"Always Refer to Your Baptism" -- Il Papa on Making Eucharist Together

In recent weeks, representatives from the ELCA and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) put forward a bold declaration of points where we have come to agree on the Church, ministry, and the Eucharist. (For a more detailed summary of the process, consult the Catholic News Service article.) They recognize the differences that divide us -- women in ministry, full acceptance of LGBT persons, married priests and bishops, explanations of how Christ is present in the Bread and Wine -- but these differences are not what makes this document unique. Rather, it is the declaration that Catholics and Lutherans should be able to (occasionally) commune together.

The document, called "Declaration on the Way," is well worth the read and has made quite a splash within ecclesial circles -- along the same lines of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification," the groundbreaking work released in 1999. "Declaration on the Way" still has a long way to go. While the ELCA bishops have approved it, their decision is not binding. Rather, it will go before our Churchwide Assembly in 2016. From there, it will go to the Lutheran World Federation, the worldwide communion of independent Lutheran denominations. Likewise, same document will go before the entire USCCB for a vote on whether or not to send the proposal to Rome, where it would be considered by the Vatican's group on ecumenical relations. It's a long way to go, to be sure. The schism between Augsburg and Rome is not yet healed.

The en via, though, recognizes a central fact about the Eucharist: While it is a sign of ecclesial unity, it is also the means by which we are gracefully united into the Body of Christ. The Eucharist upholds our baptismal unity.

And Pope Francis has taken up this issue himself in recent weeks. He attended Vespers at the Lutheran parish in Rome, and in doing so, encouraged Lutherans and Catholics to forgive each other for the horrible persecutions they have perpetrated against each other and to work together. In and of itself, this is a marked shift from the pre-Vatican II church, but not unexpected from this Pope, who has met with the female presiding bishop of the ELCA and has worshiped alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury.

And then a woman asked a question. She and her husband are in a mixed Lutheran/Catholic marriage, and she wanted to know if she would ever be allowed to share the Eucharist with her full family. The Pope's response is worth quoting at length, as found at Whispers in the Loggia:

I think of how the Lord told us when he gave us this mandatumto “do this in memory of me,” and when we share the Lord’s Supper, we recall and we imitate the same as the Lord. And there will be the Lord’s Supper in the final banquet in the new Jerusalem – it’ll be there! But that will be the last one… in the meantime, I ask myself and don’t know how to respond – what you’re asking me, I ask myself the question. To share the Lord’s banquet: is it the goal of the path or is it the viaticum [etym. “to accompany you on the journey”] for walking together? I leave that question to the theologians and those who understand.

It’s true that in a certain sense, to share means that there aren’t differences between us, that we have the same doctrine – underscoring that word, a difficult word to understand. But I ask myself: but don’t we have the same Baptism? If we have the same Baptism, shouldn’t we be walking together? And you’re a witness of a likewise profound journey, a journey of marriage: itself a journey of family and human love and of a shared faith, no? We have the same Baptism.

...
I can only respond to your question with a question: what can I do with my husband that the Lord’s Supper might accompany me on my path? It’s a problem that each must answer [for themselves], but a pastor-friend once told me that “We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present” – you believe that the Lord is present. And what's the difference? There are explanations, interpretations, but life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism – one faith, one baptism, one Lord: this Paul tells us; and then consequences come later.

I would never dare to give permission to do this, because it’s not my own competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. [Pauses] And I wouldn't dare – I don’t dare say anything more.

Video of his response from the Catholic News Service:

The Pope's response reminds me of the ELCA's presiding bishop when I had the chance to ask her about our relationship with Rome this summer:

That is a scandal....The Reformation needed to happen, but we should not celebrate when the Church is fractured....With Christ, all things are possible....I'm not going to put a date on it, but it is our Lord's will.

A time is coming at this, the end of the age, when we will gather together and join the unending hosts of heaven in celebrating our Lord's presence among us.

Thanks be to God.

- - -

Post-Script: As an aside, Il Papa addressed the gathering of the Catholic Church in Italy with the following words and a hat-tip to the Lutheran tradition:

"The reform of the church then, and the church is semper reformanda ... does not end in the umpteenth plan to change structures," he continued. "It means instead grafting yourself to and rooting yourself in Christ, leaving yourself to be guided by the Spirit -- so that all will be possible with genius and creativity."

Scattered Thoughts on Eucharistic Praxis: Expanding on Frustration

My previous post was born out of frustration after three days of participating in Eucharistic liturgies done poorly -- or rather, in ways which seem to neglect the supreme importance of the Church's sacramental celebration. Certainly, Christ was still present in the elements; grace abounds. But our practice, while entirely dependent upon God's grace, should not be performed sans care or thought.

Likewise, my frustration should not be tossed out as a glib offering without proper explanation of why I find certain practices so troubling.

--  --  --

1. It is indeed right and salutary to provide an alcohol-free element. It is not right for that option to be cranberry juice.

