Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian English

Question

Dear Father Angelo,

I hope that you will consider answering this question of mine even if it is mostly dictated by curiosity.

I met two people about my age who travelled abroad, namely one to America and the other to Scandinavia, and they told me how the Protestant masses in the United States of America and Finland are different from the Catholic one. Now, far from wanting to decry anyone, I am curious to ask you: is it rightful for a Catholic faithful to participate in the liturgical celebrations of another religious confession without the consent of the ecclesiastical authority?

Yours sincerely.

Matteo


Answer

Dear Matteo,

1. it would be strange if one did not notice the difference between the celebrations of the Eucharist made by Protestants and Catholics.

This is because it is not just a matter of ceremonial diversity, but of a substantial one.

2. To tell the truth, Protestants do not speak of Mass, but of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Supper, terminologies which are correct in themselves, but which are interpreted differently, and for us Catholics their interpretation is not only different, but incorrect.

3. Exteriorly, the celebration of Protestants emphasizes the liturgy of the Word and the sermon, which is generally quite long. In this respect, it is not comparable to our homily.

Along with the word, much emphasis is placed on music and singing.

On the other hand, what is not highlighted is the sacrificial nature of the Mass, that which in the Mass is embodied by the Eucharistic prayer and in particular by the consecration.

Indeed, the sacrificial nature of the Mass is definitely denied by the Protestants.

The Catholic faithful who participates in a Protestant Eucharistic liturgy for the first time immediately realizes that something is missing and feels a kind of emptiness, which initially cannot be deciphered, but which on closer examination is understood to touch the very core of the Eucharist.

4. From the doctrinal point of view, it should be noted that the Protestant world is not unitary, but that within it there are not only nuances, but also different substantial sentences.

For example, Luther, at least at the beginning, spoke of the real presence of the body and the blood, asserting however that the substances of the bread and the wine still persist after the consecration.

Indeed, he said that “it is impiety and blasphemy to say that bread is transubstantiated”.

To the Waldensians he wrote: “I want to believe that the bread and the wine persist”.

5. Zwingli goes further than Luther and affirms that in the Eucharist the bread is a symbol of the body of Christ and that the Supper is a memorial.

After him, Oecolampadius thus interprets the words of Jesus: “This is the sign of my body”.

This symbolist theory conquered all of Southern Germany, Switzerland, the Church of Strasbourg, with Bucer and Capito.

Thus, Protestant thinking on the Eucharist was split in two.

Calvin also rejects the substantial presence of the body of Christ but teaches that his spiritual presence acts on the faithful by virtue of the Holy Spirit.

The Protestant Theodore Beza in his De Coena Domini summarizes Protestant thought as follows: “We believe that there is a great difference between ordinary bread and wine and the bread and wine of the Supper, since ordinary water, bread, and wine are common and natural creatures, which God was pleased to create; but the bread and wine of the Supper are sacraments, that is, visible signs and testimonies of the precious body and blood of the Lord.

However, we say that this change, by virtue of which natural things become Sacraments, does not affect the substance, which remains, but consists only in this: that the signs are destined for a totally different use from their natural one: since, while by nature they are ordered to bodily nourishment, having become sacraments they represent what nourishes spiritually”.

6. Alongside this, which clearly marks the distinction between Catholic doctrine and the thought of Protestants, there is the matter of the ordained ministry.

For Catholics, apostolic succession is necessary, that is, that the power to consecrate be communicated by people who in turn have received it from others who are ultimately conjoined to the apostles and to Jesus Christ.

For Protestants this is not necessary, exactly because the bread persists as such and the presence of the Lord is mostly symbolic.

7. In practice, where there are no Catholic churches, it is not forbidden to participate in Protestant worship, but taking care not to confuse the doctrine.

In any case, the prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law apply: “§ 2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid” (can 844, § 2).

But Protestants – except for Baptism – have no valid sacraments.

I thank you for the question, I remember you in prayer and I bless you.

Father Angelo