The Prayer for Unity

Seventh Sunday of Easter Year C

The silence of the Upper Room where the Apostles gathered, performing the first Novena ever to be observed in the Church as they awaited the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, is interrupted only by sound of their praying lips. This is the Sunday within that first Novena. This is the Sunday which precedes the great feast of Pentecost when the Church was birthed. This is the Sunday where our ears and attention are drawn, not only to prayers of the disciples or even to our prayers, but to the prayer of Our Lord Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest who now intercedes to the Father on our behalf, “May they all be one.”

In a world that has grown skeptical to unity, today’s gospel reading is certainly a welcome breath of fresh air. At last! Someone is truly serious about the issue of reconciliation and unity. It’s none other than Jesus himself.  The gospel is an excerpt of a longer prayer of Jesus found in Chapter 17 of the Gospel of John, which is traditionally called the “High Priestly Prayer”. Its name is derived from the action and words of Jesus who now intercedes with the Father in Heaven, as a High Priest, on behalf of his friends on earth. This prayer is not a declaration of what is, not a blueprint for oneness, but intercession for what shall be.

Jesus here prays for the whole world, asking that the love with which the Father had lavished upon him might also be ours, and that through us the Father’s love might be evident to the world. That is what Jesus died for. This prayer is not just empty rhetoric. The prayer puts into words the very mission of Jesus, the project of Jesus. “Holy Father, I pray not only for these, but for those also who through their words will believe in me. May they all be one.” Jesus prayed these words in the Upper Room on the night of his betrayal, knowing that crucifixion would follow with the coming sunrise. The words are part of his final words, and final words have a history of being intense, focused and passionate. So it was with Jesus. You could say that Jesus’ giving himself to die for us was the embodiment of these intercessions; and his resurrection embodied the Father’s answer to that prayer.

On the Day of Atonement, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Jewish High Priest, in office for that particular year, would offer sacrifice and prayer, first for himself. Jesus’ prayer for himself in the first three verses is a clear parallel to the High Priest’s prayer but, obviously, Jesus had no need to offer sacrifice for personal sin as did his clerical counterpart. In the second section of the prayer, the priest prayed for the community of priests and levites; Jesus’ prayer for his disciples is a corollary to that prayer. But here, the high priesthood of Jesus is far superior and radically different from the high priesthood of the Jewish people. This is the point asserted by the author of the letter to the Hebrews and St Paul in his letter to the Romans (8:34). Here, we have the perfect High Priest, who stands victorious over death and evil. Here is the perfect High Priest who could accomplish a reconciliation between God and His people in a manner that was unrivalled by anything that took place in the past or could take place in the future.

And so the prayer of Jesus, that “all be one,” transcends time and space. Concerned for the future of the Church, the community of his faithful believers, Jesus prayed first for their unity and secondly for the effect their union would have upon the world. This unity is not meant to be sustained by a long history of human endeavour. In fact, just like in the past, human endeavour to preserve unity had often proven inadequate and the weak members of the Body of Christ had been responsible for causing great divisions and injury to the unity intended by Christ.

We need to note here that Jesus asked God to give us unity as a request. That means that unity is given and not achieved. The unity of God’s people can never be fabricated by man. It must be generated by the Spirit of God. Because this unity proceeds from grace, the life of God, it is therefore patterned after the life of God, a pattern of unity unlike anything else on earth. It is nothing less than the unity of the Father and Son. It is not merely a unity of organisation, purpose, feeling, or affection. Neither is it a unity that comes from commonality in terms of interest, nationality, ethnicity, language or culture. Just as the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, we are to be so united. Christians are drawn to one another because they are drawn to a common center, Jesus Christ Himself. For that is the source of the power of that unity.

According to Jesus’ prayer, the union of believers with God and with one another makes them capable of and ready for their mission to the world. After having looked within ourselves, we must begin to look outwards, outside our petty little world. Too often we are tempted to allow our Christian lives to remain in air-tight compartments, limited only to Christian friends, in a sort of Christian hot-house, from the womb to the tomb. Our Church is big enough to encompass everyone and yet we often struggle with the temptation to make her smaller, forcing everyone into a straight-jacket of conformity that was never part of God’s plan. That is why the Catholicity of the Church is lived out in her missionary character. Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, who strongly champions a Church who is more missionary in its outlook, notes that “a Church that does not go out of itself, sooner or later, sickens from the stale air of closed rooms”. If we confine our discussion of unity within the ranks of the Church or just among ourselves, we may suffer from the self-referentiality which the Pope condemns.

