Sacramental
Theology
Fr.
Mark McMonagle, B.Min., M.Div.
“All creatures are balanced upon the creative Word of God, as if upon a bridge of a diamond; above them is the abyss of the Divine infinitude, below them ‘that of their own nothingness,’ says Philaret of Moscow.”
Lossky
translates from the Russian, Fr. Florovsky’s The Ways of Russian Theology,
Paris, 1937, p. 180
Sacramental theology is a study of the underlying
theology that supports the rituals, context and appropriation of the sacraments.
Some attempts at sacramental theology are meant to describe the substance and
action of the cultus. My intention here
is to diverge from this avenue and focus on the dogma of sacramental theology
as it relates to the incarnation.
When I began this study I expected to find sacrament
an important and fundamental aspect of the theology of the East, but I did not
expect to find a dependency and intertwining of sacraments and Incarnation to
be as monolithic as it turned out to be.
I was rewarded to find a coherence of thought that depended as much upon
ecclesiology and soteriology as there was in Christology and human ontology,
and more. The conclusion of a paper written last year on penance, original sin
and human nature, and the findings of this study have re-enforced for me the
grandeur of God’s good news.
The
dogma of sacraments in Orthodox theology says that sacraments are fundamentally
irreducible to mere symbols (as that term symbol is used in contemporary
literature and public forums) and is bound to reality in a way that
covers the fullest spectrum of time, space and matter, of the living, inert and
the dead.[1] In the vernacular of Orthodoxy, “here is a
mystery”, the Incarnation is as much about the enhypostization of God
become man as it is about the redemption of all creation in the apokatastasis
(which should not be confused with the Origenic extremes of this doctrine).
What the sacraments have in common with the incarnation is a point of
convergence between this world and the world yet to be. “For Christianity
proclaims that Christ died for the life of the world, and not for an ‘“eternal
rest’ from it.”[2][3]
For
Western theology the underlying sense of sacraments is twofold. The first
centers on the Real Presence and the second on a ‘not real’ presence or symbolism.
This debate is a central feature of the Reformation wherein was stressed
the importance of deriving theology exclusively from the Bible and in doing so,
little by little expunging from theological practice and mindset the
interpenetration of the symbol and the real. It is, and was, also a central feature of the Reformation to
excise mysticism in what was perceived to be magical, and to emphasize the
rationalism of the Renaissance and Enlightenment that was utilized by the
Reformers to debunk any mystical definition of the sacraments. This was not a
global view, of course. For instance, the architects of The Shorter Catechism
formulated:
Q. 92 What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by
Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant
are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.[4]
Here
the formulators of the Catechism believed that there was an active grace
present enough in the sacraments to effect benefits on a believer. Whereas, the
Heidelberg Catechism reads:
Q. 66. What are the sacraments?
A. They are visible, holy signs and seals instituted
by God in order that by their use He may the more fully disclose and seal to us
the promise of the gospel, namely, that because of the one sacrifice of Christ
accomplished on the cross he graciously grants us the forgiveness of sins and
eternal life.[5]
But there is a difference, ever so slight, in the
wording and meaning that reveals the slow divergence from a direct contact or
communion of the work of Christ with an individual believer within an active
sacrament and an inert one. What appears to be evident is that there is a move
to a more philosophical approach to theology, in that the Catechism is involving
itself in an analysis of the beliefs of the Church in an abstract format;
another way of saying this is that when it defines the sacrament it underscores
its theological and forensic meaning instead of its mystical and life-giving
properties. In fact, it retreats from
such a position. Twelve questions later Heidelberg clarifies its stance on what
a sacrament is not.
Q. 78. Do the bread and wine become the very body
and blood of Christ?
A. No, for as the water in baptism is not changed
into the blood of Christ, nor becomes the washing away of sins by itself, but
is only a divine sign and confirmation of it, so also in the Lord’s Supper the
sacred bread does not become the body of Christ itself, although, in accordance
with the nature and usage of sacraments, it is called the body of Christ.[6]
Conversely,
the framers of the Scots Confession, which included John Knox, in 1560,
(pre-dating Heidelberg) wrote that the Sacraments reflected a virulent desire
to attend to as orthodox a belief as they could; hence, in Chapter XXI, On
The Sacraments is written:
Two sacraments based on the dominical institution.
“We utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing
else than naked and bare signs...Notwithstanding the distance between his
glorified body in heaven and mortal men on earth, yet we must assuredly believe
that the bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s body and the cup
which we bless the communion of his blood. Thus we confess and believe without
doubt that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s Table, do so eat the
body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus that he remains in them and they in
him; they are so made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone that as the
eternal Godhood has given to the flesh of Christ Jesus, which by nature was
corruptible and mortal, life and immortality, so the eating and drinking of the
flesh and blood of Christ Jesus does the like for us.”[7]
The Swiss document of faith reflects a like commitment to an older faith and purity of doctrine. The Second Helvetic Confession is surprisingly sacramental and incarnational, considering my own reservations to some Reformation teaching.
