This question comes up a lot and most Catholics, including most clergy, feel awkward about the subject. It seems to many -- including Catholics -- to be rude and uncalled for. Most of us struggle to explain the matter.
Explanations that don't result in hurt feelings are best, but that option isn't always available. What follows is offered both to be kind and to be clear. Pray for both me as the messenger, and yourself as the recipient!
Several short answers:
- To receive the Holy Eucharist is -- for Catholics -- a profound act of faith, that presupposes suitable preparation, and actually being a Catholic or in communion with the Catholic Church. (An exception is available for some Christians who are extremely close to communion with the Catholic Church, that is, Orthodox and other Eastern Christians. Ask if you want to know more.)
- Someone might object, but you make it sound like only Catholics take it so seriously. I'm not attempting to speak for other Christians' approach to the matter, because we Catholics should not presume to speak for others in this matter. We can only profess our faith. That said, I can observe that what others profess is different in non-trivial ways; and, if you ask, other Christian traditions will themselves affirm, their and our beliefs on this subject are different in non-trivial ways.
- When someone seeks to participate in a Catholic sacrament, why is it unreasonable for Catholics to expect that person to approach it according to a Catholic understanding (as opposed to an Evangelical or Protestant or other understanding)? I don't mean people have to believe what we believe. I mean, we ask people to engage with Catholic sacred matters, in the way that we would have them be engaged with, not as might seem appropriate in other traditions. Turn it around: would it not be supremely rude for us Catholics, attending, say, a Presbyterian worship service, to approach a ritual or custom on our own terms, regardless of what our Presbyterian hosts hold to? Think about it.
- Part of our Catholic understanding is that we should be faithful to the teaching of Christ himself, passed to us through the Apostles, both in what is handed down (Tradition) and written down (Scripture).
- What Catholics practice in this matter is faithful to Scripture and Tradition. If anything, we Catholics in the 21st century are, if anything, less rigorous than the early Christians; the practice of "open communion" has zero justification in either Scripture or Tradition, as we see it; so we don't do it.
- We Catholics think that the Eucharist is one of those really central matters, where what is really important is not avoiding awkwardness, but introducing everyone to the truth of Jesus Christ. That includes a faithful presentation of his teaching about the nature of the Church, and her sacraments, above all, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Holy Eucharist. We do no one any favors when we shrug and say, do what you like, and thus fail to teach and practice what Christ and his Apostles taught and practiced.
- The Holy Eucharist was one thing about which Jesus was willing to have people be upset with him (John 6:60-66). Was he wrong?
Now, let me share a longer answer, based on the reading from Exodus (12:37-49; 13:11-16) in today's Office of Readings, which is part of the Liturgy of the Hours.*
The Israelites set out from Rameses for Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, not counting the children. A crowd of mixed ancestry also went up with them, with livestock in great abundance, both flocks and herds.
The dough they had brought out of Egypt they baked into unleavened loaves. It was not leavened, because they had been driven out of Egypt and could not wait. They did not even prepare food for the journey.
The time the Israelites had stayed in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.
At the end of four hundred and thirty years, on this very date, all the armies of the LORD left the land of Egypt.
This was a night of vigil for the LORD, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt; so on this night all Israelites must keep a vigil for the LORD throughout their generations.
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: This is the Passover statute. No foreigner may eat of it. However, every slave bought for money you will circumcise; then he may eat of it. But no tenant or hired worker may eat of it.
It must be eaten in one house; you may not take any of its meat outside the house. You shall not break any of its bones.
The whole community of Israel must celebrate this feast.
If any alien residing among you would celebrate the Passover for the LORD, all his males must be circumcised, and then he may join in its celebration just like the natives. But no one who is uncircumcised may eat of it.
There will be one law for the native and for the alien residing among you.
“When the LORD, your God, has brought you into the land of the Canaanites, just as he swore to you and your ancestors, and gives it to you, you will dedicate to the LORD every newborn that opens the womb; and every firstborn male of your animals will belong to the LORD.
