6. THE EUCHARIST
47.
Although the subject of the Eucharist was treated somewhat briefly
and schematically in the Denver Report, the section (v) did in fact
summarize the results of a good deal of discussion both in our annual
main meetings of the first series and in colloquia held in between.
It was a few weeks after the Denver Conference that the Anglican/Roman
Catholic Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine was completed
at Windsor, and this was published at the end of the same year,
1971. This attracted much sympathetic attention from Methodists,
and at our own first meeting in Rome in December 1972, we were quickly
able to agree on inviting the English Roman Catholic/Methodist Commission19
to arrange for a study of the Windsor Statement together with section
V of the Denver Report, with a view to producing a more complete
Roman Catholic/Methodist statement for the present report. We are
glad to record our deep gratitude to the English Commission for
their acceptance and very thorough carrying out of this task. The
first draft we received from them stimulated us to a long discussion
at our Venice meeting, in the light of which the English Commission
revised their draft. At Bristol we adopted this revision with some
changes and it is here set out.
Roman
Catholic/Methodist Statement on the Eucharist
48.
Roman Catholics and Methodists approach the eucharist without a
history of explicit disagreement. Our traditions have indeed developed
in separation from each other but not in direct historical conflict.
Our churches did not engage in debate on this issue, as in the sixteenth
century Catholic and Protestant theologians did both in Britain
and in continental Europe.
49.
In our conversations we have discovered significant agreement on
much that is central in our understanding of the eucharist. This
was foreshadowed in the section on the eucharist in the Report of
the Joint Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the World
Methodist Council, 1967-70 (the Denver Report). It is seen also
in the large measure of assent that we, both Methodists and Catholics,
can give to the Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine presented
by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, 1971 (the
Windsor Statement). There remain, of course, matters of varying
importance where we do not agree or where we express ourselves differently.
50.
Our churches have used different language about the eucharist, even
in their words for the service itself. A Roman Catholic naturally
refers to the Mass, a Methodist to the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion.
We use the word eucharist here as the one that has widest acceptance
in the church as a whole, both in the past and in the present.
51.
One major difficulty in comparing the Roman Catholic and Methodist
eucharistic teaching lies in the fact that in the Methodist Church
there has not been any historical reason for issuing a comprehensive
doctrinal statement on the eucharist. The nearest equivalent to
such a statement lies in the hymns and sermons of the Wesleys. Methodist
practice and theology often fall short of those of the Wesleys but
that does not alter their unique importance for Methodists. In recent
years moreover there has been a notable recovery of eucharistic
faith and practice among Methodists, with a growing sense that the
fullness of Christian worship includes both word and sacrament.
Similarly among Roman Catholics there has been a renewal in the
theology and practice of the ministry of the word. These developments
have resulted in a remarkable convergence, so that at no other time
has the worshiping life of Methodists and Roman Catholics had so
much in common.
52.
In a full statement we should want to place the eucharist in a broad
theological context, for it relates to the whole of Christian doctrine,
and focuses Christian faith and life. The following affirmations,
however, express our common mind:
a) The eucharist
as a sacrament of the gospel is the fullest presentation of God's
love in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit;
b) Through it God
meets us here and now in his forgiving and self-giving love. It
is the commemoration of the sacrificial death and resurrection in
Christ, which is the climax of the whole action of God in creation
and salvation;
c) It expresses our
response - both personal and corporate - to God's initiative in
a sacrifice not only of praise and thanksgiving, but also of the
glad surrender of our lives to God and to his service. Thus we are
united with Christ in his joyful and obedient self-offering to the
Father and his victory over death;
d) It is our response
of faith and love whereby We receive his gift of himself and are
renewed as members of his body, that We may be the focus of his
presence and the agents of his mission to the world;
e) It is the pointing
to and the anticipation of his final triumph and it is our vision
of that hope and our sharing in that victory.
53.
Eucharistic debate has often centered in the sacrifice of Christ
and the presence of Christ. Both the Denver Report and the Windsor
Statement give their attention chiefly to these two matters. We
do the same.
54.
The Presence of Christ
We gladly re-affirm
the points of agreement in the Denver Report about the real presence20
They may be summarized in this way: Christ, in the fullness of his
being, human and divine, is present in the eucharist; this presence
does not depend on the experience of the communicant, but it is
only by faith that We become aware of it. This is a distinctive
mode of the presence of Christ; it is mediated through the sacred
elements of bread and wine, which within the eucharist are efficacious
signs of the body and blood of Christ.
55.
We rejoice also in the similar affirmations of the Windsor Statement,
such as:
a) "Christ is present
and active, in various ways, in the entire eucharistic celebration"21
b) "Communion with Christ in the eucharist presupposes his true
presence, effectually signified by the bread and wine..."22
56.
