Why not consecrate beer and pizza?
“John Macquarrie indicates something of the wealth of meaning in the Eucharist as a symbol:
The Eucharist sums up in itself Christian worship, experience and theology in an amazing richness. It seems to include everything. . . . It combines Word and Sacrament; its appeal is to spirit and to sense; it brings together the sacrifice of Calvary and the presence of the risen Christ; it is communion with God and communion with man; it covers the whole gamut of religious moods and emotions. Again, it teaches the doctrine of creation, as the bread, the wine, and ourselves are brought to God; the doctrine of atonement, for these gifts have to be broken in order that they may be perfected; the doctrine of salvation, for the Eucharist has to do with incorporation into Christ and the sanctification of human life; above all, the doctrine of incarnation, for it is no distant God whom Christians worship but one who has made himself accessible in the world. The Eucharist also gathers up in itself the meaning of the Church; its whole action implies and sets forth our mutual interdependence in the body of Christ; it unites us with the Church of the past and even, through its paschal overtones, with the first people of God, Israel; and it points to the eschatological consummation of the kingdom of God, as an anticipation of the heavenly banquet. Comprehensive though this description is, it is likely that I have missed something out, for the Eucharist seem to be inexhaustible.”
Quoted in, Avery Dulles, Models of Revelation, Orbis Books, 1983, p. 140.
In other words, though Flannery O’Connor captures very poignantly a central Catholic Catholic conviction when she protests against someone treating the Eucharist as if it were only a symbol, we must not take from that affirmation that the Eucharist is not a symbol at all. If it were not a symbol, it could not be a sacrament. If transubstantiation were just a divine magic trick, beer and pizza would work just fine.
Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of two (so far) and husband of one.
Comments are closed.
I’m not so sure that I agree with the logic of your last bit there. Are you suggesting that there is something inherently suitable about bread symbolizing flesh? If so, I’m on your team. Those who argue that Jesus picked a matter that couldn’t possibly symbolize his body and blood, and so we must understand it as really present, seem to undermine a proper understanding of the nature of sacrament while trying to preserve the real presence. The Eucharist, however, is both sign and reality, res et sacramentum.
Of course the difference between the Eucharist and the other sacraments is that both res et sacramentum are in the Eucharist apart from the recipient, whereas in the other sacraments, the res is only in the recipient…
I’m saying that bread is useful for symbolizing flesh, yes – but I’m saying more than that. The whole eucharistic action, bread and wine and sacramental ritual, are all so symbolic that to try and understand the Eucharist without the category of symbol is bound to distort what the Church teaches. I agree with you 100%. What is lost is such attempts is the very nature of sacrament. And it seems to me that real presence without sacrament is very difficult to discern from magic. Probably impossible.
Good points. The word “symbol” has a lot of different meanings.
A problem with the symbolism, it seems to me, is that a communion wafer almost certainly bears no resemblance to the bread used during a Passover meal in first-century Jerusalem and no resemblance to anything that we would identify as bread today. The fact that you have to be told that a communion wafer is bread detracts from the symbolism. Or so it seems to me.
A problem with the symbolism, it seems to me, is that a communion wafer almost certainly bears no resemblance to the bread used during a Passover meal in first-century Jerusalem and no resemblance to anything that we would identify as bread today. The fact that you have to be told that a communion wafer is bread detracts from the symbolism. Or so it seems to me.
This is right only if we assume that the concept of symbol contains the concept of resemblance, which would entail thinking of symbols exclusively or primarily as visible. I don’t think this is right, however. Take the following examples, none of which lack anything in terms of being a symbol:
(1)Reality: The sound the top string of my guitar makes when vibrating; Symbols: “E” and the musical notation. There is no relation of resemblance between the sound and its symbols.
(2)Reality: Jesus is holy; Symbol: In predicate logic, the predicate symbol for holy (say, H) and the constant symbol for Jesus (say, j), giving us Hj. There is no relation of resemblance between Jesus’ holiness and the atomic formula that symbolizes it.
(3)Reality: The traffic law obligating me to stop at an intersection; Symbols: A bright red light and a red, octagonal, metal sign with the word “STOP.” There is no relation of resemblance between the obligation to stop and the symbols that communicate that obligation.
