Heart speaks unto heart

Some things draw me to Saint John Henry Newman (1801-1890) including the following:

• He journeyed from Anglicanism into full communion with the Catholic Church.
• He served as the founding Rector of the Catholic University of Ireland in 1854, from which University College Dublin eventually emerged. I completed three degrees, there, between 1977 and 2005.
• He established the beautiful University Church on St Stephen's Green, where I was baptised on 22 December 1956.
• He anticipated many themes later developed at Vatican II, especially concerning the role of the laity, the development of doctrine and the importance of returning to the sources of the early Church.
• He was a loyal son of the Church but not blind to historical context and development of doctrine (although he accepted the doctrine of papal infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870, he questioned the timing, prudence and formulation of the doctrine).
• His deep personal friendship with Fr Ambrose St John (1814-1875) showed his extraordinary capacity for human friendship.

After the death of his friend in 1875, Newman wrote:

Lord, Who at Thy First Eucharist Did Pray

An old and familiar hymn to me is one composed by William Harry Turton (1856-1938), a British army officer (Royal Engineers) and hymn writer. Used across many parts of the Anglican communion and in recent time in Roman Catholic and other denominations it captures so well the sentiments for unity. That all may be one and that one day we may, all of us, share at the same table. May it be. Amen. Amen. Amen. Here it is:

Worthy to receive? (#2)

In yesterday’s blog (Worthy to receive? #1) I touched on the matter of worthiness to receive Holy Communion at least in the Roman Catholic church. As is well known, there are many rules and guidelines governing who may or may not be in a position to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church. There are, for example, restrictions concerning those who are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, although clearly defined exceptions do exist. In particular circumstances, it is possible for Christians belonging to communities of the Reformation (referred to in more recent times in Roman Catholic terminology as “ecclesial communities”) to receive Holy Communion, but only under specific and exceptional conditions.

Eucharistic Presence – an Eastern perspective

 

By Velopilger - Own work, Public Domain

In yesterday’s blog I wrote about areas of agreement between Roman Catholics and Anglicans regarding the Eucharist, and in particular the mystery of Christ’s real presence in the consecrated bread and wine. It should be noted, of course, that Anglicans represent only one strand of Christianity that emerged from the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Moreover, there are arguably as many theologies of the Eucharist among Anglicans as there are among Christians across all denominations.

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist #1

 

The Disputation of the Holy Sacrament (Raphael 1509-1510) depicts theologians debating, with Pope Gregory I and Jerome on the left, and Augustine and Ambrose on the right, Pope Julius II, Pope Sixtus IV, Savonarola and Dante Alighieri. Source: here

Christ is present to us in a number of important ways:

• in the person next to me here and now;
• in the poor;
• in his Word;
• where two or three are gathered in his name;
• in the minister sent by him;
• and in his Body and Blood, offered in the Eucharist and received in Holy Communion.

It is in this last sense that Catholics speak of the “Real Presence” – a very special presence that is regarded as unique, substantial, and enduring.

Some other Christians, including Anglicans, also speak of the Real Presence in the specific sacramental context of the Eucharist. Rather than descend into acrimonious historical controversies or disputes over terminology, it is more fruitful to note what Roman Catholics and Anglicans actually say—and, indeed, what they agree upon—concerning the Real Presence.

To that end, here is an extended extract from the 1971 Agreed Statement on eucharistic doctrine (paragraphs 6-11):

Communion with Christ in the eucharist presupposes his true presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine which, in this mystery, become his body and blood. The real presence of his body and blood can, however, only be understood within the context of the redemptive activity whereby he gives himself, and in himself reconciliation, peace and life, to his own. On the one hand, the eucharistic gift springs out of the paschal mystery of Christ's death and resurrection, in which God's saving purpose has already been definitively realized. On the other hand, its purpose is to transmit the life of the crucified and risen Christ to his body, the Church, so that its members may be more fully united with Christ and with one another.  Christ is present and active, in various ways, in the entire eucharistic celebration. It is the same Lord who through the proclaimed word invites his people to his table, who through his minister presides at that table, and who gives himself sacramentally in the body and blood of his paschal sacrifice. It is the Lord present at the right hand of the Father, and therefore transcending the sacramental order, who thus offers to his Church, in the eucharistic signs, the special gift of himself.

The sacramental body and blood of the Saviour are present as an offering to the believer awaiting his welcome. When this offering is met by faith, a lifegiving encounter results. Through faith Christ's presence - which does not depend on the individual's faith in order to be the Lord's real gift of himself to his Church - becomes no longer just a presence for the believer, but also a presence with him. Thus, in considering the mystery of the eucharistic presence, we must recognize both the sacramental sign of Christ's presence and the personal relationship between Christ and the faithful which arises from that presence.