In a world that glorifies independence and autonomy, Christ’s mission and his prayer for his followers would effect a life of mutual interdependence for all peoples. Therefore, for the sake of a confused and sinful world which is facing enormously complex problems, Christians must not, dare not, isolate themselves from that world. No, the church exists in order to reach the world. The church is here to be God's instrument by which human life in every area and at every level is penetrated by the transforming gospel of Jesus Christ, that men may see that in Jesus Christ there is the authentic voice of God to men; that in him is the ultimate issue of human destiny, and in him we come face to face with all that is important in human affairs.

Christ prayed for a union based on gratuitous love, a union that could forgive the worst in others while always expecting the best of them. The realisation of his prayer remains the constant challenge of His Church. The prayer of Jesus that “may they all be one” still haunts as well as inspires. It is wearisome, deadly wearisome, to endure the tension, the conflicts, the hate speech and demonising that continues to plague our society. The blight of triumphalism, of power games, and the obsession with always being right still throw up huge, offensive roadblocks against Jesus’ prayer. Such sin drags us back to the Upper Room, to dull disciples among whom we now sit, to the grief of our Lord over our tearing apart the seamless robe of unifying love in which he would wrap us. Yet he comes to us with Easter’s treasure. Despite the sins which continue to splinter, to separate, and to divide, we are comforted to know that there is One who is not only praying for our unity, but who assures us that he is protecting “not only these, but also those”, and he does so in the Father’s name. The outcome of the prayer, “May they all be one”, will never be just left to us. It will always be in his strong hands. Thank God for that!

We Receive Because We Are

Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ

In the second Christian century, Saint Justin the Martyr, wrote several steering apologetical sermons in defence of Christians and their practices. In the first of such apologia, he wrote on the Christian’s belief in the Eucharist, “We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Saviour became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving. No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.”

The basic principle outlined in the second part of this quotation is this: Only Catholics may receive holy Communion, and Catholics who do receive holy Communion must be properly disposed. The reason for this should be obvious to those who truly appreciate the significance of the Eucharist. In Communion, we receive the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Not only is it an intimate encounter with Christ, but Holy Communion deepens unity with the Church, more fully assimilating us into Christ. Therefore Holy Communion is not something to be taken lightly. It should always be considered a great and holy privilege, and we must ensure that we are properly disposed.  

Such a strict regiment was not the invention of the early theologians of the Church. It is a fruit of systematic reflection of scripture. In the New Testament, St. Paul reminded Christians about proper reverence in receiving the Body of Christ: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself..”  (1 Cor 11:27-28).

For Catholics, communion is not just an act of worship but also an ecclesiological act. Our reception of communion is ontological – we receive communion because we are in communion. Full communion should never be regarded as a trivial desire to be together, but rather involves completeness of "those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments and pastoral governance – traditionally known as Creed, Cult and Code – as outlined by St Justin Martyr. For Catholics to participate in such communion without establishing these bonds would be self-deception and hypocritical. It trivialises the very act of receiving communion and reduces it to a purely symbolic and instrumental ritual. Likewise, when we formally refuse to accept the Church’s proper authority to teach, rule and sanctify – her doctrinal inerrancy, her spiritual jurisdiction and her sacramental power  - these rejections separate us from the body of the Church.

To some people, I am sure, these restrictions seem harsh and unnecessary, anachronistic to say the least, and a violation of the ecumenical spirit of our age. The question is, "Why are there so many restrictions about receiving Holy Communion if people are of goodwill and the Eucharist is so helpful for us?" “If Protestants allow other Christians to receive their communion, why can’t we be more hospitable?” These are certainly legitimate questions, motivated by good intentions. But good intentions are never sufficient reason to allow open communion. The reasons are more subtle than that. The first reason, as I have already pointed out, is that the reception of holy Communion is not just an expression of belief in the Lord Jesus Christ but also an indication of membership, "communion," in the Church, the Church where its members visibly share "oneness of faith, life and worship." Unity among Christians is not yet complete, and the reception of Holy Communion by other Christians ignores this reality. The second reason is that the reception of Holy Communion in a Catholic Church presumes Catholic belief about the Eucharist, in the doctrine of transubstantiation and that the mass is a veritable sharing in the sacrifice of Calvary, doctrines rejected by other Christians.

