The
Lord’s Supper As a Means of Unification
With few
exceptions, mostly all Protestant and Catholic denominations celebrate the
Lord’s Supper in some form. Yet despite
this universal recognition there still exists extreme variance in terms of
practice and theology across the spectrum of Christian faiths. Some churches practice intinction, while
others prefer to distribute and consume the elements separately. In some faiths the Lord’s Supper is
celebrated daily, while in others it is a weekly, monthly, or even quarterly
practice. Then perhaps the most
significant area of dissonance concerns the variety of theologies concerning
the presence of Christ at the table. This
variation creates an interesting point of dissonance between faiths, and yet
the reality that mostly all denominations recognize the Lord’s Supper is a
point of immense unity in a greatly divided Church.
With
the unity of the Church as a high priority for serious followers of Christ, the
common practice of the Lord’s Supper can be seen as a tool for unification
amongst denominations of Christian faith.
Yet if unification is to occur, the variety of practices and theologies
concerning the Lord’s Supper must be recognized and evaluated. This variance may be healthy for
denominations, as a diverse Church is likely to have diverse practices, but if
unification is to occur then denominations must come to terms with these
varieties. The very nature of the
communion table demands unification, and to use practices and theologies of the
Lord’s Supper as tools for division is diametrically at odds with the spirit of
the Lord’s Supper.
Considering
the importance of Christian unity, the purpose of this essay will be aimed at
evaluating two of the most distinct approaches to the Lord’s Supper: the Roman Catholic Eucharist and Baptist
communion. From practice, to frequency,
to theology, these two faith groups exercise completely different approaches to
the Lord’s Supper. There seem to be both
positive and negative impacts from each approach, and it is the intent of this
essay to highlight some of these in an effort to critically evaluate the
contributions of each and how these contributions might be appropriated within
any Christian denomination.
The
Roman Catholic Eucharist
In
the Roman Catholic faith the Eucharist sacrifice is the high point of the
mass. Following the proclamation of the
word and the presentation of the offerings, a prayer of thanksgiving and
consecration is offered by the presiding priest before the congregation makes
their way to the altar. The elements are
distributed separately, and consumption of the bread and wine is followed by a
time of silent prayer and reflection.[1]
With the exception of Holy Saturday, the Roman Catholic Eucharist is offered on
a daily basis, making the sacrament accessible to every member of the Roman
Catholic faith on every day of the year.
With
such a high priority placed upon the Eucharist, as is made evident by both the
priority of the Eucharist within the mass and the frequency with which it is
celebrated, it should come as no surprise that Roman Catholics hold the
Eucharist closely. In a sense, the
Eucharist is the repeated ritual of the Roman Catholic Church and as such is
closed to those outside of the brotherhood.
If a Protestant were to participate in a Roman Catholic service, he or
she would be denied access to the table.
In some cases a blessing is offered in lieu of the elements, but this is
not always the case. The Eucharist is
therefore a means of unification within the Roman Catholic faith by means of
exclusion.[2]
While
the mechanics and frequency of the Eucharist sacrifice are important lines of
comparison between Protestants and Catholics, it is the theology of the table
that provides the most striking distinctions.
Certainly both practice and frequency are products of theology, but
focusing specifically on the theology of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, a
distinct and unique approach is recognized that sets the Roman Catholic Church
apart from Protestant denominations. To
begin, the Roman Catholic faith recognizes the Eucharist as a human offering of
bread and wine. Benedictine monk
Ghislain Lafont properly recognizes that, “We cannot come before God
empty-handed, for we were created in order to give all to the point of death
and resurrection.”[3]
Yet, at the same time, this human offering is presented to and received by God
Himself. As a representation of Christ
Himself, the priest intercedes on behalf of the congregation, offers the gifts
of bread and wine, and presides over the sacrifice. The priest’s action is in persona Christi, or representative of Christ, as “only Christ
can act in the appropriate way in the presence of the Father”[4]. Viewed as both an offering and a sacrifice,
the Eucharist is raised above all other sacraments as the “perfection of the
spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.”[5]
Additionally,
Roman Catholics hold to the belief of “transubstantiation”, or the idea that
the elements of the Eucharist (bread and wine) are in the most real sense
transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
This belief is confirmed by the Church Fathers, and is attributed to the
action of the Holy Spirit[6]. So it is that through the mystery of the
Eucharist the recipient not consumes the elements of bread and wine, but the
Body and Blood of Christ. Considering
this theology, it is only natural that such a high priority would be placed
upon the Eucharist, and the priority and frequency previously noted are the
natural product of such a high value placed upon the sacrament.