Of course, the examples can be multiplied. The point is that the concept of symbol does not contain the concept of resemblance. Rather, resemblance is something annexed to the concept of symbol, perhaps most appropriately when both the reality and symbol are physical objects. Symbols have meanings only within a particular linguistic community and/or social institution, so these symbols are interpretable to the members of such communities and/or institutions. So the bread and wine qua symbols (N.B.: symbol is only one aspect of the Eucharist, as Brett observes) are meaningful to those who are members of the particular linguistic community and social institution against which the symbols are understood, namely, the rites of Israel and the religion of Israel. Catholicism, as an extension of that linguistic community and social institution, receives the symbols with their meanings. Beer, pizza, potato chips, and grape juice do not possess the symbolic meaning that bread and wine do within this community and institution, which is why they do not make sense as symbols for the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Let me make one last point, lest I be accused of neglecting the fullness of the Eucharist. My view is to be understood only in terms of one aspect of the Eucharist, namely its symbol. Other aspects, such as its resemblance to flesh and blood and its sacramental communication of grace, further anchor the necessity of using bread and wine. If the Eucharist were only a symbol, it would still be inappropriate to use pizza and beer insofar as the symbolic nature of bread and wine is set in a certain way within the linguistic and social tradition of Israel. Now, if the Eucharist were only a symbol AND Judaism and Jesus gave the symbolism to, say, bread sticks and gumbo, then those would be our symbols for the Eucharist. But, again, the Eucharist is not merely a symbol AND bread and wine possess symbolic importance for Judaism and Jesus.
That we don’t recognize matza (the communion wafer) as food speaks to our relative wealth. Matza is the most basic bread, containing just water and wheat. The closest we have commonly around are French loaves of bread that use water, wheat flour, and yeast. Porridge (wheat or some other cereal diluted in water) was the staple of French peasants through 800 AD if memory serves. Obviously, there are the biblical parallels of manna in the dessert. Dare I say that for much of known history, wheat combined with water were literally the breads of life.
A similar question came up to Fr. Herbert McCabe, except that the proposed alternative was hotdogs and coke rather than pizza and beer. He reportedly said: “I’ve always thought the Eucharist had something to do with the significance of eating food, and the thing about hotdogs and coke is that they are not significant and they are certainly not food.”
M.Z.
One can (and I do occasionally) buy matzo in the supermarket — popular brands being Manischewitz and Streit’s. It looks like and tastes like food, although very plain and humble food. A communion wafer bears no resemblance to matzo. It is perfectly white, perfectly round, perfectly smooth (although sometimes embossed), and shows no sign of having been baked. In their Eucharistic celebrations, the earliest Christians had real meals and used real bread. I am not suggesting things should now be any different than they are. I’m just saying that the modern communion wafer bears no resemblance to any kind of bread that I can think of and not really much resemblance to food.
If I gave you a can of communion wafers and had you eat them, you would very quickly agree that they taste like food. Modern matzo is rarely faithful to the original recipe, since we aren’t an impoverished society.
While probably more than I should get into, I have great skepticism over present theories over what the first Christians did. The idea that the early Christians worshiped in small groups and in each other’s homes presumes such things as a highly literate population, a significant availability of time, and enough food for elaborate meals each Sunday. At a minimum the narrative seems to assume a middle class church rather than a church of the poor. The narrative also assumes a police state nearly as advanced as our own. The persecuted church that recently saw its leader hung on a cross is the same one that baptizes hundreds in a single ceremony in Acts not too long after. The whole narrative just seems based on a bunch of unfounded assumptions. Additionally, it isn’t consistent with our experience of persecution in Mexico and Poland.
Meat would not be appropriate for the eucharist. I always found it significant that the eucharist is a vegetarian meal.
Father McCabe is awesome!
Modern matzo is rarely faithful to the original recipe, since we aren’t an impoverished society.
M.Z.,
The matzo I buy is made of flower and water only, since I usually tend to think of buying it during Passover when it is in prominent displays. That is also the time to buy kosher Coke or Pepsi, which is made with real sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup. (Whoever thought that sugar as an ingredient would be a selling point?) Also Fox’s U-bet Chocolate Syrup is available in a kosher-for-Passover formula with sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup — a must if you want to make authentic egg creams.
I would be interested to know more about the evolution of Eucharistic celebrations in the early church. Can anyone recommend a good book or two?
Michael;
I find it interesting that you consider the Eucharist to be a vegetarian meal. The Passover meal from which it developed in the cultural and social tradition of Israel was decidedly not vegetarian, and one could argue that in the sense that we eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Passover Lamb, the Eucharist is not a vegetarian meal either.
MZ;
I’m not sure why you see the narrative reflecting a middle class church. Whatever the socio-economic status of early Christians, it is hardly reasonable for them to have used wafers for their Eucharistic celebrations. “The breaking of bread” in Acts 2:42 seems most clearly to refer to sharing of a meal in connection with a gathering of the faithful, which even poor people must be able do. It might even be more likely for the poor to gather and share a meal as the devoted themselves to the apostle’s teachings. As for the police state, again it seems that a more decentralized government is reflected in the narrative, where Rome steps in at the threat of violence and insurrection, but could care less about people going on about religious experiences.
