(schmemann) theology and eucharist

8/12/2019 (Schmemann) Theology and Eucharist

1/6

Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann

Theology and Eucharist

St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4, Winter 1961, pp. 1!"#

Home

1.

The actual state of Orthodox theology must be characterized by two words: confusion and awakening. By confusion, I

mean an obious lack of unity among Orthodox theologians: unity of theological language, unity of method, consensusas to the nature of !uestions and the mode of their solution. Our theology deelo"s in a "lurality of theological #keys#

and within seeral mutually exclusie intellectual frameworks. This confusion, howeer, is also the sign of an

awakening, of a new search for a genuinely Orthodox theological "ers"ectie.

This situation is by no means accidental, for the fate of Orthodox theology has been a tragic one. On the one hand,since the colla"se of Byzantium and the interru"tion of the creatie "atristic tradition, our theology endured a long

#$estern ca"tiity# which dee"ly obscured and een deformed the Orthodox theological mind, while, on the otherhand, the same "ost%"atristic "eriod was that of a radical transformation of the status and function of theology in the

life of the &hurch. 'rom being the concern ( and the function ( of the whole &hurch, it became that of the #school#

alone and was thus de"ried of the liing interest and attention without which no creatie effort is "ossible. Today the

situation is changing. &onflicts and diisions within the &hurch, the new #ecumenical# encounter with the &hristian

$est, and, aboe all, the "ressing challenge of the modern world, hae "laced theology in a new focus, restored to it

an im"ortance it has not had for many centuries. Hence both the confusion and the awakening, the unaoidable clash

between ideas, the "luralism of a""roaches, the acuteness of the methodological "roblem, the new !uestioning ofsources and authorities. 'reed from official #conformity# which was im"osed on it by extra%theological factors,Orthodox theology has not yet found a real unity. But it must find it. Howeer understandable and een useful, the

actual theological "luralism cannot last foreer. It is a synthesis, i.e., an integration of all the more or less #"riate#theologies into one consistent whole that we must seek. 'or Orthodox theology is by its ery nature a &atholic

ex"ression of the &hurch)s faith and the &hurch neither knows nor needs any other theology.

2.

But synthesis here means something different from a "urely formal agreement on the sources to be cited or the

formulas to be used as safely Orthodox. *s long as there exist theologians +and not only com"ilers and commentators

of ancient texts theology will remain a sym"hony, not a unison. $hat is meant here is an inner transformation of thetheological mind itself, a transformation based on a new ( or maybe on a ery old ( relationshi" between theology

and the &hurch. It is indeed our first duty to acknowledge that for centuries theology was alienated from the &hurchand that this alienation had tragic conse!uences for both theology and the &hurch. It made theology a mere

intellectual actiity, s"lit into scores of #disci"lines# with no correlation among themseles and no a""lication to the

real needs of the &hurch. Theology ceased to be the answer the &hurch gies to her !uestions and haing ceased tobe such an answer, it also ceased to be the !uestion addressed to the &hurch. It today constitutes within the &hurch a

self%centered world, irtually isolated from the &hurch-s life. It lies in itself and by itself in tran!uil academic !uarters,

well defended against "rofane intrusions and curiosities by a highly technical language. Theologians aoid discussing

the triial reality of the &hurch-s life, and do not een dream about influencing it in any way. In turn the &hurch, i.e.,

the bisho"s, "riests and laity, are su"remely indifferent to the writings of the theologians, een when they do not

regard them with o"en sus"icion. o wonder, therefore, that de"ried of interest on the "art of the &hurch, s!ueezed

into the narrow limits of a "rofessional clerical school, theology is guided in its inner life not by the ex"erience, needsor "roblems of the &hurch but by indiidual interests of indiidual theologians. /iberal or conseratie, neo%"atristic or

neo%mystical, historical or anti%historical, #ecumenical# or anti%$estern +and we hae at "resent all these brands,theology sim"ly fails to reach anybody but "rofessionals, to "rooke anything but esoteric controersies in academic

"eriodicals.

