Reflection on a Sacrament
Content
Reflection on a Sacrament
“Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian
men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good
will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only
quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.”
In other words, sacraments are not only outward symbols of a person’s faith,
but they are signs that God uses to demonstrate good will towards people.
Through the sacraments, God works in the hearts and lives of people to
inspire, as well as to strengthen, our faith in him. Some catechisms, trying to
make this point, call the sacraments “means of grace”.to say, Baptism and the
Supper of the Lord.”
In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis explains much clearer how God can use
physical things, such as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, to accomplish spiritual
purposes:
“This new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by
bodily acts like baptism and Holy Communion… There is no good trying to be
more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual
creature. That is why he uses material things like bread and wine to put the
new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not:
He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it.”
In saying that the new, spiritual life is spread to us by baptism, is Lewis
implying “baptismal regeneration”? In a private letter, Lewis once explained
that, to him, the debate about baptism wasn’t one worth having. It all
depended on how one was using one’s words. For example, he said a man may
say he “became a soldier” the day he enlisted in the military. On other hand,
his superior officer may say of the same man, after he’s gone through weeks of
training, “We’ve finally made a soldier of him.” Both statements, as far as they
go, are true. Similarly, there was no point in debating whether a person is
“made a Christian” by baptism.
In the New Testament, it’s simply impossible to disassociate baptism from
church membership—it was simply a given that all who professed Christ had
been baptized, and in all of his epistles Paul takes it for granted that every
member of the congregations to which he was writing had been baptized. This
is not to say, though, that it’s impossible for a person to believe in Christ and
be saved by him without undergoing baptism. Death bed conversions prove
this point. As Lewis explained, “These [baptism, belief, and Holy Communion]
are the three ordinary methods. I am not saying there may not be special
cases where it is spread without one or more of these… Anyone who professes
to teach you Christian doctrine will, in fact, tell you to use all three, and that is
enough for our present purpose.”
Article 16 mentions confirmation, penance, ordination, marriage, and
extreme unction (or last rites), explaining that these are not to be regarded as
sacraments. That’s not to derogate the practices themselves. For the most
part, Methodists still practice confirmation (as do Anglicans and Lutherans),
but they do not regard it as a sacrament. They regard it as a tradition, good in
itself, but one that is of human origin, not something commanded by Christ
himself. Anglicans and Lutherans also retained the practice of confessing sins
to a pastor and receiving absolution, which is the heart of what penance is
about, but they do not regard it as a sacrament.
The same can be said of ordination and last rites—Anglicans still, for the
most part, observe these ordinances, but do not put them on par with baptism
and the Lord’s Supper. Evangelicals generally define sacraments as ordinances
instituted by Christ himself, and as marriage pre-dates the Christian church,
going all the way back to Adam and Eve, it doesn’t exactly fit the definition.
That, of course, is not meant as saying anything against marriage.
Interestingly, even in churches where seven sacraments are generally
observed (such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy), baptism and
Communion are hailed as the most important two. Hence, lest we walk away
thinking Christians are hopelessly divided over the nature of sacraments, we
find that there really is tremendous common ground on this issue.
In closing, Article 16 says, “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to
be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And
in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or
operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves
condemnation, as St. Paul saith.”
What is the article talking about when it says sacraments are not to be
“gazed upon or carried about”? This is saying that the bread and wine of
communion should be used, but shouldn’t be venerated or adored, as is the
custom in some churches. Some who believe Christ is physically present in the
elements argue that it is appropriate to worship Christ in the bread. Without
yet delving into the debate over the nature of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s
Supper, the article rules out venerating the elements on the simple basis that
Christ never commanded this to be done.
Earlier, it was said that the sacraments are regarded as “means of grace”.
The final sentence explains that only those who come to the Lord’s Supper
believing in Christ and trusting in his promise actually experience the intended
blessing of the meal. As Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11, those who participate
irreverently actually bring upon themselves God’s anger, instead of his favor.
There is no disagreement between Methodists and Presbyterians on the
nature of the sacraments. If one cross references the section on the
sacraments in the 39 Articles, the 25 Articles, and the Westminster Confession,
one finds remarkable similarities. Why? The Westminster Confession, was
based on and largely an elaboration of the Church of England’s 39 Articles of
Religion; the 25 Methodist Articles of Religion, which John Wesley composed
for the American Methodists, was also based on the 39 Articles, and was
largely an abbreviated version of them. It should, therefore, come as no
surprise if the Westminster Confession and the 25 Articles sound strikingly
similar at times, since they are based on the same document.
Relationship of Sacrament and Christ
The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic
Questions and Answers
Produced by the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops and approved by the full body of bishops at their June
2001 General Meeting. The text is authorized for publication by the
undersigned.
Monsignor William P. Fay
General Secretary, USCCB
Introduction
The Lord Jesus, on the night before he suffered on the cross, shared one last
meal with his disciples. During this meal our Savior instituted the sacrament
of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the
Cross throughout the ages and to entrust to the Church his Spouse a
memorial of his death and resurrection. As the Gospel of Matthew tells us:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and
giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a
cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for
this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for
the forgiveness of sins." (Mt 26:26-28; cf. Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:17-20, 1 Cor
11:23-25)
Recalling these words of Jesus, the Catholic Church professes that, in the
celebration of the Eucharist, bread and wine become the Body and Blood of
Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit and the instrumentality of
the priest. Jesus said: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven;
whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my
flesh for the life of the world. . . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is
true drink" (Jn 6:51-55). The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul,
and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ
who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church
means when she speaks of the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist.
