Posted on 04/16/2005 5:40:36 AM PDT by Kolokotronis
The concept of communion is above all anchored in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the reason why we still today in the language of the Church rightly designate the reception of this sacrament simply as “to communicate”. In this way, the very practical social significance of this sacramental event also immediately becomes evident, and this in a radical way that cannot be achieved in exclusively horizontal perspectives. Here we are told that by means of the sacrament we enter in a certain way into a communion with the blood of Jesus Christ, where blood according to the Hebrew perspective stands for “life”. Thus, what is being affirmed is a commingling of Christ’s life with our own.
“Blood” in the context of the Eucharist clearly stands also for “gift”, for an existence that pours itself out, gives itself for us and to us. Thus the communion of blood is also insertion into the dynamic of this life, into this “blood poured out”. Our existence is “dynamized” in such a way that each of us can become a being for others, as we see obviously happening in the open Heart of Christ.
From a certain point of view, the words over the bread are even more stunning. They tell of a “communion” with the body of Christ which Paul compares to the union of a man and a woman (cf. I Cor 6,17ff; Eph 5,26-32). Paul also expresses this from another perspective when he says: it is one and the same bread, which all of us now receive. This is true in a startling way: the “bread” — the new manna, which God gives to us — is for all the one and the same Christ.
It is truly the one, identical Lord, whom we receive in the Eucharist, or better, the Lord who receives us and assumes us into himself. St Augustine expressed this in a short passage which he perceived as a sort of vision: eat the bread of the strong; you will not transform me into yourself, but I will transform you into me. In other words, when we consume bodily nourishment, it is assimilated by the body, becoming itself a part of ourselves. But this bread is of another type. It is greater and higher than we are. It is not we who assimilate it, but it assimilates us to itself, so that we become in a certain way “conformed to Christ”, as Paul says, members of his body, one in him.
We all “eat” the same person, not only the same thing; we all are in this way taken out of our closed individual persons and placed inside another, greater one. We all are assimilated into Christ and so by means of communion with Christ, united among ourselves, rendered the same, one sole thing in him, members of one another.
To communicate with Christ is essentially also to communicate with one another. We are no longer each alone, each separate from the other; we are now each part of the other; each of those who receive communion is “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Gn 2,23).
A true spirituality of communion seen in its Christological profundity, therefore, necessarily has a social character, as Henri de Lubac brilliantly described more than a half century ago in his book, Catholicism.
For this reason, in my prayer at communion, I must look totally toward Christ, allowing myself to be transformed by him, even to be burned by his enveloping fire. But, precisely for this reason, I must always keep clearly in mind that in this way he unites me organically with every other person receiving him — with the one next to me, whom I may not like very much; but also with those who are far away, in Asia, Africa, America or in any other place.
Becoming one with them, I must learn to open myself toward them and to involve myself in their situations. This is the proof of the authenticity of my love for Christ. If I am united with Christ, I am together with my neighbour, and this unity is not limited to the moment of communion, but only begins here. It becomes life, becomes flesh and blood, in the everyday experience of sharing life with my neighbour. Thus, the individual realities of my communicating and being part of the life of the Church are inseparably linked to one another.
The Church is not born as a simple federation of communities. Her birth begins with the one bread, with the one Lord and from him from the beginning and everywhere, the one body which derives from the one bread. She becomes one not through a centralized government but through a common centre open to all, because it constantly draws its origin from a single Lord, who forms her by means of the one bread into one body. Because of this, her unity has a greater depth than that which any other human union could ever achieve. Precisely when the Eucharist is understood in the intimacy of the union of each person with the Lord, it becomes also a social sacrament to the highest degree.
Joseph Ratzinger
"Does that make sense?"
Yup. Why didn't you just say so? Remember, I'm just a simple country lawyer. :)
"I didn't read the cardinal's piece as asserting some sort of magical, instant theosis...but rather an ongoing transformation of us by our participation in the Holy Eucharist."
Ah, well then, the Cardinal speaks your language! :)
I grew up in conservative Protestantism, then lived through the liberal onslaught in Protestantism, then explored Catholicism seriously by reading pre Vat II sources, then encountered post Vat II Catholicism in practice, and finally converted to Orthodoxy.
I have therefore read widely and attended a multitude of different "brands" of churches over the decades. One learns very quickly to spot what kind of theology is about to be taught by the code-words and ways of talking and writing about theology.
And as a "multi-lingual" :-) guy, I can tell you, that modern Roman Catholic theological and liturgical ways of talking/writing are pretty much a barely altered liberal Protestant language, which has its roots in German Protestant higher criticism, etc...
It is not like the language of conservative Protestantism, "old" Catholicism, or Orthodoxy. It has "liberal Protestant" written all over it. That doesn't at all mean that modern Catholic theology is just like modern liberal Protestant theology -- just that this is who modern Catholic scholars have chosen to sound like. I personally feel that this reflects definite theological sympathies with liberal Protestantism in some cases, an academic "inferiority complex" in other cases (we see this in Orthodoxy to some extent, as I have previously noted), and in other cases it is just something that has been innocently learned by imitation. In all cases, I think that this language has an eventual effect on the theology being taught.
If you want to find out whether your priest, for instance, buys into the "radical kenosis" idea, by the way, just ask him to tell you what happened at the Ascension, and then as a followup what will happen at the Second Coming.
The Church is clear on both of these things: Christ ascended into heaven in his glorified human body, and He will return with that same glorified human body. "In the same way" as the disciples saw him going up, the people on earth will see him coming down -- but this time with the angels, etc...
Listen not only to the words -- listen for "side-stepping" language, and watch body-language.