*nd yet this isolation and alienation of theology is a tragedy for the &hurch as well. 'or although the ecclesiastical

leaders and the "eo"le may not realize it, and think +as they too often do that all "roblems and difficulties can besoled by better administration and sim"le references to the "ast, the &hurch needs theology. Its ital and essential

function is to constantly refer the em"irical life of the &hurch to the ery sources of her faith and life, to the liing andlife%giing Truth, and to ealuate and 0udge the #em"irical# in the light of that Truth. Ideally theology is the conscience

of the &hurch, her "urifying self%criticism, her "ermanent reference to the ultimate goals of her existence. 1e"ried of

theology, of its testimony and 0udgement, the &hurch is always in danger of forgetting and misinter"reting her own

Tradition, confusing the essential with the secondary, absolutising the contingent, losing the "ers"ectie of her life.

2he becomes a "risoner of her #em"irical# needs and the "ragmatic s"irit of #this world# which "oisons and obscures

the absolute demands of the Truth.

If theology, then, needs the &hurch as its natural #term of reference,# as both the source and the aim of its ery

existence, and if the &hurch needs theology as her conscience, how can they be reunited again, oercome their mutual

alienation and recoer the organic correlation of which the 3atristic age remains foreer the ideal "attern4 This is the

!uestion Orthodox theology must answer if it is to oercome its inner chaos and weakness, its "arasitic existence in

the &hurch which "ays no attention to it.

How and where4 5y answer is ( by and in the 6ucharist, understood and lied as the 2acrament of the &hurch, as the

act, which eer makes the &hurch to be what she is ( the 3eo"le of 7od, the Tem"le of the Holy 2"irit, the Body of

&hrist, the gift and manifestation of the new life of the new age. It is here and only here, in the uni!ue center of all&hristian life and ex"erience that theology can find again its fountain of youth, be regenerated as a liing testimony to

the liing &hurch, her faith, loe and ho"e. This affirmation, I understand it only too well, can be easily misunderstood.It will a""ear to some as an un0ustified reduction of theology to #liturgics,# as an unnecessary narrowing of the "ro"er
http://www.jbburnett.com/index.htmhttp://www.jbburnett.com/index.htm


2/6

field of theology, where the 6ucharist is listed as 0ust one of the sacraments, as an #ob0ect# among many. To others it

will sound like a "ious initation to theologians to become more liturgical, more #eucharistic# . . . In the "resent state

of theology, such misinter"retations would be almost natural. $hat is meant here, howeer, is not a reduction of

theology to "iety, be it theological "iety or a "iety of theologians, and although it will take more than a short article to

elaborate the answer gien aboe in all its im"lications, the following remarks may "ossibly "re"are the ground for amore constructie discussion.

3.

In the official, "ost%"atristic and #$esternizing# theology, the 6ucharist is treated merely as one of the sacraments. Its

"lace in ecclesiology is that of a #means of grace# ( one among many. Howeer central and essential in the life of the

&hurch, the 6ucharist is institutionally distinct from the &hurch. It is the "ower, the grace gien to the &hurch that

makes the 6ucharist "ossible, alid, efficient, but this "ower of grace #"recedes# the 6ucharist and is irtually

inde"endent from it. Thus the &hurch is understood and described here as an institution endowed with diine "ower:

"ower to teach, to guide, to sanctify8 as a structure for the communication of grace8 a #"ower,# howeer, which is not

deried from the 6ucharist. The latter is a fruit, a result of the &hurch, not her source. *nd, likewise, being the cause

of her sacraments, the &hurch is not considered in any way as their aim or goal. 'or official theology it is always thesatisfaction of the indiidual, not the fulfillment or edification of the &hurch, that constitutes the end and the "ur"ose

of a sacrament.

This ty"e of theology, although it subordinates the 6ucharist and the sacraments to the &hurch and makes the latter

an institution distinct and inde"endent from the sacraments, easily coexists with, if indeed it is not res"onsible for, a

"iety in which the &hurch is irtually identified with cult or worshi". In the "o"ular a""roach ( and #"o"ular# by no

means excludes the great ma0ority of the clergy ( the &hurch is, aboe all, a #cultic# or liturgical institution, and allher actiities are, im"licitly or ex"licitly, directed at her liturgical needs: erection of tem"les, material su""ort of clergy

and choirs, ac!uisition of arious liturgical su""lies, etc. 6en the teaching gien to the faithful, if one abstracts from ita ery ague and general ethical code, identical with the humanistic ethics of the secular society at large, consists

mainly in liturgical "rescri"tions and obligations of all kinds. The institutional "riority of the &hurch oer her

sacraments is not !uestioned here, but the &hurch is essentially an institution existing for the fulfillment of the

#religious needs# of her members, and since worshi" in all its forms constitutes the most obious and immediate of

such needs, the understanding and ex"erience of the &hurch as existing "rimarily for liturgy seems !uite natural.

