Does Communion Promote Community Among Christians?
A
Historical and Contemporary Examination of the Most Sacred Sacrament
By
Scott A. Klepach, Jr.
Introduction
Since
I have never been a member of any type of church before, until a few
years ago communion had been only a vague conception to me. Though I
profess to be a Christian, I do not align myself with any sort of
denomination or necessarily every dogmatic teaching of the faith. A
few years back I had attended a church with my then-girlfriend for
several weeks before I became disheartened at the direction the
sermons seemed to be heading. During this time, however, the church
did hold a communion, but at the time this process meant little more
to me than, well, eating a piece of flavorless bread and a meager
portion of grape juice. For the next several years, I spent little
time in church and instead opted for my own personal investigations
of religion, and Christianity in particular. But throughout my
informal search, I never really reflected on communion; regrettably,
I admit this was partially the case because this sacrament did not
captivate me as much as other topics, such as the nature of God,
heaven and hell, views of the apocalypse, and so forth. My interest
was peaked when I learned early on in a college anthropology class
about the Catholic notion of transubstantiation, but it would take
several more years before I invested myself in a more comprehensive
study of the disputes and complexities of the communion process.
Because communion is quite intricate and mysterious, I shall break
down how the many Christian denominations regard what is considered
to be the most sacred sacrament of all in its historical and
contemporary contexts; examine such terms as transubstantiation and
its alternatives; and then I will share my own experiences of two
different communions at a Catholic mass and at a Grace Brethren
Church.
Transubstantiation
and Early Catholic Responses
Communion itself
began with Christ’s instructions to his apostles to remember him
and his sacrifice, but the early years of church practice had to
address other potential problems associated with this sacrament.
From their inception to modern day, the Catholic and Orthodox
churches both promote the idea of transubstantiation. This term
literally translates from Latin as "across substance," and
appears to have "no basis in Scripture [and] first appeared in the
early 9th century AD."i
This term denotes that somehow during communion, the bread and wine
are converted into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. Though the
participant might still see, smell, and taste the bread and wine,
these are only considered to be the accidents, or the unessential
attributes of the original substances; it is important to note that
though these accidents still exist after the transformation, the
original substances are entirely destroyed and the new substances are
the real body and blood of Christii.
One Catholic illustration regarding the mystery behind
transubstantiation compares the process to a stone: "We experience
its hardness, its smoothness, its color, its shape. But the
substance that has these attributes eludes our observation."iii
In other words, even real objects cannot be understood completely,
so it is not unreasonable to believe in transubstantiation. Another
argument for this conversion asks that if Christ intended this
process to be merely symbolic, he would have stated so more
specifically; rather, modern Catholic authorities argue that his
words "This is my body…This is my blood" (Mark 14: 22-24)
indicate that he means that the bread and wine literally turn into
his body and blood.iv
Though transubstantiation began rather vaguely, it carried steam and
after the Council of Trent and Vatican II, Catholics still ardently
support this doctrine.v
Even so, there were
other possible interpretations of communion that the church had to
address during the medieval era. During the time of Pope Alexander
III, monk and theologian Alan of Lille laid out four distinct
possibilities around the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The first
is that the sacrament is "purely symbolic," where the substances
remained exactly as they were beforehand and the process is a
reminder to believers.vi
The second possibility, called impanation, deals with the
"Eucharistic change after the hypostatic union of the Son with his
human nature in the Incarnation," which meant that "the elements,
while retaining the full reality that was theirs, would have been
inseparably joined to the heavenly Body of Christ so as to be
identified with that Body."vii
Since impanation seems to imply some sort of union between Christ
and the substances, it initiates later popular notions of the real
presence, which later many Protestants would advocate. But this
later-Protestant belief is much more closely aligned with the third
option, known as companation (which would later be called
consubstantiation, discussed below), which is similar to impanation
but is more exact in its explanation: "…the elements of the bread
and wine remained what they were but that the substance of the Body
and Blood of Christ became present along with the substances of bread
and wine…companation tended to hold for a juxtaposition of the two
substances."viii
In some way, then, during communion the bread and wine are divided
into two natures: both natural and divine substances. These three
options were deemed heretical by the Church, but none more so than
the idea of communion being symbolic, since that interpretation
leaves no room for some form of divine intervention. Instead, the
Catholic Church adopted the fourth option, which was
transubstantiation.
