal in the Western church until the 1400s.  Plague (read Covid in modern terms) may have justified this emergency practice but what made it normative is exactly the problem.  It should be noted that Lutherans followed the Eastern practice which never withheld the chalice.  We followed Rome when Rome followed Jesus and we departed when Rome did not.  While some of the issues with Rome may seem rather sophisticated and not altogether practical, the restriction of the chalice from the laity is an every Sunday concrete issue.  Every Lutheran would agree, this is not about how much Jesus you get (as if a bigger host or larger sip would grant more grace) but whether the words of Jesus are normative and how that normative practice since the Upper Room are the definitive word on the issue.  Nobody should make normal practice of what happens in an emergency.

Do we get to depart from Jesus' clear words or not?  Rome seems to be saying that they do.  The rest of us should give pause to embracing this idea.  Furthermore, this treats Jesus' body and blood as something the Church must protect while this is exactly how our Lord has made Himself accessible to us.  Here, some Lutherans may sound a bit like those who, when speaking of who communes, sound like they are protecting Jesus.  Close communion protects not Jesus but those whose communion may harm them and not benefit them.  We are gatekeeping for Jesus but for the sake of those unprepared or unable to receive the body and blood of Jesus as blessing.  Jesus does not need us to protect Him from those for whom He has come but those who are unable to receive a worthy communion must be protected by Jesus.  The scandal of the Sacraments is that they are for sinners.  Rome seems to try to remove this offensive generosity and make Jesus blood less accessible for sinners than His body.  If that is not offensive, it is the strangest oddity.

 

Oddly offensive misstep. . .

In what has to be one of the most tone deaf and oddly offensive actions of the Church of England, Hafiz Muhammad Tahir Mehmood Ashrafi was given the Hubert Walter Award for Reconciliation and Interfaith Cooperation.  It all happened on Friday — 11 September.  Who in their right mind scheduled this?  Whether or not he deserved it or not, it was an offensive misstep for a church body that prides itself on careful order.  He was recognized for his “outstanding work as an ambassador of interfaith harmony in Pakistan” and was described in the citation as a “prominent Muslim scholar and religious leader in Pakistan, known for his unwavering commitment to promoting religious tolerance and interfaith harmony”.   Then somebody actually looked at the guy.  After taking a deep dive into previous comments made by Imam Ashrafi Lambeth Palace had enough second thoughts to reconsider this award withdraw it.  They have so informed Imam Ashrafi that they are taking it back.

This a profound example of why churches should not presume to enter into the realm of political judgments or enter efforts to become authorities outside their sphere.  It all made the CofE and the Lady Mullally look foolish and amateurish in their efforts to promote something grand on the world stage.  It is also one more example why Americans look at the CofE and our friends across the pond with sadness.  At a time when this church body could have been leading the efforts to sink the assisted suicide bill, they were playing diplomatic chess.  Thankfully, while the CofE and its lady archbishop were messing things up, the Parliament actually got it right — at least for now.

The British Parliament voted against legalizing assisted suicide services for adults, successfully blocking a bill that was filibustered out of time before the April recess.The House of Commons voted 286-270 on the same day to deny the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which sought to “allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life.”  The surprise was that the lower chamber had previously approved a near-identical bill in the last parliamentary session but came to their senses at the same time the CofE was losings its bearings.

Give it a rest. . .

As if we have nothing better to do, the predictable outlets for news and commentary in the LCMS have moved on from the immediate past presidential election and convention to set their sights three years down the road.  The so-called guardians of the Synod have decided that there must be an urgent and profound effort to redefine ourselves as a Synod and come up with a leader who will not look at our past but toward the future.  I think I read somewhere "sufficient to the day is its own troubles..."  Perhaps we have reinterpreted that verse.  Everywhere we will see people mining the Scriptures to find quotes to justify the further politicizing of our means of selecting leaders and governing ourselves.  How sad.  How tragic that we seem powerless to present something more than these crude Machiavellian attempts to plan plans and prosper God's work without all that much consulting Him.  I will admit to growing so very tired of it all.  The sensationalism, the hype, the drumbeat for change (even though we are divided about what changes need to come) is both wearing and distracting.

