How has Christ been Understood to be Present in the Eucharist - Essay Example

HOW HAS CHRIST BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO BE PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST? DOES THIS QUESTION MATTER, AND WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? One of the core messages articulated in the Eucharist is the message of community – the gathering together of believers in the spirit of oneness and solidarity. It is truly ironic that divergent opinions on what the Eucharist means and how it should be practiced have caused rifts and chasms among organized religions and Christian denominations all over the world. For example, in 1998, the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland issued One Bread, One Body, which contained a discussion on the theology of the Eucharist. It generated controversy for calling into question the manner in which Anglicans celebrated the Eucharist and interpret its meaning. Indeed, while there are concepts on the Eucharist that are shared, there are marked differences from one religion to another. (McGrath, 2001). The question only is whether or not we will allow such differences to create divisions and be the cause of religious conflict and strife. This paper will discuss the different theological perspectives that underlie appreciation for the Eucharist in various Christian denominations such as the Church of England, the Methodist and United Reformed Churches and the Catholic Church. It will as well attempt to wade into the murky waters of ecumenism and see how understanding and harmony can be forged instead of divisiveness and intolerance. John Macquarrie’s book, A Guide to the Sacraments (1997), provides an illuminating guide of “the sacraments and their place in the church away from all magical and superstitious ideas about them" (p. vii.) Macquarrie posits the notion originally forwarded by William Temple that we “live in a sacramental universe” and that one may know and experience God through the things of the world. Called the “sacramental principle”, it is a way by which balance can be achieved between the material and spiritual forces constantly in tension with each other. Hence, Macquarrie laments "the lack of any feeling for the holy, the failure to recognise that anything is sacred" (p. 81) for, in his opinion, this "represents the loss of a perception or discernment which in times past was basic to our humanity and a safeguard against the tendencies that can make us less than human." A very important Anglican notion is that Christ is not only the author and minister of each sacrament, but equally the exemplar of the grace which each sacrament is designed to realise, by naming explicitly the grace or virtue conveyed in and through each sacrament. In the Eucharist, this particular grace is self-giving. Macquarrie forwards the idea that through these sacraments, “things” which are considered otherwise ordinary are taken to new spiritual levels, or people’s understanding of them have, by virtue of the persistence of their faith, undergone intense deepening. Hence, bread which is of the earth and which human hands have made become the “Word of Life” and Wine, normally considered the fruit of the vine and a product of human toil and labor, becomes the “spiritual drink” and the “cup of our salvation”. There is no doubt that the Eucharist is very important in the Anglican Church. No one by a bishop or presbyter may administer the Eucharist and it mandates that “pure wheaten bread and wine, being the fermented juice of the grape, are the necessary elements of the Sacrament.” This is the form of consecration and administration in the national Church of England: "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again; Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christs holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood: who, in the same night that he was betrayed [Here the Priest is to take the Paten into his hands], took Bread; and, when he had given thanks [And here to break the bread], he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat [And here to lay his hand upon all the Bread], this is my Body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he [Here he is to take the Cup into his hand] took the Cup; and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this [And here to lay his hand upon every vessel (be it Chalice or Flagon) in which there is any Wine to be consecrated] is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. Amen." Anglican perspective on the issue of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic is relatively more complicated and less categorical than the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. It also speaks of a history fraught with ideological differences. At the very start, the doctrine of the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church with respect to Transubstantiation was one and the same. When the reign of Edward VI ushered in a more Protestant ideology, transubstantiation was refuted and denied. The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion, which sought to distinguish between Catholic and Anglican doctrine, and was assented to by Elizabeth I, said in words that could not be any clearer: “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." The Doctrine of Transubstantiation, many Anglicans believe, tend to obscure the deeper meaning of the Eucharist: which is God using temporal and material objects in order to provide eternal grace. They posit that when it said that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ, it does not mean that Christ is materially present. They are content in leaving that issue a mystery, one