Therefore
the signs acquire the names of things signified are sacramentally joined
together; joined together, I say, or united by a mystical signification, and by
the purpose or will of him who instituted the sacraments. For the water, bread,
and wine are not common, but holy signs, and he that instituted water in
baptism did not institute it with the will and intention that the faithful
should only be sprinkled by the water of baptism; and he who commanded the
bread to be eaten and the wine to be drunk in the supper did not want the
faithful to receive only bread and wine without any mystery as they eat bread
in their homes; but that they should spiritually partake of Christ.[8]
It
is helpful to remember that Luther, that prince of rebels, did after all,
insist on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He denied what Rome
tenaciously held to and still holds to in its Radbertian definition of transubstantiation,
ratified at Trent and the two Vatican councils.
Orthodoxy does not admit to a
systematic theology of the sacraments, per se. Bishop Kallistos Ware,
Archbishop of Thessalonica, writes, “Between the wider and the narrower sense
of the term ‘sacrament’ there is no rigid division: the whole Christian life
must be seen as a unity, as a single mystery or one great sacrament, whose
different aspects are expressed in a great variety of acts, some performed but
once in a man’s life, others perhaps daily.”[9] Unlike
Western, non-Roman theologies that proffer the two sacraments model, Orthodoxy
accepts more but are not as restricted as the Roman list. However, Orthodoxy
does utilize a seven-sacrament model that it has accepted as fairly dominant
since the seventeenth century influence of the Latin and Reformation thinking.
Those seven are Baptism, Chrismation (the gift of the Holy Spirit through
laying on of hands of the bishop or priest), the Eucharist, Repentance (or
confession), Holy Orders, Holy Matrimony and anointing of the sick. Other
sacraments can be added in such as exorcism or the consecration of something
holy or even someplace as holy. The chief sacraments remain baptism and
Eucharist in all churches, but to say that the other sacraments are inferior is
to grossly underestimate the sacramental concept within the Orthodox
Church. Ware adds that in contrast to
the more recent listing of the sacraments; the Fathers were not concrete about
their placement or number. ‘Only in the seventeenth century, when Latin
influence was at its height, did this list become fixed and definite. Before
that date Orthodox writers vary considerably as to the number of sacraments:
John of Damascus speaks of two; Dionysius the Areopagite of six; Joasaph,
Metropolitan of Ephesus (fifteenth century), of ten; and those Byzantine
theologians who in fact speak of seven sacraments differ as to the items which
they include in their list.’[10][11]
The seventeenth century is the
period when Peter the Great influenced Russia with European worldviews and
values. It follows then that European theological influence would be expected
to follow too, which it did. But one finds this situation considerably
different in post-Byzantine Orthodoxy of Jerusalem. At the Synod of
Jerusalem (1672), a.k.a. Synod of Bethlehem, Orthodox bishops convened to
respond to both Catholic and Protestant issues of faith. It’s chief decisions
were on an emphasis of the teaching role of the Church versus sola scriptura,
affirmation of seven sacraments (or, Mysteries), the rejection of any attempt
to make them merely symbolic, an assertion of the role of love, grace and deeds
in relation to salvation (justification), they accepted but did not limit
itself, that is the Orthodox position, to the Greek variant of the Latin transubstantiatio
but rejected the metaphysical gymnastics of Roman definitions yet
re-enforcing the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the liturgy, though
the science behind it is a mystery and should remain so. Finally, it confirmed
the canonicity of the deutero-Canonical books of the Bible.[12] It should be noted that Russia eventually
returned to its non-Latin roots in a general way up to the time of the
Bolshevik Revolution. Indeed today there is a resurgence of commitment to the
Church in Russia, though it continues to struggle with Sergianism (a compromise
with KGB and the Soviet regime), capitalism, corruption and organized crime,
Islam and its own national economic and security concerns. Although one should
not over generalize the resurgence of Orthodoxy in contemporary Russia, or over
state it, it can be said that its struggles have resulted in an increased focus
on more traditional forms of Orthodoxy, the Moscow Patriarchate
notwithstanding.
If Orthodox theology differs from
the West one quickly wonders in what way and if that way is valid. Alexander Schmemann describes the Western
difference.
