I know I said I'd blog about community organizing, but as per usual I have been distracted, and so have recently cobbled together some passing thoughts on the Eucharist. What's wonderful about the whole ritual of course is that it's not just a singular act, but a chain of successive acts (hopefully) drawing the communicant further and further into their faith. It is constantly retelling a story and becomes a constant point of return in an individual's life story. So it seems quite nice that I'm able to see my 'story' of moving from an effectively Zwinglian memorialist position to being able to affirm a Real Presence (though precisely how this is, I know not) as quite appropriate to this.
The biblical evidence of course I think is quite clear: Lk. 22 and 1 Cor. 11 23-25 should be shown in the light of 1 Cor 11.27 which I think refers to the elements themselves, and more pertinently 1 Cor 10.16 particularly in light of the other evidence: Matt. 26, Mk. 14, Jn. 6. 51f and Lk 24. 30-32 - noting how Luke seems to suggest that whilst the scriptures (the word of God) give a foretaste, an inkling of God, it is only in the Eucharist we truly recognize Christ.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I suppose what real set the wheels turning was the thought that it is not just about remembering the last supper...even in the memorialist position, it has an effect on present faith yes? If it didn't 'connect' the recipient with Christ and his passion somehow then it's pretty useless as a practice. In truth, it's never 'just bread' is it? It's bread set aside for a sacramental purpose, it is contextually different from all other bread, and what's more its presentation is ritualized (however minimally) which pushes it further away from 'plain bread', and if it is bread that is complimenting, supporting, upholding a faith, then its not even contextually different, it may be ontologically the same, but from the subjective perspective it is no longer feeding your physical hunger but has become a spiritual food.
Already before we've thought about other options the bread has refused to just be something ordinary. This is in fact a Calvinistic view of the Eucharist that there is a unity between the elements and the body of Christ (seated at the right hand of the Father) brought about by the Holy Spirit (though he would probably not say its reality is subject to subjective apprehension).
The 'substance' of the memorialist position, I suppose, is that Christ's death is a 'once and for all' act that doesn't need to be repeated weekly for people...but I do wonder; because although it looks back to a discreet historical event (like the passover meal), the Eucharist also looks to an omnipresent, living, reality which is constantly interacting with creation.
I think this is reinforced by the immanence and Incarnation of God. For God in Christianity did not make himself known through special revelation, or mystic experience through the divine energies if you like...he in fact became a concrete, fleshly reality; a person, a substance and it was by looking at what seemed to be only a man, some perecived, sensed that there was much, much more depth to him to him than that (without of course ever becoming less than human). It feels strange to me to suggest that if God chose to dwell amongst men physically, concretely, in order to effect salvation...that he would stop doing that entirely for the subsequent generations, as if his body has no significance post crucifixion.
God became known through physical reality, and I think it is not too far to suggest that he keeps showing himself through physical signs- a constant reminder that the 'flesh' is ultimately 'good', it's not just about the intellect/soul, it's the whole you. Thus the Eucharist, the most significant action humanity possesses, the climax of the liturgy...is the sign of Christ present, spiritually and bodily amongst his people, the whole of him (spiritual and fleshly presence) for the whole of us (spiritual and fleshly beings). It's a moment of in-breaking of the new Kingdom when there is nothing of us standing apart from the presence of God.
The perpetual presence of whole Christ is what keeps us in continuity with the first disciples, and discontinuity with the people of Israel; by the real presence, there is nothing we lack today that they had back then, we may not 'see' with our physical eyes but we can 'touch' we have his humanness and not just his divinity...and that's a sign of the grace, the generosity of the ever-giving God. Which is why we keep breaking the body, because we are never done 'being' at that death, with that death, and indeed that resurrection as we participate in the transformed flesh of the new adam, not the common flesh of the old...surely (which means it's also looking to the eschatological kingdom, a new fleshly reality, and indeed a new social one, Christ present, Christ amongst his people, who are all sharing freely with no respect to any of the human social constructions of the present age, because 'all are one in Christ' (Gal 3.28) however that's getting a bit off track)
That's a lot, I'm aware to put upon a wheat product and fermented grape juice, but I do think Scripture supports me on the matter (as outlined above), and tradition (from the earliest time) certainly does as well. There is nothing wrong with memorialism in itself, but like the 'moral infleunce' view of atonement, I see nothing in it that contradicts it being seen with another view, it can be x and memorialist...y and moral influence. We shouldn't be too surprised if one gesture has multiple meanings and functions being held together simultaneously I think.
