In spite of its problematic title, the “…. For
Dummies” series of books was and still is very successful. Why? I suppose it's
because the reader expected to find a treatment of the subject in very
straightforward, simple language, a treatment that t concentrated on essentials
and did not
presume a great deal of esoteric knowledge. That is my goal now.
The church has been rocked by sex abuse scandals,
by the ever-emerging financial scandals , by the exodus of many Catholics,
particularly the young, who can no longer tolerate the imperial stance of the
hierarchy which believes its authority comes directly from God. This is the
issue that must be faced: is the church essentially a monarchy with rule by
“Divine Right,” apostolic succession meaning that authority to rule was granted
to the apostles and is handed down like a baton in a race? Or is the church
essentially a community empowered by the Holy Spirit with apostolic succession
being its connection to the original experience of the Risen One, to a time when
there was little doctrine or structure, with all the vision and values that went
with this experience?.
The record of history shows that the Holy Spirit
came down on the whole community, not just the twelve apostles. The first
community of disciples, who were all Jewish, was based on the synagogue
structure, because that was what they knew. The governance of the synagogue was
by elders elected or at least recognized as leaders by the community. This more
democratic form of governance can be seen in the account of the Council of
Jerusalem. The leader of the Jerusalem community, the most important one at the
time, was James, the brother of the Lord, not Peter!
Our God is a God of change, One who is always
doing something new. History does not stand still and tradition should not be
the worship of the past. Development was inevitable and part of God’s plan.
The world was not ready for democracy, aside from
the small communal setting. The church’s structure which developed and changed
over the centuries always reflected the political society of the time: empire
under Constantine, then feudalism, kingdoms, and finally national states. The
sacraments also developed: from two – baptism and Eucharist – to the seven we
recognize today, and the focus of these was always the good of the community,
not the isolated individual. The “sensus fidelium, ” the belief that authority
had to be validated by its reception in the community. This need for validation
saved the church from the heresy taught by a bishop, Arius, who taught that
Christ was more than human but less than divine. Most of the bishops accepted
this false teaching, but the Christian community did not. (Constantine was
baptized by an Arian bishop; Cardinal Newman wrote an important book about the
“sensus fidelium” and it has never been lost sight of even in times of great
central authority in the church.)
It is time for the church to reflect the society
we live in today, to be more democratic, for its leaders to listen to the voice
of the community as the first disciples did in Jerusalem. It is time, for
instance, for the people to have a voice in the selection of their bishop. This
is not a “new age" idea. The ancient document known as the apostolic
tradition says, "Let him be ordained as bishop who has been chosen by all.”
In the fifth century Pope Celestine said much the same: "Let a Bishop not be
imposed upon the people whom they do not want." Pope St. Leo added "He who has
to preside over all must be elected by all." After all, if popes can be elected,
why not bishops? It is just a question of who is doing the electing!
There is little sense in debating the issue of
authority with those in power. They usually cling to their power in a very human
way, and many are convinced that they are empowered directly by God. There are,
however, two very simple things that we can do to bring about renewal. They are
“radical” in thje sense that they go back to the very roots of Christianity. The
first has to do with the fact that we are Eucharistic people, and the second
with the fact that every institution runs on money. We can reclaim the power of
the priesthood of the baptized by celebrating Eucharistic meals as the first
disciples did, and we can form 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporations in each
parish to collect the contributions of parishioners. These are types of
corporations used by most non-profit organizations.
The Gospels describe many meals Jesus had with his
disciples. The Jewish discipleship meal was known as a chaburah, and it
was similar to a Kiwanis breakfast or K of C luncheon: a group of men who shared
a common interest coming together to talk, plan, bond, and celebrate. Like the
Sabbath meal or any such ceremony, it revolved around a ritual. The group
gathered at the table, the host/leader broke bread and distributed it is a
symbol of their common interest, shared life, a recognition of the need for
nourishment. Then prayers of blessing on the food and the people were said; then
the conversation and meal took place. At the end of the meal a cup of wine was
passed around and everyone took a sip from this same cup. It was something like
a toast to the group, to their future, and a dedication to the interest that
brought them together.
