By George “Chip” Hammond
Recently a friend posted approvingly a quote by Pope Francis made on June 7, 2021: “The Eucharist is not the reward of saints, but the bread of sinners.” Taken out of its current context, the quote may be true enough (assuming we understand “saint” and “sinner” here in the Roman Catholic sense to mean “super Christian” as opposed to “ordinary Christian”). But the quote was made in response to a move by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to deny communion to any politician who supports, promotes, and enables the termination of children in the womb or those recently out of the womb.
At this juncture, it needs to be said that whatever criticism I may offer here is not based on an opposition to “all things Roman Catholic.” The proper standard for evaluating things having to do with the life of the church is the Scriptures. The proper standard is not “Look at what the Roman Church does and do the opposite.” Nor does the standard change based on political affiliation. It is deeply troubling that American evangelicals often highlight sin when it is committed by politicians of one party, but ignore, down-play, or excuse sin that is committed by politicians of their favored party.
For those unfamiliar with the term “Eucharist,” the word comes from the Greek eucharistein “to give thanks,” referring to the statement in Luke 22:19, “And he took bread, gave thanks [eucharistesas] and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’” Protestant churches commonly call this the Lord’s Supper.
I asked my friend whether his quoting of the statement was meant to indicate that he thought the Eucharist was the bread of repentant sinners, or of all sinners? Although my friend did not answer me directly, I got the impression from his response that he didn’t think repentance was necessary for participation in the Lord’s Supper (or “Eucharist”).
Before examining this proposition, it needs to be emphasized that the Roman Church led the way in bringing the evil of abortion to light and condemning it after it was legalized in the U.S. in 1973. For this the Roman Church should be commended. Evangelical Protestant churches ignored the issue at first and came late to the party. We owe a debt to our Roman Catholic friends for not allowing us to turn a blind eye to this evil.
Is abortion contrary to Scripture? The best exegesis of the Hebrew text of Exodus 21:22-25 indicates that the Mosaic law regarded the life of the unborn child as a human life with all the protections of human life, and all the penalties for taking it. Although the New Testament does not address this issue directly, it is evident that the early church regarded abortion and infanticide as murder. The Didache (“The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) is a very early manual of Christian life and behavior dating from before the second century. The practices stated in it reflect the teachings of the apostles and have been reflected in the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. In section two of the Didache we read, “You will not murder a child by abortion, or kill a child at birth.” Abortion is contrary to the teaching of the Roman Church, a fact which Pope Francis concedes and which he in fact defends.
The question remains: Should willful violation of this principle and working to ensure and expand society’s ability to terminate unwanted children be a bar for someone participating in the Supper? While we might turn to internal consistency of Church practice and Roman doctrine, as mentioned before, the proper criteria by which to judge the practices of the church are the Scriptures.
Since the earliest times, the church has understood the sacrament of the Supper to be something that only believers may participate in. The Didache, for example, bars anyone from the table who has not been baptized. Official Roman doctrine goes a step further and bars from the table even baptized Christians who are not Roman Catholic. But does this mean that those who are baptized Catholics should be welcomed to the Eucharist even if they actively work to subvert the Church’s moral teachings?
It is evident from 1 Corinthians 11 that the apostle Paul did not believe that all the baptized Christians at Corinth should participate in the Supper. He warned that those who ate and drank of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner would be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:27), that they must examine themselves, lest they eat and drink, not blessing, but condemnation to themselves (1 Corinthians 11:28-29). While Paul was here addressing a particular sin, the principle is not limited to that sin alone (which is why the churches of the Reformation have been careful to “fence the table” so that the church as a whole is not be complicit in the spiritual destruction of those who eat and drink unworthily).
Perhaps we can see the seriousness of the issue by looking at another point in history and asking the question. Should Christians living in 1940s Germany participate in the Lord’s Supper if they were complicit with the National Socialist German Workers’ Party’s work of rounding up and exterminating Jews? The answer of Pope Francis would have to be “Yes, of course. For the Eucharist is not the reward of the saints, but the bread of sinners.”
Pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer had another answer. Bonhoeffer opposed Hitler’s party and agenda and was a signer of the Barmen Declaration which affirmed against the Deutsche Christen movement that God declared his will, not through the decrees of politicians, but through his Word. He fled for a time to the U.S. but felt called back to Germany to join the resistance against Hitler’s agenda. Bonhoeffer was arrested and martyred, murdered out of spite shortly before Germany surrendered.
In his book The Cost of Discipleship Bonhoeffer wrote:
Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjack’s wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap? ... Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance; baptism without church discipline; ... absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate ... Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has ... Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us.
American Catholics have traditionally been aligned with the Democratic party. Since currently this is the party working to ensure and expand abortion practices, it goes against the interests of the Catholic Bishops to refuse communion to them. It would be far easier for them to look away from the slaughter of the innocents “for the greater good” of staying in the good graces of the politicians of their favored party. That the bishops have refused to do so shows an enormous amount of courage.
There is a difference between the free grace of God (which is costly) and cheap grace. Francis seems unable or unwilling to understand the difference. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops seems able to see the difference clearly.
Yassin Doukhane photo