Good leaders and good governance are blessings and worth our labors to find and assist, not to mention our prayers.  That said, do we really think the Lord has given marching orders to the Church that begin with a constant litany of navel gazing?  The statistics the Lord promotes are remarkably out of step with the world or our own Christian thinking.  Leaving the 99 alone in pursuit of the one lost, finding the pear only to bury it again so that you can secure the field, engaging laborers at all hours of the day and then paying them an inequitable wage that is described as generosity...  I could go on but will not.  Nowhere in the Scriptures does the Lord talk about graphs or charts or polls or customer satisfaction surveys.  Instead, He describes the very Gospel we problem as a stone of offense, almost daring us to be embarrassed by Him and of Him.  I am not at all suggesting that we bury our heads in the sand but neither am I saying that social theory will lead us out of this mess.  In the end, growth happens locally and not nationally, not by grand movement but by solid preaching, teaching, sacramental administration, and pastoral care.  We certainly do not need more community organizers.  We do need faithful shepherds who will care for the flock over which Christ has made them bishop with the tools He supplies.

Sheep always wander.  They are always prey before their enemies, subject to fleecing by those who care nothing for the sheep, and viewed as chops and roasts by those who would harvest the flock rather than defend it.  There is nothing new here.  The Church is always in need of being reformed but never by novelty or creative departure from God's Word, work, will, and wisdom.  Shepherds do not make sheep.  Sheep make sheep.  Faith formation happens in the home before the Church building and the primary catechesis is always liturgical, within the Divine Service, before it can happen anywhere else.  The best coffee cannot attract what the Gospel repels.  It is the work of the Spirit to call, gather, enlighten, and sanctify.  We are instruments but not the power, used by not the users, shepherds under Christ.  Good heavens, I am not saying we have nothing to learn but navel gazing and surveys and polls will teach us nothing of the means by which the Church of Christ will grow and prosper.  We trust in Christ alone.  We live by His grace alone.  The Luthers of this world are not our saviors even when God does use individuals to call us again to the voice of His Word and the power of His Spirit.  A viable church in the eyes of the world will likely have sold its soul to the devil to gain that recognition.  We are always at war and not in the least with ourselves.  It would all be wearisome and worthless except the outcome has already been determined.  Jesus wins.  If you cannot see it now with your eyes, look with faith.  Is our penchant to try new things because God has forsaken us or because we have forsaken Him and His ways?  The kingdom ours remaineth.  That is the promise.  He proved Himself trustworthy by dying as He said He would and rising as He said He would.  What more do we need? If we never learned anything new but worked diligently to be the best we are at serving the people of God and those not yet of the Kingdom with the fruits of His redeeming love, we will have done enough.  If we don't we have done too little.

Demonizing the dead. . .

As I watch some within Rome raise their attacks against no friend of mine, Annabile Bugnini, secretary of the commission that worked on the reform of the Roman Rite following the Second Vatican Council, I find it curious how easy it is to demonize the dead and forget those who were complicit in the abuses.  Both critics and proponents of the changes made to the Mass, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical practices of Rome acknowledge that Bugnini was the dominant figure in these changes.  He was not simply proponent but architect and, it seems, not even Paul VI actually knew what Bugnini had been up to until it was done.  But Bugnini was not the only member of the building committee of this flawed structure.  There were others.  There always are.  They are not always the ones who are complicit in the scheme but most of them are the silent whose objections were never raised or at least never pressed.  But they could have been.

As an outsider I have no skin in this blame game but I find it odd that some 2600 bishops who participated in Vatican II and whose documents represent a clearly different vision for the reform of the Mass were somehow forcibly silenced when what was done did not match what the Council had actually said.  Surely somebody would have admitted that the whole extravaganza in Rome was a waste if its dictates were to be ignored a couple of years later in favor of a radically different and brutal reform of the rites!  Did they?  There were some grumbles but for the most part Roman bishops fell in line.  The pope had spoken (even though he did not know what he was saying, apparently).  Done deal.  No looking back.  And now you know why the battle of the Mass is still being fought.

