Divisions over the sacrament of unity

 

The terms Mass, Eucharist, Divine Liturgy, Lord’s Supper and Holy Communion are used across Christian traditions to describe the sacrament instituted by the Lord Jesus on the night of his betrayal and entrusted to those he called to celebrate it in memory of his death and resurrection.

Christians differ in how they understand the Eucharist and in the place it holds within their liturgical life. I hold to the catholic understanding of the Eucharist as a threefold gift of sacrifice, communion and presence; remove one and the others collapse.

I am well aware of the competing claims about what constitutes a valid Eucharist and a valid ministry. In very broad terms, the Roman Catholic position is as follows:

• A Eucharist is valid when celebrated by a validly ordained priest using proper matter (bread and wine), proper form, and with the intention to do what the Church does.
• Eastern Orthodox celebrations are regarded as valid but illicit, because the Eastern churches are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
• Eucharistic celebrations in the churches of the Reformation, including Anglican churches, are not recognised as valid, and Roman Catholics are forbidden to receive communion in them.
• There is limited provision for 'non‑Catholics' to receive communion in a Roman Catholic church, but in general 'Protestants' are barred. In practice, observance of this rule varies across time and place, and higher authorities often take a discreetly tolerant approach.

There are some edge cases, notably the Old Catholic churches that broke with Rome in the nineteenth century and later ordained some Anglican and Episcopalian clergy. These situations are assessed individually.

The Anglican approach is different. In most provinces of the Anglican Communion, all baptised Christians are welcomed to the Lord’s Table, regardless of denominational background or theological nuance.

Much progress has been made in recent decades toward partial agreement on doctrine and practice, but significant differences remain. The Roman Catholic Church has not altered its official stance since Pope Leo XIII’s declaration Apostolicae Curae (1896).

Patience is required. The knots of distrust, historical injury and tribal identity are deeply woven. At the same time, a measure of pastoral flexibility – exercised without breaking communion or excluding people – can be both necessary and humane. Finding that balance is not easy.

It is also worth remembering that for most of the first millennium there was no single, systematic treatise on the Eucharist. Christians relied on the witness of Scripture, the teaching of bishops, and the lived practice of the Church. They celebrated the Eucharist joyfully, recognising it as a true sacrifice of praise and the sacrament at the centre of their lives.