Some suggest that
the belief in transubstantiation is so prevalent because it is not
only a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, but furthermore
this change actually occurs because the effects of his sacrifice are
still continuing for each new generation. Though many skeptics state
that there is no biblical evidence for transubstantiation, supporters
claim that the "New Testament itself gives no cause to doubt the
reality of the presence of Christ in the sacrament; on the contrary
it provides quite sufficient foundation for that belief."ix
These proponents often refer to excerpts from Paul and John as well
as Christ’s actual words. Moreover, Catholics defend this presence
as a sort of sacrifice, which
can save and redeem
only insofar as it is one with the sole valid and unique new
covenant, the sacrifice which atones for all. If the Mass is to be a
true sacrifice identical with the unique sacrifice of the cross then
the one offered on the cross and the gifts he offered (that is, the
flesh and blood of Christ which are the symbols of his self-offering)
must be present at Mass though of course without their historical
circumstances.x
So in one sense
communion is an ongoing sacrifice, though each time
transubstantiation occurs Christ himself is not crucified and does
not bear the same pain as before, since his sacrifice "on the cross
is both the kairos which fulfills all time and removes
temporal boundaries, and also a definitive call to choose."xi
Some
note that this idea of sacrifice is emphasized in Matthew and Mark,
while other sources, such as Paul and Luke, tend to focus more on the
end-product of communion.xii
Indeed, communion is not only a ritual to look the past to remember
Christ’s sacrifice, but
it is also a type of
what is to come, the final realization of God’s all-embracing
kingdom…[t]he eucharist is no terminus, but a beginning and a
pledge of future perfection…[i]t does more than ‘announce the
death of Christ until he comes again’ (1 Cor. 11, 26); in some ways
it anticipates this advent and presages the messianic banquet in
heaven.xiii
Looking at communion
from an eschatological perspective seems to make sense in light of
what
has already been
discussed; if communion is often seen as an ongoing sacrifice for
many centuries, then it seems only natural that the final communion
would take place only after parousia, or the Second Coming of
Christ, comes to pass. Until then, Christians are implored to
partake in this sacrament to look ahead to this event. Pope Paul VI
offered a new explanation of transubstantiation concerning the end of
days in his Mysterium Fidei. He contends that during this
communion, Christ himself does not come down to earth to change the
substances; rather, the substances are lifted up to him and then are
transformed after they descend. Paul asserted that this had to be
the case, for if Christ were to come down it would mean that the
Second Coming would have to occur.xiv
Drifting Away
From Transubstantiation
Even before the
Protestant Reformation, we have already observed that a number of
labeled heresies were cropping up regarding the nature of communion,
and this continued until that monumental event. Even before Luther,
Wyclif had already denounced transubstantiation, but it was not until
the Reformation that these variants really took hold. Luther also
rejected this doctrine, and he also stated that the Eucharist was not
a sacrifice and should be allowed for all believers to engage in.xv
As stated earlier, Luther carried forward the doctrine of
consubstantiation, where "the body and the blood of Christ, and the
bread and wine, coexist in union with each other."xvi
The term consubstantiation is not used widely today, and sometimes
rejected "because of its ambiguity".xvii
Instead, many Protestants prefer the term ‘real presence’
instead, which conveys the same message and indicates that somehow
Christ exists alongside the bread and wine. The Oxford Dictionary of
the Christian Church offers an illustration of this doctrine:
"‘Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the
fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and
yet each continues unchanged.’"xviii
The term ‘real presence,’ then, signifies that neither food nor
divinity is permanently affected physically, though likely some type
of spiritual change has been accomplished.