“It is indeed one of the main defects of
sacramental theology that instead of following the order of the Eucharistic
journey with its progressive revelation of meaning, theologians applied to the
Eucharist a set of abstract questions in order to squeeze it into their own
intellectual framework. In this
approach what virtually disappeared from the sphere of theological interest and
investigation was liturgy itself, and what remained were isolated “moments,”
“formulas” and “conditions of validity.”
What disappeared was the Eucharist as one organic, all-embracing and
all-transforming act of the whole Church, and what remained were “essential”
and “nonessential” parts, “elements,”
“consecration,” etc. Thus, for example, to explain and define the meaning of
the Eucharist the way a certain theology does it, there is no need for the word
“eucharist”; it becomes irrelevant. And
yet for the early Fathers it was the key word giving unity and meaning to all
the “elements” of the liturgy. The
Fathers called “eucharist” the bread and wine of the offering, and their
offering and consecration, and finally, communion. All this was Eucharist and all this could be understood
only within the Eucharist.”[13]
One of the most significant aspects
of Western academics is its expertise in systematizing theology, law, science,
and language. This expertise has allowed the West to delve into the mysteries
of the world in historically unprecedented ways. But the West errs if it tries
to convince itself that the mystery of our salvation can conclusively be
reconstructed and analyzed in a systematizing way, strictly speaking. Were
systemization the crucial means of appropriating theology then knowledge is in
the last our one, true goal. But it is not. In the garden the two trees offered
different fruit, one of life and the other of knowledge. The latter was not the
general knowledge of the surrounding world but the knowledge of the difference
between good and evil. In the long history of mankind this knowledge of good
and evil has never sated anyone who has consumed it. If all knowledge of right
and wrong, goodness and evil were our means of sustenance would we not have
been sated long ago? Yet, we have not
been. Our hunger is for life, not the secrets of the physical world or even the
secrets of a hidden world, as Lossky hopes to correct us here by writing: “It
is the mystery of our salvation that is revealed to us by the Church, and not
the secrets of the Universe in general which, quite possibly, does not stand in
need of salvation; this is the reason why the cosmology of revelation is
necessarily geocentric.”[14] In context, he is talking about whether or
not it is important to know what the outcome of the cosmos will be and directs
our attention to the realization that all we can ever be concerned with is the
work of salvation done upon the earth. Yet, the point remains the same, our
domain is the world in which we live and it is in this world that our salvation
is meted out...and, it is in the world that certain elements are sacralized,
not by men but by God.
Incarnational theology expresses itself in
the modern world without relying on the analytical method and worldview of
secularism, the Enlightenment, and scientific analysis. The definition and
experience of the East, on the doctrine of the Incarnation, is more
encompassing than that found in the Latin (and even in some of the Reformation)
writers. As a result, the conception of sacrament in its relation to the
Incarnation has different meanings in each case. For instance, a Church that
celebrates prima specie the Passion and relegates the Resurrection and
eschatology to the ‘here-after’ practices a Eucharist that remembers only the
suffering of Christ in which the Church participates through its consumption.
“For Christianity proclaims that Christ died for the life of the world, and not
for an “eternal rest” from it.”[15][16] Although the future life is germane to
understanding the theology of the Eucharist it is by no means the limit of that
sacrament. Another example is when a
theology of atonement becomes at its best a juridical matter culminating in a
Eucharist reminiscence of a legal motion or activity, not requiring a real
presence at all, but only a symbolic (that is, not present reality)
referent.
“Sacramental discourse in fact is often thought of as theological
adiaphora best practiced by those with a taste for banners, ceremonial, and
arts and crafts. It is regarded as an academically less than disciplined swamp
in which Anglican high churchmen, Orthodox bishops, and many if not all Roman
Catholics and others are hopelessly mired.”[17] Any treatment
of sacraments eventually has to differentiate between symbolism and reality
sacrament.
Today, we most often hear that a
sacrament is considered an ‘invisible grace manifest in a visible token.’ As we
saw above in the Heidelberg Catechism sacraments “are visible, holy signs and
seals instituted by God in order that by their use he may the more fully
disclose and seal to us the promise of the gospel, namely, that because of the
one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross he graciously grants us the
forgiveness of sins and eternal life.”[18] Above, our attention was drawn briefly to
the disparity between Reformation positions on the sacraments, particularly the
‘two’. What has not been addressed is
the connection between creation and its place in providing a consecrated
holiness to us.
