Theories on Eucharist

by Prof O.M Mathew Oruvattithara

The Seven Sacraments (Part 5) - Theories on Eucharist 

Theologians of early period brought out a few theories on Eucharist. In surveying the most important of them, one should not become oblivious to the fact that, 'Eucharist' is beyond logical analysis as it is essentially a 'mystery'. It will ever remain a mystery, even to the heavenly hosts. It must be admitted that underlying these divergent theories and hotly debated arguments, there is the insatiable alertness and alacrity to 'arrive' at the truth. This deserves appreciation. All the theologians agree that in the Eucharist, 'bread and wine' constitute the 'form' while 'words of institution' make the 'matter'. Similarly, there is unanimity that, this is a repeatable Sacrament. Another point of general agreement is that, the 'elements' in the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ, as a result of Eucharistic celebration. There are differences in interpretations. One view is known the 'figurative' or 'symbolic' or 'allegoric'. The other is called 'realistic' or 'conversion' theory. 

20. Symbolic theory 

This theory stressed the distinction between the visible elements and the reality they represented. On the authority of Dr. J.N.D. Kelly, it may be mentioned that, documents like 'The Apostolic Constitutions', 'Serapion's Liturgy', writings of Gregory of Nazianzus, and works of Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusthathius of Antioch, Macarius of Egypt, Athanasius of Nicene fame, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, all upheld this theory. As a representation, the observations of Ambrose and Augustine may be summarily stated. St. Ambrose asserts that in the Eucharist, what is perceived after consecration is only a 'sign' of what is actually there. In Augustinian analysis, there is the bodily form that is 'seen' and the 'spiritual fruit' that is tasted by 'faith'. It should not be forgotten that the 'symbolic' theologians never denied the 'change' in the elements. They only emphasised that the 'change' is not physical, but to be apprehended by 'the eye of faith' alone, or to be understood in the 'spiritual' sense only. 

21. Conversion theory 

What is called 'conversion' theory began to gain ground both in the Latin West and Greek East, since the time of its exposition by Cyril of Jerusalem. In fact, Cyril of Jerusalem is regarded as the pioneer of Conversion theory. Briefly, his argument is as follows. As a result of the invocation or epiclesis, the Holy Spirit descends upon the 'elements' and 'converts' or 'changes' them into the 'body and blood' of Christ. Gregory of Nyssa took up this doctrine. He contended that the nature of the visible objects are 'transelemented' and acquired the form of Christ's 'body and blood'. Gregory of Nazianzus seems to have changed his earlier 'symbolic' stance. Chrysostom speaks of "eating Christ, even of burying one's teeth, in His flesh. The wine in the chalice is identically that which flowed from His pierced side". In parenthesis, it may be pointed out that Philexinus of Maboog, the Syrian Orthodox saintly prelate of later period, echoes the remarks of Chrysostom, about the wine in the cup. In a letter, he writes: "There came forth blood and water, baptismal water, together with the blood that brings absolution; by water the font was indicated; by blood the holy mysteries which cleanse us from sin, every time we receive them". It may be a poetic presentation, because the Syrian Orthodox Church does not accept the 'Conversion' theory as such. For Chrysostom, the elements are 'refashioned' or 'transformed'. The Alexandrian and the Antiochian schools accepted the 'conversion' theory by the 5th century. Theodore of Mopsuestia argued, that at the 'Last Supper' Jesus never used the word 'symbol', but explicitly expressed "this is my body and blood". The logical soundness of this argument may force a layman like the present author to reflect as follows. If water blushed and became wine when it saw its Lord at Cana, could not such a miracle take place at the 'words' of Lord Jesus at the 'Last Supper'. Nestorius too, nodded to the 'Conversion' stand. A few monophysites also subscribed themselves to this theory and held that after the epiclesis the elements became different 'substances'. The moderate Antiochian, Theoderet, reacted against them. He held that there was no 'transformation of substance'. They are to be deemed as 'made', or 'changed' into the 'vehicle of divine grace'. This is a 'spiritualistic' interpretation and it amplifies the 'mystery' of the Eucharist. The Antiochian Church seems to have held on to this theory, ever since. In the West also, 'conversion' theory began to exert its influence to such an extent that even Ambrose and Augustine, who both were originally supporters of the 'symbolic' theory, became 'converts' to 'conversion' theory, as pointed out by Dr. J.N.D. Kelly. It is another matter that Augustine's thought passes from Christ's 'Sacramental' to 'His mystical body'. Dr. Kelly's following observation also is very worth remembering. He continues that, if any Western theologian of this time has treated the elements as 'symbols', there is a reason for it. It was because they affirmed that there existed an inexplicable or mysterious relation between the 'symbol' and the 'things symbolised'. So, Dr. Kelly contends that the West adopted the 'realistic' or the 'conversion' dogma. A natural question arose, regarding the 'cause' of conversion. Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa in the East and Ambrose in the West held that it lay in the priest's invocation of the 'words of institution'. Serapion, in his Liturgy and Cyril of Jerusalem in his lectures argued that the transformation is due to the descent of the Paraclete. Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have combined these two views. The Syriac Orient by and large agreed to Theoderet's theory. By the 7th century, the celebration of the Eucharist became rigid and uniform throughout the Christian world. The main question that engaged the theologians of this time was, as to how did the bread and wine get transformed into the 'body and blood' of Christ. 

