On Communion under both kinds

The diocese of Phoenix has been making news lately, because of the decision of Bishop Olmsted to implement the new edition of the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States (old edition here, new edition not online yet), abbreviated NDRHC.  The diocese has decided, for numerous reasons, to reduce the frequency of Communion under both kinds.  The diocese made the announcement through a news release and a Q&A.  While both of the diocese's documents have some flaws (typos, poorly worded phrases, important words being omitted), they are certainly worth reading in their entirety.

I'd like to take this opportunity to step back to look at some history and the documentation on Communion under both kinds.

Communion under the form of bread alone for the laity (and for any non-celebrating priest) became customary in the 11th century.  At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was decreed that the laity were not to receive from the chalice, under pain of sin!

Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church's custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church's head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious.

Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church.

Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine.

Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church's permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters. (Session 13)

This was, in my opinion, a rather severe reaction to a rather reasonable request, that all the faithful should be permitted to receive Communion under both kinds.  Now, perhaps this needn't be done all the time, and the Church firmly believes that Communion under a single kind is not an incomplete Communion, but to forbid the laity from receiving under the form of wine seems unreasonable to me.  (To be fair, the "request" was a demand that the faithful ought (always) to receive under both kinds, which was deemed unreasonable.)

Less than 150 years later, the Council of Trent reconsidered the question of Communion under both kinds in Session 21, but merely affirmed doctrines concerning concomitance and the lack of necessity for one (other than the celebrating priest) to receive Communion specifically under both kinds:

The two articles proposed on another occasion but not yet discussed, namely,

1. whether the reasons which moved the holy Catholic Church to decree that laymen and priests not celebrating are to communicate under the one species of bread only, are so stringent that under no circumstances is the use of the chalice to be permitted to anyone; and
2. whether, in case it appears advisable and consonant with Christian charity that the use of the chalice be conceded to a person, nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions, and what are those conditions,

the same holy council reserves for examination and definition to another time, at the earliest opportunity that shall present itself.

The matter of the concession of the chalice was brought up in the next session, with the following result:

Moreover, since the same holy council in the preceding session reserved to another and more convenient time the examination and definition of two articles which had been proposed on another occasion and had then not yet been discussed, namely,

1. whether the reasons which induced the holy Catholic Church to decide that lay people and also priests when not celebrating are to communicate under the one species of bread, are so to be retained that under no condition is the use of the chalice to be permitted to anyone; and
2. whether in case, for reasons befitting and consonant with Christian charity, it appears that the use of the chalice is to be conceded to any nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions, and what are those conditions;

it has now, in its desire to provide for the salvation of those on whose behalf the petition is made, decreed that the entire matter be referred to our most holy Lord [the Pope], as in the present decree it does refer it, who in accordance with his singular prudence will do what he shall judge beneficial for the Christian commonwealth and salutary for those who petition for the use of the chalice.

In other words:  the Council of Trent left the decision up to the Pope, who at that time decided not to change the discipline.  Whether individuals were permitted to receive from the chalice by making a petition, I do not know.

Fast forward to the Second Vatican Council.  The first document, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, opened the door to Communion under both kinds:

55. [...] The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

By 1970, a list of specific instances when Communion under both kinds would be permitted was devised.  Another document from 1970 permits bishops to allow Communion under both kinds on other occasions, but under the following conditions: "Ordinaries are not to grant blanket permission but, within the limits set by the conference of bishops, are to specify the instances and celebrations for this form of communion. To be excluded are occasions when the number of communicants is great. The permission should be for specific, structured, and homogeneous assemblies."

The GIRM from 1975 gives similar instructions:
242. [...] [C]onferences of bishops have the power to decide to what extent and under what considerations and conditions Ordinaries may allow communion under both kinds in other instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life of any community or group of the faithful. Within such limits, Ordinaries may designate the particular instances, but on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately but for clearly defined celebrations and that they point out matters for caution. They are also to exclude occasions when there will be a large number of communicants. The groups receiving this permission must also be specific, well-ordered, and homogeneous.
However, the US adaptation of the GIRM included "weekday Masses" in the list of occasions at which the chalice could be conceded, and in 1978, the US Bishops extended this to all holy days of obligation (Sundays included).