$hile #institution# for theology and #worshi"# for "iety, the &hurch is nowhere a #society.# *nd indeed, although theclassical catechetical definition of the &hurch as society has neer been o"enly reised or re0ected, the &hurch%society

sim"ly does not manifest herself outside the common attendance of worshi". 9et the ex"erience of worshi" has long

ago ceased to be that of a cor"orate liturgical act. It is an aggregation of indiiduals coming to church, attending

worshi" in order to satisfy indiidually their indiidual religious needs, not in order to constitute and to fulfill the

&hurch. The best "roof of this is the com"lete disintegration of communion as a cor"orate act. $here the early &hurch

saw her real fulfillment as a communion into one body +#...and unite all of us who "artake of the one Bread and theone &u", one to another...# Liturgy of St. Basil), we today consider &ommunion as the most indiidual and "riate of

all religious acts, de"ending entirely on one-s "ersonal desire, "iety and "re"aration. /ikewise the sermon, although

addressed to the congregation, is, in fact, a "ersonal teaching, aimed not at the #edification# of the &hurch, but atindiiduals at their "riate needs and duties. Its theme is the indiidual &hristian, not the &hurch.

4.

It is true, on the theological leel at least, that the theology and the "iety described aboe, are criticized, denounced

as obiously one%sided and deficient. If nothing else, the social and socially oriented #ethos# of our time was bound to

"rooke a reaction against an ecclesiology in which institutional absolutism is combined with s"iritual indiidualism,

the #ob0ectiity# of the &hurch with an amazingly #sub0ectie# religious life. Hence a new interest in the status and

nature of laity, in the cor"orate as"ects of worshi", a new search for a more com"lete definition of the &hurch, thescrutinizing of the scri"tural conce"ts of Body, 3eo"le, etc., hence also the em"hasis on #"artici"ation# in the liturgical

moement.

The reaction is, no doubt, a good and "romising one. 9et, one extreme can easily lead to another and this is the

danger we face today. 3aradoxically enough the danger arises from the ery source of our ecclesiological reial ( the

rediscoery of the #social# and the #organic# as essential dimensions of the &hurch. If, in the "ast, the &hurch was

identified too exclusiely with hierarchy and institution, there is a tendency now to 0ust as exclusiely identify her withan #organism.# The 'athers, we are told, hae not left with us any "recise definition of the &hurch-s nature or essence.

&onse!uently, theologians reconstruct what seems to them to be the "atristic ecclesiology, not discerning too oftenthat, in fact, this oerwhelmingly #organic# ecclesiology reflects some contem"orary "hiloso"hical and sociological

doctrines more than the ex"erience of the early &hurch. The &hurch is a society, this society is an organism, this

organism is the Body of &hrist. 2uch a se!uence of direct identifications, ty"ical of the "resent ecclesiological trend,

gies the idea of #organism# an almost biological connotation. It makes the &hurch a substantial Being, whose #organic

unity# and #organic life# oershadow the "ersonal, s"iritual and dynamic as"ects of unity and life. nity is no longer

understood as, first of all, the union of many, fulfilling itself in unity, becoming unity8 it is a reality in which one

#"artici"ates# and the category of "artici"ation leaes almost no room for that of becoming and fulfillment. The &hurch

is a gien reality, an organism whose life is coneyed and communicated to its members through the sacraments, thelatter, and es"ecially the 6ucharist, being the means of this communication and "artici"ation.

