Pádraig McCarthy: Joe Humphreys writes a piece on philosophy each Thursday in the Irish Times. It goes under the title Unthinkable.
Link to article in The Irish Times:
His piece on 8 June ponders the Census 2022 results on the religious makeup of our population. Among many other things, he writes: “An Irish Times/MRBI poll a decade ago found only a quarter of Irish Catholics believed in transubstantiation – the idea that the Eucharist is not a symbol but actually the body of Christ. Would you find a quarter today who could explain transubstantiation, let alone believe in it?”
Mysterious indeed. To answer his question: definitely No. We would find not one person who could explain it. In our Eucharistic Prayer at Mass we proclaim “The Mystery of Faith.” This does not mean, however, that nothing can be said about the Eucharist. We need to think outside the box.
As a partial answer to Joe’s “Unthinkable” question, St Augustine about 405AD pondered it:
“If you wish to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle as he says to the faithful, ‘You are the body of Christ and His members.’ (1 Cor 12:27) If therefore, you are the body of Christ and His members, your mystery has been placed on the Lord’s table, you receive your mystery… You hear, ‘The Body of Christ,’ and you reply, ‘Amen.’ Be a member of the body of Christ so that your ‘Amen’ may be true… Let us listen to the Apostle who said, ‘We though many, are one bread, one body.’”
This is what Communion is. Not something we receive, but a relationship into which we are drawn. A relationship not only with Jesus Christ, but with one another. Paul in the short second reading uses the word “communion” (koinonia) twice. He uses the expression “one loaf” twice, so that we, though many, are one Body as we share in the one loaf.
This is not just some intangible, spiritual idea. We see how it affected our history. In Penal times in Ireland, we were subject to the “Test Acts” (1661, 1673, 1678), legislation to exclude Catholics from any public office. Only those taking communion in the established Church of England were eligible for public employment. To qualify, they would have to renounce the Catholic church and transubstantiation. Lest anyone would do this, and yet continue to live as a Catholic, a person was required to attend the Sunday services of the Church of England, and to receive Communion there: such action would itself would be a renunciation of the Catholic church. Taking part in Communion with the Church of England had very clear significance and effect in law and in life.
These Test Acts were repealed gradually in 1780, 1828, 1829 and 1867. Religious tests for officers of the University of Dublin (Trinity College) were repealed by the Tests Act 1873. Despite the legal change, the significance of taking Communion in the Church of England lingered for Catholics.
May the day come quickly when the two churches will agree that, whatever our differences, they are not sufficient to justify us remaining apart, and we will be in communion and will share communion in the Eucharist, we who are members of the One Body of Christ.
Theologian Godfrey Diekmann (died 2002): “What difference does it make if the bread and wine turn into the Body and Blood of Christ and we don’t?”
The ultimate challenge is not whether or how bread and wine are transformed, but whether Christians are transformed into the Body of Christ, the Real Presence of Christ in our world today. A work in progress, most certainly not complete.
It is for the future, yes; but it is also for now. “Anyone who believes has eternal life … Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” John 6:47,54) Not will have; has.
Come. Celebrate. Be the mystery, however Unthinkable it may seem.
Letter in The Irish Times, Mon 12 June 2023
Catholics and the Eucharist
Such matters are impossible to discuss in the language we use for politics, economics and sport
Mon Jun 12 2023 – 00:10
Sir, – In his Unthinkable column, Joe Humphreys expresses surprise that this year’s census indicates that there is a “10 per cent drop in the number of people identifying as Roman Catholics” (“Lessons for the Catholic Church from Census 2023 – get out of schools, chase the lost sheep”, Culture, June 8th).
He expresses surprise that 69 per cent of the population still describe themselves as Catholic. Nor do they “have a great grasp of church teaching”.
He goes on to inform us that an Irish Times/MRBI poll a decade ago found only a quarter of Irish Catholics believed in transubstantiation when it comes to the Eucharist. He asks if a quarter today “could explain transubstantiation, let alone believe in it”?
As a Catholic priest, I for one cannot explain it. Transubstantiation is a highly technical, metaphysical term that ought never to have featured in popular notions of the Eucharist. Thus I believe we must approach with great caution the result of any opinion poll that appears to show that many Roman Catholics do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.
On this question, it is not a simple matter of yes or no, as might be the case for example if one were to ask people their attitude to contraception.
Such matters are impossible to discuss in the language we use for politics, economics and sport.
It is possible to profess one’s faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist while having serious reservations about the theology of transubstantiation. I for one belong to that school of theology.The simple historical fact is that the church got on without the term for a thousand years, from which fact we can draw the safe conclusion that it belongs not to the substance of faith but to the manner of its formulation.
Normally such matters do no register much in religious discourse in Ireland. However, every now and then they rear their head and all sense and reason go out the window.
One incident in particular springs to mind. Your readers may remember some years ago the kerfuffle which ensued when President Mary McAleese received communion in Christ Church Cathedral. For several weeks following the event the entire country fell to discussing eucharistic theology with abandon.