Every firstborn of a donkey you will ransom with a sheep. If you do not ransom it, you will break its neck. Every human firstborn of your sons you must ransom.
And when your son asks you later on, ‘What does this mean?’ you will tell him, ‘With a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of a house of slavery.
When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, the firstborn of human being and beast alike. That is why I sacrifice to the LORD every male that opens the womb, and why I ransom every firstborn of my sons.’
It will be like a sign on your hand and a band on your forehead that with a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt.”
There's a lot here, but I want to focus in on one key theme. To help you see it, I used two colors for highlighting.
The Passover is the defining act of sacrifice and worship uniting the House of Israel. Notice the language: "it must be eaten in one house." Now, this means that each Israelite would gather in his home, or that of a neighbor, to share a lamb, and this was to be done by all Israelites, in many houses; and yet, they are all, in a real sense, one "house" of Israel: "The whole community of Israel must celebrate this feast." Elsewhere, the Lord says that anyone who fails to take part is "cut off."
Notice the language I color-coded: blue for the House of Israel, the "you" to whom the Lord speaks; the "us" that is brought out of "Egypt, that place of slavery." Hence, Egypt and the surrounding nations are not "us." They are the "alien" and "foreigner."
(This is not a racial or nationalistic thing, by the way; later in the story of God's People journeying to the Promised Land, there's some issue raised about the race of Moses' wife; it is Moses' sister, Miriam, who sniffs at her sister-in-law's skin color. Note that God's response is to give Miriam ultra-white skin, via leprosy! And yet, down to the present, some want to read the Bible's language about Israel's election in this way; the New Testament certainly gives a complete refutation of that mistake.)
No, the point of this language is this: to partake of the Passover is to be part of the family. We might think of an ordinary family meal in any home.
When I was a boy, I would often be at a friend's house, or a friend would be at our house. I might wish to be invited to dinner; and I might be so ill-mannered as to drop hints. But my parents taught me that one waits to be invited, doesn't expect it, and doesn't get pouty about not being invited. And also, I was brought up to give that invitation; but to ask mom first. We were welcoming, but our family meal was an important moment for our...family.
In the case of the Passover, this is the most solemn, most profound "family meal." And, as with our daily family meals, a visitor can likewise be invited to join. But notice what is necessary: he must be "circumcised"! A little more serious than washing ones hands!
The point here should be obvious: it isn't about the bit of skin down there; rather, it's about that individual crossing a threshold from being "alien" to being part of the family, the House of Israel. In other words, participating in the Passover isn't a casual thing, it isn't appropriate for someone who is "transient," that is, just passing through. Rather, one must belong.
And regardless of the ritual and process of belonging, that transition from outsider to belonging is, first and last, a journey of faith; a point Saint Paul in particular would make in his letters. And, of course, for Christians, it's no longer the ritual of circumcision; but rather, baptism, and the profession of faith that belongs with it.
Here's where someone will say, ok then, that means anyone who is baptized should be able to come to Holy Communion!
Yeah...but no, sorry. Here's why.
Sticking with the Passover, we might look to Numbers chapter 9; there we learn about some who couldn't take part in the sacrifice because they were "unclean." That simply refers to their readiness for participation in worship; it isn't a moral judgment.
In that case, it had to do with some men who had handled a corpse, which presumably meant they'd assisted in someone's funeral, which is a good deed. Even so, for reasons we won't delve into here, God specified that various things or actions rendered someone "unclean," and he also gave the means to become "clean"; for our purposes, we might substitute "unready" and "ready," i.e., for sharing in worship.
So notice: not everyone who belongs to the Household was necessarily "ready." If this is true in merely ceremonial matters, surely it is true in matters of faith and morals? Are these less important than externals? Surely not! So what might render someone "unready"?
Well, to begin with the mere ceremonial: having fasted before eating the Passover. We Catholics observe an hour's fast; it used to be longer and stricter.
Further, one is expected to be in a state of grace, that is, not conscious of a mortal sin. We might recall the Lord Jesus' command: if you realize your brother has something against you, first go be reconciled to your brother, then present your gift at the temple.