“Likewise,
the sign of the Cross, holy water, the words of Scripture read in the course of
the divine office, the ecclesiastical chant, the ornaments of the Church,
incense and lighted candles are all symbols in the realistic sense of the word;
material signs of the presence of the Spiritual world. Ritual symbolism is more than a
representation addressed to the senses in order to remind us of spiritual
realities. The word anamnesis does
not mean commemoration simply; rather does it denote an initiation into a
mystery, the revelation of a reality which is always present in the Church.” [19]
“The sacramental life --- ‘the life in
Christ’ --- is... seen to be an unceasing struggle for the acquisition of that
grace which must transfigure nature; a struggle in which victories alternate
with falls, without man ever being deprived of the objective conditions of
salvation.”[20]
The
sacraments are as tied to the life of a Christian as a branch is to a vine, or
waterfalls to the water that feeds and sends it on its way. If we see it otherwise, that is, as a life
of taxonomic niggling over the exact nature of the mysterious, then we have cut
ourselves off from that life, if that remains the sole grasp of and practice of
the sacraments.
This life is the life redeemed from
death and sin, and from the corruption of the world that will soon be burned.
We are destined for an other world, one separated from these nemeses of the
human race. The sacraments are a part of the world yet to be but resident in
this world now.
“But
this is not an “other” world, different from the one God has created and given
to us. It is our same world, already
perfected in Christ, but not yet in us. It is our same world, redeemed and restored, in which Christ “fills
all things with Himself.” And since God has created the world as food for us
and has given us food as means of communion with Him, of life in Him, the new
food of the new life which we receive from God in his Kingdom is Christ
Himself. He is our bread--because from the very beginning all our hunger
was a hunger for Him and all our bread was but a symbol of Him, a symbol that
had to become reality...[21][22]
God created the world to be our
source of sustenance, food for mankind.
All of the resources essential to human life emanates from the earth,
which is the matter of God’s providence.
This falls under natural theology, that is, what is natural to mankind
and creation. Our religion is the ontological fact of creation, as well as its
teleology. Were this not so, the
Incarnation becomes ridiculously inadequate, since it would then only address
the escape of mankind from this world and cosmos, which would in its own way be
rendered anachronistic. But our religion draws from this Creation an offering
to God, which is returned to us. “What we have offered--our food, our life,
ourselves, and the whole world--we offered in Christ and as Christ because He
Himself has assumed our life and is our life. And now all this is given back to
us as the gift of new life, and therefore--necessarily--as food.”[23]
It
is striking to note that man is from the ground as his sustenance is from the
ground, making man inseparable from the ground; and this has everything to do
with the Incarnation. Before mankind
ate the other animals, he shared the same herbs and grasses and fruit and
vegetables with the animals. Gregory Nyssen, a millennia and a half ago, said,
“men did not notice that (God) invested him with the qualities of both
mosquitoes and mice.”[24]
Thus, our substance that comes from the same earth is the same as every other
creature. We are all creatures “balanced upon the creative Word of God, as if
upon a bridge of a diamond; above them is the abyss of the Divine infinitude,
below them ‘that of their own nothingness,” says Philaret of Moscow. Apart from
God’s creative Word there is no existence, no life, nor inertia, nor death,
only nothing. In Christ is the firmness
of ever-existence, not only for man, but the nine orders of angels, the cosmos
and infinite finitude of space, which are alike shared. So, it is not
unrealistic to grasp that the Incarnation of Jesus Christ wrests shallow
existence and termination from our hopelessness and grants us his intended
goodness of life. Why then are we so doubtful that God wants to use bread,
water, wine and oil to be enhypostisized with Christ (however that is
accomplished) to give us life? Beings
of the earth share in common the stuff of creation, not only in their source of
Word and dust, but also in the Providence that keeps them. When the Apostle
John said, “God so loved the world” we sometimes think that he meant only the
realm of man. But this is a limited view since man’s shared-creatureliness with
the hosts of the earth is ultimately also the source of redemption for creation.
For Vladimir Lossky, mankind is the world. “Man no longer saves himself through
the universe, but the universe is saved through man. For man is the hypostasis
of the whole cosmos which participates in his nature.”[25] God has intended a permanence to the Creation
He has made. We know this because He
made His very Image from the mud, muck and mire of it, whether beautiful and
exotic or repulsive and common. Nevertheless, God said this was good. It was a perfect work. But in the fall, in
the eating of a piece of fruit, his communion with God and creation was
altered.
Man has an innate need to worship.
Looking at the leitourgos of Cain and Abel shows that the initiative to
worship seems to have come from both. Cain’s worship rested on work and the
fruit of the ground, which was accursed. Abel’s offering had nothing to do with
the staples of the ground. It had to do with the offering of a life. In the
shared-creatureliness of man and animals, his offering was the sacrifice of an
‘others’ life. It should be remembered that at this point in the biblical
narrative the communication (in terms of companionship) of man and animals was
obstacle free. The separation of the creatures had not yet taken place. Thus
the fullest possible understanding of sacrifice can be demonstrated here. It
may be that Cain was outraged or stupefied by the blood that was shed and so
returned like for like on his brother. This is speculative of course but bears
some consideration. In this new world of sin, blood and death were poured onto
the earth before a single man had yet died, ‘the lamb that was slain at the
foundation of the world.’
