Special Features

THE EUCHARIST AND THE FORTHCOMING SYNOD.

Fr Fintan Lyons osb

We are having this series of talks to mark the Year of the Eucharist, as you know, but what many may not be aware of is that the Year of the Eucharist is intended to conclude with the 11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, devoted to the topic of the Eucharist. Hence the title of this presentation, the Eucharist and the Forthcoming Synod. I wondered at one stage whether we would be having this talk as after the death of Pope John Paul, a Canon Lawyer reminded me that with the death of the pope all Vatican projects are put into abeyance until confirmed by the successor. That has happened in the case of the Synod, so we have our topic and it is in two parts, Eucharist and Synod and I propose to devote time to consideration of each part.

THE SYNOD
The Synod, first, and you would call it a Synod if you were a Methodist. An Anglican might wonder if it proceeds along the lines of the Church of England's General Synod, which meets continuously, or might also say we have a Synod every year in our Anglican diocese. If you were belonged to an Orthodox Church you might say: Isn't it amazing that the Catholics are going to have a Synod? We've been trying to have one for years. The Catholic Church has in fact been having Synods in their present form since the Second Vatican Council. I say in their present form because there were periods in the early centuries and in the later Middle Ages when gatherings were held that were less then General Councils of the Church but more than local assemblies. Literally speaking, the word "synod" - derived from two Greek words syn meaning "together" and hodos meaning "road" or "way" - means simply "together (to find) a way".

The recent history is as follows. To complement the doctrine on the papacy of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), the Second Vatican Council devoted attention to the place of bishops in the Church. It was considered necessary to emphasise the collegial nature of the episcopate, that is, that the pastoral care of the Church is the responsibility of the whole college of bishops acting with and under the pope as head. 'Together with their head, the supreme pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme authority over the universal Church' (L.G. 22), Before the Council actually met there had been calls for regular meetings of bishops from around the world to bring the wisdom of the Church to bear on doctrinal and moral issues, in the hope that this combined wisdom would then have a bearing on the documents coming from the teaching authority of the Church, its Magisterium..

Could this instinct for collegiality find an expression in practice? There are theological subtleties in the idea of collegiality that ultimately stem from the relationship between the universal Church and the local Church and between the corresponding leadership roles, of the universal and of the local churches. The relationship between the universal and the local church is such that the whole Church is believed to be incarnated in the local Church. What then is the relationship between the universal and the local leadership? If we say that the pope is the Vicar of Peter (his most ancient title) and therefore universal pastor, we say also that every bishop is Vicar of Christ in his own diocese. Following that line of thought can be a little confusing, unless you bear in mind that ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who is Vicar of Christ and is the uniting principle of the whole college of bishops, including the pope. Given that level of theological complexity, there are practical difficulties in the implementation of collegiality, and you can't reduce it to political form. But the theological vision articulated by the Vatican Council in terms of primacy and collegiality does need expression in legal terms, in Canon Law, and it is in that context of canonical decree that the Synod of Bishops came into existence.

Paul VI, even before the Council, when he was Archbishop of Milan, was convinced of the importance of trying to implement collegiality and it was he who established the Synod of Bishops as a permanent institution in 1965, in response to the desire of the Fathers of the Council to keep alive the spirit of collegiality engendered by their conciliar experience. This account of its origins comes from the Synod's own permanent secretariat in its description of the Synod. There is a difference, though, when it comes to a definition. To summarise the definition given in Canon Law (#342) and in the decree establishing it, the Synod is an assembly of bishops representing the Catholic episcopate, having the task of helping the Pope in the governing of the universal Church by rendering their counsel. A close examination of the definition and of all the explanatory canons and regulations governing the synod shows that it does not in fact express much of its collegial inspiration. It presents rather as an aid to the pope in the exercise of his universal ministry. The former Cardinal Ratzinger has always been noted for his acuity of theological perception in a form that those in dialogue with him can find disconcerting, namely his ability to delimit, to point to what cannot be said, when others are concentrating on what can be said. In his book, Church, Ecumenism and Politics (1987), he acknowledged that the origin or inspiration of the creation of the Synod was in 'the idea of regularly involving the bishops of the universal Church collectively in the formation of policy on major questions affecting the Church as a whole, but - he says - canonically and theologically it follows a different model. It advises the pope; it is not a small-scale Council, and it is not a collegial organ of leadership for the universal Church'. (p.46)..

