A woman from Southern California sent Catholic Answers a letter explaining that, “at our church, in their training for First Communion, the children are taught that the bread symbolizes ‘oneness.’ I believe that by taking Communion, people are reminded that they literally are the body of God. All this debate over whether the bread and wine actually are, or are not, the body and blood of Christ is ridiculous.”
Each time I see a letter like hers, I am reminded that, if I have any virtues, patience is not one of them. While I seem to have a near-endless capacity to take in complaints about the Church from Fundamentalists, I have little sympathy for Catholics who get so much wrong about the faith-and who seem to revel in getting it wrong, as though they are poking their fingers in the eyes of Church leaders. (“Take that, Cardinal Ratzinger!”)
I do not expect Fundamentalists to know any better, and I do not expect them to show any loyalty toward Catholic teaching. Why should they be loyal to an institution they oppose? But I do expect loyalty from Catholics, who, if they deserve the name, should embrace all authoritative teaching.
Can one say that Communion “symbolizes ‘oneness'”? Yes, but the oneness is not so much between ourselves (that kind of oneness exists, but it is very much secondary) as between us and Christ, and the oneness with him is more than merely symbolized. It is made actual by the reception of his actual body and blood. If his body and blood are not really there-if the bread and wine are just bread and wine, nothing more-then our oneness with him in the Eucharist is tenuous at best, and our oneness with other communicants is more tenuous still.
Besides, I would like to learn who is engaging in “all this debate over whether the bread and wine actually are, or are not, the body and blood of Christ”? Not the magisterium, not anyone who is familiar with and accepts the constant teaching of the Church, not young First Communicants who have been given the basic facts about the Eucharist. The only ones who think there is a debate are those who already reject Catholic teaching but are unwilling to draw the necessary conclusion, which is that they should cease to call themselves Catholics.
What irks me about such people is that they are not honest. They lack the honesty of Fundamentalists. “Born-agains” who attack the Church may be wrongheaded, but they are honestly wrongheaded. They desire to believe what is true, and they think the Catholic faith is largely untrue-which is why they reject it. The heterodox Catholic, on the other hand, is not honest with himself or with the Church. He wants to be Catholic on his own terms, not God’s. If the Church teaches something contrary to his private religion, the Church is being “ridiculous.”
The children the woman refers to are learning that the Eucharist is a mere symbol, and soon enough they will come to see that a mere symbol is not enough. I wonder how many of them will end up preferring the mere symbol found in the Fundamentalist church down the street?