That this exceeded the intentions of the Holy See was made clear in 1980 in the document Inaestimabile Donum:

With regard to Communion under both kinds, the norms laid down by the Church must be observed [...] Episcopal conferences and ordinaries also are not to go beyond what is laid down in the present discipline: the granting of permission for Communion under both kinds is not to be indiscriminate, and the celebrations in question are to be specified precisely; the groups that use this faculty are to be clearly defined, well disciplined, and homogeneous.

Permission for Communion under both kinds on weekday and Sunday Masses does not fit that description. It was not until 1984 that Rome officially permitted the diocese of the US to distribute Communion under both kinds under their own conditions, and this is now reflected in the Latin GIRM:

283. Communio sub utraque specie permittitur, praeter casus in libris ritualibus expositos:

1. sacerdotibus qui sacrum celebrare vel concelebrare non possunt;
2. diacono et ceteris qui aliquod officium in Missa implent;
3. sodalibus communitatum in Missa conventuali vel in illa quae «communitatis» dicitur, alumnis seminariorum, omnibus qui exercitiis spiritualibus vacant vel conventum spiritualem aut pastoralem participant.

Episcopus dioecesanus normas circa Communionem sub utraque specie pro sua dioecesi definire potest, etiam in ecclesiis religiosorum et in parvis coetibus servandas. Eidem Episcopo facultas datur Communionem sub utraque specie permittendi, quoties id sacerdoti celebranti opportunum videatur, dummodo fideles bene instructi sint et absit omne periculum profanationis Sacramenti vel ritus difficilior evadat, ob multitudinem participantium aliamve causam.

Quod autem ad modum distribuendi fidelibus sacram Communionem sub utraque specie, et ad facultatis extensionem Conferentiae Episcoporum normas edere possunt, actis a Sede Apostolica recognitis.

In the English translation of the GIRM (with US adaptations), this reads as follows:

283. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for:

1. Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
2. the Deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
3. members of communities at the Conventual Mass or the “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all those engaged in a retreat or taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the Priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and that there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or for some other cause.

In all that pertains to Communion under both kinds, the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America are to be followed (particularly nos. 27-54).

This brings us, finally, to these US Norms for Holy Communion.  After an introductory section on Holy Communion in general, the norms recapitulate what the GIRM says about specific occasions on which Communion under both kind may be offered, and about the bishop drawing up norms for his diocese and even permitting pastors of individual parishes to allow Communion under both species as they see fit (NDRHC 22-24).

The norms stress the need for proper formation (catechesis) on the Eucharist (25):

1. the ecclesial nature of the Eucharist as the common possession of the whole Church;
2. the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ's sacrifice, his death and resurrection, and as the sacred banquet;
3. the real presence of Christ in the eucharistic elements, whole and entire--in each element of consecrated bread and wine (the doctrine of concomitance);
4. the kinds of reverence due at all times to the sacrament, whether within the eucharistic Liturgy or outside the celebration; and
5. the role that ordinary and, if necessary, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are assigned in the eucharistic assembly

The norms then address the matter of the ministers (ordinary and extraordinary) of Holy Communion (26-28).  Also mentioned are reverence (29), proper planning (30-31), preparations (32-35), and then liturgical directives starting with the Preparation of the Gifts through to the purification of the sacred vessels (36-55); the document ends with a concluding paragraph (56).

But back in paragraph 24, after quoting the GIRM, the US norms state this:

In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister[s] might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.

This part of paragraph 24 intersects with the list of reasons given by the diocese of Phoenix for limiting Holy Communion under both forms to certain times and under certain conditions (Q&A #4):

1. To protect the Sacred Species from profanation (careless treatment, spillage, swilling, etc.);
2. The practice is not in any way necessary for salvation — it is a fuller sign of Holy Communion, but not a fuller reality of Christ Himself than what is received under the form of bread alone;
3. The practice is used to emphasize special feast days and other special moments in the lives of the faithful;
4. The unity of the practice throughout the world is an act of solidarity in the universal Church — rich and poor countries alike; and
5. In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion; when both forms of Communion are used frequently, "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.

I want to close by pointing out that members of the faithful who are homebound or in hospitals routinely receive Communion under a single species, and that at non-eucharistic liturgies where Communion is distributed (e.g. Good Friday) it is distributed under the form of bread alone.

Is the Eucharist a sacrifice "before" it is a meal?