That clarification is important because many people, even without knowing that the original inspiration of the Synod was in a desire to express collegiality, have seen it as a rather unsatisfactory organ of collegial governance of the Church. The then Cardinal came to his conclusion after examining the relevant documentation at the request of Pope John Paul as part of the work of the 1983 Synod. Nonetheless, the pope in his address to that Synod twice described a Synod as an 'exercise in collegiality'. I think it likely that the present pope will want to clarify the matter still further, as he is known, according to his biographer, John Allen, as one, who likes to simplify structures. As a conservative, he dislikes big government.

Though the institution of the Synod of Bishops is permanent in character, its actual functioning and concrete collaboration are not. In other words, the Synod of Bishops meets and operates only when the pope considers it necessary or opportune to consult the episcopate. I should add that the Synod of Bishops can meet in Ordinary General Session, in Extraordinary General Session, and in Special Session. Extraordinary indicates that an urgent need has arisen and Special that the Synod is for a particular region.

There is a permanent General Secretariat that continues between Synods, compiling the post-Synodal document that the pope will issue and preparing for future synods by consultation with episcopal conferences around the world. All of this activity is regulated by official documents, including Canon Law, but clearly there is room for the various parties involved to exercise more or less influence on topics chosen for synods, on the preparatory documents, on how the synod is actually run and on what kind of document the pope in the end will issue under his own signature.

In practice the Synods of Bishops that have met since Vatican II have settled into the form of having a representation of bishops from around the world discuss documents that have been prepared by the General Secretariat. After they have made their recommendations, the outcome of a Synod takes the form of a Post-Synodal document, an Exhortation, issued by the Pope, reflecting but not necessarily rubber-stamping the Synod members' views as expressed in their final document. The delicate relationship between the papacy and the other members of the college makes it difficult to find any other path through which decisions can be reached.

THE EUCHARIST
Perhaps the most powerful, if also the most painful, illustration of the importance of the topic of the Eucharist as the discussion theme for the Synod was to be found recently on the E-bay auction site on the Internet. In the immediate aftermath of John Paul II's death, someone proudly, or cynically, auctioned on the net a host consecrated by Pope John Paul himself. It was sold on April 11th for $2000 as a 'collectable' or 'memento', and I know about this because I was invited to add my signature to a protest being lodged with E-bay about this egregious lapse from ethical standards.

The incident highlights, by the way, the high profile of the papacy in today's world, but it shows more fundamentally the critical importance of the issue of 'presence' for the theology of the Eucharist. Was Christ's presence the object of this transaction? More crudely, was Christ auctioned? I want to use the concept of presence as a way into a consideration of the theology of the Eucharist, with a view to making a set of points that may serve as a guide in reflecting on the mystery of the Eucharist. I use the word mystery deliberately.

To consider presence, I will make use of documents associated fairly closely with the forthcoming Synod. The first one is the Encyclical of John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, issued on Holy Thursday 2003, the origin of the decision to hold a Synod on the Eucharist. The second will be the Pope's Apostolic Letter of last October introducing the Year of the Eucharist, Mane nobiscum, Domine. The third will be the Lineamenta for the Synod, that is, a document issued to the Bishops of the world, on which they were to send comments to Rome to assist in the preparation of the discussion document at the Synod in October, the Instrumentum Laboris of the Synod.

The first thing to be said about these documents is that with the exception of the second one, Mane nobiscum, they are counterproductively long and repetitious. One reads them to summarise rather than to savour.

Those who recall the Pope's Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, will remember also that it was a very personal reflection on the Eucharist, including reference, for example, to his own first Mass after ordination, his fiftieth anniversary of priesthood (#59) his celebration of Mass in very diverse surroundings, 'in so many basilicas and churches in Rome and throughout the world … in chapels built along mountain paths, on lakeshores and seacoasts … on altars built in stadiums and in city squares' (#8). A devotional document too, especially the final chapter on Mary and the Eucharist, when he puts words into the mouth of Mary; 'Mary seems to say to us…' (#54). In line with that personal, devotional approach, there are references to the amazement and gratitude (#5) the Eucharist evokes and, in relation to worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass, he says: 'It is pleasant to spend time with (Christ), to lie close to his breast like the Beloved Disciple (cf. Jn 13:25) and to feel the infinite love present in his heart … How often I have experienced this and drawn from it strength, consolation and support!' (#25).