While the motivation for inviting everyone to Holy Communion might seem to be "ecumenical," in the long run the practice does more harm than good to authentic ecumenical relationships. The most detrimental thing is to use the Eucharist as a ‘tool’, a functional means, to make friends, trivialising its value and relegating it to a superficial coffee house or mamak stall ‘fellowship.’ It is also detrimental to Christian unity to just "white wash" our differences with others and sweep it all under the carpet as if such differences were insignificant. Unity based on a whitewashing of differences, according to Pope Benedict, is a facade and only stalls fruitful dialogue. Pretending that there are no differences and by resting on the lowest common denominator of the faith is to pander to false and promiscuous union.

Returning to the question of proper disposition, how do we properly dispose ourselves?

First, you must be in a state of grace. In other words, you must not be in a state of serious, grave or mortal sin. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner. The Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D. 70, which states: "Whosoever is holy (that is in a state of sanctifying grace), let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache 10). 

The requirement of being in a state of grace leads us to the second point. You must have been to confession since your last serious sin. The 1983 Code of Canon Law clarifies this point: "A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible" (CIC 916). 

Third, you must believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, that is you must believe that what you consume is truly, really, and substantially to the Body and blood of Christ. According to St Paul, "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor. 11:29). A survey was done in the United States where it was discovered, to my horror, that more than a third of the American Catholics polled, don’t actually believe in this doctrine. I’m not sure what a local survey would have revealed. But here again, we are reminded by St Augustine, “No one should eat this flesh without first adoring it … we should sin were we not to adore it.”

Fourth, you must observe the Eucharistic fast. Canon law states, "One who is to receive the most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion" (CIC 919 §1). Note that the law says before Communion, not before the beginning of Mass.  So, one hour isn’t very long. Elderly people, those who are ill are excused (CIC 191 §3).

The Eucharist, the source and summit of our Christian life, continues to be a spiritual magnet that draws people to experience the riches of our Catholic faith. But we must never forget that the issue of communion hinges upon our proper disposition and further on our Catholic understanding of Church- Eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full Ecclesial communion and its visible expression. We receive communion because we are in communion. Anything less would be hypocrisy and a lie.

Promiscuous Communion?

Twenty Sixth Ordinary Sunday Year B

Two weeks ago, our nation celebrated Malaysia Day, a day which symbolises the ideals of national integration, harmony and unity between ethnicities and cultures.  As a commitment to these same ideals, Christians from various Protestant denominations, hailing from both mainline and Evangelical streams, gathered at a nearby stadium in Shah Alam to offer prayers in common for the country. Catholics, both clergy and laity, join the ranks to make the event truly ecumenical, at least by appearance.

But for some, the joy and excitement of this visible celebration of Christian unity was marred by a written advisory issued by Archbishop Murphy Pakiam to the Catholics of this archdiocese, cautioning and reminding them of the Catholic Church’s position with regards to inter-communion. Catholics were reminded that it was ‘illicit’ for them to receive such communion with other Christians because of differences in sacramental and ecclesial theology. The Archbishop was merely reiterating the Catholic Church's teaching and canonical law (Canon 844#1). For some, the action of the Archbishop was viewed as another foot-in-the-mouth blooper, one which showed a lack of hospitality and charity. In fact, it sparked off an open letter of protest and criticism against the Archbishop.  

Was the Archbishop or his critics right? Today’s readings may help us out of this conundrum. A simple layman’s cursory reading could lead to this conclusion: that no person, or institution can have a monopoly over the distribution of God’s graces. The readings seem to suggest a broader rather than narrower approach in accepting the ministry of others who do not share a visible communion with us. In other words, the readings imply that there is a place for churches and Christians with different preferences, spirituality, experience, emphases and even theology, so long as we can all unite under the banner of Jesus Christ. This presents a popular picture of Jesus as someone broad-minded, non- judgmental, unconditionally inclusive, whose constant refrain is “All are Welcome”, one who would have no issues with inter-communion. In the words of the anonymous Catholic who wrote the protest letter against the advisory of the Archbishop, “I don't think in all fairness Jesus himself would have said this "Only Catholics can receive Holy Communion … all others are forbidden...” 