more proof of the great mystery that is the grace and power of God. Moreover, there are some Anglicans who believe in Transubstantiation and embrace it entirely, and at the other end of the spectrum, still others who believe that those who attend Holy Communion “verily eat and drink the natural flesh and blood of Christ. And what can any man do more unworthily towards a Friend? How can he possibly use him more barbarously, than to feast upon his living flesh and blood?" (Discourse against Transubstantiation, London 1684, 35). It is important to note that unlike in the Catholic Church wherein its edicts are binding on all their believers or they face eternal damnation, the Anglican Church is less rigid and allows for dissent. The Thirty Nine Articles on Religion are binding on Anglican clergy, and no one else. This view, however, has not been without critics. According to Hunter (1982, p. 57): European Protestantism, however influential on the early reformed Church of England in matters of doctrine, failed in its own attempts to settle the question of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. English Protestantism, effecting reformation independently of Europe, formulated no specific doctrine of the Eucharist and fell heir to the Continental struggle for definition. In contrast, the Catholic Church is categorical in its doctrine of the Eucharist and Christ’s real presence in it. The Eucharist could well be considered the centerpiece of the Catholic faith. The very nature of the Eucharist is that it is a “Sacrament of Love” and bond of fraternal unity, which actively challenges the exploitative abuses of consumerist and secularist society. The basics of the Catholic faith in the Eucharist are presented in Vatican II’s “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”. At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the ages, until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, A Memorial of his death and resurrection; A Sacrament of love, a sign of unity and a bond of charity, A Paschal Banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and A Pledge of future glory is given us. Sacrosanctum Concilium 47 (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 1963) hereinafter, SC The specific points of the Eucharist for Catholics are as follows. First, the Eucharist was instituted by Christ. He prepared for it in the many fellowship meals which he shared during his public life. He established the Eucharist at the Last Supper, the night before he died on the Cross. And he confirmed it as the Risen Christ in his Easter meal appearances to the disciples. Secondly, the Eucharist is celebrated with Christ by the Christian community, the Church. It is an essentially ecclestial act, carried out “by the Mystical Body of Christ, that is, by the Head and his members” (SC 7). Thirdly, the Eucharist is at once both a sacrifice and a sacred meal. It is the memorial instituted by Christ so that the saving benefits of his Death and Resurrection can be shared by the People of God through every age. Fourthly, Christ himself is really present in the Eucharist celebration in multiple ways, but especially under the sacramental signs of bread and wine. Finally, the Eucharist is the eschatological pledge and foretaste of our future glory. Given this “stupendous content and meaning” Redemptor Hominis (John Paul II, 1979) [hereinafter, RH] the exposition begins with the Eucharist as thanksgiving worship carried on by and in the Catholic community’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Then John Paul II’s triple description of the Eucharist is used to structure the following exposition of the Eucharist: first, as Sacrifice-Sacrament, then as Communion-Sacrament, and finally as Presence-Sacrament, which constitutes the pledge of eternal life hereafter. The Catholic Church is categorical that Christ is present at the Eucharist. Christ instituted the Eucharist at his Last Supper with his apostles, so that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross could be perpetuated through all ages (SC 47). Pope Paul VI explained what this means: “through the mystery of the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Cross which was once offered on Calvary, is remarkably reenacted and constantly recalled, and its saving power exerted for the forgiveness of sins.” Mysterium Fidei 27 (Paul VI, 1965) [hereinafter, MF]. According to Catholic doctrine, Christ instituted the Eucharist so that his once-and-for-all saving Death on the Cross might be made present even to us – 2,000 years later. The Eucharist is a sacrifice because Christ is present precisely as offering himself for us as a sacrifice to the Father. Thus, the heart of the Eucharistic celebration is the perfect saving love of Christ. Catholics believe that it is Christ himself who is present in the Eucharist for it is his total offering of himself to the Father. In the Eucharist, the Death and Resurrection of Christ are not just remembered, but effectively proclaimed and made present. The Mass is not a sacrifice separate from the Cross, rather – The sacrifice of the Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass are, apart from the difference in the manner of offering, one and the same sacrifice. It is this sacramental renewal which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded his apostles to celebrate in his memory. The Mass is therefore a sacrifice of praise, of thanksgiving, of propitiation and of satisfaction. Instr. Rom. Missal. 