The treatment of the Eucharist in the document echoes the approach found in the documents of Vatican II in that it is primarily liturgical, that is, the Eucharist's nature is presented as derived from the Paschal Mystery. It is primarily a rite by which we participate in the whole dynamic of Christ's passing through death and resurrection to new life with the Father, as the firstfruits of a new creation. The text emphasises: 'It is as the living and risen One that Christ can become in the Eucharist the "bread of life", the "living bread"' (#14). That leads to a consideration of the eschatological nature of the Eucharist. The text speaks of an eschatological tension that merits greater attention: 'in celebrating the sacrifice of the Lamb, we are united to the heavenly liturgy' (#19). A consequence of this tension is that 'it spurs us on our journey through history and plants a seed of living hope in our daily commitment to the work before us. Certainly the Christian vision leads to the expectation of "new heavens" and a "new earth" (Rev. 21:1) but this increases, rather than lessens our sense of responsibility for the world today' (#20). The pope goes on here to appeal for the building of a more human world, for justice and peace and solidarity. This welcome emphasis on the eschatological nature of the Eucharist is in the first chapter on the 'Mystery of the Eucharist'.

Subsequent chapters are 'The Eucharist Builds the Church', 'The Apostolicity of Eucharist and Church', 'The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion', 'The Dignity of the Eucharistic Celebration'. It is noticeable that in two of these chapters there is emphasis on what are called 'the outward bonds of communion' (#38), on the need for communion with the bishop and with the pope that 'is intrinsically required for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice'. So, 'it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established' (#44). In this context the term 'validity' is used (#46), quoting the Decree of Ecumenism of Vatican II. While the term was used by the Council and in the subsequent Directory on Ecumenism (1993), many theologians would consider the concept of validity a blunt instrument in dealing with delicate ecumenical situations, particularly as the Decree on Ecumenism's positive attitude to the ecclesial reality of the ecclesial communities not in communion with the Catholic Church. However, one should not expect any ecumenical advance in a document of the type we are considering.

Chapter 5, on 'The Dignity of the Eucharistic Celebration', I found interesting in that it shows a strong awareness of liturgy as rite, as celebration. That should hardly be something to remark upon, but I will come later to commenting on the difference between a liturgical and a simply 'sacramental' presentation of the Eucharist. But it goes on to lament adaptations and abuses that have arisen in liturgical celebration as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and appeals for great fidelity in observing the liturgical norms for celebration. This is not balanced by any encouragement of creativity in the celebration and in fact the document goes on to say that the competent offices of the Roman Curia would be asked to prepare a document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on the liturgical norms. You may remember that this was in fact done and presented in a robust way to the press by Cardinal Arinze. My overall impression of this Encyclical is that even if restrictive in some important ways, it does bring a contemporary theological perspective to bear on the subject.

The next document to consider, a brief document to be considered briefly, is Pope John Paul's Apostolic Letter to mark the opening of the Year of the Eucharist, Mane nobiscum, Domine, a title taken from the words of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, 'Stay with us Lord'. The document picks up the themes the Pope had used to mark the more recent phases of his ministry. The emphasis had been Christocentric throughout, with a special focus on the face of Christ, particularly in the document Novo millennio ineunte, concluding 2000, the Jubilee year. There he had 'suggested an ever greater pastoral engagement based on contemplation on the face of Christ, as part of an ecclesial pedagogy aimed at high standards of holiness and carried out especially through the art of prayer. How (he asks now) could such a programme be complete without a commitment to the liturgy and in particular to the cultivation of Eucharistic life?' (#8).

The document is rather remarkable in that in its teaching in Chapter II on the Eucharist, a Mystery of Light, it devotes considerable attention to the relationship between the Liturgy of the Word and that of the Eucharist, basing itself on the Emmaus theme of the Scriptures pointing to Christ. It makes the point that forty years after the Council the Year of the Eucharist can serve as an important opportunity for Christian communities to evaluate progress in relation to the celebration of the Liturgy of the Word. Echoing the Emmaus theme of enlightenment through the Scriptures, it says: 'When minds are enlightened and hearts are enkindled, signs begin to speak' (#14). This introduces an appeal for an in-depth approach to the Eucharist, to its meaning both as meal ('its most evident dimension') and as sacrifice. The memorial and eschatological dimensions are mentioned and the document then says that 'all these dimensions come together in one aspect which more than any other makes a demand on our faith, the mystery of the "real" presence' (#16). This is a somewhat problematic statement, from the point of view of contemporary theology, and a little further on it is more clearly articulated thus: 'It is precisely (Christ's) presence which gives the other aspects of the Eucharist - as meal, as memorial of the Paschal Mystery, as eschatological anticipation - a significance which goes far beyond mere symbolism. The Eucharist is a mystery of presence, the perfect fulfilment of Jesus' promise to remain with us until the end of the world' (#16). I will comment on these statements later.