22. Transubstantiation theory 

The answer to the above question is the doctrine of transubstantiation. In fact, the conversion theory of the old, paved the way for this theory. The term 'transubstantiation' was employed for the first time by Archbishop Hilderbert of Toure, France in the 11th century. A century later, Pope Innocent III referred to this term in a letter to the Archbishop of Lyons. The Scholastic theologians explain the theory very subtly. They introduced the concepts of 'substance' and 'accidents' as a premise of the doctrine. The former signifies the underlying and unchanging reality of a thing; the latter, namely accidents, are the qualities like colour, smell etc. After consecration, 'reality' changes; 'accidents' remain the same. Aquinas held that this 'change' takes place, at the conclusion of the consecration, 'automatically' and independently of the merit of the officiator. This theory is known as 'ex opere operato'. In 1215, the 'Lateran Council' used it in a Church document. Since then, it has remained the official doctrine of the Roman Church, inspite of explicit challenges from Protestants and suppressed sentiments from Syrian circles. Here it must be noted that in Protestantism, there is no uniform theory on the Eucharist. Luther did believe in the 'real presence' of Christ in the Eucharist. He explained it using the term 'consubstantiation' instead of 'transubstantiation'. According to this theory, after consecration the 'presence' of Christ's body and blood would 'co-exist' in the 'bread and wine'. Calvin upheld the 'symbolic' theory. For him, 'bread and wine' are 'signs' of the 'body and blood' of Christ. In Anglicanism, there are three views on Eucharist. One upholds that there is 'real presence' of Christ, as a result of either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Archbishop Temple of Canterbury's comment is worth citing. He opines that if 'substance' is defined as 'value', transubstantiation is made more acceptable; otherwise, consubstantiation is exactly correct. The second stand is called 'Receptionism'. It states that the 'presence' of Christ is in the heart of the recipient. The third one is terned 'Virtualism'. It is the dogma that the Eucharist is Christ's body and blood not in 'substance' but in 'spiritual power'. The Council of Trent that was held by the Roman Church during 1545 to 1563, to 'set off' the influences of Protestantism, affirmed 'transubstantiation'. It thus became a bench-mark in the doctrine of Eucharist. The conclusions of the Trent Council were made more specific with the publication in 1570 of the Roman Misal, which remained unchanged till Vatican II. With a view to facilitate greater participation of the 'community of believers' in the Eucharistic Sacrament, 'vernacular' Mass is presently allowed by Vatican. Moreover, it acknowledges that the Eucharist is not an end in itself, but a stimulus to action in faith. Reference must be made to a line of 'thinking' among a few Catholic theologians, on the 'conversion' aspect of the Eucharist. It is designated 'transfiguration' or 'transignification'. It states that, after epiclesis, the elements assume a 'new mode' of existence. But 'transubstantiation' is still the official dogma of the Roman Church. So far as the Syrian Orthodox Church is concerned, there is no 'official' dogma about the change of the elements, although the Church firmly believes that the 'bread and wine' do become the 'body and blood' of Christ through some mystery. The following anecdote will throw much light on this. When Gregorius of Parumala, Bishop of Niranam diocese, Kerala, who was canonised in 1948 by the Orthodox Church, was laid up with some fatal gastric ailment, he was medically advised to take wine. St. Gregorius replied that on account of his monastic vows he could not consume any drink that was heady. 'Your Grace, what is that you drink in the Eucharist', asked somebody who was attending on him. Pat came the reply. 'After the mass, what I consume is not wine, but the blood of my Saviour, Lord Christ.' 

23. Eucharist - Sacrament of 'Corpus Christi' 

It is quite astounding that despite the doctrinal controversies and external influences, a basic pattern has persisted in this 'Supreme Sacrament' all throughout the ages. Certain words and actions in the Eucharist are universal among Episcopal Churches, despite dogmatic differences among them. The spontaneous surmise is that the Eucharist, founded as it is, by the 'Founder Himself', supplies the structure and support for the growth of Christian life. This requires explicitation. By participating in the Eucharistic Sacrament, the 'beings' at large 'let in' the 'One Eternal Being'. How? it may be asked. The Latin term 'Sacrum Convivium', explains it best. That is, by taking part in the Eucharist, the egocentric selfhood is sublimated. It is rather reconciled, first with the community and subsequently with God. In this Sacrament, the priest and the congregation together become one body and thus effectualise the ethos of the Ecclesia. As St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 10:17 "We, who are many, are One body, for we partake of the same loaf". This is the transfiguration of humanity or deification, as patristic proclamations preach. The spiritual effect of this holy Sacrament transcends human comprehension. As in 'Jacobs ladder', the ethereal descends to the earthy and the earthy is elevated to the ethereal. This Sacrament is substantially the Sacrament of 'Corpus Christi', the body of Christ. It is the Sacrament in which Christ the King and the High Priest, offers Himself as the host for the salvation of humanity. 


Next: THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS - (PART 6) - Sacrament of Matrimony 
======================================================== 
Published with the permission of the Author. This web site may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the author. This book was first published in December 2001 -- Moran 'Etho Series No.16 --Publishers:- ST. EPHREM ECUMENICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SEERI) Baker Hill, Kottayam, Kerala, India. Pin- 686 001