Baptist
Communion
Baptist
communion is similar to the Roman Catholic Eucharist in limited fashion. While the elements are the same (although
some prefer grape juice as the appropriate “fruit of the vine”), the priority,
frequency, and theology surrounding the table are far from similar. It should also be acknowledged that there are
a variety of practices even within the Baptist faith, and the following
evaluation must be understood as a generality.
In
the Baptist faith, it is the proclamation of the word that takes priority over
all else in communal worship. This is in
part due to the historical separation of Scripture and Tradition in Baptist
circles, with the former being exalted and the latter minimized if not rejected
completely. The celebration of communion
is considered an “ordinance”, and is to be recognized as a commandment from
Christ to be recognized. This
terminology is preferred over the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist as a
sacrament, and is thereby devoid of the high priority held in the Roman
Catholic faith.
Perhaps
the most significant term surrounding Baptist communion is that of
“remembrance”. When brought together for
communion, Baptists are recognizing and remembering Jesus’ last supper. Certainly this remembrance is significant,
but by taking away the sacramental nature of the meal, Baptists lower the
priority of the celebration, and consequently the frequency. In some Baptist churches communion is
celebrated weekly, but it is also not uncommon for communion to be celebrated monthly,
or even quarterly, often times in an evening service[7]. At these services, words of remembrance are
uttered prior to an invitation. Unlike
the Roman Catholic faith, Baptists generally practice an open table, in which
all baptized Christians are welcome to participate. The elements are distributed separately, but
often times the congregation consumes them in unity. For example, the bread will be distributed to
the entire congregation, and upon the instruction of the pastor all will eat at
the same time. Likewise, the wine is
distributed and consumed in unison. Both
pastors and deacons preside over the table, but the congregation takes the elements
rather than having them presented by the minister. This ability to participate in the
distribution is a product of the Baptist belief in the priesthood of all
believers, and the individual is believed to be completely capable of
participating in the process.[8]
Evaluating
the Roman Catholic Eucharist
There
are many components of the Roman Catholic Eucharist that are of immense value
to all of Christianity and reflect the beauty of the Lord’s Supper. The priority placed on the meal, a product of
Roman Catholic theology, creates a humble and reverent atmosphere that is most
certainly appropriate. Even if the
Lord’s Supper is a simple remembrance, it is a remembrance of Christ’s death
and crucifixion that should not be taken lightly. While there may be theological disagreements
on the presence of Christ at the table, remembering Christ should always create
an atmosphere of holy and humble reverence and recognition. Additionally, by recognizing both the
offertory and sacrificial nature of the supper, Roman Catholics present a
fuller understanding of Christ’s final meal, and recognize the full scope of
the crucifixion and the Christian response to Christ and the Father.
While
the closed table of Roman Catholicism does generate unity within Roman Catholic
churches, the tragedy is that in doing so those outside are prevented from
celebrating the Eucharist. As a
Christian institution, and one that initially created unity within a group as
diverse as Protestants and Catholics, exclusion within Christianity seems to be
at odds with the intent of the celebration.
If unity is to occur within Christianity, and “one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic Church”[9] is
to exist, surely Christians of all denominations must be welcomed at the communion table.
Finally,
concerning the frequency of the Eucharistic celebration there are both advantages
and disadvantages to the Roman Catholic approach. With such a high, sacramental focus, it makes
sense that the Eucharist would be offered daily. Furthermore, in doing so the Roman Catholic
faith has created an occasion for daily worship, a great advantage to those who
follow Christ within the Christian community.
At the same time, by offering the Eucharist daily, the celebration of
this most sacred sacrament runs the risk of becoming mundane. However, considering that it is the Roman
Catholic Church that holds the Eucharist in highest regard, this fear may be
unwarranted.