The worship of God is the purpose of
mankind, but it is done in the context of the creation and not in a nothingness
(Hindu) or nonmaterialistic way (dualism).
The establishment of the Church by the Lord Christ Jesus elevates
creation to the level of being a Temple wherein God dwells and communes with
His people and where Creation is celebrated and celebrates.
“A new reality came into the world,
a body more perfect than the world --- the Church, founded on a two-fold divine
economy: the work of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit, the two persons of
the Trinity sent into the world. The work of both persons forms the foundation
of the Church. The work of both is
requisite that we may attain to union with God.”[26]
The revelation of Jesus Christ come
into the world is the revelation of redemption, the turning upside down of sin
and death, by His work and by the presence of the Holy Spirit as the new thing
upon the earth; the holy means of salvation for man and the cosmos. The Church
is the work of the one true Priest, whose religion is true, whose life is true,
for all hindrances to relationship and life and truth are dispensed with, and
for us, we
“Give[ing]
thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of
the saints in light; who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and
translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; in whom we have our
redemption, the forgiveness of our sins: who is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created, in the
heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created
through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things
consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For
it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness
dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace
through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the
earth, or things in the heavens.”[27]
In ages past, while man dwelt in the
darkness of sin and death, his hope was finite and futile, having no appendage
in which to reach His Creator, but now He has been revealed as the mystery of
embrasure, that time when God calls us Children and we call Him our God and
Father:
...
Even the mystery which hath been hid for ages and generations: but now hath it
been manifested to his saints, to whom God was pleased to make known what is
the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in
you, the hope of glory:[28]
Those
hidden things of our inheritance were clouded with obstacles that have been
exposed for what they are:
...
Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which
was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the
cross; having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of
them openly, triumphing over them in it.[29]
The place of man in the Creation of
God is that of priest. All of creation
comes to man to gain its approach to God.
In a significant way Father Schmemann instructs on this matter.
“Man
was created priest of the world, the one who offers the world to God in a
sacrifice of love and praise and who, through this eternal Eucharist, bestows
the divine love upon the world. Priesthood, in this sense, is the very essence
of manhood, man’s creative relation to the “womanhood” of the created world.
And Christ is the one true Priest because He is the one true and perfect man.
He is the new Adam, the restoration of that which Adam failed to be. Adam failed to be the priest of the world,
and because of this failure the world ceased to be the sacrament of the divine
love and presence, and became “nature.”
And in this “natural” world
religion became an organized transaction with the supernatural, and the priest
was set apart as the “transactor,” as the mediator between the natural and the
supernatural.”[30][31]
I
find it increasingly difficult to be patient with those who view abuses and
esotericism in Church to be a cause for not attending, who use this one excuse
“I don’t believe in organized religion” which is tantamount to a rejecting
Christ. Where the Body of Christ is there the Spirit of Christ is. It is in the
Holy Spirit that we gain our connection with God. It is the Holy Spirit that
effects the sanctification of the sacraments, an activity that is done in the
Church. “It is the Holy Spirit who manifests the bread as the body and
the wine as the blood of Christ,” as Father Schmemann states.[32] Of course there are circumstances that are
apparently ‘outside of the Church’, but none are ever meant to remain so. If Jesus said, “I am the bread of life”,
then there is no other means available for mankind to attain to life. “It is in
the Body of Christ, according to St. Irenaeus, that we have access to the fount
of the Holy Spirit. It is therefore necessary to be united to the Body of
Christ in order to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit.... Yet the one and the
other ---the union with Christ and the giving of grace --- are wrought through
the same Spirit.”[33][34]
For the Orthodox Church sacraments
bind the Creation to the Word in a new way. The old way is equally essential in
that, as was said before, without the Word Creation would have no existence.