The theme of 'real' presence is continued in a call for eucharistic adoration: 'The presence of Jesus in the tabernacle must be a kind of magnetic pole attracting an ever greater number of souls enamoured of him, ready to wait patiently to hear his voice and, as it were, to sense the beating of his heart. (#18). The language here is close to the 'prisoner in the tabernacle' devotion of the past.

The two subsequent chapters echo concerns of the Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Chapter III, The Eucharist as Source and Manifestation of Communion, repeats that the Church sets the conditions for full participation in the celebration of the Eucharist, though the emphasis is now on the internal unity of the church rather than on ecumenical relations. Chapter IV, The Eucharist, Principle and Plan of Mission, takes up the Emmaus theme of the disciples setting out immediately, saying : 'the encounter with Christ, constantly intensified and deepened in the Eucharist, issues in the Church and in every Christian an urgent summons to testimony and evangelisation' (#24). This leads to the further declaration that the 'Christian who takes part in the Eucharist learns to become a promoter of communion, peace and solidarity in every situation'. (#27)

We have one more document to scan briefly, the Lineamenta, or preparatory document for the Synod, sent out to all bishops for their comments. The Introduction states that the situation is unusual in that the pope has called for a Synod on a topic on which he himself has recently written an Encyclical, so the need is clearly to consider the pastoral situation: the Eucharist in celebration, worship, preaching and the work of charity. The Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, forms the backdrop then to the Synod and to the preparatory Lineamenta, but it seems to me that the two documents differ in important respects and this is not in the end surprising. As would be the normal practice, the Encyclical was almost certainly drafted in outline by John Paul II, with experts in various fields filling in the detail; the Lineamenta were put together by a committee created by the permanent secretariat of the Synod. As I indicated earlier, the Encyclical treats of the Eucharist in the context of the celebration of the Liturgy. The first half of the Lineamenta is an exercise in traditional or medieval sacramental theology, which is ultimately based on philosophy, while the liturgical treatment of the subject is taken up in the second half. The division of the document is that three chapters are devoted to the sacrament of the Eucharist, one to the theology of liturgical celebration, then three more to practical, pastoral matters, with ten questions appended, to which the bishops of the world are asked to respond. The first, or sacramental, section is bolstered up by many quotations from the fathers of the Church, whose theology was liturgical, derived, that is, from liturgical practice, though the thinking in this section is clearly that of medieval sacramental theology.

What is the difference between a medieval sacramental and a liturgical approach? Without going deeply into philosophy, which was central to medieval sacramental theology, let me make some use of the idea of 'presence', and let me say too that there are contemporary sacramental theologies that are not thus contrasted with the liturgical perspective.. The simple but not, I hope, too polarising answer, to the question of the difference between the medieval sacramental and liturgical approach is that in one the focus is on Christ present in the eucharistic elements and in the other on Christ present in the celebration. The one is concerned with the transubstantiation of the elements, the other with the transformation of the Christian. One is static, the other dynamic. The difference between the approaches comes about primarily because the traditional approach, in concentrating attention on presence in the elements, focuses on the power necessary to achieve it and so on priesthood, to the neglect of the other participants of the liturgical action. In turn, emphasis on priesthood gives rise to consideration of the extent of the priestly function, and thus theories of sacrifice. The one liturgical act of the whole community comes to be seen in terms of individual components, sacrifice, sacrament, objective and lasting presence. This was the way theology developed in the Middle Ages and the period is characterised by sometimes far-reaching ideas about presence and sacrifice, for example. Gabriel Biel (+1495) was one such theorist. His book, De Canone Missae, proposed the idea that the sacrifice of the Mass was accomplished in the separate consecrations of the bread and wine, the separation of body and blood indicating the sacrificial death of Christ. It should be noted that this puts the death of Christ at the centre of the liturgical action, and leaves the resurrection out of consideration. This is one reason why, from the Middle Ages on, a crucifix showing the dead or dying Christ has been a prominent feature of the sanctuary. (Other reasons arise from the nature of medieval spirituality.)