If all you are saying is that the first Christians didn’t press the matzo into little circles, then I’m cool with that. Not all parishes even do that. Other communions intentionally buy irregularly shaped matzo. As far as thickness goes, matzo isn’t going to get thicker than a 1/4″ due to cooking issues. Given that ovens at that time were typically communal, you are likely looking at a slightly thinner version since it was likely solar cooked, if we are going to go on the home model. As for what the poor were likely to eat, cereals and some fish. Look at the poor today. The number of people around the world subsisting on rice is astounding. Look at the old Russian Orthodox fasting guidelines. They had as much to do with survival as they do with any attempt to gain holiness. Even our own history shows that the norm was to for only few to receive communion. Certainly some of that had to do with piety, but it also had to do with it being expensive.
Hi Ryan —
The Passover meal from which it developed in the cultural and social tradition of Israel was decidedly not vegetarian, and one could argue that in the sense that we eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Passover Lamb, the Eucharist is not a vegetarian meal either.
While Passover was/is definitely not vegetarian, the Eucharist has obviously developed into a meatless meal. And while one could certainly argue that the Eucharist is not vegetarian because we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ (and I’ve heard that before), I would argue that this is not a proper understanding of the sacrament, at least from a Catholic perspective. It’s the kind of “realism” that inspired the debates on the Real Presence in the first place, suggesting that we are eating the corpse of the dead Jesus. In fact, if we went this route, we’d have to say not only that the Eucharist is not vegetarian, but that it is cannibalistic. Meat eating involves the consumption of corpses. The Eucharist does not.
MZ – How was bread/matzo too expensive for first century Christians? It would have been their primary food source. Everyone would have eaten it every day, so it seems only natural that they would all eat it together as a eucharistic (lit. “thanksgiving”) meal.
Hi Michael;
Just having some fun with a thought experiment. I completely agree that to argue that the Eucharist is not vegetarian is a misunderstanding of Real Presence. Since it is the Body and Blood of the risen Christ that we eat and drink, it would be inappropriate for the meal to include meat. But given the fact that both the Jews in John 7 and later the Romans misunderstood what became the Eucharist as cannibalism, it is not only Protestants who are guilty of this “realism.”
Ryan – I didn’t mean to suggest that Catholics don’t get the Real Presence wrong. In fact, the person who argued with me (seriously argued, not just “having fun”) that the Eucharist is not vegetarian because we “eat Jesus” is a Catholic. Catholics are probably the most guilty of that kind of macabre sacramentology!
In fact, if we went this route, we’d have to say not only that the Eucharist is not vegetarian, but that it is cannibalistic.
I mentioned this somewhere before, but can’t find it so that I can quote myself. In any case, there is a footnote in NAB to John 6:54 (“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”) that says:
If memory serves me correctly, Raymond Brown in his Anchor Bible volumes on John translates the the verse something along the lines of, “Whoever feeds on my flesh . . . . ”
Gnawing, munching, or feeding on flesh doesn’t sound vegetarian, although anyone who would accuse Catholics of cannibalism for receiving communion certainly would not believe in transubstantiation or the Real Presence, so the accusation would have to be that Catholics think they are engaging in cannibalism, and since Catholics don’t think they are, that would be erroneous too.
Meat eating involves the consumption of corpses. The Eucharist does not.
An excellent, concise illustration.
Gnawing, munching, or feeding on flesh doesn’t sound vegetarian, although anyone who would accuse Catholics of cannibalism for receiving communion certainly would not believe in transubstantiation or the Real Presence, so the accusation would have to be that Catholics think they are engaging in cannibalism, and since Catholics don’t think they are, that would be erroneous too.
Also an important point, though some people might not know that Catholics don’t think what they are doing is cannibalism. And some Catholics’ description of the Eucharist would give them plenty of opportunity for misinterpretation. The first oath that Beregarius had to swear is a theological disaster but you will occasionally find the self-appointed ‘orthodox’ defending it, even if Thomas was quite embarrassed by it.
David –
Since no one else has posted a book that deals with Eucharistic practice in the early church, I’ll throw out John Howard Yoder’s “Body Politics.” Yoder is an Anabaptist who taught theology at Notre Dame, and he looks at five practices of the early church, including the Eucharist, with particular attention to the economic, social and eschatological implications of these practices. Yoder is not writing from a Roman Catholic perspective, but neither is he a Protestant.