The Vine and its fruit are important images for the Church. Throughout Scripture, the Vine is used as a way to understand God's relationship to Israel and the Gentiles -- that we are branches grafted upon the Vine. Likewise, Christ claimed to be the Vine -- not the bog (or the berry bush, for those of you out there using Blackberry Manischewitz). The central symbol is not just that Christ is a fruit-bearing plant, but that he is a particular type of plant.

In rushing to do good -- to provide for the inclusion of the entire Church in the Eucharist -- we should not ignore the symbols of our faith.

2. Your bread should not be heavily flavored, as with garlic. Your bread should definitely not have parmagiano cheese dust on it.

There are some recipes for Communion bread which call for small amounts of honey. What makes garlic cloves or cheese powder so different?

For starters, the honey (much like the salt or sugar) is thoroughly mixed into the bread in a way that minced garlic is not, and certainly in a way that cheese powder does not.

More importantly, though, is that the recipe used for the bread should not distract  from the centrality of the bread. If one uses honey, it should not make the bread so sweet as to taste like cake. Cloves of garlic, olives and other fruits, and cheeses distract from the bread itself.

With both the bread and the wine, one is forced to ask, "Can Christ be present in cranberry juice or bits of garlic clove? Can Jesus show up in parmagiano cheese?" Certainly. I suspect that Jesus is fully capable of showing up in the coffee and donuts we share in the fellowship hall after the service and in the beer and pizza I enjoyed frequently during seminary. Let's hope that the Triune God is present at all of our meals. But this is not a question of God can do. It's a question of where Jesus told us he would show up: that on the night in which he was betrayed, he took bread and wine, and said that are his Body and Blood given for us.

3. The appropriate response upon receiving the Host and the Chalice is not, "Thank you."

Please, don't thank me. In the Eucharist, neither the celebrant nor the servers (ordained and lay) are the major actors. I do firmly believe that the celebrant and servers play some role in the Sacrament -- but then again, so do the laity who faithfully participate in the celebration. The entire point of the Eucharist is to give thanks to God rather than mortals.

So instead, either respond with, "Thanks be to God," or even more appropriately, "Amen" (which literally translated means "surely" or "certainly" -- as in, "This truly is the Body and Blood of our Savior.")

4. When you receive, actually receive -- with open hands. I am not about to move the Host back and yell, "Psych!" nor am I Mr. Miyagi training you to snatch a pebble from my hand.

Much like prayer, there are a number of ways to reverently receive -- with open hands, via a spoon (as is the Orthodox tradition), or directly on the tongue (a practice maintained in certain Catholic circles, but which I have also seen performed in Lutheran parishes). And, like positions of prayer, it is difficult to say that there is a "right" way to commune. However, there are ways which are more reverential. Snatching is most certainly less reverential in that it treats the Sacrament like a buffet line.

Moreover, those serving at the Altar are doing just that -- serving. This is a sacred duty that many of us undertake with great care as it is an opportunity for us to live into Christ's call that we be "servants to all."

Finally, there is a practical aspect. If the Host is locally made bread rather than the thin, flat wafer, grabbing it from the server can lead to crumbs. Crumbs at the dining room table are annoying; crumbs at the Lord's Table are disrespectful of the Body of Christ itself.

5. I know. The plastic cups resemble shot glasses. That does not mean, however, that you must "toss it back."

I'll be honest: this one is more of a pet peeve. There is something, though, that strikes me as disrespectful when a communicant slings there entire head back as though the Precious Blood were a shot at a bar. I am the first to say that we need to stop using the "thimbles" for the Sacrament (and my goal for every parish I serve is to move them away from the practice). But if we are stuck with the shot glass/thimble method of distribution, we can at least treat it as reverently as possible.

As with receiving the Host, there are certain actions that are more dignified than others. Simply tilting the cup to the mouth is more dignified than throwing one's entire head back while communing.

-- -- --

Our practices are important -- not because they are pleasing to God or do anything to justify us, but because they form us into a people who show our awe and thankfulness towards God. In doing so, we open ourselves to the work of the Holy Spirit in a manner similar to reading Sacred Scripture or giving alms to those in need.

In adopting more faithful practice, we cooperate with God's work through the Sacraments and allow for our continued sanctification.

Scattered Thoughts on Eucharistic Praxis

1. It is indeed right and salutary to provide an alcohol-free element. It is not right for that option to be cranberry juice.

2. Your bread should not be heavily flavored, as with garlic. Your bread should definitely not have parmagiano cheese dust on it.

3. The appropriate response upon receiving the Host and the Chalice is not, "Thank you."

4. When you receive, actually receive -- with open hands. I am not about to move the Host back and yell, "Psych!" nor am I Mr. Miyagi training you to snatch a pebble from my hand.

5. I know. The plastic cups resemble shot glasses. That does not mean, however, that you must "toss it back."

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised any of this needs to be said.