The following is from a series of comments made on a post on the Pray Tell Blog.  The comments have been edited slightly to keep the conversation focused on the matter of the Eucharist as a sacrifice "before" (my language) it is a meal.

Gerard Flynn: The offering, made by the community, of the body and blood of the Lord, to God, which takes places after the institution narrative, constitutes the sacrifice of the mass. It is the kernel of that which allows the mass to be called a sacrifice.

Jeffrey Pinyan: Certainly — it’s what makes the Mass a sacrifice. It’s what makes the Eucharist a sacrifice to God before It is a banquet for us.

Gerard Flynn: There is no basis for your claim that the eucharist is a sacrifice before it is a banquet. Your use of the word ‘before’ is ambiguous since, on the one hand, it may simply be an indication that X is anterior to Y. However, on the other hand, it may be interpreted in a qualitative, rather than in a temporal sense. In either case, it is unhelpful.

Jeffrey Pinyan: I don’t think that my claim is baseless or unhelpful. Chronologically speaking, the Eucharist is offered to (and received by) God as a sacrifice in the anaphora, and only after the anaphora is the Eucharist offered to (and received by) us as a communal banquet. Qualitatively speaking (from the Catholic perspective), does not the Eucharist as a communion meal derive its sign value and its efficacy from the very fact that it is a sacrifice? It’s not just Jesus’ favorite or last meal, or a meal to remember Him by. It is a sacrificial meal, not just of His Body and Blood, but of the Body which He gave and the Blood which He poured out. The Eucharist, being in the forms of bread and wine, is clearly meant to be received by us, to be eaten. I lament that western Catholics generally lost sight of that for centuries. But I think it is easier to lose sight of the Eucharist as being a sacrifice which we offer to God, and I would lament the loss of this understanding.

Gerard Flynn: If you simply mean that the eucharist is a sacrifice before it is a meal, in an anterior sense, the point is so trite and inocuous that it doesn’t deserve to have any cyber ink spilt over it.

Jeffrey Pinyan: I think it’s worth noting that such an important part of the anaphora, the offering of the Eucharist to God, can be missed if we’re not paying attention. It’s what makes the Mass a sacrifice and not just a factory for producing Communion. It’s hard to miss the Communion Rite, but it’s easy to miss the offering in the anaphora.

Gerald Flynn: Furthermore, to claim that God receives the sacrifice before the eucharist is consumed is to conflate and confuse the two spheres of human existence (time) and divine existence (eternity). It is anthropomorphic nonsense to speak of anteriority in this context.

Jeffrey Pinyan: Then keep the perspective temporal — we offer it to God before we presume to receive it ourselves. Or, you could say that God gets the first-fruits of the Eucharist.

At this point, Tom Poelker replied to my "qualitatively" point from my second response, which I'll repeat here:

Jeffrey Pinyan: Qualitatively speaking (from the Catholic perspective), does not the Eucharist as a communion meal derive its sign value and its efficacy from the very fact that it is a sacrifice? It’s not just Jesus’ favorite or last meal, or a meal to remember Him by. It is a sacrificial meal, not just of His Body and Blood, but of the Body which He gave and the Blood which He poured out.

Tom Poelker: Could someone better versed in Scripture and history than I please check this? Was not the Eucharist celebrated as a meal long before it was cited as a sacrifice? Was not the Eucharist valued as a memorial meal before it was valued as a sacrifice? If I am remembering this correctly,then it is impossible that “the Eucharist as a communion meal derive its sign value and its efficacy from the very fact that it is a sacrifice.”

Jeffrey Pinyan: The first Eucharist anticipated, or pre-presented, the sacrifice of the Cross. Christ called the bread His body “which IS given” and the wine His blood “which IS [being] poured out”. Our liturgical texts use the future tense because of the Clementine Vulgate, I think, but the Greek uses present passive participles.

Tom Poelker: Why are you not addressing the original perceptions of the Eucharist instead of repeating the later theological thoughts about it? This is exactly what I was trying to get away from, in seeking more information about what is known from Paul and Luke and the writings of the next generation or two. When did this looking back and connecting it to sacrifice begin, if I am correct that it is not the earliest frame of reference?

At this point, I decided to provide some scriptural starting points from which Tom and I could continue our discussion.

