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, consensus
as 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 other
hand, 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 of
sources 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. $hat is meant here is an inner transformation of the
theological mind itself, a transformation based on a new ( or maybe on a ery old ( relationshi" between theology
and the &hurch. It is indeed our first duty to acknowledge that for centuries theology was alienated from the &hurch
and that this alienation had tragic conse!uences for both theology and the &hurch. It made theology a mere
intellectual actiity, s"lit into scores of #disci"lines# with no correlation among themseles and no a""lication to the
real needs of the &hurch. Theology ceased to be the answer the &hurch gies to her !uestions and haing ceased to
be such an answer, it also ceased to be the !uestion addressed to the &hurch. It today constitutes within the &hurch a
self%centered world, irtually isolated from the &hurch-s life. It lies in itself and by itself in tran!uil academic !uarters,
well defended against "rofane intrusions and curiosities by a highly technical language. Theologians aoid discussing
the triial reality of the &hurch-s life, and do not een dream about influencing it in any way. In turn the &hurch, i.e.,
the bisho"s, "riests and laity, are su"remely indifferent to the writings of the theologians, een when they do not
regard them with o"en sus"icion. .o wonder, therefore, that de"ried of interest on the "art of the &hurch, s!ueezed
into the narrow limits of a "rofessional clerical school, theology is guided in its inner life not by the ex"erience, needs
or "roblems of the &hurch but by indiidual interests of indiidual theologians. /iberal or conseratie, neo%"atristic or
neo%mystical, historical or anti%historical, #ecumenical# or anti%$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 be
soled 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 and
life%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
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. $hat is meant here, howeer, is not a reduction of
theology to "iety, be it theological "iety or a "iety of theologians, and although it will take more than a short article to
elaborate the answer gien aboe in all its im"lications, the following remarks may "ossibly "re"are the ground for a
more constructie discussion.
3.
In the official, "ost%"atristic and #$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 the
satisfaction 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 all
her 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 it
a 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 the
classical 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 the
one &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 at
indiiduals 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, the
scrutinizing 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 with
an #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 often
that, 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, the
latter, 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# to
use 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
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 the
Body 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.
<:<,. But then nothing which is of this world ( no institution, no society, no church ( can be identified with the new
eon, the new being. The most "erfect &hristian community ( be it com"letely se"arated from the eils of the world (
as a community is still of this world, liing its life, de"ending on it. It is only by passing into the new eon, by an
antici"ation ( in faith, ho"e and loe ( ofthe world to come, that a community can "artake of the Body of &hrist, and
indeed manifest itself as the Body of &hrist. The Body of &hrist can neer be #"art# of this world, for &hrist has
ascended into heaen and his ;ingdom is Heaen...
5.
$e can now return to the 6ucharist, for it is indeed the ery act of passage in which the &hurch fulfills herself as a new
creation and, therefore, the 2acrament of the &hurch. In the 6ucharist, the &hurch transcends the dimensions of
#institution# and becomes the Body of &hrist. It is the #eschaton# of the &hurch, her manifestation as the world to
come.
$e hae said that if, on the one hand, our #westernizing# theology subordinates the 6ucharist +as #effect#, to the
&hurch +as #cause#,, the common Orthodox "iety, on the other hand, ex"eriences the &hurch as a #liturgical
institution,# as cult. But if there is any truth in the "receding discussion of ecclesiology, the relationshi" &hurch%
/iturgy, or more exactly, &hurch%6ucharist, must be reersed. It is not the &hurch that exists for, or #generates,# the
liturgy, it is the 6ucharist which, in a ery real sense, #generates# the &hurch, makes her to be what she is. $e know
that originally the 7reek word #leitourgia# had no cultic connotations. It meant a "ublic office, a serice "erformed on
behalf of a community and for its benefit. In the 2e"tuagint, the word ac!uired naturally a religious meaning, yet still
not necessarily a #liturgical# one. It im"lied the same idea of serice, a""lied now to the chosen "eo"le of 7od whose
s"ecific #leitourgia# is to fulfill 7od-s design in history, to "re"are the #way of the /ord.# The early &hristian use
reflected the same meaning of #leitourgia.# The fact that the &hurch ado"ted it finally for her cult, and es"ecially for
the 6ucharist, indicates her s"ecial understanding of worshi", which is indeed a reolutionary one. If &hristian worshi"
is #leitourgia# it cannot be sim"ly reduced to, or ex"ressed in, terms of #cult.# The ancient world knew a "lethora of
cultic religions or #cults# ( in which worshi" or cultic acts were the only real content of religion, an #end in itself.# But
the &hristian cult is #leitourgia# and this means that it is functional in its essence, has a goal to achiee which
transcends the categories of cult as such. This goal is "recisely the Church as the manifestation and "resence of the
#new eon,# of the ;ingdom of 7od. In a sense the &hurch is indeed a liturgical institution, i.e. an institution whose
#leitourgia# is to fulfill itself as the Body of &hrist and a new creation. &hristian cult is, therefore, a radically new cult,
un"recedented in both the Old Testament and "aganism, and the deficiency of a certain theology, as well as of a
certain liturgical "iety, is that they not only oerlook the radical newness of &hristian #leitourgia# but rather define and
ex"erience it again in the old cultic categories.