It is ery doubtful, howeer, whether to begin the definition of the &hurch in terms of #organism# is a good

ecclesiological beginning at all. The absence of such a definition in the 'athers may not hae been accidental, but

rather a reealing ex"erience of the &hurch, which we hae not yet fully gras"ed. In the "atristic "ers"ectie, the

&hurch is "rimarily the gift of new life, but this life is not that of the Church, but the life of &hrist in us, our life in Him.'or the &hurch is not a #being# in the sense in which 7od or man may be called #beings# +#hy"ostatized natures# touse the ancient terminology, she is not a new #nature# added to the existing natures of 7od and man, she is not a

#substance.# The term new a""lied to her ( new life, new creation ( does not mean an ontological newness, the


3/6

a""earance of a #being# which did not exist before, it means the redeemed, renewed and transfigured relationshi"

between the only #substantial# beings: 7od and His creation. *nd 0ust as the &hurch has no #hy"ostasis# or

#"ersonality# of her own, other than the hy"ostasis of &hrist and those of the men who constitute her, she has no

#nature# of her own, for she is the new life of the #old# nature, redeemed and transfigured by &hrist. In Him man, and

through man the whole of #nature,# find their true life and become a new creation, a new being, the Body of &hrist.Thus, on the one hand, there exists in the iconogra"hical tradition of Orthodoxy no icon of the &hurch, because an icon

im"lies necessarily a #hy"ostatized nature,# the reality of a substantial and "ersonal #being# and in this sense the&hurch is not a #being.# 9et, on the other hand, each icon ( that of &hrist, of the Theotokos, of any 2aint ( is always

and essentially an icon of the &hurch, because it manifests and reeals the new life of a being, the reality of its

transfiguration, of its "assage into the #new eon# of the Holy 2"irit, this being "recisely the manifestation of the&hurch. Therefore, the conce"ts of #organism# or #body# can be utterly misleading if, in a definition of the &hurch,

they "recede and gie foundation to, that of #life.# It is not because she is an #organism# that the &hurch gies us the

#new life,# but the new life gien in her, or rather, the &hurch as new life, makes us an organism, transforms us into

the Body of &hrist, reeals us as #new being.#

$e see now that the ecclesiological e!uation #institution ( society (organism ( Body of &hrist# needs to be !ualified.

It would be a great error to directly a""ly the scri"tural and traditional term #Body of &hrist# to the &hurch as

institution or society. In itself, #institution,# #society# ( i.e., the isible, militant, hierarchical &hurch ( is not the new

life, the new being and the new age. It belongs to the structure and reality of the history of salation and, therefore,

to #this world.# But 0ust as the &hurch of the Old &oenant, the old Israel, existed as a passage to the ew &oenant,

was instituted in order to "re"are the ways of the /ord, the &hurch as institution exists in order to reeal ( in #this

world# ( the #world to come,# the ;ingdom of 7od, fulfilled and manifested in &hrist. 2he is the passage of the #old#into the #new# ( yet what is being redeemed, renewed and transfigured through her is not the #&hurch,# but the old

life itself, the old *dam and the whole of creation. *nd she is this #"assage# "recisely because as institution she is#bone of the bones and flesh of the flesh# of this world, because she stands for the whole creation, truly re"resents it,

assumes all of its life and offers it ( in &hrist ( to 7od. 2he is indeed instituted for the world and not as a se"arate

#religious# institution existing for the s"ecifically religious needs of men. 2he re"resents ( #makes "resent# ( the

whole of mankind, because mankind and creation were called from the ery beginning to be the Tem"le of the Holy

2"irit and the rece"tacle of 1iine life. The &hurch is thus the restoration by 7od and the acce"tance by man of the

original and eternal destiny of creation itself. 2he is the "resence of the 1iine *ct, which restores and the obedience

of men who acce"t this act. 9et it is only when she "erforms and fulfills this #"assage,# when, in other terms, she

transcends herself as #institution# and #society# and becomes indeed the new life of the new creation, that she is theBody of &hrist. *s institution the &hurch is in this world the sacrament of the Body of &hrist, of the ;ingdom of 7od

and the world to come.

$e recoer thus the eschatological dimension of the &hurch. The body of &hrist is not and can neer be of this world.

#This world# condemned &hrist, the bearer of new life, to death and by doing this it has condemned itself to death. The

new life, which shone forth from the grae, is the life of the #new eon,# of the age, which in terms of this world is still

#to come.# The descent of the Holy 2"irit at 3entecost, by inaugurating a new eon, announced the end of this world,for as no one can "artake of the #new life# without dying in the ba"tismal death, no one can hae &hrist as his life

unless he has died and is constantly dying to this world: #for ye are dead and your life is hid with &hrist in 7od# +&ol.