Jeffrey Pinyan: Tom, earlier, you had asked: “Was not the Eucharist celebrated as a meal long before it was cited as a sacrifice? Was not the Eucharist valued as a memorial meal before it was valued as a sacrifice?” Is the core of the matter whether Christians considered the Eucharist a sacrifice offered to God, or whether they considered the Eucharist to be sacrificial?

Here are some verses which I think display a first-or-second-generation perception of sacrifice in the (first) Eucharist.

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mt 26:28)

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mk 14:24)

“This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. … This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Lk 22:19-20)

“Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.” (1 Cor 5:7)

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16)

“This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. … This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. ” (1 Cor 11:24-26)

“We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.” (Heb 13:10)

[Christians quickly (at least by Justin Martyr's time) saw the Eucharist as the fulfillment of Mal 1:11. That seems to say something about the nature of the Eucharist as an offering/sacrifice to God.]

Then I provided commentary on those verses.

Jeffrey Pinyan: Jesus says the bread is His body “which is (given) for” us; He refers to His blood as the “blood of the covenant”, or to the cup as “the new covenant in my blood.”

His institution of the Eucharist is marked by sacrificial language (especially when you consider the verb tense in the Greek) — the bread and wine become present manifestations of His future Passion. The “covenant” language evokes Exodus 24: “And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you …’” The blood comes from a sacrifice; my apologies if this point is trite or inocuous.

When Jesus says that we should “do this in remembrance” of Him, part of the “this” is the making present of the covenant-sacrifice by means of bread and wine. And it is not only being made present to us, but to the Father as well. This is why Paul can say that we participate in Christ’s body and blood via the bread and cup, and how we “proclaim the Lord’s death” by celebrating the Eucharist (and specifically by eating it).

The eating then brings us the “pasch” imagery. Jesus is our pasch, our Passover Lamb. Not only did the Israelites sacrifice a lamb and then eat it, but they smeared its blood on their doorposts, in effect “showing” the sacrifice to God. The Passover was at once a meal and a sacrifice, inextricably linked: if you sacrificed it but did not eat it, you were not following the commandment (and who knows if you would have ended up dead?); if you ate the meal without sacrificing the lamb (and smearing its blood), the meal was not a covenant meal at all.

So the Passover’s efficacy as a meal was rooted in it being a sacrifice, while its efficacy as a sacrifice was only realized if it was eaten as a meal.

Finally, the obscure mention of “an altar” from which Christians have a right to eat (I do not think I am out of bounds to say that) in Hebrews 13 implies a sacrifice offered on that altar, the fruits of which are consumed by those offering.

Protestant perception of the "Lord's Supper"

This post comes from a thread on the Coming Home Network International forums.

One poster, "Pange Lingua" (Michael), wrote:

I think that Baptist minister is probably much closer to Catholicism than he would ever venture to suspect. If all of these things [the bread and wine for the "Lord's Supper"] are meant to be mere symbols, then it shouldn't make a great deal of difference how they're dispensed or how they're dispensed with. If his heart tells him there's something more to it ... then the little disposable cups he probably uses in his own services begins to become suspect. How the leftover grape juice is poured down the drain begins to become suspect. What happens to the rest of that loaf of French bread he's using starts to matter - and the little kids running up to grab a hunk after the service - well, that starts to matter too.

I think the simple realization that things matter is a huge part of the journey.

Sometimes the journey home has to start at home as well, within the Church. Last year some noise had to be made in my own parish because it was discovered that the chalice was being cleaned improperly, with the remnants of the precious blood being poured down the drain. Perhaps we needed a sensitive Baptist to help us out. Perhaps he'll be able to within not too many years.

Another poster, Steven Barrett, responded:

I knew I was in a deep "cultural hole" and ready for some steady teasin' at the Baptist church we used to attend and I was a sexton for, on the day I refused to vacuum up the little pieces of remaining communion bread.

"I'm NOT sucking up the Lord!" sez I. They couldn't believe I was that respectful for the communion they allowed to fall on their rugs, which were no doubt ground down a few times ... and you wouldn't want to know how they treated their Bibles, which in a Baptist Church are more important than their portions of Communion.

Here is my response:

---

Imagine if a wife threw out the bouquet of roses her husband gave her 10 minutes later. She'd explain, of course, that the roses were a symbol of her husband's love for her, and she received them and so spiritually/symbolically received his love, and now the flowers had served their purpose and, really, they were only ever just flowers: the husband's attachment of his love to them didn't change them in reality, just in perception, and now the perception (as far as the wife is concerned) is gone, the actual love having been acknowledged.

