20th Sunday in Ordinary Time

For the past 3 weeks, our gospel has come from the 6th chapter of John, the bread of life discourse, widely considered by many to have Eucharistic overtones. Today’s gospel is considered by scholars to be the most explicitly Eucharistic of all the sections in chapter six. The language that Jesus uses in this section of chapter six is extremely graphic – the normal Greek word for “eat” (phagein) is replaced instead with a far more earthy word “trogein” – meaning to “crunch.” This suggests that some people wanted to shy away from the visceral literalism of Jesus’ words and give a symbolic spin to eating his flesh and drinking his blood. It is curious, that John, being the most symbolic gospel of all the four should choose to be so downright literal, graphic and earthy at this crucial turning point in Jesus’ ministry. We know that at the time that John was writing his gospel, docetic teachings has infiltrated the preaching of the Christian gospel. These teachings were eventually condemned as heretical, because they taught that Jesus had not really come in the flesh, and only had the appearance of being human. The Docetic heresy maintained that if Jesus only had the appearance of being human, then he did not really suffer and die on the cross. In this way, those who followed this teaching believed that suffering was not an integral part of the Christian life, since Jesus did not really suffer himself.

When I was still in Primary school, this same passage was used by one of my primary school teachers to explain to us why we as Catholics do not practice eucharistic hospitality. Immediately after the pronouncements made in today’s Gospel by Jesus, we are told that many of his disciples decided to leave him, saying that Jesus was speaking with intolerable language. Jesus then turns to the Twelve apostles and asks them if they too wish to leave him. Peter responds by saying, “Lord to whom should we go, you have the message of eternal life.” This teacher explained to us that since the members of other Christian Churches do not believe in the Real Presence, this is why they are not allowed to receive the Eucharist when they come and visit our church. Most other Christian Churches believe that the bread and wine are merely symbols to represent Jesus’ body and blood. Our teacher explained to us that if Jesus was speaking metaphorically here, he would not have let these disciples leave him, he would have called them back and told them “you’ve misunderstood my meaning, I was talking metaphorically, I don’t really expect you to eat my flesh and drink my blood, the bread and wine I will give you are just symbols of my self-giving presence.”

In this analysis, our teacher was identifying those disciples who left Jesus because his teaching with the members of other Christian churches who refused to take Jesus literally. I think that this is an unfortunate analogy used by our teacher, since it is simply not true that members of other Christian Churches decide to leave following Jesus because they find his teaching too hard. It is true that they may have watered down Jesus’ teaching in this one respect by choosing to interpret it symbolically, but in all other respects, they remain faithful disciples of our Lord, often outdoing us as Catholics in their zealous service and worship of the Lord. I think that it is far more helpful to see these disciples who left Jesus as representing the Docetic heretics who preached a version of Christianity that skipped over the necessity for suffering and carrying one’s cross as we follow after Jesus. These are people who in their Christian life do not see the need to get involved in the messiness of the world like Jesus did, and have their bodies broken as they pour themselves out in loving service of their fellow brothers and sisters. Such people prefer to stay clean and focus instead on aspects of the faith that can be well-managed and have neat clean edges, like the liturgy, canon law and good clear doctrine. It is no accident that Pope Francis who has said that our churches need to be like a field hospital on battle field, filled with the messiness of life, has also been accused of watering down the clear doctrine of the Church and confusing the faithful.

It is also simply not true that all other Christian Churches do not believe in the Real Presence. The Orthodox, the high Anglican Church, the Episcopalian Church and the Lutheran Churches all have a belief in the Real Presence. As regards those Churches who do not have this belief, time and space do not permit us to go into all the various historical reasons that have resulted in them only having a symbolic interpretation of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. But does this mean that they should be excluded from our Eucharist, simply because their understanding of the Eucharist does not go as far as ours? I don’t think so, and neither did the Second Vatican Council. You may be surprised to learn that the Second Vatican Council actually provided for Eucharistic hospitality with other Christian Churches, albeit only on some occasions. This is to be found in the decree on Christian Unity, Unitatis Reintegratio (UR no. 8). While the decree warns against indiscriminate use of Eucharistic hospitality, it does state that if used occasionally, such intercommunion (communcatio in sacris) might actually enhance Christian Unity, and see us journeying towards the fulfilment of Christ’s prayer “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). If we as Catholics are prepared to humbly admit that, even we do not comprehend fully the mystery of the Eucharist, perhaps such humility would lead us to welcoming our separated brothers and sisters to our Eucharistic table at important occasions, such as weddings and perhaps funerals. Unitatis Redintegratio is very clear on stating the course to be adopted in such circumstances is to be determined by the local episcopal authority.

What we need to realize about this passage is that its thrust is not to get us to fixate on the physicality of Jesus’ language of crunching on his body and drinking his blood. We would have failed to understand this passage if we simply stop at the physicality. We must remember what Jesus’ flesh and blood point to – namely the brutal violence that he suffered on the cross, and his own response of loving self-giving to such violence. We must remember that this chapter began with the feeding of the 5000 which the Christian community connected with the Eucharist. In this story we see that Jesus is unafraid to expose himself to the problem that 5,000 hungry people pose, as opposed to Philip, who wishes to run away from this problem. When Jesus and 5,000 hungry people meet head-on – the end result is 12 baskets full of leftovers and 5000 satisfied people. In the Eucharist, Jesus takes on a different problem. He takes on the sin, jealousy, lust for power and violence of human beings – and when Jesus confronts this problem head-on – the result is a body broken for us, and blood poured out for the salvation of the world. This was why the 12 baskets full of left-overs were so significant for the early Church and why they are mentioned in each of the four gospels. The 12 baskets are symbolic of the fact that our human need can never outpace God’s ability to provide for us. In an analogous manner, the visceral language used in today’s gospel of a body broken and blood poured out point to the fact that sin can never outdo God’s desire to save us. Surely on this point, we can all be united as Christians in proclaiming this incomparable love of God for us all.

Questions for reflection

1. Am I disburbed by the physicality of this passage? Do I let myself become involved in the messiness of the world, even when it costs me greatly?
2. Do I let Jesus’ total self-giving in the Eucharist condition the way that I approach this sacrament with reverence and awe?
3. What has been my experience, if any, of Christian unity. What are some of the ways I have experienced of promoting Christian unity?