Convergence At The Table

Creative thinking about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the twentieth century has been largely devoted to overcoming the ecumenical impasse on eucharistic presence inherited from previous times, especially the Reformation era in the sixteenth century. One of the consequences of ecumenical dialogue has been a reconsideration of the positions of medieval scholastic theologians and Protestant Reformers. One of the best surveys of the issues discussed remains Hermann Sasse's This is My Body (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1959).

A Protestant Impasse ll the Protestant Reformers rejected the scholastic dogma of transubstantiation in the sixteenth century, while the Council of Trent reaffirmed it for the Roman Catholic church. This way of understanding the Real Presence of Christ grew slowly but logically out of the controversies over Christ's eucharistic presence during the ninth through eleventh centuries, and was promulgated as dogma by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The teaching that the substance of the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ while the species remain unchanged was given philosophical underpinning through use of Aristotelian categories by the great scholastic theologians of the thirteenth century. This scholastic teaching was affirmed by the Council of Trent, which condemned those who deny that a transubstantiation takes place in which "?the species of bread and wine only remain.?" The Protestant movement itself became divided over the issue of the Real Presence. Luther and Zwingli reached an impasse on this issue at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529. Luther doggedly clung to the words of Christ, "?This is my body. This is my blood,?" while Zwingli held that the body of Christ could only be localized in heaven. Calvin later tried to find a middle way between Luther and Zwingli, although this entailed a rejection of both Luther's literal interpretation of the words of institution and Zwingli's figurative interpretation. According to Calvin, there is no corporeal presence of the body of Christ in the sacrament, as Luther held, for the body of Christ is locally circumscribed in heaven. Yet "?we are spiritually fed,?" i.e., our souls are fed with the body and blood of the Lord. We can participate in the body and blood of Christ by raising our hearts to heaven (Calvin here appealed to the sursum corda of the classic eucharistic prayers.) The Reformed churches in Switzerland were never able to replace Zwingli's eucharistic theory and practice with Calvin's. Lutherans insisted on the sacramental union of Christ's body and blood "?in, with, and under?" the bread and wine in order to affirm that God in Christ meets us where we are, "?deep in the flesh?"; we do not ascend to where Christ is at the right hand of the Father. Protestant Revisions There had been some compromise on issues related to the sacrament of the altar in the Wittenberg Concordat of 1536, drafted largely by Philipp Melanchton (d. 1560) and Martin Bucer (d. 1551). But it was not until the twentieth century that something of an inter-Protestant breakthrough occurred in the Leuenberg Concordat of 1967. In this document the key idea that seemed to end the impasse was that the Real Presence was no longer to be "?grasped in a static or physical manner?"; body and blood designate the person of Jesus Christ. The accord is not established by agreement in any certain mode of Christ's presence in the bread and wine, but in an understanding of what happens during the celebration of the Supper. The Real Presence is grasped in a dynamic and actualist fashion. This understanding overcomes the myth of locality, whether this is the Lutheran "?localization of the sacramental gifts in the elements?" or the Calvinist localization of Christ's body in heaven. It has been suggested that the German Lutheran-Reformed consensus achieved at Leuenberg was possible because of the perceived need of a common front against the Roman Catholic church. The results of the Leuenberg agreement have not been received by all Lutherans, including those in Germany. Nevertheless, the shift of attention from objects to events had its corollary in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963) broadened the focus on the Real Presence from an almost exclusive concentration on the elements to the whole eucharistic action. Within that it specified four distinct modes of Christ's presence: in the Word, in the presiding minister, in the bread and wine, and in the assembly. This teaching advanced the question of Christ's eucharistic presence in a significant way by considering the purpose of Christ's presence among us: It is to be present pro nobis, on our behalf. "?Christ indeed always associates the Church with Himself in the truly great work of giving perfect praise to God and making men holy?" (I:7). Catholic Revisions and Ecumenical Convergence This teaching was possible because in the years before the Second Vatican Council attempts were made by Catholic theologians to translate the term transubstantiation into categories of contemporary phenomenology. Terms such as transignification (changed meaning) and transfinalization (changed purpose) were explored by Eduard Schillebeeckx in The Eucharist (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968; see chapter 2) and Joseph Powers in Eucharistic Theology (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967; chapter 4); however, such ideas had been practically precluded by Pope Paul VI's encyclical Mysterium fidei (1965). Lutheran theologians had responded to the Leuenberg agreement by asking how Christ's presence as a person relates to the not-very-dynamic and decidedly physical presence of the objects of bread and wine about which the promises of the presence were actually made. So too, papal reflection noted that both meaning and purpose would be vitiated if the reality itself were not radically transformed. These nagging concerns had to be incorporated into the final draft of the statement of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches, Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry, finalized in Lima, Peru, in 1982. In this document, the council agreed that "?the Eucharistic meal is the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, the sacrament of his Real Presence. Christ fulfills in a variety of ways his promise to be always with his own .… But Christ's mode of presence in the Eucharist is unique. Christ said over the bread and wine of the Eucharist: 'This is my body .… This is by blood.' What Christ declared is true, and this truth is fulfilled every time the Eucharist is celebrated. The church confesses Christ's real, living, acting presence in the Eucharist?" (Eucharist, par. 13). Persisting Questions—Possible Answers In the World Council of Churches' statement on the Eucharist, the ideas of the eucharistic meal as "?sacrament of the body and blood of Christ?" and "?sacrament of his real presence?" are linked together. But how the person of Christ, his body and blood, and the meal elements coincide is left unspecified. Indeed, the official commentary to this passage states: "?Many churches believe that … the bread and the wine … become, in a real though mysterious manner, the body and blood … of the living Christ .… Some other churches … do not link that presence so definitely with the signs of bread and wine.?" In fact, some churches, especially in the Reformed communion, do not make this link at all. There probably can be no profitable dialogue between those who affirm Real Presence (in some way) and those who affirm real absence. Among those who affirm Real Presence, there is some division between those who affirm the presence of someone and those who affirm the presence of something. A breakthrough might occur if the question is asked: In what way is a person also an object? Whatever I am as a person, I am also a body; and my body is my availability, indeed my vulnerability, to others. I can give myself to others only bodily, and my body, thus given, may be misused by those to whom I give it. Jesus may mean by saying, "?This is my body,?" "?this is me, and I give myself to you.?" However, it is only as a body that Christ can give himself, and that body can be—and was—abused. There is also an element of sacrifice involved in this offer. The institution of the Lord's Supper is linked with the atoning sacrifice of Christ in all four New Testament institution accounts. Because of the possibility of superstitious abuse of the sacrament and because such a close identification brings with it a confrontation with the presence of Christ's sacrifice, some Protestants are thus hesitant to accept too strong an identification of Christ's Real Presence with the elements of bread and wine. But, if one can accept the idea that a person must also be a body, a proposition to which Catholicism has faithfully clung, it may be that agreement can be reached on how to avoid abuses of the sacrament, which is the true Protestant concern. If so, it is possible that a true ecumenical breakthrough on the understanding of Christ's eucharistic presence may be achieved.