The issue of communion is actually secondary. The real issue is ecclesiological – how do we understand ‘Church’? Was Jesus actually advocating a ‘Love Boat’ kind of church ‘without borders’, a church that would admit all kinds of beliefs, even contradictory ones, as long as one carried the name ‘Christian’? If this was the case, then the Church’s condemnation of ‘heresy’ in defence of the faith was misplaced, if not pointless. Excommunication, which is the denial of communion to those who break communion with the Church’s belief, laws and sacraments, would be unnecessary and even irrelevant. A more careful and nuanced reading of scripture would reveal a very different conclusion. The second half of the gospel clarifies that Charity must be at the service of Truth and that communion must be predicated on both Charity and Truth. The metaphor of self-mutilation seems severe but it challenges Christian communities to excommunicate members (seen as cutting off body parts which are a danger to the rest) who may be a cause of scandal for the whole community. In other words, communion implies communion of belief and practice, and most certainly worship.

I’ve spoken extensively on relativism in the past two weeks. It refers to the belief that all statements are mere opinions, which are neither absolutely true nor absolutely false. Applied to the situation of the Eucharist, if Catholics maintain that Jesus Christ is truly, really and substantially present in the communion species after consecration and if Methodists merely believe in a symbolic presence, then both are correct as far as opinions are concerned. Simple logic will inform you that one statement excludes the other, you can’t have both!  Indifferentism, on the other hand, holds the position that there are no substantial differences between one view and the other. In other words, when applied to churches and denominations, would imply that there is no difference between one and the other. This begs the question, why the divisions? Was the Protestant Reformation necessary if there is no difference between Catholicism and Protestantism? The liberals may answer by arguing that the differences are man-made and immaterial. ‘We need to just focus on the essentials.’ But in the pursuit of a common denominator, it would be a wonder if there is anything left over which can be called essential when one has gotten rid of all the differences.

Like all heresies, indifferentism and relativism are distortions and exaggerations of the Truth. In the name of Eucharistic hospitality, one forgoes the need to make distinctions between fact and fiction, truth and lies, essential and non-essential, sin and virtue. When we choose to forget our differences, it is ultimately a decision to abandon the Truth. Lies or avoiding the Truth can make us amicable bed-partners, but it would not be a true marriage of minds and hearts, it would just be co-habitation, a promiscuous kind of union. There can be no true Love, if love is not rooted in the Truth. These egalitarian heresies ultimately transform our faith into an amorphous puddle of mush, darken our minds, impoverish our souls, and blind our eyes to reality. Difference is not the cause of conflict but the failure to recognise differences is. Chaos, it has been said, is the lack of all distinction. As a popular slogan emblazoned on the front of T-shirts of promiscuous teens boldly propose: “NO LIMITS!”

Ultimately, the issue of communion hinges upon our Catholic understanding of Church. Thus Eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full Ecclesial communion and its visible expression. The Catholic Church sees itself as one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, founded by Christ himself. This is not a triumphalistic expression of hubris. It is based on our understanding of the mission and plan of God and of Jesus Christ. Christ intended ONE church and it would be utter foolishness to presume that he would also have wanted division for division sake. For Catholics, communion is not just an act of worship but also an ecclesiological act. Our reception of communion is ontological – we receive communion because we are in communion. Full communion involves completeness of "those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments and pastoral governance – traditionally known as Creed, Cult and Code. For Catholics to participate in such communion without establishing these bonds would be self-deception and hypocritical. It trivialises the very act of receiving communion and reduces it to a purely symbolic and instrumental ritual. For example, someone who notoriously lives in serious sin would be excluded because his moral life is not in communion with the laws of God and the Church. Receiving communion would be a lie!

I would think that it would be most appropriate to close off this homily with an excerpt taken from an interview given by a good friend of mine, Revd Deacon Sherman Kuek, whom many of you know was a former Protestant theologian before his conversion to Catholicism.

“… it is necessary to recognise that dialogue can be fruitful only when it is at the service of truth — not opinions or personal dispositions on specific issues — but truth. Unity is indeed important to the Catholic Church, and it remains her priority. However, it is a unity in the service of truth that she seeks, not unity for the sake of itself. For this reason, the Catholic Church does not — she cannot — sacrifice truth at the altar of unity…

This does not mean that the Church would exclude any other groups of Christians who have different ideas of truth. The position of the Catholic Church is always inclusive, but being inclusive does not mean being pluralistic. The principle of inclusion enables the Church to make space for others and to recognise the good in others without having to compromise our self-understanding... Unity based on a whitewashing of differences, according to Pope Benedict, is a facade and only stalls fruitful dialogue … Pretending that there are no differences and relating to one another as a “fully united body” by resting on the lowest common denominator of the faith is to pander to false and promiscuous union.”