Whereas in the new way Creation is so fundamentally established that it can
never not be. This is because Jesus became man and defeated death and
ascended to God’s glory with no hound of corruption on his tail, he is as it
were, immunized from death and in him is the redemption of the world. “He
became man and lived in this world. He
ate and drank, and this means that the world of which he partook, the very food
of our world became His body, His life. But His life was totally, absolutely Eucharistic
-- all of it was transformed into communion with God and all of it ascended
into heaven. And now He shares this glorified life with us. “What I have done
alone--I give it now to you: take, eat...”[35]
The
transformation that is implicit in metanoia is made real by the presence
of the Holy Spirit in the believer, a gift given by Christ through the
Church. As has been stated above,
partaking in sacraments effects life in us. The power of Baptism is that it
decisively takes him into the death of Christ and causes him to enter the life
of Christ. “Baptism is forgiveness of
sins, not their removal. It introduces the sword of Christ into our life and
makes it the real conflict, the inescapable pain and suffering of growth. It is indeed after baptism and because of
it, that the reality of sin can be recognized in all its sadness, and true
repentance becomes possible.”[36] This is a dramatic difference from the
theologies of baptism that are either a symbol or that believe in the
transformation model. The former is a powerless sacrament and the second tries
to say more than has been said by the fathers, confusing Paul’s Ephesian
theology with his Romans 12:1 and 2 injunction to transform ourselves. Orthodox
and ancient teaching have stressed the cleansing nature of the baptism, a very
real cleansing, but not a pseudo-gnostic metamorphosis of quite another kind,
that is into an other kind of creature.
Of
interest is the demarcation between what the world has to offer and what the
sacraments are and how the world (the enemy of God) is restricted from
partaking of them. When we speak of the
world here, we speak not of the Creation, but of the ‘lust of the flesh, the
lust of the eyes and the pride of life’, of a world that rejected it’s
creator. Schmemann is insightful on
this point:
“... The whole liturgy is sacramental, that
is, one transforming act and one ascending movement. And the very goal of this movement of ascension is to take us out
of “this world” and to make us partakers of the world to come. In this world -- the one that
condemned Christ and by doing so has condemned itself -- no bread, no wine can
become the body and blood of Christ.
Nothing which is a part of it can be “sacralized.”[37]
As
creatures we share this world with the other creatures, man, animal, fish and
rock, and it is this world that will be redeemed. The world or Kingdom of this present darkness, as it is called,
is present as a corrupting factor in the original creation and has affected
this original creation is such a way that decisive judgement must be leveled so
as to redeem it. Hence, the Incarnation that takes on the creation as a
creature and sanctifying it in every circumstance that meets the Incarnate one,
be it motherhood, childhood, work, marriage and so forth. In baptism water is
sanctified, in communion bread and wine are sanctified as is the very washing
and eating. Thus, in the congregation of the Christians is the blessing of
grace and life, sacrament and mystery...but for those outside of the Church;
there is no holy thing, no sacrament that imbues life and communion with God.
Though this is culturally an insensitive, intolerant and insulting statement it
is nevertheless the teaching of the Church and has been from the beginning.
But
Schmemann is not willing to let himself go without explanation.
“When
we see the world as an end in itself, everything becomes itself a value and
consequently loses all value, because only in God is found the meaning (value)
of everything, and the world is meaningful only when it is the “sacrament” of
God’s presence. Things treated merely as things in themselves destroy
themselves because only in God have they any life. The world of nature, cut off
from the source of life, is a dying world. For one who thinks food in itself is
the source of life, eating is communion with the dying world, it is communion
with death. Food itself is dead, it is
life that has died and it must be kept in refrigerators like a corpse.”[38]
Returning
to the ‘motif’ of food, Schmemann compares the consequence of eating from the
garden of this world and from the Tree of Life, Jesus Christ. Both the World
and the Church eat food that must first die, and in doing so, a temporary
moment of life is given to us. Death cannot impart life in its truest sense,
unless it has been resurrected. In the case of the Church we do eat from the
one who died and is alive again, thus taking into ourselves life, even if the
frailty of bread and wine are the physical substance of that particular
sacrament. In keeping with all forms of Christianity, the difference is not
just the setting in which Eucharist is celebrated but also in the realm of
faith is it procured. Nevertheless, the Eucharist has a warning with it, that those
who eat of it must do so worthily. For the non-baptized, participation is not
allowed because there has not yet been cleansing. For the unbeliever the
sacrament is effectless for there is no organ of faith in which to digest it,
in fact, there are stories of illness as a result of consuming the
‘elements’. For those who partake of
communion without repentance or in smugness, or without conversion (being born
again) they are in danger of death.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth
and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this
cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should
not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we
should not be condemned with the world.[39]
A symbol cannot do this; only something that is real
can do this.