This presence of Christ in the Eucharist is called "real" not to exclude other
types of his presence as if they could not be understood as real (cf.
Catechism, no. 1374). The risen Christ is present to his Church in many
ways, but most especially through the sacrament of his Body and Blood.
What does it mean that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist under the
appearances of bread and wine? How does this happen? The presence of the
risen Christ in the Eucharist is an inexhaustible mystery that the Church can
never fully explain in words. We must remember that the triune God is the
creator of all that exists and has the power to do more than we can possibly
imagine. As St. Ambrose said: "If the word of the Lord Jesus is so powerful
as to bring into existence things which were not, then a fortiori those things
which already exist can be changed into something else" ( De Sacramentis,
IV, 5-16). God created the world in order to share his life with persons who
are not God. This great plan of salvation reveals a wisdom that surpasses
our understanding. But we are not left in ignorance: for out of his love for
us, God reveals his truth to us in ways that we can understand through the
gift of faith and the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. We are thus
enabled to understand at least in some measure what would otherwise
remain unknown to us, though we can never completely comprehend the
mystery of God.
As successors of the Apostles and teachers of the Church, the bishops have
the duty to hand on what God has revealed to us and to encourage all
members of the Church to deepen their understanding of the mystery and
gift of the Eucharist. In order to foster such a deepening of faith, we have
prepared this text to respond to fifteen questions that commonly arise with
regard to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We offer this text to
pastors and religious educators to assist them in their teaching
responsibilities. We recognize that some of these questions involve rather
complex theological ideas. It is our hope, however, that study and discussion
of the text will aid many of the Catholic faithful in our country to enrich their
understanding of this mystery of the faith.
Brief History of a Sacrament
This is a complex definition, so let's break it down.
The word efficacious means 'effective.' This means that according to
Catholic teachings, sacraments do what they say they do. Because of
God's power, they simply work, Catholics believe.
A sign is an object, word, or gesture that points to something beyond
itself. According to Catholic teaching, sacraments use all kinds of
human objects, words, and gestures, but all of these point beyond
themselves to something greater, to God and His grace.
Catholics define grace as God's free gift of His presence, His help, and
His salvation.
Catholics believe, then, that sacraments point to and are channels of God's
grace. They work as an effective means of communication between God and
His people.
Let's continue. According to Catholic doctrine:
The sacraments are instituted by Christ. Christ instituted all seven
sacraments as ways in which He could be present to His people even
after His Ascension into Heaven.
The sacraments are also entrusted to the Church. Christ gave the
sacraments to the Church so that the Church could dispense them to
the faithful.
The sacraments dispense divine life. People who receive the
sacraments actually share in the divine life of God. His presence enters
into their souls, He helps them to live the Christian life, and He saves
them so that they may reach eternal life.
According to the Catholic faith, the sacraments are a gift from God, given
through the Church as an outpouring of His love. Through the sacraments,
God justifies and sanctifies His people (i.e., He saves them and makes them
holy), He meets His people where they are in order to draw them up to Him,
He pours out His grace, He builds up the Church and He receives worship.
The Seven Sacraments
The Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments:
Baptism
Eucharist
Confirmation
Reconciliation
Anointing of the sick
Marriage
Holy orders
We will take a brief look at each of these. Please note that each definition
expresses orthodox Catholic doctrine.
In baptism, God's saving grace, His very presence, enters into the human
soul. The essential rite of baptism is very simple. The person celebrating the
sacrament (usually a priest) says 'I baptize you in the Name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' while pouring water over the head of
the person receiving the sacrament or dipping the person in water. For
Catholics, baptism is the sacrament of salvation and the door to all other
sacraments.
A Catholic Baptism
Those who partake in the Eucharist receive the real Body, Blood, Soul, and
Divinity of Jesus Christ in what appears to be bread and wine. During Mass,
regular bread and wine are consecrated by the priest, through God's power,
when he repeats Jesus's words, 'This is My Body' and 'This is the chalice of
My Blood.'
Confirmation provides a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which helps
the confirmed Catholic witness to Christ and lead a mature Christian life. The
rite of confirmation, usually performed by a bishop, involves the anointing
with chrism (holy oil), the laying on of hands, and the words 'Be sealed with
the gift of the Holy Spirit.'
In reconciliation, which is also called 'confession' or 'penance,' a Catholic
confesses his or her sins to a priest in the spirit of true repentance and
receives forgiveness. The priest acts as a visible representative of Christ,
who forgives sins through Him, when he says the words of absolution: 'I
absolve you of your sins in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit.'
Anointing of the sick offers the comfort of God's grace to those who are ill.
The sacrament provides spiritual and sometimes physical healing, according
to God's will, but also allows the sick person to join his or her sufferings to
Christ and prepare for death. The essential rite of this sacrament involves
anointing with the oil of the sick and prayer.