Orthodox priests have a hard time getting by with such ideas (and frankly if they had them, they wouldn't be much interested in being Orthodox priests, generally), because our hymnology is just chalk-full of very retrograde theology on things like this. And because the Byzantines loved to repeat things in a dozen different ways (that's why our services are so long) -- there is just no room for equivocation. By the time one gets done with Vespers and Matins of the Ascension, and of the Last Judgment, there is little room for mistaking what the Orthodox Church teaches!
Ouch.
I *did* just say so! I just misunderestimated how simple you were! :-)
Check out this link from another thread which gbcdoj provided:http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2003/1103cc.htm. This, I think, is in part what +Ratzinger's Eucharist theory can lead to, or perhaps the mindset from whence it came.
I think we interpret this document through the lens of our respective religious experiences. The Orthodox concept of community is great, and in a good church in the West we might experience the same. But, when I read the words of a VII theologian on community and social justice, I know they are not speaking of the same thing. It sets off alarm bells. There is a belief that enlightenment truly comes through a group experience. I think the charismatic movement is an outgrowth of this idea and also part of a search within to find a spiritual connection which was lost. The West traded the framework for a vertical spiritual experience for something humanistic and emotion based.
Not so, Kosta. The monastic community, like the parish community, is a Eucharistic community, though one far outside the world we live in, where the members work with each other to strengthen individual theosis of the monks. Only the most powerful, spiritually speaking, are ever allowed to go off on their own and live a life of a hermit.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of my Greek cousin, I agree with kosta. While very few can manage a solitary path to theosis, even within a community the path is a singular one. I know you stated as much in a different manner, but kosta made some good points in the last couple of posts. As material and emotional attachments are stripped away, community will be of little comfort.
I have read the Shroud of Turin has wine stains and is believed to have been used as the tablecloth at the Last Supper. Apparently there was a custom at the time where the host fed his guests the first bite of food and drink. If true, it would explain the wine stains and provide another historical link against Communion in the hand.
Well theosis is always a personal thing, but we generally work on it within a community and as I said, only the most powerful, spiritually speaking, of monastics are allowed out alone. Maybe we are saying the same thing, but somehow I doubt it.
What I mean is, when God touches the soul it becomes an experience only those two can share. No one, no matter how well meaning, can understand the experience unless they have been there. Even then, there is only a limited amount an elder can do beyond spiritual direction. The journey can be very lonely even within a group. I think that is part of the process. God wants us to rely solely on Him instead of human resources.
But on the other hand, the way that this salvation is sought and worked out is through life in community.
The Orthodox Church lives by the words of the Scriptures: "It is not good for man to live alone." There are two paths recommended by the Church to seek theosis: marriage and monasticism. Both are lived out in community. While solitary life in the world certainly happens, this is a reflection of the world's falleness. Orthodox parishes tend to bend over backwards to reach out to those who are alone (widowed, never married, etc...), knowing that everyone needs a family.
There are, as Kolokotronis points out, isolated cases of people going straight to the hermetic life (such as St. Mary of Egypt), but for every case of this in the Orthodox tradition, there are several examples of people who were deeply deluded, and who sometimes lost their salvation because they tried this too soon. Within community, strong efforts are made for monastics essentially never to be alone, certainly not alone with their own thoughts. Daily confession of thoughts to an elder is a hallmark of Orthodox monasticism, and this is because of the dangers of spiritual delusion.
Only when someone is extremely accomplished in the coenobitic life is solitary life even contemplated. Only when one able to be in the "communion of the saints" (in which case one is still really not alone), is the life of a hermit blessed by a spiritual father. Before this, it is too dangerous. If we can't learn to survive the temptations of rubbing shoulders with others, we won't survive the demons in the desert...
I've never heard, BTW, that the Shroud doubled as a tablecloth. Keep in mind that my own personal leanings are that the Shroud is not authentic, so I tend to be skeptical of the Shroud being used as evidence for anything.
Maybe I'm having trouble making my point. I am speaking of actual phases in the process along the lines of St. John of the Cross' Ascent of Mt. Carmel and Dark Night. I haven't read The Ladder yet so I can't make a cross reference.
You have many good thoughts in your post with which I agree.
The story was related to me without a direct reference so I can't give anything more solid than what I was told. I think the wine stains are in a certain pattern on the cloth which led to that theory.
It's okay. I have a personal devotion to the Holy Face. It has helped me a great deal.
Actually, Albion, I think your excellent questions indicate you do understand. I think what John Paul the Great and Card Ratzinger are speaking about is the correct idea of Eucharist and how our reception of it, if it is authentic, is expressed in our comunion and solidarity with all the brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ who similarly receive. I think the correct ideas about Eucharist are radical and far more encompassing that what I first learned as a young Catholic. I think I am blessed to live during a this time.
Once the Holy Spirit accomplishes a reunion, we will be awesome.
I don't really know why a lot of the Liturgical changes took place. Probably, the Pope knew we teetered on a major schism and he bent over backwards to accomodate where possible to forestall an open schism.
From Comunion in the hand, to altar girls, to,... you name it. Maybe the Holy Spirit had had enough and said "ok, clowns. Have it your way. I'll sit over here and wait for you to come to your senses."
IMO, Pope Ratzinger would return us to our senses. He is extremely serious and the state of our Liturgy - sub-pathetic in the West in most places (except for the Indult)- needs his attention as Pope. But,he will have the AmBishops to slap down. Maybe a Legate will be necessary.
but until Catholic and Orthodox faithful can walk into each other's parishes and recognize the same faith and the same spirit, it will be meaningless and there will be no union
Amen, brother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.