The Denver Report raises the question of the contrast often made
between Christ's presence in the eucharist and his presence in other
means of grace. This contrast, however, is somewhat misleading.
We would not wish to set word and sacrament over against one another.
While there are different emphases, We both affirm that wherever
Christ is present he is present in his fullness.
57.
Methodists, like Roman Catholics, believe that when they receive
the elements at the eucharist they do indeed partake by faith of
Christ's body and blood, and in this sense Methodists affirm the
real presence of Christ thus mediated to them: Roman Catholics,
like Methodists, affirm the presence of Christ in the proclamation
of the gospel and in the other sacraments.
58.
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II, says "...Christ
is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations".
Then after speaking of his presence in the eucharist and in baptism,
it continues, "He is present in His word, since it is He Himself
who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the church. He is
present finally when the Church prays and sings, for He promised:
‘Where two or three are gathered together for my sake, there am
I in the midst of them' (Mt 18, 20)"23.
This setting of the eucharistic presence in a wider context finds
an echo in the Windsor Statement, which speaks of the Lord "who
through the proclaimed word invites his people to his table..."24.
59.
The chief point of difference concerns the question of the transformation
of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Roman Catholics
affirm that the physical and chemical composition of the bread and
wine remain unchanged, but that their inner reality is that of the
body and blood of Christ. Methodists could use such expressions
from the Windsor Statement as "mysterious and radical change...
in the inner reality of the elements"25
or "become his body and blood"26
only in the sense that the bread and wine acquire an additional
significance as effectual signs of the body and blood of Christ.
They do not, however, consider this change to be of such a nature
that the bread and wine cease to be bread and vine.
60.
Hence the question arises whether the Methodist way of understanding
the change sufficiently resembles the Roman Catholic way of understanding
it, and in particular whether the "significance" of the elements
can be equated with their "inner reality".
61.
The Roman Catholic practice of reservation has the bringing of communion
to the sick as its primary and original purpose. Adoration of Christ
present in the elements is a secondary end. Both ends have their
foundation in belief in the real presence. Methodists do not reserve
the elements but reverently dispose of them.
62.
The Sacrifice of Christ
The Denver Report
records four points of agreement on the eucharist as sacrifice and
no points of disagreement. Our conversations have revealed certain
differences in language and emphasis, although we have a clear measure
of agreement.
63.
We are one in affirming that "The Eucharist is the celebration of
Christ's full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, offered once and
for all, for the whole world"27
It is a memorial (anamnesis). It is not a mere calling to mind of
a past event or of its significance, but the Church's effectual
proclamation of God's mighty acts28.
Some would wish to link this dynamic view not with "a re-enactment
of Christ's triumphant sacrifice"29,
but with Christ's being present and bringing with him all the benefits
of his once-for-all sacrifice for us.
64.
The term sacrifice is not used so readily by Methodists as by Roman
Catholics when speaking of the eucharist. The language of sacrifice
is more prominent in the hymns of Charles Wesley than in the prayers
of the various Methodist communion services. This reflects in some
measure the origins of the communion services: the traditional order
which is dependent on the service in the Book of Common Prayer (written
at a time when sacrifice was a term of controversy) and recent ones
which have arisen in the context of the liturgical movement where
sacrificial language has been less prominent because of the re-discovery
of other related themes. In all this it is important to recognize
that in both our churches our belief is not completely reflected
in our traditional language or in our practice and piety.
65.
When Methodists use sacrificial language it refers first to the
sacrifice of Christ once-for-all, second to our pleading of that
sacrifice here and now, third to our offering of the sacrifice of
praise and thanksgiving, and fourth to our sacrifice of ourselves
in union with Christ who offered himself to the Father.
66.
Roman Catholics can happily accept all these senses of the term,
but they are also accustomed to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass
as something which the church offers in all ages of her history.
They see the eucharist not as another sacrifice adding something
to Christ's once-for-all sacrifice, nor as a repetition of it, but
as making present in a sacramental way the same sacrifice. For some
Methodists such language would imply that Christ is still being
sacrificed. Methodists prefer to say that Christ has offered one
sacrifice for sins and now lives to make intercession for us, so
that we in union with him can offer ourselves to the Father, making
his sacrificial death our only plea.
67.
We have here a larger measure of agreement than we had expected.
The obstacle to further agreement is at least in part the difference
of language in our separate traditions.
68.
Eucharistic Sharing
The Denver Report
calls for further study of the relation between eucharistic union
and ecclesiastical fellowship30
About inter-communion it says, "In Methodism any Christian who
can conscientiously accept the invitation is welcomed to the Lord's
table"31
Certainly Methodists welcome to the Lord's table baptised communicant
members of other communions who desire to come to it. But this
does not mean that Methodism historically accepted or now universally
accepts the method whereby an open invitation is given to all
who love the Lord Jesus Christ (irrespective of church membership),
although such an invitation is often given. To receive the communion
is the duty and privilege of full members of the Methodist Church.
The question how far this should be extended to children who have
not yet been received into full membership or confirmed is at
present being considered. Nor would Methodists think it fitting
for Christians to receive communion in churches of any denomination
at random, for communion with Christ is linked with membership
of a local church.
69.
The present Roman Catholic discipline permits the access to the
sacraments when in danger of death or in serious spiritual need
of the eucharist, if "the separated brother has no access to a minister
of his own Communion and spontaneously asks a Catholic priest for
the sacraments so long as he declares a faith in these sacraments
in harmony with (consentaneam) that of the Church and is rightly
disposed"32
In these cases the judge of this need must be the diocesan bishop
or the Episcopal Conference.
70.
The phrase "a faith in harmony with that of the Church" has been
officially explained by this sentence: "This faith is not limited
to a mere affirmation of the ‘real presence' in the Eucharist, but
implies the doctrine of the Eucharist as taught in the Catholic
Church"33
Whatever is required in exceptional cases would also be required
for more general eucharistic sharing. A Roman Catholic in similar
need may not ask for those sacraments except from a minister who
has been validly ordained in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church34.
71.
It is because of the central place which the eucharist has in Roman
Catholic doctrine and practice that Roman Catholics require a comparison
of the eucharistic doctrines held in the two churches. We are aware
of some difficulty here. Roman Catholic doctrines have been expressed
in detailed formulations; but it is not always easy to discern the
essential doctrines in the historically conditioned and sometimes
replaceable formulations in which they have been handed down. Methodist
doctrine has received little official formulation and exists rather
as an undefined tradition. Methodists do not celebrate the eucharist
as frequently as Roman Catholics, although in many places the service
is now regaining a central place.
72.
In this sacrament Roman Catholics and Methodists alike intend to
do what Christ institutes and what the church does. Moreover we
have in common our acceptance of the Christian faith as expressed
in the Bible and in the historic creeds, and in particular a large
measure of agreement about the meaning of the eucharist. We both
acknowledge that our words cannot adequately express the joy and
wonder that we experience in our celebration of the eucharist.
73.
Conclusion
In the eucharist
we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. We bring closer the
day when God will be "all in all" (1 Cor 15, 28). The eucharist
makes God's kingdom to come in the world, in our churches, in ourselves.
It builds up the church as the community of reconciliation dedicated
to the service and salvation of mankind.
74.
The considerable degree of consensus reached in this statement does
not conceal differences of approach. We hope that further developments
in eucharistic worship and doctrine in both churches in the next
few years will reveal an even greater resemblance and thus bring
closer the union for which we all pray.
ENDNOTES
-
This Commission, described for convenience
here and elsewhere as "English", was set up on the
Roman Catholic side by the Ecumenical Commission of England
and Wales and on the Methodist side by the Methodist Conference
of Great Britain.
Back to text
-
Proceedings, § 83, pp. 56-7.
Back to text
-
Windsor, September 1971 Agreed Statement on
Eucharistic Doctrine (London: SPCK, 1972), § 7. Hereafter
cited as Windsor.
Back to text
-
Ibid., § 6.
Back to text
-
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Section
7.
Back to text
-
Ibid., § 7.
Back to text
-
The Windsor Statement has as its footnote to
§ 6: "The word transubstantiation is commonly used
in the Roman Catholic Church to indicate that God acting in
the eucharist effects a change in the inner reality of the elements.
The term should be seen as affirming the fact of Christ's presents
and of the mysterious and radical change which takes place.
In contemporary Roman Catholic theology it is not understood
as explaining how the change takes place".
Back to text
-
Windsor, § 6.
Back to text
-
Proceedings, § 83, pp. 56-7.
Back to text
-
Windsor, § 5.
Back to text
-
Proceedings, § 83, pp. 56-?.
Back to text
-
Ibid., § 85, p. 58.
Back to text
-
Ibid., § 84, p. 58.
Back to text
-
The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity:
The Ecumenical Directory I, 55; cf. Instruction Concerning Cases
When Other Christians May Be Admitted to Eucharistic Communion
in the Catholic Church, 1972, 4b.
Back to text
-
The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity:
"A Note about Certain Interpretations of the
Instruction Concerning Particular Cases when other Christians
may be Admitted to Eucharistic Communion in the Catholic Church",
October 17, 1973, 7.
Back to text
-
Cf. Ecumenical Directory I 55.
Back to text
|