INTERCOMMUNION: A CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE It is a sad testimony to the brokenness of our human condition that the Eucharist, the great sacrament of the unity in the Church, is also an occasion of disagreement and dissension among Christians. Who should and should not be admitted to Holy Communion is a question that has arisen in the Church since her beginning, as the Letters of Saint Paul bear witness. Over the past century, Christians have been called to strive for greater unity among themselves, and this ecumenical movement, such a positive blessing in itself, at the same time highlights the fact that diverse Christian traditions approach the practice of intercommunion in very different ways. The following observations are intended to describe briefly the Catholic perspective on this issue. Catholic practice The approach of the Catholic Church to the question of who should be allowed to receive the Eucharist was stated very succinctly in the middle of the second century by Saint Justin Martyr, who also gives one of the earliest descriptions of a Eucharistic liturgy: “[w]e call this food Eucharist, and no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught.”1 Justin lists three requirements, and these are normative for the Catholic Church. A brief comment about each may be helpful. Justin states that the recipient must have been baptized. Eucharist is the completion of Christian initiation; in a certain sense, every time we receive Holy Communion we are renewing our participation in the paschal mystery of Christ’s death and Resurrection into which we were united sacramentally by baptism. Until very recently, the requirement that the recipient be baptized would have been presumed by most if not all Christian Churches and ecclesial communities. But now, even in some traditions with a very developed sacramental theology (e.g., the Anglican Communion),
1
St. Justin, Apol. 1, 66, 1-2: PG 5, 428 (cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1355).
1
the idea of welcoming the unbaptized to communion is being debated and people who profess no explicit Christian faith at all are invited to receive the Eucharist. For these communities this is the logical conclusion when “hospitality” is seen to be paramount. Justin also says that those who receive should live “lives in keeping with what Christ taught.” Catholics who receive the Eucharist must be properly disposed. Among other things, this means that if someone is conscious of having committed serious sin, he or she must first receive the sacrament of penance and reconciliation before approaching the altar. In considering the matter of intercommunion, it should be emphasized that when the Catholic Church teaches that non-‐Catholics should not receive the Eucharist, this is not a judgment of an individual’s worthiness to receive. It is not a question of worthiness, but rather of the integral relationship between the communion of the Church and Eucharistic communion. This brings us to Justin’s third requirement: the recipient “believes that what we teach is true.” The guidelines followed by each church and ecclesial community express how that particular tradition interprets these words. Many Protestant communities practice “open communion”: any baptized Christian is welcome to receive. Protestants of other traditions have more specific requirements, but these requirements have tended to erode whenever these communities have taken the approach that intercommunion will foster Christian unity. In practice, that unity has been attained by sacrificing doctrines formerly considered normative, for example the necessity of episcopal ordination for the validity of Holy Orders. While the Catholic Church, the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, and all the other historic Churches of the East approach this question in different ways, they all agree that the practice of intercommunion is not a means to Christian unity, but a manifestation of Christian unity. The challenging work of ecumenical dialogue is to face the fundamental theological issues that divide Christians, not put them aside. Of course, what is considered “essential” varies among these communities (and even among various elements within them), but all are agreed that there is an ecclesial aspect to the practice of intercommunion: what we seek is unity in faith among Churches, not just unity among individual believers.
2
This ecclesial understanding of the Eucharist is very ancient. Already at the end of the Apostolic age, Saint Ignatius of Antioch exhorted the Christians at Philadelphia: “Be careful, therefore, to take part only in the one Eucharist; for there is only one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup to unite us with his blood, one altar and one bishop with the presbyters an deacons, who are his fellow servants.”2 From the very beginning, bishops have also manifested the unity of the whole body of Christ by being “in communion” with other bishops whose communities professed the same faith. Historically, various structures developed on local and regional levels to maintain this unity among the bishops as the successors of the Apostles. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches in communion with her hold that Christ willed that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of the Apostle Peter, has a unique and indispensable role in maintaining the unity of the Church throughout the world. What is significant here in connection with the matter of Intercommunion is that these bonds find expression in the naming of certain bishops during the celebration of the Eucharist; in Catholic liturgies, for example, the local bishop and the Pope are named during the Eucharistic Prayer. Thus, when a person comes forward to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, it is an implicit affirmation that Saint Justin’s words “believes that what we teach is true” mean “I believe all that the Catholic Church professes to be the saving truth revealed by God.” Exceptions to this general rule Ordinarily, then, the Catholic Church allows only her own members to receive the Eucharist. At the same time, because we believe that there exists a real, although imperfect, communion with other Christians by virtue of baptism, there are particular situations “of grave and pressing need” in which exceptions can be made.3 The Ecumenical Directory describes what the requirements are in such cases: that the person is unable to have recourse for the sacrament to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, asks for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, 2
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 4. Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, #130. 3
3
manifests Catholic faith in this sacrament and is properly disposed.4 It is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop to determine what “a grave and pressing need” is, and how the requirements laid down are to be applied.