2. But Christ’s sacrifice radically changed the sacrifices of the Old Covenant with their slaughter of animals, sprinkling of blood, and the sacrificial meal. Instead of the blood of animals, at the Last Supper Christ instituted the sacrifice of the New Covenant in his own blood, telling his apostles: “This is my blood, the blood of the Covenant, to be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mt 26:28) But this was not to placate a wrathful Father. On the contrary, Christ’s sacrifice was in perfect, loving obedience, revealing the Father’s own redeeming love for us. Therefore, in the Father’s eyes, Christ’s sacrifice meant that His beloved Son was redeeming the whole universe by offering all mean and women the power to give glory to the Father with himself, the “first-born of all creation.” (Col 1:15). For Christ himself, his death meant the way “to pass from the world to the Father” by “loving his own to the end.” (Jn 13:1). Through his dying in an act of perfect self-giving love, Christ became the Risen Lord who sends the Holy Spirit on us all. According to McCue (1968, p. 365), however, the doctrine of transubstantiation is fraught with historical errors. To quote: (A) considerable number (quantification is difficult, but I am inclined to suppose a majority) of medieval theologians for more than two centuries prior to the Reformation thought that transubstantiation was not a necessary consequence of the doctrine of the physical presence. The doctrine of transubstantiation was held in place not by any philosophical necessities, but principally what I take to be a mistaken reading of the earlier tradition, especially of Lateran IV (1215). From about 1300 on Lateran IV was read as having made transubstantiation a sine qua non of orthodoxy though many (most?) found transubstantiation philosophically less plausible than an alternative quite similar to what can be called consubstantiation. Thus the point at issue, as Luther insisted in his earlier polemics, had more to do with the understanding of the Church than with the understanding of the Eucharist. This belief in transubstantiation is shared by the Lutherans who believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly and substantially present in the bread and wine served during Eucharist. This doctrine is more formally known as the “Sacramental Union”. For members of the Lutheran Church, only when the sacrament is made in accordance with Christ’s institution can it be considered valid. In the Wittenberg Concord of 1546, it was stated that: “Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum ("Nothing has the character of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ")” Many liberal Lutherans practice open communions – or the accommodation of groups and the granting of communion to those who are not in complete doctrinal agreement with them. The newest thing about Christ’s sacrifice, what makes it unique, is that it ended not in death but in a new and glorious life. Christ’s resurrection is both the fulfillment of his sacrificial act and the sign of the Father’s acceptance of his sacrifice. As Victim, Christ is the new Passover Lamb of the Last Supper and of Calvary. According to Catholic faith, Christ’s whole life constituted a redeeming process, begun at the Incarnation when he “was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.” It developed through his Hidden Life, his Public Ministry of teaching, preaching and miracles, leading to the Last Supper, his Passion and Death. The final moment and culmination of this whole process of redemption was his glorious Resurrection. Christ entrusted his Eucharist to the Church. It is the whole Christ, Jesus the Head and all of us as members of His Body, that celebrates the Eucharist. The Eucharist then is “the action not only of Christ, but also of the Church. The Church, the spouse and minister of Christ, performs together with him the role of priest and victim, offers him to the Father and at the same time makes a total offering of herself together with him.” Eucharisticum Mysterium 3c (Instruction issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, 1967). [hereinafter, EM] All Catholics are called to actively participate in Christ’s role both as Priest offering sacrifice, and as Victim being offered, by joining their activities to Christ’s redeeming work. This perspective is shared by the Methodist Church, which views the Eucharist as an instrumental means of grace but leaves the details a “Holy Mystery”. They do not want to go into the specifics of transubstantion. In the United Methodist Eucharistic Liturgy, the celebrating minister says to the congregation: Pour out your Holy Spirit on us gathered here, and on these gifts of bread and wine. Make them be for us the body and blood of Christ, that we may be for the world the body of Christ, redeemed by his blood. In the gospel song “Come Sinners to the Gospel Feast” the congregation is likewise called upon to sing this particular stanza: Come and partake the gospel feast, be saved from sin, in Jesus rest; O taste the goodness of our God, and eat his flesh and drink his blood. At the Last Supper, Christ commanded his apostles: “Do this in remembrance of me.” (Lk. 22:19). In biblical tradition, “remembrance” is not primarily a looking backward to recall a past event, but rather a making present the great acts of the past which God had worked. Thus the Old Testament Passover ritual is described: “This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the Lord as a perpetual institution.” (Ex 12:14). The Jewish memorial meal of the Passover, then, was not just a subjective remembering on the part of the Jews, of God’s past saving action. Rather, it was primarily the action of God, king presents to later generations His saving power of the Exodus. In an official document released by the United Methodist Church in 2004, entitled “This Holy Mystery” it