This is the first of a couple of, I hope, short(er) posts on the burning issue of “Eucharistic coherence” and the planned document on the same.
I’m not a proponent of episcopal documents and statements. They take a lot of time to compose, time that could be much better spent in a world in such great need of..everything. Plus, they have little effect. But if they’re going to go ahead with this, I’ll just add my two cents to the conversation.
“Eucharistic coherence” is important.
But underlying the current conversation about that, in 2021, is the matter of “historical coherence.”
And surrounding that is the matter of “stop treating us like idiots.” And “be honest.”
Here is what just about everyone knows:
For most of Catholic history, up until the most recent half-century blip, there was a generally understood way of living out 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 in Catholic life: Reception of the Eucharist was for: 1) the baptized Catholic who 2) didn’t publicly disbelieve in the teachings of the Church and who 3) wasn’t in a state of mortal sin.
That was “worthiness.”
Over the past half-century, that understanding of “worthiness” has shifted, especially in the United States and Europe. Now it is generally understood that reception of the Eucharist is for 1) the baptized Catholic who 2) wants to receive Communion.
I’m going to dig a bit more into this in a later post, because I think it’s fascinating and expressive of a huge shift in our ecclesiological understanding. But for now, let’s stay focused.
As I said, everyone knows anything about the issue knows this: It’s a pretty massive change.
And it’s a change that generally goes totally unaddressed in the narrative-shaping episcopal discourse that’s around us. No, it may not have shifted on paper (that is, in Church law, the Catechism, and papal statements on the Eucharist), but it certainly has in practice, and it’s a practice which is more significant say, than the (pre-Covid) widely accepted practice of joining hands at the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer during Mass.
And so, it seems to me that the bishops who don’t want an explicit statement on “Eucharistic coherence” and don’t want to deny Communion to anyone need to treat Catholics who are watching and listening like the adults they keep telling us we are. Catholicism is a faith of tradition and history, and yes, obviously, practices develop and change. But why and what does that mean?
If you really want to “change” this – own it, intellectually and explain the rationale. “Yes, for 1900 years, this was the Catholic understanding of worthiness to receive the Eucharist. We are proposing that we don’t understand it that way anymore. Here’s why.”
Oh, and this might be necessary, then: “And here are the ramifications beyond this issue – Catholics were taught that X was true for 1900 years and now are being taught that X isn’t true anymore. Yeah, that’s what’s happened, pretty much. We know, honestly, we know. Here’s our explanation of how that works.”
Not a new conversation, of course. It’s been going on for over half a century now, and there are, of course, reasoned explorations of how and why Church practice changes and teaching develops. But most of what we get is not more than platitudinous hand-waving, making like the wings of the Holy Spirit, making it all fine, and please don’t ask questions. The fruit of that? Spirit-led faith stylings, all around, up and down and there you go. Are you really surprised?
Related, of course, would be the perspective of the pro-coherence-statement bishops. They have a lot to own, as well, also related to history, ancient and recent. As in: “We’re saying this, we’re reaffirming this approach to Eucharist which is rooted in Scripture and was pretty consistently practiced for almost two thousand years, but which you might not have heard about. And that’s our fault. It’s not yours. It’s ours, as the primary teachers of the faith in every diocese. Completely. We own it.”
So there’s a lot of owning to be done, it seems to me, if this is going to make sense…if it’s going to be coherent. Own the massive change, and explain it in an honest way, and then own what the ramifications are for other church teachings and practices and own the questions about authority that it all raises. And/or own the catechetical and pastoral failures, misjudgments and denial of the most inflexible law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.
For your homework, read Aquinas on reception of the Eucharist, especially Article 6.
You might be surprised.
Charlotte was Both 