That said, this post is not so much about the reform of the Mass and other things liturgical.  It is to give one example of why I cannot be Roman Catholic.  It would often be nice to have a pope in a Lutheranism which seems powerless to prevent obvious foolishness and wrong but Rome has one and this does not seem to stop the abuses of the Mass so reformed.  Frankly, I would prefer a Roman Mass in which the offensive parts to me as a Lutheran were soto voce rather the loud clown car style abuses that no pope seems able to stop.  Yet when a pope in Rome was led down the garden path by a secretary of a commission, Rome seemed powerless to stop the disaster train.  If 2000 voices from the Council had stood up to Paul VI and said we were there at this Council and this is not what we voted upon! surely someone in Rome might have backed down or slowed the wholesale liturgical demolition of one form of the Mass.  But they did not.  Demonize the dead all you want but the dead were not alone.  Some could have spoken up and yet they chose to keep silent.  What else could some pope do and have people keep silent in response?  Well, look around you.  Bishops are doing all kinds of things to break with Roman theology and tradition and even the popes have said little or nothing to slow or stop this train. If for any other reason, I would find it hard to become Roman Catholic with such witless and spineless bishops.

I wish Lutheranism were better in this regard.  We are not.  While foolishness and stupidity continue to flood the internet with examples of the errors, our own equivalent of bishops wring their hands as if they can do nothing to slow or stop the idiocy.  But they could have and still can do something.  Demonize the dead but they are always complicit with the living in the problems we face.  It is never one man or even a commission of men that are the problem.  The dead cannot defend themselves but we know they did not act alone.  Sometimes the demons are right and the challenge proves that.  The rest of the time it proves that one man or even a commission cannot act in the name of the church over the wisdom of the rest of the church.  Benedict seems to have been a good man and a good pope but he left in part out of powerlessness to change what was wrong.  Francis was a terrible pope and I have no idea what kind of man he was but he played with things as if it was all a game and in the end everyone lost.  Leo may be better but so far he is a disappointment.  All of these prove the problem with Rome is not just theology but a structure in which one man can impose his will upon the rest and people either stand silent before him or get in line to follow where he is going.  That is another reason why I refuse to exchange the problems I know for the problems in Rome.  As many as have been complicit in with the problems in Lutheranism, we have not had 2600 bishops sit idly by while someone orchestrated a coup against something they had all agreed to in the end. 

What kind of Pope is Leo?

Many have insisted that Leo XIV will clean up the Francis messes left behind by a pope who is, by most accounts, one of the worst in modern times.  I suppose that is the hope but so far he has not impressed me with his words or actions.  Everyone knows of the way Francis seemed to delight in creating controversy and instituting controversial programs.  Among them was Amoris laetitia.  Cardinals submitted formal questions to Francis which he chose to ignore.  While seemingly addressing the pastoral care of families, it did far more than this.  Controversy arose almost immediately following the publication of Amoris laetitia specifically over Chapter 8 and whether Roman Catholic doctrine was changing with the easing of the  sacramental discipline concerning the access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist for divorced persons who have civilly remarried. So if this was a problem, who might Leo ask to sit down and talk about it all?  Well, the list of personal guests invited by the Pope to the meeting from October 7 to 14, progressive names in favor of the document but excludes all of those who criticized Francis’s exhortation.

So when these cardinals and bishops from around the world sat down with Leo XIV at the Vatican to discuss the family in light of Amoris laetitia, they were preaching to the choir.  Among the names of those attending at the Pope's invitation are names like Cupich, McElroy, Tobin, Cobo, Hollerich, Fernández, Tagle, David, and others who had a hand in setting the agenda of the previous pontificate on the veru questions the document addressed.  None of those who questioned it have been summoned.  While I do not have a stake in this, the glaring omission of any visible critics of the document seems to say a great deal about the Leo style and agenda when dealing with Francis' legacy.  

The document which sparked such intense debate seemed designed to allow more radical interpretations of its own words -- especially after the bishops of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region interpreted it as allowing, following a process of accompanied pastoral discernment, access to the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist for some Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried “when a person judges that he or she would fall into a further fault by harming the children of the new union.”  Then in 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith confirmed that this interpretation was the intent.  In my mind, this is one more instance when more talk seems to be code for keeping Francis legacy alive without really dealing with the objections.  I am sure that many more traditional Roman Catholics hope that this does not become the Leo way of dealing with things.