recognized unequivocally that indeed, the Eucharist was more than a memorial. Holy Communion is remembrance, commemoration, and memorial, but this remembrance is much more than simply intellectual recalling. "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) is anamnesis (the biblical Greek word). This dynamic action becomes re-presentation of past gracious acts of God in the present, so powerfully as to make them truly present now. Christ is risen and is alive here and now, not just remembered for what was done in the past. So the Eucharistic celebration makes present Christ’s “exodus” by which he took away sin. In comparison with Israel’s thanksgiving Passover remembrance, Christians have their remembrance of Jesus’ Passover – his Death, Resurrection, Ascension and sending the Spirit. Christians celebrate their memorial for deliverance from Egypt, the land of slavery, but more for the Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension to the Father. But Christ added a radically new dimension to the Passover memorial. The Eucharist is a new creation by Christ and the Holy Spirit. In it humans not only experience the saving power of Christ’s past act, but are brought into his actual personal presence. For the Eucharist as memorial is a sacrifice sacrament precisely because the father makes present to us through the Holy Spirit, Christ himself, the Son, in the sacrament of the Father, the New Covenant of the Father’s Love and its creative sacrifice. The Eucharist is also essentially the “sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal Banquet” (SC 47). Instituted by Christ himself at the Last Supper, the Eucharist was commonly known among the early Christian communities as “the breaking of Bread.” Thus the book of Acts describes the life of the first Christian community: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ instruction and the communal life, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” (Acts 2:42). This meant that all who ate the one blessed, broken Bread that is Christ, were drawn into communion with him and with one another, to form one single body with him. So St. Paul writes: Is not the cup of blessing that we bless, a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break, a sharing in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, many though we are, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (1 Cor 10:16f) The original setting of the Eucharist at the Last Supper brought out the meal dimension very strongly. But this simply continued Christ’s “meal ministry” that he had carried on throughout his public life. From the start, Jesus had scandalized the scribes and Pharisees by sitting at table with sinners and tax collectors. One such was Matthew Zacchaeus. Christ called him down from his perch in a tree, so that Jesus could eat with him at his home. (Lk. 19:5). Even when a Pharisee called Simon had invited Jesus to dine with him, Jesus used the opportunity to contrast the great faith of the sinful woman who had entered uninvited, with the lack of common hospitality shown by the Pharisee. After his Resurrection, Jesus “broke bread” with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus (Lk 24:30-31) and with seven of the apostles on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias. (JN 21:12f). In all these meals Christ brought salvation to those who opened their hearts to him. Follows of John Calvin or Calvinist/Presybyterian believe that the Eucharist must not be taken in its corporal sense but should rather be understood as a demonstration of faith and grace for unbelievers. Reformed theology, however, has also been teaching that not only the spirit but the true body and blood of Christ is partook during the Eucharist – if those who partake of it are without sin and are believers. There has been some conflict and controversy surrounding this matter, with the denominations taking different positions. In an official document released by these denominations and the Lutherans, it was stated that: “The theological diversity within our common confession provides both the complementarity needed for a full and adequate witness to the gospel (mutual affirmation) and the corrective reminder that every theological approach is a partial and incomplete witness to the Gospel (mutual admonition) (A Common Calling, page 66)." According to the Churches: "During the Reformation both Reformed and Lutheran Churches exhibited an evangelical intention when they understood the Lords Supper in the light of the saving act of God in Christ. Despite this common intention, different terms and concepts were employed which. . . led to mutual misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Properly interpreted, the differing terms and concepts were often complementary rather than contradictory (Marburg Revisited, pp. 103-104);" They proceeded to state: "In the Lords Supper the risen Christ imparts himself in body and blood, given up for all, through his word of promise with bread and wine....we proclaim the death of Christ through which God has reconciled the world with himself. We proclaim the presence of the risen Lord in our midst. Rejoicing that the Lord has come to us, we await his future coming in glory....Both of our communions, we maintain, need to grow in appreciation of our diverse eucharistic traditions, finding mutual enrichment in them. At the same time both need to grow toward a further deepening of our common experience and expression of the mystery of our Lords Supper (A Formula for Agreement)." Christ instituted the Eucharist to signify and thus bring about the unity of the Church. Catholics believe that in sharing a meal together we satisfy much more than