The idea of real
presence is widely accepted by Protestants, but not unanimously. One
comparison chart between Catholicism and Protestantism paints a black
and white picture, where Catholics affirm transubstantiation and
Protestants reject it and opt for the real presence instead.xix
While this may generally be true, it seems hasty to lump all
denominations into one category, and history tends to agree. Luther
received a vastly different response from Zwingli, who rejected even
the notion of the real presence and rather preferred to view
communion symbolically. He states that the "Lord’s Supper…is
nothing but the commemoration by which those who firmly believe that
by Christ’s death and blood they have become reconciled with the
Father proclaim this life-bringing death, that is, preach it with
praise and thanksgiving."xx
Calvin offered another response in an attempt to bridge Luther and
Zwingi’s beliefs. Though Calvin rejected transubstantiation, real
presence, and symbolism, he contends that during the sacrament it is
the Holy Spirit that comes down and not Christ, and this exchange
offers spiritual nourishment.
Today many
Catholics and Protestants are still divided. As I explore below, I
was unable to participate in a Catholic communion but had no trouble
participating in a Protestant one. We shall now take a different
track, where I will share my experiences and explore more
contemporary views regarding the difficulties of conjoining all
Christians for communion.
From Theory to
Practice
The first phase of
my journey took me to Holy Family Church, a Catholic church that
rests in a residential area of Yakima, Washington. I attended a more
informal Sunday evening mass, where two of my acquaintances played in
a youth band. My wife and I quickly took a seat and waited for the
service to commence. When the music started, we stood with the rest
of the congregation, but this was the closest I got to observe the
rest of the rituals, including communion. I was unable to partake in
the sacrament because I was not a member of the Catholic Church.
Catholics maintain that "to receive Communion worthily, you must be
in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last
mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharist
fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as
excommunication."xxi
There are some limited exceptions when a non-Catholic or
non-Christian wishes to partake in a Catholic Communion, but most are
denied permission to do so and instead are encouraged to observe and
pray with the rest of the congregation.
Since I was unable
to participate in the Holy Communion, I questioned my two friends
about the process. I first asked about the bread and the wine
itself, and learned that the wafer is only slightly larger than a
guitar pick, and that Catholics do indeed imbibe red wine. The
church leaders pour this wine into one sizable chalice, and then each
member of the church drinks from this cup, and then the chalice is
refilled when needed. I wondered how this worked if someone were
sick with a cold or flu, and found out that a sick person can skip
out on drinking the wine but still eat the bread. This made me
wonder if this could lead to an imbalanced communion, where the sick
person would only be eating of the Body of Christ, yet not drinking
the Blood. I regret that I did not press this issue further. I
asked my friends if they believed in transubstantiation, and one
denied it until I explained the term to him, to which he then replied
that he did, in fact, believe in the process.
As a non-Catholic,
I completely understand why lifelong Catholic friend would have been
confused about the Catholic communion process, because if the mass I
attended was any indication, there seems to be no real explanation of
the sacrament altogether. Granted, the church leaders read a
biblical passage regarding the practice, and it is likely that there
had been clarifications in Sunday schools or perhaps in other
sessions in the past, but it is understandable if a seemingly casual
Catholic like my friend would lose some of the implications of
communion when it occurs weekly with little or no commentary
attached. Indeed, when I observed the members of the church line up
for communion on command and receive a bread wafer and a sip of wine,
I wondered how many Catholics were like my friend, who seemed
uncertain about the specifics of his faith, and then I began to
wonder how many Christians in general understood the communion
procedure.
I attended my
second communion at the Grace Brethren Church, also on a Sunday
evening in Yakima. This experience was vastly different from the
previous one. This church has a much smaller congregation, and I
learned that this denomination only holds communion once or twice a
year (in fact, this particular church was long overdue, boasting a
hiatus of over a year and a half). Perhaps it was because of this
smaller group, or because the communion is held here much less often,
or even because the pastor knew that several of the attendees were
completely new to the process, the participants all received a clear,
well-organized explanation of what was about to ensue. The pastor
outlined the evening’s agenda, which included the love feast, foot
washing, and finally the bread and cup. Before this experience I
only understood communion as the latter of the three elements, since
most denominations only emphasize that component. The Grace Brethren
Church, while still considering the bread and cup portion as most
crucial, does not wish to neglect the other two aspects. The church
contends that Christians should perform the communion ritual in its
entirety, as Christ and his apostles did two thousand years ago.
