FOOD FOR THOUGHT	INTERCOMMUNION?
Fr Francis Marsden	For 25/1/87

Imagine a great mountainous island in the wild ocean. The isle of Christendom, made up of immense ranges. The bulkiest reaches its summit in Mount Peter. It occupies seven-tenths of the island. Eastwards, across the sheer cliffs of a deep rift valley, is the remote Orthodox ridge. Westwards are several smaller mountain blocks - Mount Lutherana, Mount Anglicana, the Wesley range and various Evangelical foothills. Recent volcanic activity has thrown up a new group of Pentecostal peaks, capped by Mount Elim.

The inhabitants of the island were originally of one tribe, but since earthquake and erosion separated their territories, they grew hostile and distrustful of each other. Usually they just yelled insults across the deep gorges separating them, but occasionally they dragged out the cannons and bombarded each other’s towns, or led border raids and revenge massacres.

However, in recent years the climate had been changing. Many had remembered the prayer of their One Great Ancestor, “Father, may they all be one”, and felt that war and hatred were not exactly in the spirit of this prayer. They had begun building bridges and fords across the great valleys. They had begun trying to understand each other. Slowly suspicion was beginning to melt. However, it was a long and painstaking task. It could not be rushed.

Additionally cruel foreign invaders had been threatening the is1and. They bore evil symbols upon their bodies - the serpent or the sickle or the dollar. They ransacked and burnt the coastal towns, dragged thousands off into slavery. They sabotaged communications on the island; they poisoned miles of low-lying pastureland. The island’s chieftains, realized they must unite to combat the common foe, or divided they would fall. Some wanted to unite under the Old Leader, the Man in White who walked with God upon the high mountain of Peter. However, others hesitated.

I leave you to develop that parable yourselves, while I turn to a related question. Given the impulse to ecumenism, why does the Catholic Church not allow non-Catholics to receive communion at her altars? Why the strict ban on intercommunion?

The Swiss bishops recently tackled this question. They referred to 1 Cor 10:17, “Because there is one bread we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” This text shows the connection between receiving Communion and being part of one and the same church. For someone who has a different profession of faith and belongs to a different church, to “partake of the one bread” is ambiguous and confusing. One cannot simultaneously belong to two different communities of faith.

Some may say: “Don’t we all believe the same anyway?” Unfortunately, we do not. There are differences as to whether the Eucharist is a real objective presence of Christ (Catholic transubstantiation), a symbolic presence (transignification) or a presence depending on the faith of the receiver (receptionism). These connect with differences about the nature of the priesthood.
The Catholic who receives Holy Communion in a Catholic Church, though he may not fully realize it, is making a public statement: “I belong to the worldwide Catholic communion with her bishops and the Roman Pontiff — and ultimately I accept their Gospel teaching on faith and morals, because I believe Christ is speaking through them.” The Eucharist cannot just be private piety, “me and Jesus”. It marks us out as members of a local and a worldwide community.

The non-Catholic who receives Anglican, Methodist or Presbyterian communion obviously does not make the above statement of faith. He presumably believes that God’s truth is to be found more in his own tradition, and he accepts the teaching of his church authorities, a teaching which differs from Catholic doctrine. One assumes that the differences are important to him. Otherwise, there is nothing (in theory) preventing him from becoming a Catholic and receiving the Lord at our altars.

However, if I were to receive Anglican or Methodist communion, would that not be confusing? Which Church do I belong to? Who do I believe is head of the Church of Christ — the Pope, the Queen, or the Methodist Conference? Whose teaching do I follow, where teachings differ? And why?

The differences in question are not negligible: the role of the Papacy, the obligations of confession and Sunday Mass attendance, the interpretation of Scripture, the appointment and nature of bishops, the value of celibacy and monastic life, purgatory, the intercession of Mary and the saints, various moral matters —abortion, contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, embryo experimentation. These cannot be brushed under the carpet. They need to be discussed and resolved, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Intercommunion at present therefore is “jumping the gun.” It implies that these subjects do not really matter. It also suggests that the Churches have already reached the unity for which Christ prayed — that the present status quo between different confessions is a valid image of the Church of Christ. I do not think it is. The Lord is calling us onward to a much deeper unity of heart and mind, Word and Sacrament, doctrine and worship. It will take a long time, but it must be done thoroughly.

The Eucharist is a sign of unity accomplished, not a means to that end  “The path of love, the path to unity, is also a path of truth.” “Father, may they be so completely one, that the world may know that it was you who sent Me.”