Although the Last Supper is often described as a
Passover or Paschal meal, many modern scholars say it was a chaburah meal
which was later described as a Paschal meal because the element of sacrifice.
St. John's gospel says the Last Supper was on the night before the
Pasch. Some support for this is that if it was a Paschal meal, all the
activities described on the next day would have been contrary to the Jewish law
regarding activities on Holy Days. Also, as a Paschal meal, the Eucharist would
have been celebrated only once a year.
The setting of a meal is entirely different from
that of a liturgy. The meal gives people a chance to share their thoughts, their
experiences, and to bond as a community in ways that liturgy cannot. That is why
we need both forms of Eucharist. For a more detailed information and background,
plus some examples of possible rituals based on the historic ones, please visit
www.reclaimingeucharistasmeal.com
Since most Catholics will gag on the statement
that a “merely” baptized Christian has the power to bring the Risen One to the
community in the form of bread and wine. Let me point out a few simple
facts:
In the apostolic times there was no sacrament of
ordination, so the Eucharist in Corinth described by Paul was presided over by a
merely baptized person.
The church teaches today that there is no
difference in the priesthood of the parish priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope.
What distinguishes these ranks is authority. Why should the priesthood of the
baptized be different, inferior in nature, reduced to “pray, pay, and obey.” The
priesthood of the baptized operates on the level of the cell; the ordained
priesthood is for the larger community.
When persons are baptized they receive the whole
Christ, prophet, priest and king. The baptized do not get the infant; the
confirmed, the adolescent; and the ordained, the adult. There is only one
Christ, the Risen Christ.
Whoever “consecrates” does not command God, for no
one has such power. He or she merely asks Christ to keep his promise to feed us
his life.
Let me say clearly that reclaiming the meal does
NOT mean abandoning the Eucharistic liturgy, the Mass, but rather reclaiming the
meal is a complement to it. The meal had to develop into a liturgical
celebration for many reasons, including the destruction of the temple in 70AD,
the growth of the community which included many Gentiles. Development had to
happen, because Christianity was different from Judaism and the Greco-Roman
religions of that time. It was not bound by culture, class, or country. The
glory and strength of the church today is that it is truly Catholic, universal,
and has an institutional reach which reflects that. But development, like
evolution, does not stop. We need a more democratic church and we need a
Eucharistic celebration for the cell group – the family, circle of friends- so
that we can meet the Risen Christ in the ordinary setting of our lives, as the
disciples did on the road to Emmaus. Right hand, left hand: we need both. Right
brain, left brain; we need both. liturgy and meal: we need both.
The other simple thing that Catholics can do is to
take more control over the money. Anyone who has worked in politics or business
knows that the control of money is the source of all temporal power. Pastors,
whether of a parish or a diocese, who have absolute control over the money will
usually begin to rule absolutely. The other dimension of this is the on-going
revelations of fraud and dishonesty that the present system affords. Millions of
dollars donated to the church have been stolen, squandered, and it is not
possible to recover the money. But it is easy to set up a not-for-profit
corporation, write simple rules of operation, take contributions by check only,
assign a code number to each person or family, publish weekly contributions on a
web site, etc The parishioners get their tax deduction and yet the money is
still controlled by the parishioners.
I am not such a dreamer that I think everyone will
join up instantly, but if 50% did, it would make a huge impact, and the door
would always be open for more to join. I do believe that many good priests would
support this arrangement, because it is good for the community and good for the
priest too. I have no doubt that most bishops would oppose it, because they now
can tell the parish how much money they will take from the collections for
diocesan support. They would be reduced to negotiating.
Another factor in renewal are IEC’s (Intentional
Eucharistic Communities) . They concentrate on the reality of church as
community, and usually try to function as a small parish; as such they involve
more people than those who can fit around a table, and are more complicated to
manage. Many started up after Vatican II and have been vibrant organizations,
but presently they have a difficulty in attracting new, younger members. Most of
them feel they need an ordained priest for the Eucharistic liturgy. There is no
reason why one could not be involved in both an IEC and in a Eucharistic meal
group.
