As a non-Catholic studying theology at a Catholic university, I often think about the possiblity of intercommunion, that is, sharing the Eucharist with my Catholic sisters and brothers. Often you will hear Protestants speak against any exclusion when it comes to sharing the Eucharist, for all are welcome at the table. Yes, all are welcome at the Lord’s table - this must be affirmed. God calls his people to share communion together not apart. Does this mean, therefore, that protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox, should now begin to share the Eucharist together? No! because the truth of the matter is that we are divided and not in communion. It is our hope that all will come into communion, but until that day we must be honest about where divisions exist. As Zizioulas notes, “In disagreeing with [intercommunion], we do not preach exclusiveness and exclusion of the other; we simply acknowledge that such an exclusion does exist, and until the causes of it are removed, communion with the other’ suffers” (Zizioulas,Communion & Otherness, 8).
The Words of Institution always remain consecratory for every Eucharist celebration regardless of whether they are recited or not. Therefore, even though it does not contain the Words of Institution, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari traditionally used in the Assyrian Church of the East is rightly considered a valid Eucharist celebration by the Roman Catholic Church. In his article “Mass without Consecration?” Robert F. Taft defends the Catholic Church’s recent declaration that this prayer, though absent of the Words of Institution, is still valid. He argues that the Latin West in the Late Middle Ages narrowly understood the Words of Institution as a sort of formula that, at the precise moment when recited by a priest, effected the consecration of the gifts of the Eucharist. The problem with this view is that it isolates the Words of Institution from the rest of the Eucharistic prayer.
Taft defends the Catholic Church’s validation of Addai and Mari on the basis that it is more faithful to the practices of the undivided early Church. Furthermore, there is much evidence to suggest that Addai and Mari is one of most ancient Anaphoras. In fact, some scholars have argued it is likely that Addai and Mari was not the only Anaphora without the Words of Institution in the early Church. All of this, however, does not deny or discount the Catholic insistence that the Words of Institution are both “constitutive” and “indispensable,” for as Taft rightly states, “they are words eternally efficacious in the mouth of Jesus.” Addai and Mari is valid precisely because, in the view of John Chrysostom, consecratory power is to be found not in its priestly recitation but in the historical moment of Jesus’ institution of the prayer.
The unity of the whole church of Christ depends, in no small part, on the Roman Catholic Church’s active engagement and involvement in the affairs of ecumenical theology. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council’s Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio rightly asserts that division “openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the Good News to every creature.” The Decree exhorts all the Catholic faithful to “participate actively in the work of ecumenism.” Indeed, the hope for Christian unity was not only a fundamental element of the Second Vatican Council but it was once again reiterated in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Ut Unum Sint in which he reminds Catholics that the task of ecumenism is not secondary to the mission of the church but “stands at the very heart of Christ’s mission.”
Roman Catholic engagement and involvement in ecumenical theology ought to be characterized by a posture of openness and humility. The Catholic Church’s commitment to unity must start with an openness to the Holy Spirit at work in non-Catholic communities. Openness coupled with a posture of humility creates a space for healthy dialogue with other Christian communities. Furthermore, if the hope for unity is grounded in the belief that Christ is the true head of the whole Church, reconciling all of humanity to himself, openness and humility will flow from the heart of Catholicism. Finally, we must hope with Pope John Paul II, “By God’s grace… neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed.”
The transcendence of the ontological necessity and exclusiveness entailed by the biological hypostatis constitutes an experience which is offered by the eucharist. When it is understood in its correct and primitive sense-and not how it has come to be regarded even in Orthodoxy under the influence of Western scholasticism-the eucharist is first of all an assembly (synaxis), a community, a network of relations, in which man “subsists” in a manner different from the biological as a member of a body which transcends every exclusiveness of a biological or social kind. The eucharist is the only historical context of human existence where the terms “father,” “brother,” etc., lose their biological exclusiveness and reveal, as we have seen, relationships of free and universal love.
John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion (New York: St Vladimir’s Press, 1985), 60.
Bridgefolk is a movement that seeks ecumenical dialogue between Roman Catholicism and the Mennonite tradition. According to their website,
Bridgefolk is a movement of sacramentally-minded Mennonites and peace-minded Roman Catholics who come together to celebrate each other’s traditions, explore each other’s practices, and honor each other’s contribution to the mission of Christ’s Church. Together we seek better ways to embody a commitment to both traditions. We seek to make Anabaptist-Mennonite practices of discipleship, peaceableness, and lay participation more accessible to Roman Catholics, and to bring the spiritual, liturgical, and sacramental practices of the Catholic tradition to Anabaptists.
I first heard about Bridgefolk as an undergraduate from a theology professor of mine at the University of St. Thomas, Gerald W. Schlabach. Although I was attracted to Dr. Schlabach because I share his theological leanings, we actually met and began to talk when we realized that we shared something in common: we both smoke pipe tobacco. Schlabach and I had many conversations about theology and ethics while smoking a pipe between classes outside the theology wing at St. Thomas. Recently, I have become more interested in Mennonite - Catholic dialogue. Bridgefolk is the center for such dialogue and Schlabach has been quite involved in the movement; he is the Executive Director of the Board of Directors. Schlabach grew up in the Mennonite tradition and attended the University of Nortre Dame; after much prayer and consideration he recently converted to Roman Catholicism. He considers himself a Mennonite Catholic.
Dr. Schlabach is also a prolific theologian. He has written numerous books and articles. He recently edited a volume called Just Policing, Not War: An Alternative Response to World Violence which will be released next month.