Marriage, or matrimony, joins a man and a woman together in a life-long
covenant of self-giving love. The two spouses give their consent to join
together in marriage as the Church defines it. God gives special grace to the
couple that they may live out their vow.
In holy orders, men are ordained as bishops, priests, and deacons through
a bishop's laying on of hands and prayer. These men are given the grace to
live out their lives in service to the Church and to God's people.
History of the Sacraments
Catholics believe that the seven sacraments were directly instituted by
Christ. He told His apostles to 'Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit...' (Matthew 27:19).
He also gave them the gift of the Eucharist on the night before He died when
He said, 'This is My Body' and 'This is the chalice of My Blood' (see Matthew
26:27-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-23).
Relationship of Sacrament and The
Church
In his bracing though sometimes problematic new book Evangelical
Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church, George Weigel
advances a vision for “deep reform” that he calls neither “progressive” nor
“traditionalist” but precisely “evangelical.” “Evangelical Catholicism” is heir to
a “deep reform” movement begun by Leo XIII—“deep” because a
fundamental reform of a centuries-old “Counter-Reformation” model of the
Church to one open to engagement with modern culture.
Instead of allowing the Church to retreat in the face of increasing
marginalization by the forces of modernity, Leo mobilized the evangelical
energy of the Church to affect the ambient culture in ways that were based
in the Church’s unique witness to the Gospel. Vatican II was not so much an
innovation as a further manifestation of what Leo had already begun.
The twenty-first-century Church will continue true to this reform if its terms
of reference become increasingly evangelical, for example, moving from
saying “the Church teaches” to “the Gospel reveals” when discussing the
faith. Further, “friendship with Jesus Christ” will be the center of Evangelical
Catholicism, not reliance on “canonical status” and the predominantly
juridical terms in which Counter-Reformation Catholicism defined its identity.
Evangelical Catholicism “begins with meeting and knowing the Lord himself.”
Catholic identity is approached “not primarily through the legal question of
canonical boundaries, but through the theological reality of different degrees
of communion with the Church,” on the analogy of the degrees of
communion used to describe the relative closeness or distance remaining
between the Catholic Church and separated Christian communions. Members
of the Church can also be said to exist in different degrees of communion
with the Church according to their adherence to Church teaching and their
robust friendship with Jesus.
Weigel argues that the twin criteria of truth and mission, the goal of which is
sanctification, are the criteria for the reform of all of the vocations in the
Church. Truth and mission both bring their gifts to bear, in a spirit of
continuing conversion, on missionary proclamation of the truth, building up a
culture conducive to Gospel values. The “deeply reformed” Church becomes
an evangelizing presence in the modern world, wherever she finds herself.
There is much to commend in this vision of the Church. If the Catholic
reader experiences some feeling of discomfort, the feeling is surely partly
due to being called out of the Catholic comfort zone in which one takes one’s
religion for granted, as an essentially private affair that places no particularly
urgent demands for proclamation of the Gospel in word and deed.
But it is also sometimes hard to distinguish this beneficial discomfort from
the worry that, despite Weigel’s disclaimer distinguishing Evangelical
Catholicism from Protestant Evangelicalism, the ecclesiology implied in his
descriptions of Evangelical Catholicism threatens to leave behind
fundamental features of Catholic ecclesiology.
For example: “Evangelical Catholics know that friendship with the Lord Jesus
and the communion that arises from that friendship is an anticipation of the
City of God in the city of this world.” Despite the echo of Augustinian
language, the theological syntax is foreign to the Augustine of the City of
God and to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which invokes his
ecclesiology of the totus Christus. The communion of the Church does not
arise from personal friendship with the Lord Jesus, but from Christ’s
undeserved, atoning love which, mediated by the sacraments, makes the
Church. The Church is the bond of communion, whether it is consciously
known in a subjective friendship or not.
Weigel’s account of this friendship and its relation to what constitutes the
Church is ambiguous. He says it is “found in the Church” and yet insists
strongly that “You are a Catholic because you have met the Lord Jesus and
entered into a mature friendship with him”which is to say, in evangelically
Catholic language, that the sacramental grace of your Baptism, should you
have been baptized as an infant, has been made manifest in the pattern of
your life.” But the truth is, you are a Catholic because you were baptized and
thereby made a member of the one Body, espoused into one flesh with the
Bridegroom. There is no amount of subjective friendship that can replace or
add anything substantial in comparison with this utter gift. Weigel’s
formulation reduces this sacramental bond to something merely legal.
Weigel claims that “evangelical Catholics who adhere to the Gospel? . . . are
in fuller communion with evangelical Protestants who affirm classic Christian
orthodoxy” than they are with prominent dissident (but not
excommunicated) Catholic theologians. But surely it is precisely “classic”
Catholic orthodoxy on the Church that is the fundamental difference
separating Evangelical Protestants and Catholics.
Weigel’s claim is intended to illustrate his idea of “degrees of communion”
within the Church, an idea not referenced to any magisterial source. If
thematized consistently, it would mean that the blood of Christ is not really
efficacious unto communion, but it is rather the purity and virtue of core
individual members of the Church that form the real bonds of communion.
Weigel seems to recognize, with Augustine, that the Church is a mixed body
of wheat and tares. He says that deep reform “is not a matter of
preemptively burning out the weeds, although it will involve some radical
clarification of what are in fact weeds.” But Augustine’s point is that you
cannot now clarify this at all. This does not mean that we cannot identify
false teaching and bad behavior and lovingly exhort or require correction,
but it does mean that the identity of the Church is radically sacramental, not
based on advance knowledge of eschatological clarity.
It is significant that Weigel claims Dei Verbum, not Lumen Gentium , is “the
key Vatican II document for the deep reform of the Catholic Church.” He
never mentions the doctrine, prominent in Lumen Gentium and emphatically
repeated in the Catechism, that the Church is the sacrament of communion
with God and of unity among human beings.
In fact, this is its “first purpose.” The Church can be this because she is born
not primarily from our works, confession, or conduct, but because she is
“born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation anticipated in the
institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross,” and she comes forth
from his side as his Bride, joined to him in one flesh as one Body.
Weigel substitutes for this teaching the doctrine of Christ as the primordial
sacrament of the human encounter with God, an expression not used in the
Catechism. He uses it, in effect, to replace the doctrine of the Church as
sacrament: “Evangelical Catholicism begins with meeting and knowing the
Lord himself, the primordial Sacrament of the human encounter with God.”
Repeating Schillebeeckx’ formula without any corresponding emphasis on
the sacramental nature of the Church tends to separate Christ from the
Church, despite Weigel’s best intentions, replacing the sacramental nature of
the Church in the world with “the Lord himself,” who is thus ambiguously
located relative to his own Body. The intimate one-flesh union of Christ with
his Spouse is vitiated. The “Lord himself” becomes ambivalently available for
subjective experiences of personal friendship.
Weigel comments, “The joy of being in the presence of the Lord is the
sustaining dynamic of the communion, the unique form of human
community, that is the Church.” But is that really true? The sustaining
dynamic of the communion that is the Church is the all-surpassing sacrifice
of Christ. Establishing Christ as the “primordial sacrament” without any
evident relationship to the Church as sacrament leaves the Church as simply
a “unique form of human community.”
Ironically, for a cultural critic, this weakens the perspective that the Church
can bring to bear on all of the absolutizing claims of the kingdoms of this
world. For it is only a community that is not formed on the basis of claims of
human purity, achievement, or excellence, however unique, that can
mediate perspective, simply by its very presence in the world, on those that
are.
To be fair, Weigel does not develop the ecclesiology drawn above. Yet it is
not clearly blocked, and it would seem the author’s responsibility to do so.
Otherwise, the “deep reform” of the Catholic Church will, despite the
author’s laudable goals, turn out to be not merely a reform, but a rejection.
That being said, one is hard pressed not to admire the contagious spirit of
evangelical zeal that fills Weigel’s call for specific reforms, and perhaps the
textual infusion of this spirit in the reader is the major contribution of this
book. Weigel first argues that the reform of the episcopate, and of overly
bureaucratized episcopal conferences with little mechanism for fraternal
correction or evangelical response, is the most pressing reform needed.
The sexual abuse scandal was essentially a “grave crisis of episcopal
malfeasance and misgovernance” and “the key” to reform involves a change
in criteria by which candidates for bishops are identified. He is right that we
need to have new criteria for electing bishops and a new process that
includes broader consultation, rectifying “the absence of any serious lay
input.” He notes the irony that Karol Wojtyla, only thirty-eight when ordained
a bishop, and known more for his preaching, teaching, and friendships with
layfolk than for his oiling of the gears of episcopal advancement, would not
have been likely to have been selected today.
A reform of the priesthood away from clericalism is the next desideratum,
with reforms in seminary education, especially in the teaching of Scripture.
Clericalism substitutes for effectiveness. A pedagogy that relies too
exclusively on historico-critical methodologies, without corresponding,
equally sophisticated attention to understanding how Scripture is the Word
of God, undermines confidence in Scripture as the Word of God, contributing
to lackluster, moralizing preaching that does not know how to reach into the
spiritual depths of the text. The teaching of Dei Verbum, which called both
for historical contextualization and contextualization in the “analogy of faith,”
is left largely untried.
Also, reforms of liturgical styles that over-emphasize the personality of the
celebrant, and of hymnody that trivializes the doctrines it sings, are clearly
desirable. The continuing reform of the papacy such that the “evangelical”
modes of popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI continue to displace the
model of “CEO of Catholic Church Inc.” is surely a desideratum, as Weigel
suggests. So is a reform of the College of Cardinals making it more globally
representative, and a reform of the Roman Curia, source of recent scandals
and safe haven for professional incompetence.
Oh—I was conveniently about to forget what cuts closest to myself—the laity
are by no means exempted from evangelical reform, especially where the
practice of the faith requires a countercultural witness that demands us all to
step out of our Counter-Reformation Catholic comfort zones and take a
greater responsibility for evangelization in the home, family, work, society,
and public square.
“Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian
men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good
will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only
quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.”
In other words, sacraments are not only outward symbols of a person’s faith,
but they are signs that God uses to demonstrate good will towards people.
Through the sacraments, God works in the hearts and lives of people to
inspire, as well as to strengthen, our faith in him. Some catechisms, trying to
make this point, call the sacraments “means of grace”.to say, Baptism and the
Supper of the Lord.”
In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis explains much clearer how God can use
physical things, such as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, to accomplish spiritual
purposes:
“This new life is spread not only by purely mental acts like belief, but by
bodily acts like baptism and Holy Communion… There is no good trying to be
more spiritual than God. God never meant man to be a purely spiritual
creature. That is why he uses material things like bread and wine to put the
new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not:
He invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it.”
In saying that the new, spiritual life is spread to us by baptism, is Lewis
implying “baptismal regeneration”? In a private letter, Lewis once explained
that, to him, the debate about baptism wasn’t one worth having. It all
depended on how one was using one’s words. For example, he said a man may
say he “became a soldier” the day he enlisted in the military. On other hand,
his superior officer may say of the same man, after he’s gone through weeks of
training, “We’ve finally made a soldier of him.” Both statements, as far as they
go, are true. Similarly, there was no point in debating whether a person is
“made a Christian” by baptism.
In the New Testament, it’s simply impossible to disassociate baptism from
church membership—it was simply a given that all who professed Christ had
been baptized, and in all of his epistles Paul takes it for granted that every
member of the congregations to which he was writing had been baptized. This
is not to say, though, that it’s impossible for a person to believe in Christ and
be saved by him without undergoing baptism. Death bed conversions prove
this point. As Lewis explained, “These [baptism, belief, and Holy Communion]
are the three ordinary methods. I am not saying there may not be special
cases where it is spread without one or more of these… Anyone who professes
to teach you Christian doctrine will, in fact, tell you to use all three, and that is
enough for our present purpose.”
Article 16 mentions confirmation, penance, ordination, marriage, and
extreme unction (or last rites), explaining that these are not to be regarded as
sacraments. That’s not to derogate the practices themselves. For the most
part, Methodists still practice confirmation (as do Anglicans and Lutherans),
but they do not regard it as a sacrament. They regard it as a tradition, good in
itself, but one that is of human origin, not something commanded by Christ
himself. Anglicans and Lutherans also retained the practice of confessing sins
to a pastor and receiving absolution, which is the heart of what penance is
about, but they do not regard it as a sacrament.
The same can be said of ordination and last rites—Anglicans still, for the
most part, observe these ordinances, but do not put them on par with baptism
and the Lord’s Supper. Evangelicals generally define sacraments as ordinances
instituted by Christ himself, and as marriage pre-dates the Christian church,
going all the way back to Adam and Eve, it doesn’t exactly fit the definition.
That, of course, is not meant as saying anything against marriage.
Interestingly, even in churches where seven sacraments are generally
observed (such as Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy), baptism and
Communion are hailed as the most important two. Hence, lest we walk away
thinking Christians are hopelessly divided over the nature of sacraments, we
find that there really is tremendous common ground on this issue.
In closing, Article 16 says, “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to
be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And
in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or
operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves
condemnation, as St. Paul saith.”
What is the article talking about when it says sacraments are not to be
“gazed upon or carried about”? This is saying that the bread and wine of
communion should be used, but shouldn’t be venerated or adored, as is the
custom in some churches. Some who believe Christ is physically present in the
elements argue that it is appropriate to worship Christ in the bread. Without
yet delving into the debate over the nature of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s
Supper, the article rules out venerating the elements on the simple basis that
Christ never commanded this to be done.
Earlier, it was said that the sacraments are regarded as “means of grace”.
The final sentence explains that only those who come to the Lord’s Supper
believing in Christ and trusting in his promise actually experience the intended
blessing of the meal. As Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11, those who participate
irreverently actually bring upon themselves God’s anger, instead of his favor.
There is no disagreement between Methodists and Presbyterians on the
nature of the sacraments. If one cross references the section on the
sacraments in the 39 Articles, the 25 Articles, and the Westminster Confession,
one finds remarkable similarities. Why? The Westminster Confession, was
based on and largely an elaboration of the Church of England’s 39 Articles of
Religion; the 25 Methodist Articles of Religion, which John Wesley composed
for the American Methodists, was also based on the 39 Articles, and was
largely an abbreviated version of them. It should, therefore, come as no
surprise if the Westminster Confession and the 25 Articles sound strikingly
similar at times, since they are based on the same document.
Relationship of Sacrament and Christ
The Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist: Basic
Questions and Answers
Produced by the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops and approved by the full body of bishops at their June
2001 General Meeting. The text is authorized for publication by the
undersigned.
Monsignor William P. Fay
General Secretary, USCCB
Introduction
The Lord Jesus, on the night before he suffered on the cross, shared one last
meal with his disciples. During this meal our Savior instituted the sacrament
of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the
Cross throughout the ages and to entrust to the Church his Spouse a
memorial of his death and resurrection. As the Gospel of Matthew tells us:
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and
giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a
cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for
this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for
the forgiveness of sins." (Mt 26:26-28; cf. Mk 14:22-24, Lk 22:17-20, 1 Cor
11:23-25)
Recalling these words of Jesus, the Catholic Church professes that, in the
celebration of the Eucharist, bread and wine become the Body and Blood of
Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit and the instrumentality of
the priest. Jesus said: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven;
whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my
flesh for the life of the world. . . . For my flesh is true food, and my blood is
true drink" (Jn 6:51-55). The whole Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul,
and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine—the glorified Christ
who rose from the dead after dying for our sins. This is what the Church
means when she speaks of the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist.
This presence of Christ in the Eucharist is called "real" not to exclude other
types of his presence as if they could not be understood as real (cf.
Catechism, no. 1374). The risen Christ is present to his Church in many
ways, but most especially through the sacrament of his Body and Blood.
What does it mean that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist under the
appearances of bread and wine? How does this happen? The presence of the
risen Christ in the Eucharist is an inexhaustible mystery that the Church can
never fully explain in words. We must remember that the triune God is the
creator of all that exists and has the power to do more than we can possibly
imagine. As St. Ambrose said: "If the word of the Lord Jesus is so powerful
as to bring into existence things which were not, then a fortiori those things
which already exist can be changed into something else" ( De Sacramentis,
IV, 5-16). God created the world in order to share his life with persons who
are not God. This great plan of salvation reveals a wisdom that surpasses
our understanding. But we are not left in ignorance: for out of his love for
us, God reveals his truth to us in ways that we can understand through the
gift of faith and the grace of the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. We are thus
enabled to understand at least in some measure what would otherwise
remain unknown to us, though we can never completely comprehend the
mystery of God.
As successors of the Apostles and teachers of the Church, the bishops have
the duty to hand on what God has revealed to us and to encourage all
members of the Church to deepen their understanding of the mystery and
gift of the Eucharist. In order to foster such a deepening of faith, we have
prepared this text to respond to fifteen questions that commonly arise with
regard to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We offer this text to
pastors and religious educators to assist them in their teaching
responsibilities. We recognize that some of these questions involve rather
complex theological ideas. It is our hope, however, that study and discussion
of the text will aid many of the Catholic faithful in our country to enrich their
understanding of this mystery of the faith.
Brief History of a Sacrament
This is a complex definition, so let's break it down.
The word efficacious means 'effective.' This means that according to
Catholic teachings, sacraments do what they say they do. Because of
God's power, they simply work, Catholics believe.
A sign is an object, word, or gesture that points to something beyond
itself. According to Catholic teaching, sacraments use all kinds of
human objects, words, and gestures, but all of these point beyond
themselves to something greater, to God and His grace.
Catholics define grace as God's free gift of His presence, His help, and
His salvation.
Catholics believe, then, that sacraments point to and are channels of God's
grace. They work as an effective means of communication between God and
His people.
Let's continue. According to Catholic doctrine:
The sacraments are instituted by Christ. Christ instituted all seven
sacraments as ways in which He could be present to His people even
after His Ascension into Heaven.
The sacraments are also entrusted to the Church. Christ gave the
sacraments to the Church so that the Church could dispense them to
the faithful.
The sacraments dispense divine life. People who receive the
sacraments actually share in the divine life of God. His presence enters
into their souls, He helps them to live the Christian life, and He saves
them so that they may reach eternal life.
According to the Catholic faith, the sacraments are a gift from God, given
through the Church as an outpouring of His love. Through the sacraments,
God justifies and sanctifies His people (i.e., He saves them and makes them
holy), He meets His people where they are in order to draw them up to Him,
He pours out His grace, He builds up the Church and He receives worship.
The Seven Sacraments
The Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments:
Baptism
Eucharist
Confirmation
Reconciliation
Anointing of the sick
Marriage
Holy orders
We will take a brief look at each of these. Please note that each definition
expresses orthodox Catholic doctrine.
In baptism, God's saving grace, His very presence, enters into the human
soul. The essential rite of baptism is very simple. The person celebrating the
sacrament (usually a priest) says 'I baptize you in the Name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' while pouring water over the head of
the person receiving the sacrament or dipping the person in water. For
Catholics, baptism is the sacrament of salvation and the door to all other
sacraments.
A Catholic Baptism
Those who partake in the Eucharist receive the real Body, Blood, Soul, and
Divinity of Jesus Christ in what appears to be bread and wine. During Mass,
regular bread and wine are consecrated by the priest, through God's power,
when he repeats Jesus's words, 'This is My Body' and 'This is the chalice of
My Blood.'
Confirmation provides a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which helps
the confirmed Catholic witness to Christ and lead a mature Christian life. The
rite of confirmation, usually performed by a bishop, involves the anointing
with chrism (holy oil), the laying on of hands, and the words 'Be sealed with
the gift of the Holy Spirit.'
In reconciliation, which is also called 'confession' or 'penance,' a Catholic
confesses his or her sins to a priest in the spirit of true repentance and
receives forgiveness. The priest acts as a visible representative of Christ,
who forgives sins through Him, when he says the words of absolution: 'I
absolve you of your sins in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit.'
Anointing of the sick offers the comfort of God's grace to those who are ill.
The sacrament provides spiritual and sometimes physical healing, according
to God's will, but also allows the sick person to join his or her sufferings to
Christ and prepare for death. The essential rite of this sacrament involves
anointing with the oil of the sick and prayer.
Marriage, or matrimony, joins a man and a woman together in a life-long
covenant of self-giving love. The two spouses give their consent to join
together in marriage as the Church defines it. God gives special grace to the
couple that they may live out their vow.
In holy orders, men are ordained as bishops, priests, and deacons through
a bishop's laying on of hands and prayer. These men are given the grace to
live out their lives in service to the Church and to God's people.
History of the Sacraments
Catholics believe that the seven sacraments were directly instituted by
Christ. He told His apostles to 'Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit...' (Matthew 27:19).
He also gave them the gift of the Eucharist on the night before He died when
He said, 'This is My Body' and 'This is the chalice of My Blood' (see Matthew
26:27-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-23).
Relationship of Sacrament and The
Church
In his bracing though sometimes problematic new book Evangelical
Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church, George Weigel
advances a vision for “deep reform” that he calls neither “progressive” nor
“traditionalist” but precisely “evangelical.” “Evangelical Catholicism” is heir to
a “deep reform” movement begun by Leo XIII—“deep” because a
fundamental reform of a centuries-old “Counter-Reformation” model of the
Church to one open to engagement with modern culture.
Instead of allowing the Church to retreat in the face of increasing
marginalization by the forces of modernity, Leo mobilized the evangelical
energy of the Church to affect the ambient culture in ways that were based
in the Church’s unique witness to the Gospel. Vatican II was not so much an
innovation as a further manifestation of what Leo had already begun.
The twenty-first-century Church will continue true to this reform if its terms
of reference become increasingly evangelical, for example, moving from
saying “the Church teaches” to “the Gospel reveals” when discussing the
faith. Further, “friendship with Jesus Christ” will be the center of Evangelical
Catholicism, not reliance on “canonical status” and the predominantly
juridical terms in which Counter-Reformation Catholicism defined its identity.
Evangelical Catholicism “begins with meeting and knowing the Lord himself.”
Catholic identity is approached “not primarily through the legal question of
canonical boundaries, but through the theological reality of different degrees
of communion with the Church,” on the analogy of the degrees of
communion used to describe the relative closeness or distance remaining
between the Catholic Church and separated Christian communions. Members
of the Church can also be said to exist in different degrees of communion
with the Church according to their adherence to Church teaching and their
robust friendship with Jesus.
Weigel argues that the twin criteria of truth and mission, the goal of which is
sanctification, are the criteria for the reform of all of the vocations in the
Church. Truth and mission both bring their gifts to bear, in a spirit of
continuing conversion, on missionary proclamation of the truth, building up a
culture conducive to Gospel values. The “deeply reformed” Church becomes
an evangelizing presence in the modern world, wherever she finds herself.
There is much to commend in this vision of the Church. If the Catholic
reader experiences some feeling of discomfort, the feeling is surely partly
due to being called out of the Catholic comfort zone in which one takes one’s
religion for granted, as an essentially private affair that places no particularly
urgent demands for proclamation of the Gospel in word and deed.
But it is also sometimes hard to distinguish this beneficial discomfort from
the worry that, despite Weigel’s disclaimer distinguishing Evangelical
Catholicism from Protestant Evangelicalism, the ecclesiology implied in his
descriptions of Evangelical Catholicism threatens to leave behind
fundamental features of Catholic ecclesiology.
For example: “Evangelical Catholics know that friendship with the Lord Jesus
and the communion that arises from that friendship is an anticipation of the
City of God in the city of this world.” Despite the echo of Augustinian
language, the theological syntax is foreign to the Augustine of the City of
God and to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which invokes his
ecclesiology of the totus Christus. The communion of the Church does not
arise from personal friendship with the Lord Jesus, but from Christ’s
undeserved, atoning love which, mediated by the sacraments, makes the
Church. The Church is the bond of communion, whether it is consciously
known in a subjective friendship or not.
Weigel’s account of this friendship and its relation to what constitutes the
Church is ambiguous. He says it is “found in the Church” and yet insists
strongly that “You are a Catholic because you have met the Lord Jesus and
entered into a mature friendship with him”which is to say, in evangelically
Catholic language, that the sacramental grace of your Baptism, should you
have been baptized as an infant, has been made manifest in the pattern of
your life.” But the truth is, you are a Catholic because you were baptized and
thereby made a member of the one Body, espoused into one flesh with the
Bridegroom. There is no amount of subjective friendship that can replace or
add anything substantial in comparison with this utter gift. Weigel’s
formulation reduces this sacramental bond to something merely legal.
Weigel claims that “evangelical Catholics who adhere to the Gospel? . . . are
in fuller communion with evangelical Protestants who affirm classic Christian
orthodoxy” than they are with prominent dissident (but not
excommunicated) Catholic theologians. But surely it is precisely “classic”
Catholic orthodoxy on the Church that is the fundamental difference
separating Evangelical Protestants and Catholics.
Weigel’s claim is intended to illustrate his idea of “degrees of communion”
within the Church, an idea not referenced to any magisterial source. If
thematized consistently, it would mean that the blood of Christ is not really
efficacious unto communion, but it is rather the purity and virtue of core
individual members of the Church that form the real bonds of communion.