Evaluation
of Baptist Communion
Certainly
the most significant advantage to Baptist communion if the open table. As previously discussed, the very nature of
the Lord’s Supper calls for complete inclusion amongst Christians, and to deny
access to the table is both contrary to the initial intent and detrimental to
the unity of the Christian Church.
Viewing baptism as the initiation into the Christian faith, the
celebration of the Lord’s Supper is therefore the continued ritual practice of
the community. To deny access to
communion denies the legitimacy of one’s baptism, and with a denomination that
holds baptism in such high regard, it is appropriate that communion is
accessible to all believers.
Additionally, while the celebration of the table suffers because of it,
the prioritization of the word is certainly appropriate. Of course the ideal would be that both word
and table are held in the highest regard.
The
distribution of the elements is also significant. In consuming both the bread and the wine as a
community, the Baptist faith interestingly denies the individualism that is
often prevalent within the denomination.
Celebrating communion therefore becomes more of a communal event, which
is certainly appropriate.
At
the same time, Baptist communion does have its flaws. In an effort to distance themselves from
tradition many Baptists have consequently devalued the celebration of the
Lord’s Supper. Considering communion an
ordinance does not necessarily devalue the meal, but relegating the celebration
to a simple response to Christ’s command shifts the focus from the offertory
and sacrificial nature of the supper.
Essentially an ordinance runs the risk of “going through the motions”
and missing the importance behind the remembrance. Responding to the Baptist theology of the
Lord’s Supper as an ordinance, H. A. Renfree writes, “The Lord’s Supper has
been described as a ‘memorial feast’. It
is that, but it may and should be more; to the honest seeker it may be a means
of grace, a time when the Master draws very near.”[10]
Conclusion
As
has been presented, there are many advantages to both the Roman Catholic and
Baptist approach to the Lord’s Supper.
Neither way is perfect, but both present great contributions and
developed theologies that deserve attention.
The priority of the Lord’s Supper as well as the frequency with which it
is celebrated says a lot about the theologies of these two perspective
groups. If unity is to occur, the
theology behind the practice of both groups must be acknowledged, evaluated,
and accepted. There seems no need for a
completely uniform practice, as there is certainly no uniform church, but the
nature of the Lord’s Supper requires the acknowledgment of all Christians who
celebrate the final supper of their Founder.
The
very term “communion” suggests the unity of those who participate. By remembering Christ and celebrating the
offering and sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper, Christians acknowledge the saving
work of Christ for all humanity. To deny
access to the table is to deny the legitimacy of one’s faith, and if the Church
is to ever be one, this cannot be the case.
Diversity of practice should be celebrated, considering that it is
theologically sound, and the plethora of practices concerning the Lord’s Supper
should be seen as an advantage to Christianity.
Furthermore, the simple fact that essentially all Christians participate
in the Lord’s Supper in some form or fashion already creates a point of
resonance amongst denominations, and provides an opportunity upon which to
unite Christianity. Perhaps the greatest
celebration of the Lord’s Supper would be one in which Christians from all
denominations gathered to celebrate and remember the Christ who instituted the
meal, the Christ who prayed that His followers “be one, even as we (Father and
Son) are one”. Only when this unity is
realized can an authentic celebration of the Lord’s Supper fully capture the communal
nature intended at its institution.
[1]
Matthew Levy, Interview, 21 March 2013.
[2]
Ibid.
[4]
Robert Sokolowski, Eucharistic Presence: A Study in the Theology of Disclosure
(Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1994), p. 18.
[6]
Ibid. 1375.
[7]
Bill Coates, Interview, 22 March 2013.
[8]
Barry D. Morrison, In Spirit and in
Truth: The Theology and Spirituality of
the Lord’s Supper Within the Context of Worship in the Baptist Tradition
(Ph.D. dissertation, Regis College, 1988), pp. 102-103.
[9]
The Nicene Creed, Milestone
Documents, Web. 22 March 2013 http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/nicene-creed/text.
[10]
H.A. Renfree, “What Baptists Believe” (Baptist Union of Western Canada, n.d.).
No comments:
Post a Comment