And, thirdly, there is the thorny yet serious question of actually sharing the faith -- the oneness of the household. It is sad, but not all those who are baptized share that oneness. This is the reality of divisions among Christians. It is a scandal. It must be overcome; not merely ignored.
But here's the certainly wrong answer: to say these differences aren't real and don't matter -- which is what one says by sharing the Eucharist regardless of those differences!**
Here is a Christian who believes the bread and wine are "transubstantiated" into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This Eucharist is a communion in his death, and the Mass is a communion in that sacrifice; hence the Mass is a true sacrifice. This is what Catholics believe and profess. I will not speak for Orthodox and Eastern Christians, but at least as Catholics understand it, the Orthodox/Eastern understanding is the same in essence, if not in articulation.
Next are Christians who use similar language of "Body" "Blood" and "sacrament," yet if you delve deeper, you will find they insist that the Eucharist is not actually Jesus' own self, but some sort of representation thereof. Some of these will likewise reject any talk of the Mass being a true sacrifice. And what reveals the parting of ways is that these Christians will draw back from adoring the Eucharist; they will call that idolatry. And, if the Eucharist is not to be identified with the Second Person of the Trinity, they are correct. That this difference is a little obscure does not make it unimportant.
Next are Christians who will explicitly reject language of sacrifice and they will be clear that what they receive is merely bread, merely wine (or grape juice). They affirm the "elements" change not at all. The revealing sign of this belief is that after their worship is ended, the remaining bread and juice is put back in the cupboard; or else disposed of as any other ordinary food leftovers might be.
We could go on, and speak of those who honor Jesus, and are baptized, and yet they do not believe Jesus is God; their baptism, it turns out, cannot be identified with Christian baptism. And there are other curious movements and traditions.
But after sorting through all the different groups that have, sadly, splintered apart, what it all comes down to is this: what does it mean to say, we are one? The Passover is the act of "one household," both in the instance of a group, at home, gathering around a lamb, and in the sense of the entire People, united in this communion.
There is no way to take this as seriously as clearly the Lord did in Moses' time, and as he did with his Apostles, and then say, "y'all just come on in, we won't ask any awkward questions about whether you really are -- or even want to be -- part of the Household of Jesus."
The Scriptures themselves make this so clear; and it was clear enough at the beginning, because all evidence is that the first Christians observed the Passover of Jesus, that is, the Eucharist, with essentially the same sense of belonging and oneness that we see in the Passover of old, which prefigures the Eucharist.
To be blunt: would it not be fair to turn around the burden of proof? And say to those who insist, despite ample evidence of Scripture and Tradition and history, that the Eucharist must be open, "Prove it, please"? Provide something from Scripture, something from the early Church, to support what you ask for.
And, I might add: not only "ask for," for yourselves, but insist on imposing when you attend a Catholic Mass!
People will say, oh Jesus was willing to eat with anyone! And that's true. But that is irrelevant to the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is rather more than lunch or dinner. Show me where Jesus celebrated the Eucharist with any and all.
In fact, in the few times we observe Jesus actually celebrating the Eucharist -- i.e., certainly on Holy Thursday, but also if you wish, on Easter, with the two he met on the road to Emmaus -- notice that those who participated were invited. They were presumed to be disciples. When did Jesus say, everyone come on in, I'll share the Eucharist with you?
OK, there's my case from Exodus. What do you say?
* The Liturgy of the Hours, or Daily Office, is part of the Church's public, that is, shared prayer; all are welcome and encouraged to share in this prayer; clergy are obligated to offer these prayers daily. Ideally we do so with the faithful, but in practice, we do so on our own.
** And, I might just add, how offensive! Obviously, my fellow Catholics and I don't agree with our fellow Christians who cannot assent to the Catholic Faith in its fullness (including, but not limited to, what we believe about the Mass and the Eucharist); but I wouldn't dare to dismiss their objections as trivial. It is awkward, yes, but not insulting to say, "we have differences, and they are substantial." What is insulting is to trivialize those differences, for which people (of their traditions, and of ours) have paid a high price, even their lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment