Six Suggestions for the Catholic Bishops’ Document on the Eucharist

The American bishops are working on a document on the Eucharist, which could be very useful if they do it correctly. The chances are slim.

The origins of the document can be traced back to the bishops’ fight with pro-choice Catholic politicians, such as John Kerry, for the legalization of abortion. Some bishops, like Cardinal Raymond Burke, wanted to punish pro-choice Catholic politicians by denying them Communion. Other bishops, such as the late Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, disagreed. George said he didn’t want his priests playing communion rail cop.

The United States Conference of Bishops has done what it normally does when bishops disagree: nothing. He left it to each bishop to do what he thought best in his diocese.

After President Joe Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, was elected, conservative bishops lobbied for a document denying communion to such politicians. Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez, who heads the bishops’ conference, has responded to pressure from conservative bishops by appointing a committee to deal with the issue. He was publicly rebuked by other bishops for not following proper procedures, and ultimately the task was given to the doctrine conference committee.

The Vatican, meanwhile, has made it clear that canon law leaves the matter to the local bishops. As a result, what started as a document on communion and politicians has evolved into a more general document on the Eucharist for the bishops to consider at the November 15-18 meeting.

Many bishops were shocked by a Pew Research Center survey showing that only 31% of Catholics believe in the church’s teaching on transubstantiation, that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Sixty-one percent think bread and wine are symbols.

So what should bishops say in their document on the Eucharist?

First, they should emphasize who should receive Communion, not who should not.

Francis speaks of the church as a country hospital where the sick and wounded are fed and cared for. Jesus gave Communion to Judas. Saint John Paul II gave Communion to Protestants and pro-choice politicians.

Bishops are to assume the goodwill of everyone who comes to the Lord’s table. If they want to be united with Christ and his community, they must be welcomed.

Second, the document should not use the word “transubstantiation,” which is a theological concept based on Aristotelian philosophy, and not on the Scriptures. I believe that the bread and the wine become the body and the blood of Christ, but I do not believe in the Aristotelian metaphysics of raw material, substantial forms, substance and accidents.

Transubstantiation was a nice way to explain the Eucharist to Aristotelians, but it makes absolutely no sense to people in the 21st century. Better to admit that the transformation is a mystery beyond our comprehension. If a person can say “Amen” when the minister says “The body of Christ,” he should be able to receive the Eucharist.

Third, the document should emphasize that the purpose of the Eucharist is not to bring Christ down to the altar so that we can worship him. If you want to worship Jesus, go to Blessing. The Eucharist is to worship the Father, not Jesus. Jesus never asked his disciples to worship him. His message was all about the Father, not himself.

The ultimate goal of the Eucharist is not to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ but to transform those of the Eucharist into the body of Christ so that they can continue his mission in the world.

Fourth, the document should remind Catholics of the origins of the Mass in two Jewish practices: synagogue service and the Passover meal. The Liturgy of the Word of the Catholic Mass is at its heart a service in the synagogue – readings of the Scriptures, prayers, psalms, songs and sermons – with the addition of readings from the New Testament. The Eucharistic liturgy is the paschal meal transformed by the experience of the Risen Christ.

Originally, the Jewish disciples of Jesus went to the synagogue on Saturdays and then met on Sundays for the breaking of bread. After being kicked out of the synagogue, they simply performed a modified synagogue service before the breaking of bread.

The roots of the Eucharist in the paschal meal are more difficult for Catholics to understand due to our ignorance of Jewish practice. Yes, we know the Last Supper was a celebration of the Passover, but what does that mean?

For the Jews, the paschal meal is a memorial, remembering what God once did, what he is doing now and what he will still do. It is a meal of thanksgiving, thanking God for His action throughout history. It is a sacrificial meal, by which the participants are united with God. It is a covenant meal where the covenant between God and his people is renewed. And it’s a common meal, made with others, not alone.

All of this should help us understand the Christian Eucharist.

At the heart of the paschal meal is the Barakah, or blessing, pronounced by the father of the family during the meal. The term “blessing” can be confusing for Christians because it is not food that is blessed but God, as in “God be blessed forever”. It is a prayer of praise and thanksgiving.

The Jewish Passover prayer is also the model of Christian Eucharistic prayer. My fifth recommendation is that the bishops document focus on explaining the Eucharistic prayer as the prayer, not only of the priest, but of everyone in the church.

Eucharistic prayer, like the Passover prayer, reminds and gives thanks to God for his actions throughout history, Christians adding the sending of Jesus and his institution of the New Covenant and the Eucharist to the Last Supper.

This is followed by union with Christ in his sacrificial offering to the Father. In Eucharistic Prayer 4, we pray: “We offer you his body and his blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world.

Finally, we pray that the Spirit will transform us into the body of Christ. So in Eucharistic Prayer 3 we pray: “Grant us, who are nourished with his body and his blood, to be filled with his Holy Spirit and to become one body, one spirit in Christ.

Theologians use Greek words to speak of the Eucharistic prayer as having a four-part structure: We remember / proclaim (history); We give thanks (Eucharist) and praise; We offer (anaphora); We ask for the Spirit (epiclesis).

Unfortunately, most priests only use Eucharistic Prayer 2, the shorter one, written by Antipope Hippolytus. Bishops should encourage priests to use the 13 Eucharistic prayers approved during the church year. They should also encourage priests to say the prayer slowly and in a way that makes it clear that it is not the private prayer of the priest but the essential prayer of the whole community. This is why he uses “we” and not “I” when he prays.

Unfortunately, too many Catholics pay attention only to the “words of consecration”, not to the whole prayer.

Finally, bishops should have a chapter encouraging people to abandon the traditional Latin Mass for the Eucharist as reformed by Vatican II in order to encourage, as Vatican Council II said, the “full and active participation of all the people” in the liturgy.

If the bishops wrote such a document, Catholics would come to a better understanding of the Eucharist.

I won’t hold my breath.