IEC’s have sprung up around the Catholic Women
Priest movement. Since they directly challenge the hierarchy on the ordination
of women, the bishops say their members are no longer part of the church
community. Their numbers, however, are growing. Members point to primacy of
conscience and to Jesus as one who challenged institutional authority in His
day. Some pay homage to the idea of apostolic succession, by tracing their
lineage to an unknown male bishop; others believe they have the right as a
community to elect their preside. All forms of the ICE’s are a force towards
renewing the structure of the institution.
Reclaiming Eucharist as a meal and taking control
of the finances are both non-violent, perfectly peaceful and possible, and quite
simple in concept.
I said that these projects were simple. I did not
say they were easy to do. Many Catholics will find it difficult to think of
priests not having personal power apart from the community, like a
magician. That was the impression the Catechism gave. History gives a different
one. The fourth century Council of Chalcedon issued a canon that said no one was
to be ordained unless he was attached to some kind of community; an ordination
apart from community would be without effect. A free lance priest was a
contradiction!. The third Lateran Council transmuted this idea into personal
power, and in the Middle Ages there developed the “private” Mass said without a
community present.. These ages also gave us the abuses that led to the
Reformation.
Over the centuries the church had become more
clericalized, with many ministries being absorbed into the clerical state as
“orders” or steps to the priesthood. Thomas Aquinas had to wrestle with the
problem of how one sacrament, Holy Orders, could have seven parts! Over the
centuries the priesthood had become more and more divorced from the community,
starting with Constantine appointing many of them as magistrates, which meant
that they wore distinctive clothing; the altar in the churches was elevated over
the congregation, the priest viewed as a spiritual magician who had persoal
powers unrelated to the community.
Current theologians and leaders are in the process
of redressing this misplaced emphases. Avery Cardinal Dulles can define
ordination as "recognition of the gift of leadership, and at the same time a
sacramental commissioning that empowers them to govern the communities in the
name of Christ." A 1971 an unpublished report commissioned by the American
bishops says the same thing: "The ordination of the priest is that solemn
sacramental celebration by which a person is received into the order of
presbyters, assumes public office in the church, and is enabled to act in the
name of Christ and the Christian community with the promised assistance of the
Holy Spirit."
The priesthood will not be diminished if it is
seen as giving aa baptized person a new and blessed relationship to the
community, one of leadership in spiritual matters, in educating and counseling,
in ministering to the community through the sacraments. We need a professional,
dedicated priesthood just as we need a liturgical celebration for the larger
community. There is no reason that I know of to prevent the Catholic community,
lay and clerical, from returning to the ancient practice of having a real voice
in the selection of who will be selected to be the priest or the bishop.
Regarding to 501(c)3 organization, the big problem
will probably be “we never did this before.” Some might see it as a slap at the
priest, and most certainly the bishops generally will oppose it. (Part of the
beauty of the project is that there is nothing they can do to stop it.) I think
that as the stories of financial abuse keep coming out, the project will look
more and more appealing to the majority of parishioners. After all, it is just
making a reality of what Vatican II promoted.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Further reading:
Priest and Bishop, by Raymond Brown, S.S.
Wipf and Stock, 1999 A leading NT scholar, discusses apostolic succession, who
presided, etc.
A New Look at the Sacraments, by Fr. Wm. J.
Bausch, Twenty-Third Publications, rev.ed. 1995 He gives a detailed description
of the history, development of the sacraments.
www.reclaimingeucharistasmeal.com has short papers on many
tangential topics such as how transubstantiation is understood differently in
the Orthodox and Roman churches, history of the chaburah, promoting
ecumenism through table spirituality, some prayers developed from the original
Jewish ritual.
The Shape of the Liturgy, by Dom Gregory
Dix, A & C Black, London, reprinted 1982 contains a great deal of
information on the chaburah
___________________________________________________________________________________