But no wife does that (do they?!). Yes, even wives with no belief in the Eucharist or Jesus Christ at all keep roses, ordinary flowers that serve as mere symbols of love (romantic, erotic, etc.), around longer than many Christian communities keep their "Lord's Supper" around after it has been received.

The Catholic Church and Closed Communion

(11/26 edit: I left out perhaps the most obvious meaning of "Communion", which I have now included below.)

The Catholic Church, unlike many other Christian communities, has a discipline known as "closed communion." This means that (other than very exceptional cases), only members of the Catholic Church may partake of Holy Communion (that is, receive the Holy Eucharist).  Some non-Catholics are very confused by this policy. They see it as exclusive: "Why aren't all invited to the table or the Lord? Did Jesus exclude anyone?" They see it as divisive between Christians: "We allow non-[XYZ]'s to receive the Lord's Supper, so why don't Catholics?" Some are deeply hurt by not being able to receive Communion.

To explain this discipline, we must describe accurately what the Eucharist is and what Holy Communion means to the Church.

Regardless of what a person thinks the Eucharist is, no matter what a person thinks he is eating when he receives Holy Communion in a Catholic church, he is receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior. He is not receiving bread or wine, nor a "symbol". If this blessed gift is received unworthily, he adds sin (unworthy reception) to sin (which made his reception unworthy in the first place). Furthermore, this is not just a "meal" or "banquet." This is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb under the veil of a sacrament; this is the consumption of a sacrificial offering.

This Marriage Supper, this mystical wedding banquet, is for those who are "wedded" to Christ in His Church.  In other words, receiving Holy Communion means that you are in communion with Christ and His Church.  That naturally excludes those who are not Christian at all, the unbaptized.  Just as St. Paul wrote that the "fathers" of Israel "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink" (1 Cor 10:2-4), so those who are baptized into Christ receive a supernatural food and drink.  It was only the Israelites (those of the older covenant) who partook of that supernatural food and drink; likewise, it is only the Church (those of the new covenant, not just one nation) who partake of this supernatural food and drink.

It also excludes those who are Christians but are separated (or "estranged," you could say) from the Bride of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, whether by mortal sin or by not holding the Catholic faith.  Faith is a matter of fidelity to God; the Church is faithful to her spouse, Christ, and so her members too must be faithful, believing that Catholic faith.

Catholic doctrine is that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice offered to God. (Numerically, it is the same sacrifice as that of Christ on the cross, with only the manner of the offering being different: the Eucharist is unbloody. Likewise, the Body which is received in the sacrament is numerically identical to that which was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and died on Calvary.)  Let me repeat: the Eucharist is a sacrifice; receiving Holy Communion is partaking in a sacrificial meal. As St. Paul asked, "Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?" (1 Cor 9:13) "Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" (1 Cor 10:18)  You are partaking in a sacrificial offering at an altar.

If, as some Protestants believe, the Mass is a satanic and pagan corruption of true worship of God, and the Eucharist is a satanic and pagan sacrifice, then the Eucharist would be being offered "to demons and not to God" (1 Cor 10:20), and anyone who receives Holy Communion at Mass is partaking of the "table of demons." (1 Cor 10:21)  What did St. Paul say about that? "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons." (1 Cor 10:21)

Regardless of whether the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is true (and of course, I believe that it is), Catholics believe they are offering a sacrifice to God and are then partaking of that offering. If they are right, and you want to receive it too, why aren't you Catholic?! And if they are wrong, and it is a pagan offering and a fellowship with demons, why would you want to receive it?!

Holy Communion: Quod es, es!

A delightful trick of the Latin language is that the verbs for “to be” and “to eat” are spelled same: esse. These verbs are irregular, and they are not always conjugated the same way; for instance, “I am” is sum, whereas “I eat” is edo (hence the word "edible"). However, “you are” and “you eat” are rendered the same way: es (for singular you) or estis (for plural you). That means the well-known expression “you are what you eat” can be said in Latin as “quod es, es” or “quod estis, estis.” This phrase takes on a whole new meaning when you consider what it is you are eating when you receive Holy Communion.

To that effect, I'd like to provide my translation of a delightful sermon of St. Augustine in A.D. 408 on the Feast of Pentecost to neophytes (newly-initiated Catholics). The Latin of this sermon was pretty easy to translate (or maybe I'm just getting better at it).

