Ecclesia De Eucharistia on Its Ecumenical Import
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ecumenical & Interfaith Commission: www.melbourne.catholic.org.au/eic Ecclesia de Eucharistia On Its Ecumenical Import By Clint Le Bruyns (Clint Le Bruyns, is an Anglican ecumenist who is currently completing a research project on contemporary Anglican and Protestant perspectives on the Petrine ministry at the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, where he also serves in the faculty of theology as Assistant Lecturer and Research Development Coordinator of the Beyers Naude Centre for Public Theology.) The pope’s latest encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia (On the Eucharist in its Relationship to the Church) – the fourteenth in his 25-year pontificate - was released in Rome on Maundy or Holy Thursday, April 17, 2003.1 Flanked by an introduction (1-10) and conclusion (59-62), the papal letter comprises six critical sections in which the Eucharist is discussed: The Mystery of Faith (11-20); The Eucharist Builds the Church (21-25); The Apostolicity of the Eucharist and of the Church (26-33); The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion (34-46); The Dignity of the Eucharistic Celebration (47-52); and At the School of Mary, “Woman of the Eucharist” (53-58). Published in English, French, Italian, Spanish, German, Portuguese and Latin, it is a personal, warm, and passionate letter by the current pope on a longstanding theological treasure and dilemma (cf. 8). Like all papal encyclicals it is an internal theological document, bearing the full authority of the Vatican and addressing a matter of grave importance and concern for Roman Catholic faith, life and ministry. But papal texts are no longer merely Roman Catholic in orientation and scope. The “irrevocable” commitment to ecumenism inaugurated at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) revolutionised the manner in which internal theological material would subsequently be written and read. The Vatican would, of course, still remain attentive to the issues and concerns of relevance for its own faith community, but would now also be aware of the wider community of churches – their issues and concerns, their questions and efforts, as well as their overall welfare on their Christian sojourn. John Paul II’s most ecumenically popular encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) popularised this new mentality and reality in a significant way. It gave serious attention to various issues confronting the Roman Catholic Church at the dawn of the third millennium, but also proceeded to address matters pertaining to other faith communions on unity, the Petrine office, and so on. Its ecumenical import was unmistakable and meaningful, resulting in a kaleidoscope of ecumenical responses, discussions, and literature that continue even to this day. But can the same be said and read of the pope’s latest encyclical? While Ecclesia de Eucharistia is no Ut Unum Sint, its ecumenical import is of great resourcefulness to the continuing call to unity. After all, the pope has been careful to underline the intimate interrelation between the Eucharist and Christian unity, a connection no reader of the present encyclical should overlook: “The seeds of disunity, which daily experience shows to be so deeply rooted in humanity as a result of sin, are countered by the unifying power of the body of Christ. The Eucharist, precisely by building up the Church, creates human community” (24). In the first place, this encyclical has as its subject one of the most church-dividing issues in the history of Christianity. In January 1982 in Lima, Peru, the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches released its magnum opus Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM). Representatives from all major church traditions identified what they considered to be three highly divisive theological matters in the Church – Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry. The identification of the Eucharist as an ecumenical dilemma is readily discerned in a host of conversations and statements in 1 Ecumenical & Interfaith Commission: www.melbourne.catholic.org.au/eic such bilateral dialogues as those between Roman Catholics and Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed, Disciples of Christ, and the Oriental Orthodox, which have been in existence since Vatican II.2 The pope himself has continually highlighted the Eucharist as a subject of ongoing importance in ecumenism. In Ut Unum Sint, for instance, he singles out “the Eucharist, as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial memorial and real presence of Christ and the sanctifying outpouring of the Holy Spirit” as one of those “areas in need of fuller study before a true consensus of faith can be achieved.”3 The fact that John Paul II now in Ecclesia de Eucharistia addresses the Church on the Eucharist is itself an ecumenically significant sign that he is indeed in tune with the concerns and ideals of the modern ecumenical movement. His ecumenical consciousness has not ceased or waned since Ut Unum Sint. Of all the many issues his encyclical could have focused on, the pope discerned a matter of ongoing ecumenical significance. In the second place, the encyclical is substantiated by a number of critically important ecumenically meaningful texts. The pope extends the teachings of the Second Vatican Council – Lumen Gentium, Ad Gentes, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Unitatis Redintegratio, Dei Verbum, and Gaudium et Spes – into the present moment. The teachings of his own Ut Unum Sint on ecumenism are contained within the letter. His articulation of the Roman Catholic Church’s irreversible stand on ecumenical commitment is reiterated and applied to the issues at hand in the present encyclical. It must be remembered that the pope expects his readers to observe the continuity and congruency of Ecclesia de Eucharistia with earlier teachings in the Roman Catholic tradition (e.g. transubstantiation at the Council of Trent, 15). The doctrine of the Eucharist expressed in his letter must not be viewed as anything new or different from earlier teaching. The Roman Catholic Church has not watered down its theological understanding of the Eucharist because of the ecumenical movement, as some internal critics may allege. On the contrary, the pope is cognisant of the prevailing dilemmas that jeopardise the integrity of the Eucharist among the churches, which causes him much anxiety and consternation: It must be lamented that, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation [vis-à-vis liturgical reform] there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorised innovations which are often completely inappropriate. I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. (52) What we must observe, though, is the great lengths to which the pontiff travels in couching this teaching in ecumenical language and documentation, so as to give ecumenical credence to an old teaching. In other words, the kernel remains intact, albeit within a modified husk. The pope is to-the- point in his intention: “It is my hope that the present Encyclical Letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery” (10). In the third place, the encyclical’s ecumenical tone should not be overlooked or trivialised. In ecumenism, tone is everything!4 While it is true that the papal document restates Roman Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, and while it employs texts from such sources as the Council of Trent as well as the norms of Roman Catholicism’s two law codes – the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches – its tone is neither polemical nor manipulative. On the contrary, Ecclesia de 2 Ecumenical & Interfaith Commission: www.melbourne.catholic.org.au/eic Eucharistia reflects a warm and respectful tone in talking about the Eucharist and other ecclesial communities. For example, while there are various Protestant reservations with the Roman Mass, the pope does not adopt a “shock-and-awe” approach by attempting to counter Protestant assertions with Roman Catholic forceful argumentation. He does not resist the Protestant resistors by resisting more forcefully. Instead, the pope chooses to overemphasise the glorious nature of the Eucharist in Roman Catholicism. He talks with wonderment and enthusiasm about “this most holy Sacrament” (2), anticipating a rekindling of “this Eucharistic ‘amazement’” (6). Rather than highlighting possible weaknesses or inconsistencies in the Protestant web of beliefs, he chooses to magnify the strengths and integrity of the Roman Catholic understanding. His approach is of a constructive, sober, and savoury nature. The encyclical will most likely shed light on the attractiveness of a rich meditation on the Eucharist as articulated by the pope, cultivating “in our hearts a constant desire for the sacrament of the Eucharist” (34) and forging a new experience thereof (7). Moreover, the specific vocabulary and language employed in the encyclical to refer to the non- Roman Catholic faith communities are telling. The pope uses such phrases as “these separated brethren” (30), thus continuing the ecumenical ethos of Vatican II. Furthermore, when the letter affirms the Decree on Ecumenism as “a special gift of God” (43), it highlights the special status of the Christian community as children who are in direct and authentic relationship with one another, albeit in different ways and degrees: “It was an efficacious grace which inspired us, the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church and our brothers and sisters from other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, to set forth on the path of ecumenism” (43, italics mine). Later again, the pope refers to the ecumenical community in this warm and accepting tone – “our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions” (46; cf.