physical hunger. Equally important is our deep hunger for understanding, love and companionship. A shared meal involves three basic elements: a coming together, a dialogue, and a sharing of food and drink. First, like in a family meal or among people united by some common bond, the Eucharist brings Catholics together, united by their Baptism, their common faith in Jesus Christ, their Savior, and by their hope of deepening their union with Christ and with one another. Second, conversation provides the meal’s distinctive human quality. The whole Eucharist is a dialogue between God and his faithful. For example, God speaks through the Scriptural readings and the faithful respond by their profession of faith and the General Intercessions. Finally, a meal involves preparing the food and drink, offering them to the participants and eating and drinking together. So likewise in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, there is the preparation of the Gifts, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the Consecration by the priest celebrant using the very words of Christ: Take this, all of you, and eat it, This is MY BODY, which will be given up for you… Take this, all of your and drink from it, This is the cup of MY BLOOD; The blood of the new and everlasting covenant, It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.” Following the Eucharistic Prayer, the faithful receive holy Communion to be united with Christ and with one another. The reality of this Eucharistic meal rests squarely on Christ’s solemn promise: I myself am the living bread come down from heaven If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever, The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world… He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal And I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood real drink, The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks in my blood Remains in me and I in him… The man who feeds on me will have life because of me. Thus in the Eucharistic meal, through the sign of physical nourishment in a meal, Christ becomes the Bread, nourishing one’s faith, hope and love. The Eucharist responds to the deepest hungers of our lives, both personal and communal. Indeed, as Perham argues, the liturgy does reflect the life of the Church and the wider world. (2000) It is a fitting metaphor, therefore, to use the Eucharist as an instrument for quenching one’s thirst and relieving one’s hunger for the grace of God. In the structure of the mass, we now focus on the meal’s elements of preparing, offering and sharing food and drink. These elements of the Liturgy of the Eucharist are patterned on the four solemn actions of Christ at the Last Supper: “He took (Preparation of the Gifts), blessed (Eucharistic Prayer), broke (Breaking of the Bread), and gave (Communion) to his disciples.” (Mk 14:22). In imitation of Christ at the Last Supper, bread and wine are the food and drink in the Eucharist. At the preparation of the gifts “we thank the God of all creation throughout whose goodness we have this bread and wine to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made.” Both bread and wine thus exemplify the intrinsic working-together of God and ourselves in everything we do. In the Old Covenant, bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth, in acknowledging God as the Creator of all. Bread as “staff of human life” was for the Jews a symbol of the Torah, God’s Law that shaped their covenant lives. Christ, God’s Wisdom Incarnate, goes beyond the Law given through Moses, and offers himself as the “bread from heaven”. The unleavened bread used in the Mass follows the Jewish Passover meal’s use which symbolized the hasty Exodus (departure) from Egypt, the land of slavery, to freedom. The differences surrounding the doctrine of Transubstantiation truly makes the case for the promotion of ecumenism or worldwide religious unity. In the Last Supper, when Christ called his apostles together to tell them to continue spreading his message of love, Christian compassion and servant leadership, he did so on the premise that those who believed in and loved him would act as one community and spread his word as one community. The concept of ecumenism is by no means new. It is usually associated with the creation of unities between various Christian denominations with Christ being at the center of one’s spirituality. According to the Catholic Church in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Ut Unum Sint of 1995 – Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lords disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. A major breakthrough to promote ecumenism among various Christian denominations is the World Council of Churches, which has worked and been successful at creating consensus on various issues that have torn and fractured inter-Christian relations. The process has been long, and sometimes even bloody, but it cannot be gainsaid that ecumenism is something we should all aspire towards. Works Cited Hunter, Jeanne Clayton. (1982) "With Winges of Faith": Herberts Communion Poems”. The Journal of Religion, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1982), pp. 57-71 McCue, James. (1968). The Doctrine of Transubstantiation from Berengar through Trent: The Point at Issue. The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Jul., 1968), pp. 385-430 McGrath, Alister. (2001). Christian Theology: An Introduction. USA: Blackwell Publishing, Inc. MacQuarrie, John. (1998). A Guide to the Sacraments. USA: Continuum InternationalPublishing group. Perham, Michael. (2000). New Handbook of Pastoral Liturgy. USA: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Read More