Explaining the Eucharist

One of the statements made by Bishop Patrick Dunn at a recent bishop’s forum in Auckland was that belief in three core doctrines
is needed for people to be missionary disciples.

These are belief in the Incarnation of the Son of God, belief in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead, and belief in the real presence of the Risen Christ in the Eucharist.

The first two are pretty much common to all Christians, at least those who accept the Nicene Creed. Questions as to what these beliefs really mean have been hammered out in debates and arguments over the course of the Church’s history.

But the third — concerning the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist — is the source of much current argument and debate — among those who hold this belief (a 2019 Pew survey in the US showed only 30 per cent of US Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually becomes the body and blood of Jesus).

Any non-believer, once he or she has heard the initial teaching or proclamation about the Eucharist, is likely to also see some Catholics arguing about related matters.

How should the Eucharist be received — in the hand or on the tongue? Who should be able to distribute the Eucharist? Why is the sacrament reserved? How should it be reserved in church buildings? Should its place of reservation be behind the altar or in a side chapel? Should there be rails around some parts of the Church?

Questions can arise as to the connection of this sacrament with others. Why is this sacrament called “blessed”? Why do some people have to go to confession before receiving? Why do hardly any Catholics do this today? Why is an ordained priest necessary to bring about the Eucharist? Why are these priests male only? What makes this bringing about valid or invalid? Do the words used in
part of the Eucharistic Prayer have to be exactly right?

Then there is the issue of “presence”? If God is supposed to be everywhere, what does it mean to believe Jesus is “really” present here? When a homilist talks about Jesus being present in his Word proclaimed, in the person of the priest and in the People of God gathered for worship, how does this relate to the “real” presence?

Then there is the thorny subject of who can receive the Eucharist. This is a topic of much debate — for instance, the US bishops’ debate over eucharistic worthiness, given President Joe Biden’s position on legal abortion. What about the reception of communion by Catholics and Protestants in Germany at each other’s services? Why does the Catholic Church say non-Catholic Christians
can receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church in some circumstances (Canon 844.4), but not in others? What does it mean to “be in communion”? How does receiving the Eucharist help the Christian life?

And so the list of questions goes on, and answers are necessary. In the first letter of Peter,  Christians are advised to “be ready always to respond to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you . . . “ (1 Peter 3:15). Humans are rational creatures and our capacity for inquiry was given to us by God. So faith does believe and question how — contrary to the hymn.

The Church does have answers to the questions above, but these are always in the ultimate context of the mystery of God’s love for us, God’s presence with us, and our capacity to respond to this presence and love. When it comes right down to it, that is what the three foundational beliefs mentioned above are on about. And the primary response when encountering mystery is reverence, not analysis or categorisation. That is the human experience from ancient times, as the Scriptures attest.

And maybe that is one reason why Jesus did not provide the doubting disciples with pat answers in John 6, when many left him after he had spoken of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. His presence is primary, not explanations of it — and as St Peter said — “Lord, to whom would we go; you have the words of eternal life.”