4/6

2uch is the distortion, howeer, of our "resent ecclesiology that to affirm the uni!ueness of the 6ucharist as the

sacrament of the Church, raises at once the !uestion of its relation to the other sacraments, which in official theology

are considered as se"arate #means of grace,# "ractically inde"endent from one another. othing reeals more the

neglect of the liing Tradition than the "ost%"atristic sacramental theology. It begins with a general theory of

sacraments, which is then #a""lied# to each "articular sacrament. *s to Tradition, it follows exactly the o""osite order.It begins with s"ecific liturgical acts which not only are organically related to one another, but necessarily refer to the

6ucharist as to their fulfillment, as, indeed, to the #sacrament of sacraments.# That ordination, for exam"le, is to be"erformed within the 6ucharist, that each of our three orders are, in ordination, related to a "articular moment of the

6ucharistic liturgy, is for the dogmatician a secondary liturgical detail with no real im"act on the #essence# of the

sacrament. In the liing tradition, howeer, this relation is of "aramount im"ortance and reeals more about the#nature of the ministry# than any of the countless scholastic treatises written on the sub0ect. There exists between the

6ucharist and each of the other sacraments an organic link. 'or all the sacraments, exce"t the 6ucharist, deal with

indiidual members of the &hurch and their "ur"ose is to integrate the indiidual ( his life, his "articular #leitourgia#

or calling ( into the &hurch. But the &hurch is fulfilled in the 6ucharist, and each sacrament, therefore, finds its

natural end, its fulfillment in the 6ucharist.

The theology of manuals stresses the sacramental "ower of the &hurch or, in other words, the &hurch as the

#distributor of grace.# But it oerlooks almost com"letely the &hurch as the end and fulfillment of the sacraments. 'or

grace is another name for the &hurch in the state of fulfillment as the manifestation of the age of the Holy 2"irit.

There has occurred a ery significant shift in the understanding of the sacraments. They hae become "riate serices

for indiidual &hristians, aimed at their "ersonal sanctification, not at the edification of the &hurch. The sacrament of

"enance, for exam"le, which was originally an act of reconciliation with the &hurch is understood today as a mere#"ower of absolution.# 5atrimony, which at first had een no s"ecial #liturgy# of its own and was "erformed through

the "artici"ation of a newly%wed cou"le in the 6ucharist, is no longer considered as the passage( and, therefore,transformation ( of a #natural# marriage into the dimensions of the &hurch +#. . . for this is a great mystery, but I

s"eak concerning &hrist and the &hurch,# 6"h. =:, but is defined as a #blessing# bestowed u"on husband and wife,

as a sim"le &hristian sanction of marriage. The 6ucharistic cu" is re"laced in it by a cu" #symbolizing# common life.

6xam"les like these can be multi"lied. But no theological deformation and no "iety, based on this deformation, can

ultimately obscure and alter the fundamental and organic connection of all sacraments with the 6ucharist, as the

sacraments of sacraments, and, therefore, truly the 2acrament of the &hurch.

6.

Haing forgotten the ecclesiological and the eschatological significance of the 6ucharist, haing reduced it to one#means of grace# among many, our official theology was bound to limit the theological study of the 6ucharist to only

two "roblems: that of the transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of &hrist and that ofcommunion. *s a""lied to the 6ucharist, the term #sacrament# usually means either one of these acts or both,

although it is ex"licitly admitted that they can be treated se"arately. $ithin this theological framework the &hurch

remains mainly as a #"ower# ( to "erform the transformation, to gie communion. The "riest is the minister +the

#"erformer# of the sacrament, the elements of bread and wine ( its #matter,# the communicant ( its reci"ient. But

communion haing long ago ceased to be a self%eident fulfillment of the sacrament ( ?@A of our eucharistic

celebrations are without communicants ( there deelo"ed an additional and irtually inde"endent theology of the