That which you see on the altar, is that which you saw last night: but what it is, what it meant, how great a thing the sacrament contained, you had not yet heard. Now, what you see is bread and a chalice [of wine]; that, indeed, is what your eyes declare to you: but that which your faith asks to be instructed about [is this], the bread is the body of Christ, the chalice [of wine] is the blood of Christ. That was stated quite briefly, which perhaps may suffice for faith: but faith desires instruction. For, as the prophet says, "Unless you have believed, you will not understand." (Isa. 7:9) That is, you could now say to me, "You have taught [us] that we may believe; [now] explain that we may understand!"

For instance, into the mind of any one of you might come such a thought as: "We learned whence our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh, of the Virgin Mary. The infant was weaned, nourished, grew up, came to to a youthful age, suffered persecution by the Jews, was hung on the tree [of the Cross], was killed on the tree, was taken down from the tree, was buried, on the third day he rose again, and on the day he willed he ascended into Heaven; his body, lifted up, is there, and from there he will come to judge the living and the dead; there he is now, sitting at the right hand of the Father. How, then, is the bread his body? And the chalice, or rather that which the chalice holds, how is it his blood?"

For just that reason, brethren, such things are called “sacraments” because in them one thing is seen, but another thing is understood. That which is seen has a tangible appearance; that which is understood provides spiritual fruit. Therefore, if you wish to understand the body of Christ, pay attention to the Apostle saying to the faithful, “You, moreover, are the body of Christ, and its members.” (1 Cor. 12:27) If, therefore, you are the body of Christ and its members, your mystery is placed on the Lord’s table: you receive your mystery. To that which you are (or: to that which you eat), you answer “Amen,” and, thus answering, you assent. That is, you hear “The body of Christ,” and you answer “Amen.” Therefore, be a member of the body of Christ, that the “Amen” may be true!

How, then, in the bread? Let us bring nothing here of our own [ideas], but let us continue to listen to that same Apostle who, while speaking of this Sacrament, said: "We, the many, are one bread, one body." (1 Cor. 10:17) Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, piety, love. “One bread” – what is that one bread? It is “the one body” which we the “many” are. Bring this to the forefront of your mind: bread is not made from a single grain, but from many. When you were being exorcised, it is as though you were being ground up. When you were baptized, it is as though you were mixed together [into dough]. When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it is as though you were being baked. Be that which you see, and receive that which you are! That is what the Apostle spoke concerning the bread.

Now what we should understand concerning the chalice, even though not said, he has shown well enough. As many grains are mixed into one that it might be the visible appearance of bread, just as if to bring about that which the Holy Scripture says concerning the faithful, “They were one soul and one heart in God” (cf. Acts 4:32), so too with the wine: brethren, recall from what wine is made: many grapes hang in a bunch, but the juice of the grapes is combined into one. Even thus Christ the Lord signified us, willed us to belong to him (cf. John 15:1-8), and consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity upon his table. Who accepts the sacrament of unity, and keeps not the bond of peace, does not receive the sacrament for his good, but as a testimony against himself!

You can find the Latin of Sermon CCLXXII on page 133 of this PDF.

Sacraments in the Protestant communities

Here is an excerpt from a blog post of a pastor at a nearby non-denominational Christian community:

We will be looking at the two sacraments practiced by the Protestant Church - communion and baptism. Communion symbolizes the doorway to the church. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross paves the way for personal cleansing and a relationship with God. Josh will be sharing this weekend and I ask that everyone be praying for a clear message and call concerning the sacrifice of Christ and the elements of communion that facilitate our remembrance of that event. We trust some will make a decision this weekend to enter that door they have only previously gazed at from a distance. Then we hope they will be baptized the following week.

I mean Pastor Boyd no disrespect, but I think he's got Communion and Baptism backwards. Maybe it's just him, maybe it's the tradition in which he was brought up, maybe it's much of Protestantism in general.

St. Peter and St. Paul did not speak of Communion as the doorway to the Church. They preached Baptism first. I'm curious if the ecclesiology suffers when these two sacraments of initiation are put in the wrong order...

Liturgy: Blessings during Communion

The Adoremus Bulletin has a brief article online about a response from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS) concerning the common practice (in the US, at least) of giving blessings to people who come up during Communion but are not receiving Communion.