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 of
communion. *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, essential per 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 the
eucharistic 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 the
life 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, are
organically 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 not
o""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 a passage, 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 of
our 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 Berusalem, 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 sacrifice
of 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 the
redeemed 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 consecration
and 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 &hrist
because 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:><,. It is there, finally, that
we "artake of the food of immortality, are made "artici"ants of the 5essianic Ban!uet, of the .ew 3ascha, it is from
there, #haing seen the true light, haing receied the heaenly 2"irit,# that we return into #this world# +#let us de"art
in "eace#, as witnesses of the ;ingdom which is #to come.# 2uch is the sacrament of the &hurch, the #leitourgia# which
eternally transforms the &hurch into what she is, makes her the Body of &hrist and the Tem"le of the Holy 2"irit.
7.
The reader may get the im"ression that I hae forgotten the initial theme of this "a"er ( theology in its relation to the
&hurch. The "receding deelo"ments were necessary, howeer, for it is only after the terms of reference hae been
defined that we can now try to ex"lain what was meant by the affirmation made aboe about the 6ucharist as the
source of theology, as the way of the latter-s reintegration into the &hurch.
In the "ast years we hae been often told that Orthodox theology, if it wants to oercome its inner weakness and
deficiencies, must return to the athers. #3atristic reial,# #neo%"atristic synthesis# ( these and similar ex"ressions
are fre!uent in current Orthodox writings and they "oint, no doubt, to a ery genuine and urgent need. The
interru"tion of the liing "atristic tradition was indeed the origin of the great theological tragedy of Orthodoxy. But
what exactly is meant by this #return# and how are we to "erform it4 To these !uestions no satisfactory answer has
been gien. 1oes it mean a mere re"etition of what the 'athers said, on the assum"tion that they hae said
eerything that is essential and nothing is needed but a reca"itulation of their consensus4 2uch an assum"tion, een if
it were a alid one, would certainly not sole the "roblem, as we stated it before, ( that of the "resent theological
alienation. .o collection of highly technical "atrological monogra"hs, no edition of "atristic texts for the common use,
would constitute in themseles the liing and creatie answer to the real !uestions of our time, or the real needs of
the &hurch. There would still be the necessity of inter"reting the "atristic message, of its #resurrection# in the mind of
the &hurch, or, in other words, the "roblem of the theological #breaking through.# But we must remember that the
&hurch has neer taught that the 'athers answered all !uestions, that their theology is the whole theology and that
the theologian today is merely a commentator of "atristic texts. To transform the 'athers into a "urely formal and
infallible authority, and theology ( into a "atristic scholasticism ( is, in fact, a betrayal of the ery s"irit of "atristic
theology, which remains foreer a wonderful exam"le of s"iritual freedom and creatiity. The #return to the 'athers#
means, aboe all, the recoery of their s"irit, of the secret ins"iration, which made them true witnesses of the &hurch.
$e return indeed to the 'athers, and not only to their #texts,# when we recoer and make ours the ex"erience of the
&hurch not as mere #institution, doctrine, or system# to !uote *. 2. ;homiako, but the all%embracing, all%assuming
and all%transforming life, the "assage into the reality of redem"tion and transfiguration. This ex"erience, as we tried to
show, is centered in the 6ucharist, the 2acrament of the &hurch, the ery manifestation and self%reelation of the
&hurch. 6ucharist, whether it is ex"ressly referred to or not, is the organic source and the necessary #term of
reference# of theology, for if theology is bearing witness to the faith and the life of the &hurch, to the &hurch as
salation and the new life in &hrist, it bears witness "rimarily to the ex"erience of the &hurch manifested,
communicated and actualized in the 6ucharist. It is in the 6ucharist that the &hurch ceases to be #institution, doctrine,
system# and becomes /ife, Dision, 2alation, it is in the 6ucharist that the $ord of 7od is fulfilled and the human mind
made ca"able of ex"ressing the mind of &hrist. Here then is the source of theology, of words about !od, the #eent#
which transforms our human s"eculation into a message of 1iine Truth.