6ucharist as sacrifice, essentialper se, regardless of the "eo"le-s "resence or "artici"ation. *nd finally, since theology

by focusing its attention on these two moments of the 6ucharist im"erce"tibly relegated all other elements of theeucharistic celebration into the category of #non%essential# rituals, the door was o"en to their inter"retation in terms of

liturgical symbolism. *s understood and ex"lained since &abasilas, the 6ucharist is a symbolical re"resentation of thelife of &hrist, sering as a framework for the double sacrament of consecration and communion, yet not essential for

its #alidity# and #efficacy.#

But from the stand"oint of Tradition the sacramental character of the 6ucharist cannot be artificially narrowed to one

act, to one moment of the whole rite. $e hae an #ordo# in which all "arts and all elements are essential, areorganically linked together in one sacramental structure. In other words, the 6ucharist is a sacrament from the

beginning to the end and its fulfillment or consummation is #made "ossible# by the entire liturgy. /iturgy here is noto""osed to sacrament, as #symbolism to realism,# but indeed is sacrament: one, organic, consistent "assage, in which

each ste" "re"ares and #makes "ossible# the following one.

'or the 6ucharist, we hae said, is apassage, a "rocession leading the &hurch into #heaen,# into her fulfillment as the

;ingdom of 7od. *nd it is "recisely the reality of this "assage into the 6schaton that conditions the transformation ofour offering ( bread and wine ( into the new food of the new creation, of our meal into the 5essianic Ban!uet and

the ;oinonia of the Holy 2"irit. Thus, for exam"le, the coming together of &hristians on the /ord-s 1ay, their isible

unity #sealed# by the "riest +#ecclesia in e"isco"o and e"isco"us in ecclesia# is indeed the beginning of the sacrament,

the #gathering into the &hurch.# *nd the entrance is not a symbolical re"resentation of &hrist going to "reach but the

real entrance ( the beginning of the &hurch-s ascension to the Throne of 7od, made "ossible, inaugurated by the

ascension of &hrist-s Humanity. The offertory ( the solemn transfer of bread and wine to the altar is again not the

symbol of &hrist-s burial +or of His entrance into erusalem but a real sacrifice ( the transfer of our lies and bodies

and of the whole #matter# of the whole creation into heaen, their integration in the uni!ue and all%embracing sacrificeof all sacrifices, that of &hrist. The prosphora +offering makes "ossible the anaphora the lifting u" of the &hurch,

her eschatological fulfillment by the Eucharist. 'or 6ucharist ( #thanksgiing# ( is indeed the ery content of theredeemed life, the ery reality of the ;ingdom as #0oy and "eace in the Holy 2"irit,# the end and the fulfillment of our

ascension into heaen. Therefore, the 6ucharist is consecration and the 'athers called both the "rayer of consecrationand the consecrated gifts #6ucharist.# The insistence by the Orthodox on the epiclesis is nothing else, in its ultimate

meaning, but the affirmation that the consecration, i.e., the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood

of &hrist, takes "lace in the #new eon# of the Holy 2"irit. Our earthly food becomes the Body and Blood of &hristbecause it has been assumed, acce"ted, lifted u" into the #age to come,# where &hrist is indeed the ery life, the ery

food of all life and the &hurch is His Body, #the fullness of Him that filleth all in all# +6"h. C:>


5/6


6/6

&hristian serice or #leitourgia,# is a charisma, a gift of the Holy 2"irit. This gift is gien in the Church, i.e., in the act

in which the &hurch fulfills herself as the communion of the Holy 2"irit, in which she offers in &hrist and offers %im,

and is acce"ted by &hrist and receies from Him8 in the act which is, therefore, the source of all charisms and

ministries of the &hurch. It is the moment of truth, indeed, for there we stand before 7od, in &hrist who is the 6nd,

the 6schaton, the 'ullness of all our humanity, and in Him offer to 7od the only #reasonable serice# +logike latreia ofthe redeemed world ( the 6ucharist, and in the light of it see and understand and reca"itulate in Christthe truth

about 7od, man and the world, about the creation and fall, sin and redem"tion, about the whole unierse and its finaltransfiguration in the ;ingdom of 7od, and we receie this truth in "artici"ation of the Body and Blood of &hrist, in the

unending 3entecost that #guides us into all truth and shows us things to come# +ohn CE:C

(schmemann) theology and eucharist

Documents