Conclusion
Sacraments are variously defined as substances that are sacred, things that are set apart through the consecration of one whom is likewise sanctified. The thing is taken from the earth and is a means of conferring grace, an efficacious element that effects change, for the Eucharist this means the consumption of the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine. For Baptism, water is the element of death. For healing, oil and prayer are gleaned from the olive and from the elders. For chrismation, the oil and laying on of hands by the bishop or priest confers the gift of the Holy Spirit. Bishop Ware evokes the Old Testament when he writes:
Chrismation is an extension of Pentecost: the same
Spirit who descended visibly on the Apostles in tongues of fire now descends
invisibly on the newly baptized. Through Chrismation every member of the Church
becomes a prophet, and receives a share in the royal priesthood of Christ; all
Christians alike, because they are chrismated, are called to act as conscious
witnesses to the Truth. ‘You have an anointing (chrisma) from the Holy
One, and know all things’ (I Jn 2, 20).[40]
Likewise, oil is also used in anointing the wedding
couple. Cutting the hair in tonsure is a sacrament of vows through the cutting
of hair and in committing oneself to serve as a cleric or monastic.
From
the earth God has chosen to use substance to bring physicality to grace for those
who participate in the life of Christ. Sacraments then are not merely symbols,
shadowing a reality or metaphor of various aspects of God’s ministry to
mankind. Sacraments rather contain in
themselves that which is signified. One can then see that just as eating a
forbidden fruit has effortlessly taken mankind from a place of bliss and
communion with God to fear, darkness, sin and death. In eating the Tree of Life, that is, Christ in faith and in
sacrament, one also is taking into themselves the life of Christ. This is a doctrine that is at odds with
non-Orthodox and non-Catholic Churches. This doctrine is at odds with
Catholicism too, even if there is much that is common to both. In Catholicism the Eucharist is viewed
differently by claiming that the bread and wine are a sacrifice that is renewed
each time it is celebrated. The
Orthodox see the Eucharist as a transformation of the bread and wine into the
one sacrifice of Christ, adopting a non-temporal approach and concluding an
Eternal, pan-historical sacrifice that at each consecration is a participation
in the original sacrifice. In its own
way Eucharist is a sacrifice, but one that was offered by Christ, who was that
sacrifice, once for all. As the Liturgy
of St John Chrysostom says, ‘Thine of Thine own we offer Thee, from all and for
all.’
Priest:(secretly) Commemorating this command
of our Saviour and all that was endured for our sake, the Cross, the Grave, the
Resurrection after three days, the Ascension into Heaven, the Enthronement at
the right hand of the Father, and the second and glorious Coming again, (aloud)
Thine own of Thine own we offer to Thee, in all and for all.
Choir: We praise Thee, we bless Thee, we give thanks
to Thee, O Lord, and we pray to Thee, O our God.
Priest:(secretly) Again we offer to Thee this
reasonable and bloodless Service, and we ask and pray and supplicate: send down
Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts here presented.
Deacon:
Master, consecrate the Holy Bread.
Priest: And make this Bread the Precious Body of Thy
Christ,
Deacon: Amen. Master, consecrate the Holy Cup.
Priest: And that which is in this Cup, the Precious
Blood of Thy Christ,
Deacon: Amen. Master, consecrate both the Holy
Things together.
Priest: Changing (Them) by Thy Holy Spirit.
Deacon:
Amen, Amen, Amen.[41]
A comment by Nicholas Cabasilas testifies to the
Orthodox understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice. “First, the sacrifice is
not a mere figure or symbol but a true sacrifice; secondly, it is not the bread
that is sacrificed, but the very Body of Christ; thirdly, the Lamb of God was
sacrificed once only, for all time... The sacrifice at the Eucharist consists,
not in the real and bloody immolation of the Lamb, but in the Transformation of
the bread into the sacrificed Lamb.”[42]
The sacraments then have more to do with the
entirety of Christ and are, therefore, elements of redemption that culminate in
the Ascension, which we share with Christ. The Church is a sacrament whose
consecrator is God in Christ who has taken his image and formed the temple in
which he will and does dwell. Thus, one fully participates in the life of
Christ not only in individual prayer and spiritual disciplines but also in the
sacramental life of the Church. One cannot separate himself from the Church and
spiritually survive, since the sacramental life is at once true koinonia and
personal salvation, inseparable and irreducible. It is then extraordinarily profound to hear these words from
Saint Leo the Great. “He who was visible as our Redeemer has now passed into
the sacraments.” Since we are called to dwell in him, it is then appropriate to
participate in the sacraments, wholeheartedly, knowledgeably and worthily.
Endnotes
1. Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World (Crestwood, NY 10707: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1965), 138.
2. Schmemann, 96.
3. Schmemann, 96.
4. The Book of Confessions, Presbyterian Church (USA) 1994, 190.
5. Book of Confessions, 38.
6. Book of Confessions, 42.
7. Book of Confessions, 21.
8. Book of Confessions, 101
9. Timothy Ware, Orthodox Church, The (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1963), 283.
10. Ware, 282.
11. Ware, 282.
12. David J. Belling Ed. Ken Perry, Brady, The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1999), 267.
13.