Early on the word “transubstantiation” was dropped into the debate where it was brandished like a crusader’s sword whenever orthodoxy was deemed to be under attack. Media columnists and commentators joined in, some of them not normally noted for their religious fervour or their theological interests. The air crackled with theological energy.
Joe Humphreys would appear to think that one cannot have a sound Catholic “faith” – as distinct from a “theology” – unless one thinks and speaks in terms of transubstantiation.
The church is a gathering of those who confess the lordship of Christ as the answer to their quest for truth.
However, it is not unreasonable to demand that no one party in the church should ever be allowed to draw up the ground rules for membership or to impose its own definition of loyalty on those who share its faith but not its theology. – Yours, etc,
Fr IGGY O’DONOVAN,
Glen of Aherlow,
Co Tipperary.
Pádraig, it’s great to hear from you again. You’ve been missed. And, thank you for your reflection on the thorny question of transubstantiation.
Of course, you’re right, nobody understands what we are supposed to believe. Have we ever heard someone try to explain it to us from the altar? I certainly haven’t.
Canon 898 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that a pastor is ‘to explain the doctrine’ of the Eucharist with the greatest care. Some hope! And could you blame “pastors” for keeping well away from it?
In fact, it is a topic that few will willingly even engage in conversation with you on as to what they understand it to be, even very well educated and learned Catholics. And, those who do acknowledge that they have tried to study transubstantiation will usually admit that they find it unbelievable.
Does this mean there is a lack of ‘reception’ of the doctrine? It’s been on the go a long time. If so, that is a very serious thing for our church, given the importance we place on “reception”.
While the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) is when transubstantiation defined the meaning of the Eucharist in Catholic dogma, the Council of Trent (1563) added eleven letters of excommunication to the formula of the doctrine. And, of course, excommunication was a big deal in those days. You’d have to say it was hardly a glowing show of confidence in the validity of the doctrine.
As Tony Flannery mentions elsewhere on this site you had accept teachings under pain of sin and eternal damnation. One wrong word and you were in big trouble, e.g Jan Hus was executed for just that in 1415.
Over here in Scotland inter-communion is a big issue. Tom O’Loughlin has referred to it as ‘an ulcer of division’. I quickly realised this when I first came to live in Scotland. It had never been a problem at home. Well, it wouldn’t be, would it.
I thought our church’s position was wrong but, as I was uneducated in things theological, I didn’t say very much about it. I then spent twenty-eight years — too long — leading our Archdiocesan Ecumenical Core Group which evolved into the official Ecumenical Commission of our archdiocese and we studied all contemporary and historic documents that are relevant to our ecumenical journey. I found nothing that would dissuade me from my belief that our church was wrong in our position on not sharing our table with our Christian brothers and sisters from other Christian denominations.
Now, having read Tom O’Loughlin’s wonderful book, “Eating Together, Becoming One” (ETBO) I am reassured beyond all doubt that my earlier, uneducated gut feeling was absolutely spot on.
Of course, the big issue we cite to justify our position is the failure of our Christian sisters and brothers to fully understand the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
If this is so important, Fr. Tom contends in “ETBO”, should we not also seek to confirm that Catholics who are receiving communion really understand it too.
And, he mentions the need, if this is all really so important, of confirming the belief and understanding of the presbyter who presides over the consecration — his actual understanding of the substantia I think is how he puts it.
Ever since I began reading to try and understand the Eucharist it was obvious that St. Augustine had a different take on its meaning than the official doctrine given to us by Thomas Aquinas. And theologians right through the first millennium continued to take the Augustinian line. St. Augustine was, it is said, the most influential theologian of the first millennium but obviously not influential enough to make his teaching on the Eucharist stick. And, of course, once the Aquinas doctrine became our official church teaching everything else was stamped on without mercy right through to Henri de Lubac and his book Corpus Mysticum in 1944.
“This is what Communion is. Not something we receive, but a relationship into which we are drawn. A relationship not only with Jesus Christ, but with one another.”
I was so pleased to read that in your piece above, Pádraig. That is what I have concluded during my amateur research to try an understand the Eucharist.
What I missed most during lockdown, and the fact that all worship was suspended, was not meeting my friends at Mass and not having the craic over a cup of tea after Mass.
So, I mentioned this to my PP and told him that I was more convinced than ever that Augustine had got it right, inspired by Paul in 1 Cor., when he said that we, who are gathered around the altar, are the holy communion and what happens on the altar is merely symbolic. I think I shocked him. He said that was a momentous statement and that he would have to think before he could answer me. That was two and a half years ago.
I am so pleased, Pádraig, that someone of your learning and standing, and experience, can now feel free to write as you have done, on this topic, above on a public forum.
One final thought. Of all the reasons for the continued demise of our Church — Francis’ Synod is almost certainly our last chance saloon — and we have spent years discussing them here and you and I, Pádraig, sometimes disagreeing — could the demand that we believe the unbelievable also be a major reason for our Church’s decline. The late, great Donagh O’Malley and that famous stroke of his ministerial pen has a lot to answer for.