The Lord's words at the last supper, ‘Take and eat; this is my body’, do not allow us to dissociate the gift of the presence and the act of sacramental eating. The elements are not mere signs; Christ's body and blood become really present and are really given. But they are really present and given in order that, receiving them, believers may be united in communion with Christ the Lord.

According to the traditional order of the liturgy the consecratory prayer (anaphora) leads to the communion of the faithful. Through this prayer of thanksgiving, a word of faith addressed to the Father, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit, so that in communion we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. The Lord who thus comes to his people in the power of the Holy Spirit is the Lord of glory. In the eucharistic celebration we anticipate the joys of the age to come. By the transforming action of the Spirit of God, earthly bread and wine become the heavenly manna and the new wine, the eschatological banquet for the new man: elements of the first creation become pledges and first fruits of the new heaven and the new earth.

End of extract, above

The Agreed Statement does not resolve all doctrinal differences regarding the Eucharist. Nevertheless, it establishes a significant measure of agreement on key essentials concerning both the nature of the eucharistic sacrifice and the real sacramental presence of the Lord in the consecrated bread and wine. It is important to note that the Statement is concerned primarily with what is affirmed about Christ’s presence and the transformation of the elements, rather than how that transformation is to be explained.

A fully systematic philosophical explanation of the how does not emerge until the second millennium, and then in response to particular heretical or overly literal and superstitious interpretations of eucharistic change. In this context, St Thomas Aquinas developed the doctrine of transubstantiation, drawing on concepts informed by classical Greek philosophy in order to counter mechanistic or crudely physical accounts of what occurs in the Eucharist. These latter approaches claimed that Jesus’s body replaced the bread in a measurable and biological way or that Christ was ‘cut up’ or multiplied like ordinary matter.  In other words, we are dealing, here, with mystery and not magic; with faith and not physics.

The term transubstantiation itself was already in theological use by the early eleventh century and was employed dogmatically by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; Aquinas did not invent the term but gave it its most influential philosophical exposition.

In this way, Catholic teaching developed as a faithful articulation of firmly held apostolic and patristic beliefs regarding the presence of Christ, using the language of transubstantiation from the Middle Ages onwards and drawing especially on the systematic theology of St Thomas Aquinas. For Catholics, this sacramental presence is uniquely substantial and enduring beyond the moment of reception, a reality the Church has solemnly defined using that terminology.

All this said, what Catholics—both East and West—believe about the Real Presence and about the change in the “eucharistised” bread and wine is consistent with what has been believed since the earliest apostolic times, as explored in other reflections in this Bread for the Journey series. The Church is bound to the reality of transubstantiation, not to Aquinas’s particular philosophical system.

The rupture in doctrine, ministry, and authority that occurred at the time of the Reformation - including its English expression - remains a real difficulty for Roman Catholics. Much work remains to be done. More love is required, that we may learn again to see and to walk together in the Eucharist. Greater conformity to the values of the Gospel is needed if full communion is to be attained.

In the meantime, it is worth asking whether a greater generosity in eucharistic hospitality, attentive to local and personal circumstances and without breaking universal communion, might not be considered as we strive for ever deeper mutual understanding and agreement.

At the foot of the cross

 

Picture: The Grotto Portland

On Good Friday I wrote about how, only on that day, the Mass is not celebrated. Then, I wrote:

The Church contemplates the historical, once‑for‑all sacrifice, rather than its sacramental re‑presentation in the Mass. Because we are in mourning, the altars are stripped, statues veiled, and the sanctuary lamp – signifying the Real Presence – has already been extinguished since the Blessed Sacrament is typically removed to another place on Holy Thursday evening following the Mass of the Last Supper. It is a day for silence, stillness, and reverence before the mystery of death. The joy of the Resurrection is near, but not yet.

This naturally raises an important question: what, then, is the point of the Mass on the other 364 (or 365) days of the year, and especially on each Sunday? The answer is that the Mass exists to sacramentally make present the one, all‑sufficient sacrifice of Calvary (Hebrews 10:10-14), and to proclaim anew Christ’s death, resurrection, and final coming. It is not a repetition of the sacrifice, but a real participation in it. Through what is technically called the anamnesis, the power and grace of that unique historical event are made present to us here and now. The sacrifice itself is finished—“It is accomplished” (John 19:30)—and yet it is perpetuated in the Eucharist because, as Saint Paul teaches, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26).

Women’s ordination – weighing up the arguments

Pic: Vatican News

I am not sure whether the US Vice-President, J. D. Vance, is taking time to read this blog series. Regardless, his advice to Pope Leo XIV — “I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology” — applies all the more to me, since I cannot claim any particular depth of theological training or experience. However, I am certain of at least one thing: neither the Vice-President nor I is the Pope.