Schmemann, For the Life of the World, 34.
14. Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, The, 105.
15. Schmemann, 96.
16. Schmemann, 96.
17. Aidan Kavanagh, Lecture’s in book form in On Liturgical Theology (Collegeville, Minnesota: Pueblo, 1981), 180.
18.
The Heidelberg Confession, (The Book of
Confessions, Presbyterian Church (USA), 1994), 38.
19. Lossky, 189.
20.
Lossky, 180.
21. Schmemann, 41.
23. Schmemann, 41.
24. Lossky cites ‘On the Structure of Man’, XVI, Patrologia Graecae, 44, col. 177D-180A.
25. Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, Crestwood, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001, 71.
26. Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, The, 156.
27.
Colossians 1: 12 - 20.
28. Colossians 1: 26 - 27.
29.
Colossians 2: 14 - 15.
30. Schmemann, 93.
31. Schmemann, 93.
32.
Schmemann, 43.
33.
Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, The, 177.
34.
Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, The, 177.
35.
Schmemann, 43.
36.
Schmemann, 79.
37. Schmemann, 42.
38.
Schmemann, 17.
39. I Corinthians 6: 29-32.
40.
Ware, 285.
41.
Nicholas Cabasilas, Commentary on the Divine Liturgy (Holy Trinity
Church, Marylebone Road, London: S.P.C.K., 1350’s, 1983), 13, 14.
42. Ware, Orthodox Church, The, 293.
Bibliography
Nicholas
Cabasilas. 1350’s, 1983. Commentary on the Divine Liturgy. Holy Trinity
Church, Marylebone Road, and London: S.P.C.K.
Ed.
Ken Perry, D. J. M., Dmitri Brady. 1999. The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern
Christianity. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Kavanagh,
A. 1981. Lectures in book form in On Liturgical Theology, Collegeville,
Minnesota: Pueblo.
Lossky,
V. 2002. Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, The, Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Lossky, V. 2001. Orthodox Theology: An Introduction,
Crestwood, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
Schmemann,
A. 1965. For the Life of the World. Crestwood, NY 10707: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press.
Ware,
T. 1963. Orthodox Church, The, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:
Penguin.
[1]. Alexander Schmemann, For
the Life of the World (Crestwood, NY 10707: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1965), 138.
[2]. Ibid. 96.
[3]. Ibid. 96.
[4]. The Book of Confessions Presbyterian Church (USA) 1994, 190.
[5]. Ibid. 38.
[6]. Ibid. 42.
[7]. Ibid. 21.
[8]. Ibid. 101
[9]. Timothy Ware, Orthodox
Church, The (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1963), 283
[10]. Timothy Ware, Orthodox
Church, The, 282.
[11]. Timothy Ware, Orthodox
Church, The, 282.
[12]. David J. Belling Ed. Ken
Perry, Brady, The Blackwell
Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell
Publishers, 1999), 267.
[13]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 34.
[14]. Lossky, Mystical
Theology of the Eastern Church, The, 105.
[15]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 96.
[16]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 96.
[17]. Aidan Kavanagh, Lecture’s
in book form in On Liturgical Theology (Collegeville, Minnesota: Pueblo,
1981), 180.
[18]. The Heidelberg Confession,
(The Book of Confessions, Presbyterian Church (USA), 1994), 38.
[19]. Lossky, Mystical Theology
of the Eastern Church, The, 189.
[20]. Lossky, Mystical
Theology of the Eastern Church, The, 180.
[21]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 41.
[22]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 41.
[23]. Ibid.
[24]. Lossky cites ‘On the
Structure of Man’, XVI, Patrologia Graecae, 44, col. 177D-180A.
[25]. Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox
Theology: An Introduction, Crestwood, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001,
pg. 71.
[26]. Lossky, Mystical
Theology of the Eastern Church, The, 156.
[27]. Colossians 1: 12 - 20.
[28]. Colossians 1: 26 - 27.
[29]. Colossians 2: 14, 15.
[30]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 93.
[31]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 93.
[32]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 43.
[33]. Lossky, Mystical
Theology of the Eastern Church, The, 177.
[34]. Lossky, Mystical
Theology of the Eastern Church, The, 177.
[35]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 43.
[36]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 79.
[37]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 42.
[38]. Schmemann, For the Life
of the World, 17.
[39]. I Co. 6: 29-32.
[40]. Ware, Orthodox Church,
The, 285.
[41]. Nicholas Cabasilas, Commentary
on the Divine Liturgy (Holy Trinity Church, Marylebone Road, London:
S.P.C.K., 1350’s, 1983), 13, 14.
[42]. Ware, Orthodox Church, The, 293.