8.
I will conclude with two remarks, one dealing with the more immediate theological #agenda# of our time, and the other
with the general s"irit of Orthodox theology.
C, 'irst of all, there should be no misunderstanding. The #eucharistic conersion# of theology does not mean an
im"osition on the theologian of a definite "rogram, of a "rescribed set of themes and !uestions. On the contrary,
"ro"erly understood, it liberates him from the dead authority of "seudo%traditional systems, "uts him into direct
contact with the whole of reality" 7od, man and the world. #The s"irit bloweth where it listeth . . .# There exists
howeer, a "reliminary "roblem, which must be dealt with, for it constitutes "recisely the condition of the #eucharistic
conersion# of theology. It is, to "ut it bluntly, the theological rediscoery of the 6ucharist itself. It is here, wehae
seen, that the official, "ost%"atristic theology has suffered its most obious, most harmful metamor"hosis, has
deiated from the liing Tradition, has #alienated# itself from the ex"erience of the &hurch. It is here, therefore, that
its deficiencies and limitations must be 0udged and oercome. To #rediscoer# the 6ucharist means, as we hae tried to
show, to recoer its ecclesiological and eschatological #fullness# to know it again as the 2acrament of the &hurch. This,
in turn, means that the reduction of the 6ucharist to a multi"licity of artificially isolated #!uestions#: sacrament,
sacrifice, communion, etc., must be transcended in a reintegrated ision and ex"erience. 2uch reintegration is "ossible
only when one ceases to abstract the 6ucharist as #sacrament,# #sacrifice or communion# from the 6ucharistic
leitourgia, from the action in which all these as"ects can be understood in their "ro"er "ers"ectie and in their organic
relation with one another. The le# orandi must be recoered as the le# credendi. The rediscoery of the 6ucharist as
the 2acrament of the &hurch is, in other words, the rediscoery of the &hurch in actu, the &hurch as the 2acrament of
&hrist, of His #3arousia# ( the coming and presence of the ;ingdom, which is to come.
/et us not be mistaken: the task "resents enormous difficulties. 2o much has been forgotten or neglected. The true
meaning of the leitourgia of the &hurch has to be found again. The whole deelo"ment of the liturgical "iety must be
reealuated. The formidable inertia and o""osition of dead conseratism and "seudo%traditionalism has to be met and
oercome. Theological #regeneration# howeer, demands this "rice and nothing short of a crisis ( constructie
criticism, critical reconstruction can restore theology to its real function within the &hurch.
>, The term #eucharistic ecclesiology# has been recently introduced into our theological ocabulary. One can s"eak of
een greater reasons for eucharistic theology, and this entire essay is nothing but an attem"t to "roe that truly
Orthodox theology is by its ery nature #eucharistic.# This does not mean that the 6ucharist as such is the only ob0ect
of theological contem"lation and analysis. It was "recisely such a transformation of the 6ucharist into an #ob0ect# that
obscured its function as the source of theology. It means that in the life of the &hurch the 6ucharist is the moment of
truth which makes it "ossible to see the real #ob0ects# of theology: 7od, man and the world, in the true light, which, in
other words, reeals both the ob$ects of theology as they really are and gies the necessary light for their
understanding. #$e hae seen the true light, we hae receied the Heaenly 2"irit . . .# Theology, like any other
&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, of
the redeemed world ( the 6ucharist, and in the light of it see and understand and reca"itulate in Christ the truth
about 7od, man and the world, about the creation and fall, sin and redem"tion, about the whole unierse and its final
transfiguration 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# +Bohn CE:C<,. The task of theology is
to bear witness to this truth, and there is no end to this task. 6ach theologian will see it only "artially and "artially
reflect it, and each one will remain free, indeed, to reflect it according to his own "articular charisma and ocation, but
0ust as all charismata hae one and the same source, all ocations ultimately contribute to the edification of one
catholic theology of the &hurch.
Feturn to the Bible, return to the 'athers . . . This means, aboe all, the return to the &hurch through the 6ucharist
and to the 6ucharist through the &hurch: here the #texts# of the 2cri"ture are gien to us again and again as the liing
and life%creating $ord of 7od, here we meet our 'athers not in #books# but in reality, the Feality to which they bore
witness in their time and in their language, to which we are called to bear witness in our time and in our own
language. #'or the languages in the world are different,# says 2t. Irenaeus, #but the "ower of tradition is one and the
same# +*d. Haer. C, C@, >,. #Our teaching,# he adds, #is confirmed to the 6ucharist, and the 6ucharist confirms our
teaching.#
Home


http://www.jbburnett.com/schmemann/schmemann-euchtheo.html
(enero 2003)