The reason for this exception is the spiritual need of a believer who would
otherwise be deprived of the Eucharist. The Directory states: “The Eucharist is, for the baptized, a spiritual food which enables them to overcome sin and to live the very life of Christ, to be incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of the Mystery of Christ.”5 Provided that a non-‐Catholic is properly disposed and affirms what the Catholic Church professes about the Eucharist (that it is not bread and wine but truly the Body and Blood of Christ), then he or she may receive the Eucharist if there is a true hunger for the Bread of Life and it is not possible to receive from his or her own minister. The Directory, based on the Code of Canon Law (#844.4), speaks of circumstances of “grave necessity.” The permission requires a prudent judgment which safeguards our understanding that the reception of the Eucharist is a public manifestation that one professes in its entirety the faith of the Catholic Church while responding to the spiritual need of a non-‐Catholic who would otherwise be unable to receive the Eucharist at all. The path to full communion In recent years the question of intercommunion has arisen in a new context: the desire of entire Christian congregations to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. Such corporate actions presume, of course, that each individual member has come to believe that the fullness of Christian faith as willed by Christ is to be found in the Catholic Church. This is a matter of conscience, the rights of which are paramount. While a congregation may undertake this initiative, it is essential that each member of the community make his or her own profession of faith – it cannot simply be a matter of “going along with” the rest of the congregation.
Not infrequently, it happens that some members of the congregation have not
reached this conviction. The beliefs of those individuals must be respected. The 4 5
Directory, #131. Directory, #129.
4
Second Vatican Council taught that one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine is that the act of faith must be freely made, and thus: “It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded.”6 This creates a painful situation: members of a congregation who have shared a life of prayer and worship are divided from one another because of the convictions of conscience. This same situation can arise in families as well.
The question is thus raised: presuming that all these believers profess the same
faith about the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, although they are now divided as to whether or not the Catholic Church is divinely instituted, would it be appropriate for them to share in the same Eucharist? There are two reasons why this question would receive a negative response in a Catholic perspective. The first is that the requirement enunciated long ago by Saint Justin (“no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true”) refers, not just to what we teach about the Eucharist, but to all that the Catholic Church holds to be the deposit of faith entrusted to her by Christ. The second objection is, paradoxically, linked to the ecumenical advances made since the Second Vatican Council. We recognize that non-‐Catholic churches and communities separated from us possess ecclesial status in varying degrees; accordingly, the members of a congregation who have not entered into full communion with the Catholic Church are still in communion with the original ecclesial community of which they are members. There are no generic Christians – every believer belongs to a community with its own understanding of the Christian faith.
The pain felt by such a rupture reproduces in microcosm the sad disunity
experienced on a larger scale in the Body of Christ. The solution to the rupture is to rejoice in the faith shared in common, pray and work to overcome the obstacles that divide, and embrace the pain of separation as the difficult but unavoidable price to be paid to attain true unity in faith among the members of the Body of Christ.
6
Declaration on Religious Freedom, #10.
5
Concluding observation on terminology
A variety of terms have emerged to identify the practice we have called
intercommunion, notably open communion, eucharistic sharing, or eucharistic hospitality. The expression “eucharistic hospitality” is the source of particular confusion because the application of this concept represents a serious category mistake rather than an appropriate analogy. The concept of hospitality belongs properly to the area of social interaction and fails to do justice to the complexity of the practices and beliefs that underlie sacred rituals like the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The rules of etiquette (covering hospitality) that guide behavior in the social circumstances of ordinary life cannot displace the doctrinally based liturgical norms that govern the quite distinct area of ritual and liturgical action. The implicit analogy between ritual actions centered on divine worship and social interactions involving the treatment of guests is highly reductive and just does not hold up. For one thing, the application of hospitality to the context of divine worship tilts the argument significantly in favor of open communion or a de facto indiscriminate extension of the practice of intercommunion. For there are almost no circumstances in which a failure to show hospitality to guests would be correct or tolerated behavior. The whole doctrinal, theological and liturgical tradition outlined above thus becomes more or less irrelevant to decisions about the appropriateness of intercommunion, when in fact it is the rules of hospitality that are irrelevant . What is more, it is not strictly speaking we who invite ourselves or others to participate in the sacred mysteries, but Christ who welcomes us to share in his eternal worship of the Father in the Holy Spirit. It is by pure grace that we are in faith made partakers in the communion of trinitarian life. If there is “hospitality” shown here, it is on the part of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who can be said to “make room” for us, not just as occasional guests, but as adopted sons and daughters in Christ, in the communion of trinitarian life and in the visible ecclesial communion that is its extension in time. For these reasons, the expression “eucharistic hospitality” is not helpful when trying to sort out the difficulties posed by practices of intercommunion among communities where the longed for communion in faith does not yet obtain. 6