Above all, the pastor stressed that all of the elements of communion
are to be taken symbolically and nothing more, which hearkens back to
the ideas of Zwingli.
The first event was
foot washing, which was the one aspect I was most apprehensive about
going into the church. I was told that I could either observe or
take part in this activity (as well as the others), so I elected to
try everything, including this. Before we began, the pastor informed
us that foot washing is mostly abandoned by Christians today because
there is no real need for it; during the time of Christ, people would
travel for hours or days wearing only sandals, so their feet would go
for long periods of time without being cleaned. The act of foot
washing is significant because Christ himself washed his apostles’
feet, which was unheard of since it was a servant’s job, not a
master’s. This church suggests that "[i]t seemed backward to
allow one so superior to bend His knee and do the task of a servant,"
and emphasizes the symbolism in this ritual as well: "[Jesus] was
using footwashing to symbolize the spiritual washing from sin a
person needs so they can enjoy fellowship with Jesus."xxii
The church makes clear that the act itself does not offer salvation;
rather, it represents a saved Christian’s "daily, ongoing need
for cleansing sin as a believer continues to struggle with their
sinful nature."xxiii
With this act Christians not only recognize Christ’s humility, but
also they shed light on their own daily behavior. After this
explanation, males and females were separated into different rooms
for the actual foot washing. Though unstated, this action implied
that the church deemed it necessary to separate the sexes so that
there would not be any temptation and the act itself would not be
defiled. I took my seat across from a row of men, while an elderly
Baptist sat next to me and chose to observe. During this process,
everyone seemed upbeat and humorous. One of the elders of the church
was in charge of pouring fresh water for each person, and when my
turn came I discovered that the bowl was only big enough for one
foot. My foot washer lifted my foot and splashed water on it, then
plopped it back down into the water so that it was fully immersed,
and then did the same with my other foot. I grabbed the towel that
was resting on the back of my chair and handed it to him so that he
could dry off my feet, which was required for each washer. I then
realized that this procedure was supposed to be reciprocal, which
meant I had to wash someone’s feet as well. Because of the uneven
number of males, it turned out that no one had true partners; rather,
we jumped around so that I didn’t wash the feet of the person who
washed mine, and some males had to administer to more than one
person.
The following event
was the agape feast, or love feast (after we were allowed a
chance to thoroughly wash our hands, of course). The men and women
were reunited for this meal, which consisted of rolls and cold cuts
which could be converted into sandwiches; Caesar salad; various pasta
salads; and juice or water to drink. There were two long tables
placed parallel to each other to hold the approximately twenty
participants. The pastor explained that the love feast is a
reproduction of the Last Supper, and "it was during this meal that
[Jesus] gave [the apostles] the symbols celebrated during
Communion."xxiv
During the meal, we were encouraged to express any thoughts we had
regarding God’s love for human beings and vice versa, and any
thoughts we had regarding the nature of heaven. During the meal the
atmosphere was light and jovial, but it was not all just full of
jokes; rather, the participants seriously considered and discussed
these questions. In this context, it seems appropriate that the
conversation was directed in this way, since the church believes that
"the Love Feast reminds us that Jesus has not forgotten about us on
earth. He will one day return for us, taking us to heaven, where we
will join Him in a feast to celebrate our arrival."xxv
Any other conversation would have seemed out of place and probably
taken away from the communion experience.
The third event was
the well-known bread and cup, which, as stated before, the Grace
Brethren Church (and many contemporary Protestants) believes to be
merely symbolic rather than a ritual that transforms these
substances. Even so, viewing this process in a symbolic light does
not make it any less important to Protestants. Even though most
Protestant denominations allow outsiders to share the communion
sacrament, many make known that "one needs to guard against lightly
observing this symbol,"xxvi
and the pastor referred to the biblical passage that affirms this
sentiment: "A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the
bread and drinks of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27-29), or else one will be
judged by God. For this reason, we took a moment of silence before
we broke the bread and drank the grape juice. We were told to
examine the nature of our souls and lives, as if to prepare ourselves
to fully embrace the most important factor of communion. After this
brief period, several hymns were performed, and during this time we
were instructed to first break bread with the person next to us.
