In August, the Church of England offered guidance on the celebration of Holy Communion. The theological reflection attached to it opens with the observation, "God’s presence is always with us, in ways that often escape explanation" (cf. my post on God's Real Presence).
The guidance rightly notes: "The dominical sacraments, as the Church of England has understood them, both signify and convey the realities to which they refer." Although it should be pointed out that according to our formularies the realities are truly offered but not necessarily received. This is so because what is supremely offered in the Eucharist cannot be received with hand and mouth but must be received by faith. Unbelievers who receive the elements have the body and blood of Christ truly offered to them but they do not receive the body and blood of Christ. The doctrine of transubstantiation, as commonly understood, is erroneous in suggesting that the true substance of the Eucharist is received by material means.
We recognise that the present circumstances have raised in a new way many questions about the celebration of Holy Communion in the Church of England. It is our hope that the Faith and Order Commission and the Liturgical Commission will be able to give more extended theological consideration to these than is possible within the constraints of this short guidance document. While God’s people are seeking to discern how to live as a eucharistic community under the current restrictions, we believe that there is much we can learn from the present situation about the celebration of Holy Communion at any time. We encourage deep reflection on our practices, as all members of the Church seek to respond to changing circumstances and the spiritual needs that emerge from them.
I have found this to be true. The present circumstances have encouraged me to reflect more deeply on our practices, raising questions and clarifying some matters in the process. It has clarified for me that "Holy Communion is, both in form and substance, a shared sacramental meal, and any exceptions to this principle" do not merely "fall short of what would be expected in any normal circumstances," as the guidance claims, but turn the Lord's Supper into something different, a memorial event rather than a dominical sacrament. What a priest celebrates in the absence of a congregation is not Holy Communion.
"The physical handling and sharing of the elements by participants in the same celebration is traditionally seen as essential to the sacramental action of Holy Communion." Because it is. This is not to deny that God in His grace can do marvellous things and, say, convey to a small gathering in a concentration camp without ordained minister or wine all the blessings Christians would ordinarily receive from Holy Communion. But where Ribena is substituted for wine, where rice is used instead of bread, or where only a single individual eats and drinks, there is not Holy Communion as instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ.
The guidance further notes: "In circumstances where there is a reasonable chance of contagion, the canonical doctrine of necessity permits the reception of Holy Communion in one kind." (The appeal to the 1547 Sacrament Act is not without problems, however, as I have observed in previous blog posts.) While the Book of Common Prayer nowhere envisages anyone receiving Holy Communion in one kind, it is true that "The Notes to the Celebration of Holy Communion at Home or in Hospital indicate that ‘Communion should normally be received in both kinds separately, but where necessary may be received in one kind whether of bread or, where the communicant cannot receive solid food, wine.’"
What seems to be overlooked here is that the permission given to communicants to receive in one kind is not at all the same as giving clergy permission to withhold the cup from those who desire to receive it, let alone instructing them to refuse the cup to the laity. It is difficult to see what the legal and canonical grounds for this latter move might be.
The guidance asks that all communicants other than the presiding minister "should receive the bread only, in the hand." It adds: "As the Liturgical and Faith and Order Commissions have made clear, this is still ‘complete communion’." But is it? The claim that what previous Anglican divines have sometimes spoken of as a "half-communion" or a "mutilated sacrament" nevertheless allows for communicants to make "complete communion" is not wrong but it says both too little and too much.
The guidance does well to point to the following:
The Book of Common Prayer instructs us that if we offer ourselves in penitence and faith, giving thanks for the redemption won by Christ crucified, we may truly ‘eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ’, although we cannot receive the sacrament physically in ourselves.
In other words, the reason why it is possible to receive "complete communion," even while not drinking from the cup is that it is possible to receive "complete communion" without either eating or drinking, without receiving the sacrament physically at all. It is not the case that the bread conveys something which cannot be received apart from the sacrament (and to which the cup does not add anything). In this sense the claim about "complete communion" in the guidance arguably says too little.
We understand why this is so once we ask what is received in Holy Communion. What is supremely offered in the Sacrament (and received by those whose instrument of reception consists of faith as well as mouth) is Jesus Christ himself. And it would of course be ridiculous to claim that the bread gives us one part of Christ, the wine another. Christ is not divided. Still, Anglicans in previous centuries were right to reject the doctrine of concomitance as commonly understood in that it introduces an erroneous material concept to what is received.
Given that Christ is offered to us also in the Word, is anything different offered to us in the Sacrament? As it is true that the Sacrament cannot gives us the body and blood of Christ without giving us Christ, the whole Christ, both body and soul, in his divine as well as human nature, so it is true that the Word does not offer us Christ apart from his body and blood. Ultimately we receive the exact same grace in Word and Sacrament: Jesus Christ.
But this does of course not mean that the Sacrament is superfluous. We receive Christ differently in eating and drinking. I hope to elaborate on this in a future post. But given that our Lord instituted both the eating and the drinking ("Drink this, all of you!"), the claim about "complete communion" is problematic. There can be complete spiritual communion, as noted just now, in that our communion is with Christ, but according to the sacramental mode of communion it is questionable whether we should speak of "complete communion" once people have eaten, as if drinking from the common cup poured for us is superfluous.
In sum those who without faith merely receive the elements, even if they receive both, do themselves more harm than good. It is better to receive just one element with faith that both without. Indeed, it is far better to make spiritual communion than to receive the Sacrament in a merely carnal way. But it is better still if those who can receive Holy Communion in both kinds. Clergy are "ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1) and have no right to change these mysteries or celebrate Holy Communion contrary to Christ's institution.