The sacramental theology in the Lineamenta reiterates the theological positions that developed in the Middle Ages, were the subject of theological dispute at that time, were at the heart of the Reformation controversies subsequently and were then confirmed as the doctrine of the Church at the Council of Trent. An example is the statement that 'sacrifice is the primary act; afterwards comes the meal in which we take as food the Lamb immolated on the Cross' (#10). The text also repeats the teaching of Trent on transubstantiation and contrasts real with symbolic presence: 'Christ is present not in a spiritual or symbolic way but in a real manner in the Eucharist…' (#22). The sacrament-sacrifice bipolarity is evident from the fact that the word sacrifice occurs in the document 56 times and sacrament 144, while presence occurs 51 times. In contrast the term Liturgy of the Word occurs only once and then in a negative context. There is an obvious contrast here with John Paul II's Mane nobiscum, Domine, in which, as I said earlier, considerable attention is drawn to the Liturgy of the Word and its connection with the Liturgy of the Eucharist. That document presented its own problem, though, in relation to the sacramental and liturgical perspectives. I quoted from it: 'It is precisely (Christ's) presence which gives the other aspects of the Eucharist - as meal, as memorial of the Paschal Mystery, as eschatological anticipation - a significance which goes far beyond mere symbolism'. In conjunction with this statement, I want to take what I quoted above from the Lineamenta: 'sacrifice is the primary act, afterwards comes the meal in which we take as food the Lamb immolated on the Cross'. In the first statement, 'memorial of the Paschal Mystery' is a strange term, when, according to the liturgical approach, it is in fact the Paschal Mystery, which through liturgical celebration becomes present - it is not just an 'aspect' of Christ's presence. Likewise, giving temporal priority, or it may be that metaphysical priority is intended, to the Eucharist as sacrifice (the second statement) makes no sense in the liturgical model.

Using these sentences let me try to illustrate the difference between the sacramental and liturgical approaches, the difference that will show the kind of problems exemplified by the E-bay incident have come about.

The difference that I summarised earlier in polarising statements - Christ in the sacramental elements, Christ in the celebration; transubstantiation of elements, transformation of the participants, static and dynamic presence - this really derives from a difference in perception of the relationship between the visible and the invisible. The medieval emphasis was on the invisible, accessible through a visible sign. Think, for example, of St Thomas's hymn: 'sight, touch and taste in thee are each deceived'. The emphasis there is on the invisible presence of the hidden God, latens Deitas. The sign points to hidden reality, and its significance is then exhausted. The emphasis in liturgical theology is on the visible rite, not just the minimum visible elements of bread and wine but the whole rite, with its ritual actions, a meal. This is to make use of symbolism, where the sign points beyond itself but its significance is never exhausted. Its etymology of 'things thrown together', indicates a complex reality of gestures, sounds, images, words that invite participation in that to which they refer. Liturgical theologians today say that it is necessary to recover the language of symbol and ritual as a key to celebration and as the origin of all theological reflection. A theology of the Eucharist has to be a theology of eucharistic celebration.

There is a difference of priority between visible and invisible:

MODEL ONE:

Emphasis in this model is on the present time, with the elements involved in signifiying real presence and sacrifice. Secondary relationship to Last Supper and Heavenly Banquet, which are not 'present' in the same way.

MODEL TWO:

In this model the ritual meal, through 'figuring' the Paschal Mystery, relates to past and future as well as to present time.

Appplying the ideas to the case of the E-bay Auction of the consecrated host, we can see how from one perspective the problem of disrespect, to put it mildly, arises. The logic of the medieval sacramental approach is that Christ is present once the sign, the eucharistic bread is intact. The problem is exacerbated by substance-accidents perspective: there is objective presence, even in an atom of bread. Theology of bread as a symbol would require that bread be 'present' first in order that a new presence would come about through change of substance (in the Aristotelian sense). Is 'bread' really present in the case of the atom? Could we ask the same question in relation to the 'souvenir' host?

Lastly, the Lineamenta concluded with a set of ten questions in relation to the pastoral situation regarding the Eucharist in the respondents' dioceses. As several of these questions were to do with how the Eucharist is celebrated and how the reserved Eucharist is worshiped, clearly the answers would depend on what kind of theology of the Eucharist one espoused.