I remember this one song we used to sing toward the end of the service where I used to attend church. It was called "We Are The Body Of Christ." I can't decide if I think the melody and lyrics are truly hideous, or if it just sounded like we were trying to convince ourselves of a lie.
There is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between believing the Church is fundamentally invisible, and yet that these convictions, this faith, is that which Christ died to give. Something has to give. Barth gave his answer: "Now, if believers can pray together, they should also be able to take Communion together. For then doctrinal differences can be only of a secondary nature." (Prayer, 5) Whatever one thinks of the Catholic denial of the Eucharist to non-Catholics, we can see that the Catholic Church does not regard those differences as ones of a secondary nature. In fact, I wasn't offended by this denial; I felt respected. If eating this Eucharist means that I accept the Catholic Church's teachings and authority, I wouldn't want to eat it without intending to say this. When I believed that the Catholic teaching on the Supper was wrong, it would make no sense to desire it. It was our dissent from those beliefs that brought our Protestant communities into being. The only reason to be upset about it (short of being in denial about what one wants) is to hold some mistaken belief that the sacraments have no reference to our visible communities which give them to us. But this is a lie; we wouldn't hold a particular belief unless we thought it was worth holding. But it's this ecclesiology that severed the link between dogma and the visible church. It's what the visible community does and believes that matters, because you don't get invisible sacraments; you don't sing and pray with invisible people; you don't do invisible good works. You get the point. But to say that Christ's true Church is outside of us, is greater than us, is to cast doubt on the very ministrations done on our behalf and through us. Christ's Church must be visible. Why isn't this obvious?
To say that some collection of doctrines X is the faith once delivered is to automatically make the statement that this community--and only this one--is the Church. To do otherwise is to claim that God has not bothered to care about that which makes us distinct. And again, no one seriously believes this. Take your pick: Make your visible community utterly irrelevant (since what we believe is only a shadow of the true faith and Church) or consider the possibility that you are not in the Church.
There is a direct and irreconcilable conflict between believing the Church is fundamentally invisible, and yet that these convictions, this faith, is that which Christ died to give. Something has to give. Barth gave his answer: "Now, if believers can pray together, they should also be able to take Communion together. For then doctrinal differences can be only of a secondary nature." (Prayer, 5) Whatever one thinks of the Catholic denial of the Eucharist to non-Catholics, we can see that the Catholic Church does not regard those differences as ones of a secondary nature. In fact, I wasn't offended by this denial; I felt respected. If eating this Eucharist means that I accept the Catholic Church's teachings and authority, I wouldn't want to eat it without intending to say this. When I believed that the Catholic teaching on the Supper was wrong, it would make no sense to desire it. It was our dissent from those beliefs that brought our Protestant communities into being. The only reason to be upset about it (short of being in denial about what one wants) is to hold some mistaken belief that the sacraments have no reference to our visible communities which give them to us. But this is a lie; we wouldn't hold a particular belief unless we thought it was worth holding. But it's this ecclesiology that severed the link between dogma and the visible church. It's what the visible community does and believes that matters, because you don't get invisible sacraments; you don't sing and pray with invisible people; you don't do invisible good works. You get the point. But to say that Christ's true Church is outside of us, is greater than us, is to cast doubt on the very ministrations done on our behalf and through us. Christ's Church must be visible. Why isn't this obvious?
To say that some collection of doctrines X is the faith once delivered is to automatically make the statement that this community--and only this one--is the Church. To do otherwise is to claim that God has not bothered to care about that which makes us distinct. And again, no one seriously believes this. Take your pick: Make your visible community utterly irrelevant (since what we believe is only a shadow of the true faith and Church) or consider the possibility that you are not in the Church.
Comments
If I believe that ultimately the action that legitimates the Supper (and I do) is not my ordination or my church's status, but the Lord's gracious provision to be present to his people through the sacrament, then it is normal for me to desire to partake with my brothers and sisters in Christ, even if we disagree on some matters.
The prayer matter is apt. Unless I'm mistaken, there is nothing prohibiting Catholics and Protestants praying together (after all, we are praying to the same Lord). I need to reconfirm in context Barth's point, but I believe that it is not to affirm division, but rather to reject it. "If we can pray together to the same risen Lord, why will we not partake of the same sacrament?" I believe that is a fair representation of Barth's spirit.
I do not disagree with the reasoning or sympathies of Barth (or you, for that matter). What Barth fails to do is take account and ownership of the ecclesial dimension of his dissent. If he believes the Catholic teaching--as well as authority--to be wrong, he cannot very well receive the sacrament, saying the opposite.
He makes the same mistake I pointed out: he supposes the "true" Supper stands apart from all our celebrations and beliefs about it. If an opinion on this and other matters is an impediment to true unity, why hold it? But you can see how dangerous this reasoning becomes. And that's why this thinking undermines dogma within communities of Christians.
You are failing to answer the two questions which, quite apart from Roman claims, need to be answered. 1. Why should I or anyone else accept Timothy Butler's definition of "Church"? And 2. By relativizing certain matters for the sake of unity, how are you not doing irreperable harm to the very idea of dogmatic truth within? In other words, if these things aren't worth dividing over, by definition, they aren't important. But again, nobody really thinks this. So, in either conception of Church, the actions you would take leave us with no stable doctrine, no way to find out, and a God in Christ who talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Working from a Protestant theological framework, it is perfectly logical for me to desire to take the Supper with my brothers and sisters in Christ, even if I feel they have Eucharistic theology that is problematic, unless I feel that in doing so (1) I am forced into sin or (2) I create a stumbling block for other believers or non-believers (e.g. in the spirit of 1 Cor. 10).