Thank you again, Pádraig and please keep writing.
Beannachtaí,
Paddy.
Thank you Padraig, for your stimulating and important article and the relevant comments from other readers.
There is no need for philosophy, specially metaphysics, in regard to the Real Presence. St. Paul warns against this “When I came to you, it was not with any show of oratory or philosophy, but simply to tell you what God has guaranteed. In my speeches and sermons there was none of the arguments that belong to philosophy. I did this so that your faith should not depend on human philosophy but on the power of God”. (1 Cor 2;2-10).
At the present time, there appears to be little appreciation of ‘A Sense of Mystery’ in many peoples’s lives. Alas for some it is completely missing.
The inability of clergy to approach the distinct meaning of Christian sacrifice, as opposed to the priestly sacrifices it replaced, is another, and closely related, problem.
Why is it not obvious that in becoming himself also the sacrificial offering made by the priest Jesus was putting an end to the deflection and evasion that a priestly offering of some other person or creature had always involved? (‘Please, Father, accept the suffering we are imposing on this OTHER warm-blooded creature as sufficient reparation for the sins of the rest of us!’)
Here Girard’s guess that ritual human sacrifice evolved out of scapegoating or lynching (of blamed individuals) to defuse an internal crisis becomes ever more persuasive. When St Paul asks his readers to ‘offer your bodies as a living sacrifice’ he surely shows that he understood this to be the meaning of taking up one’s cross to follow Jesus – and yet the Mass in Ireland is never accompanied by any priestly commentary acknowledging that many in the congregation will already be doing just that. Consequently the offertory is never understood as including these sacrifices also.
In any church in Ireland does the SVP collection ever become part of the offertory procession, even just symbolically? If not why not? The original Eucharistic offertory ritual included the congregation’s alms for the poor who would turn up also.
Richard Rohr observes that if we do not transform our pain (e.g. the pain of unmerited insult or complaint) we will surely project it. Wasn’t Jesus the greatest example of someone who transformed pain into grace instead of projecting it, and hasn’t many a heroic Catholic mother done the same, for the sake of peace in the family? Has anyone ever heard that acknowledged as an imitation of Christ, and as a holy sacrifice?
Maybe we should put a pause on the Eucharist altogether until we are sure we can truly celebrate it, meaningfully and ‘mindfully’?
After 56 years of presiding at Eucharist, I can’t help but think that if we were to have a loaf of rich bread, in a basket, along with a large cup/glass of red wine, front and center on the Table of the Lord, and then to pull it apart for the gathered and pass the cup, we would give our Baptized sisters and brothers a lot more to think about than a miniscule disc that doesn’t resemble anything on our dining room tables – great is the Mystery of Faith.
Anything penned by Thomas O’Loughlin enriches the mix when it comes to sharing one loaf and one cup!
Peace and thanks for keeping me hoping and thinking here in North America.
I found Iggy O’Donavan’s excellent and honest letter/comment@1 especially interesting as I have been thinking a lot about this issue since I read Tom O’Loughlin’s marvellous book, “Eating Together, Becoming One.” (ETBO)
In chapter 10 of his book, The Phenomenon of Conflicting Theologies, Tom highlights what a “lightening rod of identity” the eucharist has become. To be a Catholic is “to believe in a particular set of theological propositions, and this doctrine is like an ideology that defines the group. If you do not believe in this particular theology then you are outside the church.”
I wonder is this the reason normally sensible people, those who are well-informed, educated, learned even, in a particular field, and are practising Catholics, are so reluctant to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation about their belief in and understanding of transubstantiation and the eucharist. Do they feel that expressing a view that is not in complete keeping with our church’s official teaching places them “outside the church”?
Fr. Tom further explains that “this thinking is, of course, neither the formal teaching, nor the precise way to interpret canonical documents, nor does it take account of all the nuances that are inherent in doctrine, but it is widespread.”
Like Fr. Iggy, Tom explains how adherence to a particular teaching — a particular theology — is not tantamount to your “faith”.
“Can one ever be said to ‘believe’ in a theology, in any case? I may hold it as my certain and fixed position — my “belief” in the epistemological sense — that a certain theological formulation is the best that can be arrived at, but this is not to be confused with my faith — belief as a religious act — which is God, his goodness, his revelation of himself, his acts, and most especially, his sending of his Son, as the man Jesus”.
Now, I am wondering if there are other doctrines that have become “a lightening rod of identity”.
Now, I hope I am not being unfair to anyone here, but I think I am correct in saying that whenever papal infallibility has ever been mentioned here on this site only Joe O’Leary and myself have ever dared to utter a comment.
As Iggy points out so insightfully and correctly with regard to transubstantiation:
“The simple historical fact is that the church got on without the term for a thousand years, from which fact we can draw the safe conclusion that it belongs not to the substance of faith but to the manner of its formulation.”
There are, I would say, other doctrines that the church got on without for even longer.