Seeing or Eating - or Both?
by Fr. Erasto Fernandez
Undoubtedly, even today for most Christians the essential and most sacred action of the Eucharist is the 'consecration'. Over the years we have come to accept and now even take it for granted that it is while these solemn and important words are pronounced that our gifts of bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. That is the key reason why many priests take great care to pronounce these words correctly, distinctly and prayerfully, even if the rest of the EP is raced through. We also believe that the 'double' consecration is needed to ensure that the body and blood of Christ are separately made present, thus indicating also their separation in the death of Christ. Anyone familiar with post-Vatican theology of the Eucharist can see immediately 'how things have changed' in this important area.
Post-Vatican Terminology
We have alluded to these changes in previous issues, but to help refresh our memories, we mention them here briefly. We speak today more in terms of 'sanctifying the gifts' by our prayer for an in-filling of the Spirit rather than of consecration. Further, the fact of a 'double' action with bread and cup refers not so much to the separation of body from blood indicating the death of Christ, but rather to the Semitic way of emphasizing an action through repetition. The action with the bread would have come almost at the start of the Passover Meal, as a kind of 'grace before meals.' The action with the Cup is practically the last gesture of the Meal and could be termed the 'grace after meals.' Both have clear references to the first alliance or covenant made through Moses after God had prepared the people over several years of their desert journeying. The double action simply emphasizes the importance of the action. Called today 'the Institution Narrative' this section must be proclaimed in the same tone of voice used for the rest of the EP. In short, this section should not stand out as something special or different from the other sections of the EP.
What possibly needs a fuller explanation is that post-Vatican Eucharistic theology does not focus on a 'particular moment' in which the transformation is supposed to occur. The entire EP, and not any specific portion of it, is seen as the transformative prayer. This approach has been prevalent in the Eastern liturgies from almost the very beginning. Several practical implications follow from such an assertion. First, since the prayer from start to finish is seen as one integral whole, the entire prayer should be prayed in the same tone of voice. No special emphasis should be given to the parts printed in dark, bold letters in the missal. Also, the Institution Narrative should be seen as the 'story' of what Jesus did at the Last Supper, recounted lovingly and gratefully so that we can not only make it present here and now, but also enter into its dynamic as we seek to fulfill Christ's command to 'do this as a memorial of me.' As a narrative, it should be addressed to the Father and in the presence of the assembly equally, to elicit their wholehearted response of faith and love. In no way are the words of the Institution Narrative to be addressed to the elements of bread and cup. Each of the various sections in the EP should get the same amount of emphasis, meaning that we do not pray any particular part with greater reverence, deliberation and so on. This was usually done for the Institution Narrative, while the rest was just raced through.
Static Presence or Dynamic Action?
It is customary for priests to directly or indirectly invite the faithful to extend their adoration of the sacred species at the time of the Institution Narrative. In fact, there was a period in the history of the Eucharist when the Christian faithful came to Eucharist only to gaze on the sacred Host at the time of 'consecration'. They believed that a mere loving and faith-filled gaze would bring them untold gifts, even miracles. And so they came to Church but remained outside while the Eucharist continued. A warning bell was rung to bring them in for the 'consecration.' Their 'active participation' consisted only in spending a few precious minutes gazing on the sacred Host, after which they would hastily leave. The Celebrant, of course, had his back to the people and so, in order that they might gaze on the sacred Host, he had to raise it high after the words of consecration had been pronounced. This was the origin of the 'elevation' of the sacred host and Cup at this juncture. At times, depending on the devotion of the Celebrant, they would gaze on the sacred Host for as long as ten minutes. Once this was over, they left the Church and rushed to the next parish to catch the next Consecration-elevation. The movement from gazing on the sacred Host during the Eucharist to gazing on it outside of the celebration through 'exposition' in a monstrance is but a natural outcome and a foregone conclusion.
However, we readily realize that such a 'celebration' of Eucharist could do nothing for the lives of the people and that the Eucharist was approached only as a means of obtaining favours and blessings. The original intention of Jesus in giving us his presence in the form of bread broken and Cup shared was totally lost. Today, of course, we stress the fact that Jesus is dynamically present during the Eucharist - He is there for us, in order to transform us into himself and to send us out on mission in his name. Hence, in the context of a renewed Eucharistic Spirituality, a prominent raising of the sacred Host with a prolonged 'adoration' or the uttering of ejaculations like "My Lord and my God" are totally out of place at the Institution Narrative. Again, given the fact that the Celebrant now faces the congregation, would the 'elevation' be necessary? The proper place for this adoration is the time of silence after reception of holy Communion or prayer before the Sacrament outside of the Eucharistic celebration.
Further, the power and challenge of the Eucharist lies not just in gazing on the sacred Host, but in 'eating/drinking' or better, becoming one with Jesus in his redemptive mission. It invites us to 'put on the mind of Christ' and empty or break ourselves for the benefit of others. We recall how the question of eating his flesh and drinking his blood became the point of rejection of Jesus by his Jewish followers who accused him of cannibalism, in the context of John's Christian community. But, what Jesus asks of his followers is that they become assimilated into himself, become one with him to the extent of being ready to sacrifice their very lives for the benefit of others. This can be very demanding, as it requires us to become bread for the hungry, eyes to the blind, feet to the lame and so on. It strips us of the conceit and self-centredness that, so often, characterize our lives. In Jewish culture, to share a meal with someone is to enter into a deep personal relationship with that person/family. Using this meaningful background, Jesus goes further, in that he offers himself not just as a co-sharer of the meal (which he also is), but more than that, he becomes the very food we share. This points to and effects a far deeper union and oneness.
Conclusion
In our day, there are very few participants in the Eucharist who do not share in the bread and the Cup. Some 'receive communion' even more than once a day! The practice of 'gazing on the sacred Host' still continues but it is rarely exaggerated. Many today perhaps need to be reminded that Jesus does not 'come down on our altars' at the Institution Narrative, but is present to us in different forms throughout the Eucharistic celebration. Nevertheless, a renewed Eucharistic Spirituality today challenges us to go back to the original intention of Jesus in giving us the Eucharist - not just that we may enjoy his continuing presence and adore him, but that we may be transformed by him and actively continue his redemptive mission in our surroundings. Once we can genuinely do that, then we will find that we can 'see' Jesus everywhere and in every person we deal with. The Risen Lord dwelling within us will 'open our eyes' to the reality of his dynamic presence all around us. 'In him we live and move and have our being.' Our lives would be drawn into a marvelous unity and the effect of Christ's transformation of us during the Eucharist would carry through into the rest of the day.
Everything we do or say would bear the stamp of his 'paschal event.' Through our Christ-like efforts, we would truly see the whole of creation being transformed into what God originally meant it to be - a reflection of his own love and care for his creatures. Eucharist would then become not just something celebrated only in a ritual, but a way of life, a way of relating to all people around us, a new style of living in this world as being already God's loving and loved children. Whether this transformed society and world will be only a dream of the future or a presently evolving reality - this is the challenge before us who celebrate Eucharist.
"Happy the one who hears the Word and keeps it…"
E-mail this article to a friend
Copyright © Fr. Erasto Fernandez. All rights reserved.
|