While the response (Prot. N. 930/08/L) says that "this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation" and does not render a verdict, so to speak, the response does include several "observations", the first of which is that the "liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion."

It should be noted that the intention of giving blessings (especially to little children) is a good one; the placement of those blessings during the Communion procession is one of the issues, though. The Communion procession is for receiving Communion, and any blessing requested or received during that time is "out of place" and shouldn't be misconstrued as a "replacement" or "substitution" for Communion. Perhaps the traditional practice of staying in one's seat and making a "spiritual communion" could be promoted once more.

Another issue is whether extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (laypeople) are permitted (or even capable) of bestowing such blessings in the liturgy. EMHCs are commissioned for the distribution of Holy Communion, which does not involve a blessing. The response from the CDWDS made the observation that lay people (EMHCs included) "within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings" and that these blessings "are the competence of the priest".

(Side thought... The old formula for the distribution of Holy Communion was, I think, a blessing: "May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen." With such a formula, which is still found in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, I don't think a lay person could be a minister of Holy Communion.)

Discerning the Body with Augustine and John Chrysostom

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

What did St. Paul mean when he wrote "discerning the body"? The Greek text for 1 Cor. 11:29 has a variant (followed by the King James Version as well as the Douay-Rheims) which qualifies "the body" with the phrase "of the Lord".

There are three ways I see of interpreting this, all of which seem orthodox (that is, proper to Catholic faith) to me. These three ways supplement one another, building upon one another, to the point that each must be considered as necessary to a proper "discerning [of] the body [of the Lord]".

1. Acknowledging the Real Presence of the Body (and Blood) of the Lord under the appearances of the bread and wine
2. Recognizing that the "body of Christ" is simultaneously (although in different ways) the Eucharist and the Church, of which we are members
3. Being mindful of those other members of the body of Christ
   

I don't see much in Church Father literature touching upon this "discerning" of the body — Augustine and Chrysostom seem to focus more on what warrants an unworthy reception of Communion, rather than what is means to "discern" the body. But what I did find apropos to this discernment is primarily about #1; I provide the excerpts below with my commentary.

Augustine, The Correction of the Donatists 11, 50:

But those with whom we are arguing, or about whom we are arguing, are not to be despaired of, for they are yet in the body [I think he means by this that they are still alive]; but they cannot seek the Holy Spirit, except in the body of Christ, of which they possess the outward sign outside the Church, but they do not possess the actual reality itself within the Church of which that is the outward sign, and therefore they eat and drink damnation to themselves. (1 Cor. 11:29)

Augustine is pointing out that there are heretical divisions which have the "outward sign" — i.e., a communal meal whose elements are bread and wine — but do not possess the actual reality (the "substance") under that outward appearance. This seems to me to refer to a celebration of the Lord's Supper which is simply (and only) bread and wine, rather than the actual Body and Blood of the Lord under the appearances of bread and wine. In consuming a "mock" Eucharist (as a result of being outside the Church and thus deprived of its sacramental efficacy), they are eating and drinking judgment.

Augustine, Sermon 82, 1:

As we heard when the Holy Gospel (John 6:55ff) was being read, the Lord Jesus Christ exhorted us by the promise of eternal life to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. Ye that heard these words, have not all as yet understood them. For those of you who have been baptized and the faithful do know what He meant. But those among you who are yet called Catechumens, or Hearers, could be hearers, when it was being read, could they be understanders too? Accordingly our discourse is directed to both. Let them who already eat the Flesh of the Lord and drink His Blood, think What it is they eat and drink, lest, as the Apostle says, “They eat and drink judgment to themselves.”

Again, Augustine makes it clear that those who receive Holy Communion must "think What it is they eat and drink": they must "discern" that the Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, welling up to eternal life, as the Lord himself promised. Failure to accept this results in judgment.

Augustine, Sermon 52, 4:

He gave to the disciples the Supper consecrated by His Own Hands; but we did not sit down at that Feast, and yet we daily eat this same Supper by faith. And do not think it strange that in that supper which He gave with His Own Hand, one was present without faith: the faith that appeared, afterwards was more than a compensation for that faithlessness then. Paul was not there who believed, Judas was there who betrayed. How many now too in this same Supper, though they saw not then that table, nor beheld with their eyes, nor tasted with their mouths, the bread which the Lord took in His Hands, yet because it is the same as is now prepared, how many now also in this same Supper, “eat and drink judgment to themselves”?