Weigel seems to recognize, with Augustine, that the Church is a mixed body
of wheat and tares. He says that deep reform “is not a matter of
preemptively burning out the weeds, although it will involve some radical
clarification of what are in fact weeds.” But Augustine’s point is that you
cannot now clarify this at all. This does not mean that we cannot identify
false teaching and bad behavior and lovingly exhort or require correction,
but it does mean that the identity of the Church is radically sacramental, not
based on advance knowledge of eschatological clarity.
It is significant that Weigel claims Dei Verbum, not Lumen Gentium , is “the
key Vatican II document for the deep reform of the Catholic Church.” He
never mentions the doctrine, prominent in Lumen Gentium and emphatically
repeated in the Catechism, that the Church is the sacrament of communion
with God and of unity among human beings.
In fact, this is its “first purpose.” The Church can be this because she is born
not primarily from our works, confession, or conduct, but because she is
“born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation anticipated in the
institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross,” and she comes forth
from his side as his Bride, joined to him in one flesh as one Body.
Weigel substitutes for this teaching the doctrine of Christ as the primordial
sacrament of the human encounter with God, an expression not used in the
Catechism. He uses it, in effect, to replace the doctrine of the Church as
sacrament: “Evangelical Catholicism begins with meeting and knowing the
Lord himself, the primordial Sacrament of the human encounter with God.”
Repeating Schillebeeckx’ formula without any corresponding emphasis on
the sacramental nature of the Church tends to separate Christ from the
Church, despite Weigel’s best intentions, replacing the sacramental nature of
the Church in the world with “the Lord himself,” who is thus ambiguously
located relative to his own Body. The intimate one-flesh union of Christ with
his Spouse is vitiated. The “Lord himself” becomes ambivalently available for
subjective experiences of personal friendship.
Weigel comments, “The joy of being in the presence of the Lord is the
sustaining dynamic of the communion, the unique form of human
community, that is the Church.” But is that really true? The sustaining
dynamic of the communion that is the Church is the all-surpassing sacrifice
of Christ. Establishing Christ as the “primordial sacrament” without any
evident relationship to the Church as sacrament leaves the Church as simply
a “unique form of human community.”
Ironically, for a cultural critic, this weakens the perspective that the Church
can bring to bear on all of the absolutizing claims of the kingdoms of this
world. For it is only a community that is not formed on the basis of claims of
human purity, achievement, or excellence, however unique, that can
mediate perspective, simply by its very presence in the world, on those that
are.
To be fair, Weigel does not develop the ecclesiology drawn above. Yet it is
not clearly blocked, and it would seem the author’s responsibility to do so.
Otherwise, the “deep reform” of the Catholic Church will, despite the
author’s laudable goals, turn out to be not merely a reform, but a rejection.
That being said, one is hard pressed not to admire the contagious spirit of
evangelical zeal that fills Weigel’s call for specific reforms, and perhaps the
textual infusion of this spirit in the reader is the major contribution of this
book. Weigel first argues that the reform of the episcopate, and of overly
bureaucratized episcopal conferences with little mechanism for fraternal
correction or evangelical response, is the most pressing reform needed.
The sexual abuse scandal was essentially a “grave crisis of episcopal
malfeasance and misgovernance” and “the key” to reform involves a change
in criteria by which candidates for bishops are identified. He is right that we
need to have new criteria for electing bishops and a new process that
includes broader consultation, rectifying “the absence of any serious lay
input.” He notes the irony that Karol Wojtyla, only thirty-eight when ordained
a bishop, and known more for his preaching, teaching, and friendships with
layfolk than for his oiling of the gears of episcopal advancement, would not
have been likely to have been selected today.
A reform of the priesthood away from clericalism is the next desideratum,
with reforms in seminary education, especially in the teaching of Scripture.
Clericalism substitutes for effectiveness. A pedagogy that relies too
exclusively on historico-critical methodologies, without corresponding,
equally sophisticated attention to understanding how Scripture is the Word
of God, undermines confidence in Scripture as the Word of God, contributing
to lackluster, moralizing preaching that does not know how to reach into the
spiritual depths of the text. The teaching of Dei Verbum, which called both
for historical contextualization and contextualization in the “analogy of faith,”
is left largely untried.
Also, reforms of liturgical styles that over-emphasize the personality of the
celebrant, and of hymnody that trivializes the doctrines it sings, are clearly
desirable. The continuing reform of the papacy such that the “evangelical”
modes of popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI continue to displace the
model of “CEO of Catholic Church Inc.” is surely a desideratum, as Weigel
suggests. So is a reform of the College of Cardinals making it more globally
representative, and a reform of the Roman Curia, source of recent scandals
and safe haven for professional incompetence.
Oh—I was conveniently about to forget what cuts closest to myself—the laity
are by no means exempted from evangelical reform, especially where the
practice of the faith requires a countercultural witness that demands us all to
step out of our Counter-Reformation Catholic comfort zones and take a
greater responsibility for evangelization in the home, family, work, society,
and public square.