This piece of bread was thicker and longer than the wafer served in
the Catholic Church, and this version required two people to conduct
the actual breaking of the bread I had heard so often about before.
Then, at any time during the next song or two we were allowed to eat
the bread when we felt it most appropriate, and the same went for the
tiny portions of grape juice that we were given. In this context,
the bread and cup served as reminders of Christ’s sacrifice to the
world, and the pastor was careful to emphasize the fact that nothing
mystical occurs, such as transubstantiation. The pamphlet he handed
me makes a very interesting take on communion: "Communion is a
celebration of Jesus’ presence with us."xxvii
In this light, one can infer that the Grace Brethren Church, along
with many Protestants, contend that Christ’s presence is pervasive
and ubiquitous; his presence is not limited to the moment when the
bread and wine are consecrated. Instead, many Protestants recognize
that Christ is always present and does not necessarily have to become
a living entity in the bread and wine.
This is not to say
that Catholics do not also agree that Christ is present in the world
in other ways, but only that they go one step further in declaring
that it is Christ, and not just his presence, in what used to
be the bread and wine in communion. Herein lies one of the greatest
problems today between Catholics and Protestants. Although I was
accepted into the Catholic Church to observe and pray, I could not
actually receive communion because I was not a member of the church
because I had not accepted the Catholic doctrines, principally
transubstantiation. Because of this, Catholics feel that "it is
normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy
Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that,
regrettably, does not."xxviii
Even so, many suggest that it is time for "Catholics,
particularly, [to] study the ecumenical implications of sacramental
theology," meaning that perhaps it is time to stress unity over
difference in Christianity. As many Protestants let open their
doors, so too should all Christians, since at a foundational level a
believer would know and follow Christ and still observe communion in
some way and by doing so would recognize its value. But this call is
for all Christians, including Protestants, who have long attacked the
Catholic Church for its belief system as well. Perhaps the time has
come for both sides to yield a bit, to put aside their
battle-hardened attitudes and see the underlying truths that connect
their denominations. Christians believe that Christ made a sacrifice
for all, so if one were to accept this core belief, all other ritual
matters should be considered far secondary in nature, and as such,
tolerated by others.
Endnotes:
i
Jackson, Wayne, "What are Transubstantiation and
Consubstantiation?", Christian Courier 19 Feb. 2002.
<http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/transubstantiationQuestion.htm>
ii
O’Connor, James T., The Hidden Mana: A Theology of the
Eucharist, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988. 116.
iii
Young, John, "Transubstantiation and Reason," Catholic.net
Jan. 1998.
<http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html>
iv
"Who Can Receive Communion?" Catholic Answers 10 Aug.
2004.
<http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp>
v
Jackson.
vi
O’Conner, 117.
vii
Ibid.
viii
Ibid., 118.
ix
Warnach, Victor, "Symbol and Reality in the Eucharist," The
Breaking of Bread, New York: Paulist Press, 1969, Vol. 40 of
Concilium: Theology in the Age of Renewal, Ed. Pierre Benoit,
et. al. 91.
x
Ibid., 93.
xi
Ibid., 94.
xii
Ratzinger, Joseph, "Is the Eucharist a Sacrifice?" The
Sacraments: An Ecumenical Dilemma, New York: Paulist Press,
1967, Vol. 24 of Concilium: Theology in the Age of Renewal,
Ed. Hans Kreug. 71-73.
xiii
Warnach, 102-103.
xiv
qtd. In O’Conner.
xv
O’Conner, 133.
xvi
Jackson.
xvii
Ibid.
xviii
qtd. In Jackson.
xix
"Comparison of Catholic and Protestant Theology," Religion
Facts, 2004.
<http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm>
xx
O’Conner, 142.
xxi
"Who Can Receive Communion?"
xxii
Pastor Adam Copenhaver, Communion, Eucharist brochure,
Yakima: Grace Brethren Church, 2005.
xxiii
Ibid.
xxiv
Ibid.
xxv
Ibid.
xxvi
Ibid.
xxvii
Ibid.
xxviii
"Who Can Receive Communion?"
SUBSCRIBE:
I Support