Augustine links the celebration of the Eucharist and the reception of Holy Communion with "that supper which [Christ] gave with His Own Hand"; he calls each celebration of the Eucharist "this same Supper". Furthermore, those who receive the Eucharist "without faith" are placing judgment upon themselves. What "faith" is that? As Judas betrayed Christ, so too we betray him in a way when we deny his Real Presence in the sacrificial banquet of the Eucharist.

John Chrysostom, Homily 2 on 1 John, 1:

The disciples, then, knew Him not, save “in the breaking of bread.” And truly he that eateth and drinketh not judgment to himself in the breaking of bread doth know Christ.

Chrysostom says that one who "knows Christ" as did those disciples ("in the breaking of the bread") does not bring judgment upon himself when he receives Communion. This seems to me again to refer to belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament.

Q&A on the Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy

(First, I'd like to apologize to the gentleman from the CMAA, from Old Bridge / South Amboy, whose name I had forgotten by the end of our conversation. He is starting up a schola and brought along a few of the members.)

The Q&A was rather decent. The monsignor who led the discussion admitted, rather bluntly, that the liturgy of the Catholic Church in the U.S. went from "poorly done in Latin" to "poorly done in English" because of the reforms of Vatican II.

Some interesting comments included a concern for the Precious Blood being spilled (since a woman said she often sees a carpet stain where the EMHCs with the chalice are standing) and a question about use of a Communion rail and restricting Communion to one species. I learned that it is a diocese-wide "mandate" to offer Communion under both kinds at every Mass; quite surprising, given the sordid history of Communnion under both kinds in the U.S.

I mentioned the CMAA (http://www.musicasacra.com/) and the new instructional DVD on the Extraordinary Form of the Mass by the Priestly Society of St. Peter (http://www.fsspdvd.com/) as resources for musicians and priests and seminarians who are interested in the the traditional music and liturgy of the Church.

Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy called for liturgical reform, it is true, but it also called for better liturgical formation and catechesis for clergy and laity alike. Let's pray for that part to get implemented in the coming years!

Liturgy: The change to the formulary for the distribution of Holy Communion

I've started a new blog dedicated to the 500+ documents found in Documents on the Liturgy. I will only update it every now and then, but I will make an effort to put particularly interesting documents there. The blog is simply called "Documents on the Liturgy", although if I get feisty, I may rename it to Instrumenta Liturgica ("Liturgical Documents") or the more accurate Instrumenta Liturgia ("Documents on the Liturgy", with liturgia being in the ablative).

That being said, I will reproduce the first post here. It is about the decree Quo actuosius, by which the formulary for the distribution of Holy Communion was changed to simply "The Body of Christ. / Amen."

252. SC RITES, Decree Quo actuosius, promulgating a new formulary for the distribution of communion, 25 April 1964: AAS 56 (1964) 337-338.

In order that the people may more actively and beneficially take part in the sacrifice of the Mass and profess their faith in the eucharistic mystery in the very act of receiving communion, numerous requests have been submitted to Pope Paul VI for a more appropriate formulary for the distribution of communion.

Graciously welcoming such requests, the Pope has established that in the distribution of communion, in place of the formulary now in use, the priest simply to say: The body of Christ and the people are to answer: Amen, then receive communion. This is to be followed whenever communion is distributed, both within and outside Mass.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding, even those worthy of special mention.

And here is the commentary I made on this document:

The previous formulary for receiving Communion had been the following, said by the priest:

Corpus Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam tuam in vitam aetérnam. Amen.

The communicant did not make a reply.

The formula which replaced it was:

Priest: Corpus Christi.
Communicant: Amen.

The previous form was a blessing said by the priest to each one receiving Communion: "May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen."

From my point of view, the previous form could have been adjusted only slightly to facilitate the "active participation" (which here apparently means saying something) of the faithful:

Priest: Hoc Corpus Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam tuam in vitam aetérnam.
Communicant: Amen.

The priest is now saying, in effect, "May this, the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, preserve your soul unto life everlasting" to which the communicant responds "Amen". It is still a blessing, yet it incorporates a profession of faith from the communicants: no longer is "some" Body of our Lord Jesus Christ (which is not identified with the Host being received) preserving their soul, but this which is the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ.