Encourse Wiki

Moral Theology — Topic 10. Moral Aspects of the Sacraments_ Priesthood and Eucharist.

Properties3
tagstopic
courseMoral Theology
unitTopic 10. Moral Aspects of the Sacraments_ Priesthood and Eucharist.

49 min read

Moral Theology — Topic 10. Moral Aspects of the Sacraments_ Priesthood and Eucharist.

The Biblical Foundations of Community Life.

These days, there is quite a lot of talk about the necessity of fellowship and mutual aid among believers. At the same time, the circumstances in which we live may seem so different from the patriarchal traditions of antiquity that the realization of communal life would appear to be a complete anachronism. At the same time, moral theology does not exist or develop on its own or on the basis of sociology. In its principles, it is grounded in Revelation, the testimony of which is timeless, because in it the will of the Creator Himself is revealed to us.

Although the mystery of the Holy Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures, at the very moment of creation God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,” in which one can see a hint of, in a certain sense, a “divine community,” in whose image the earthly community is created. In this context, the purpose of the account of Eve’s creation is not to show that God did not know that man would not find a mate among the animals, but to emphasize Adam’s need for fellowship, which would serve as a school of love and a reflection of the divine image. Having created humanity as male and female (Gen. 1:27, 5:2), God explicitly states, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18), because all of humanity’s subsequent activity on earth presupposes joint effort and spiritual growth.

To denote a purposeful gathering of people, the Hebrew language of the Old Testament used the word קָהָל (qāhāl). However, it acquired a special meaning because, at the conclusion of the covenant (?), the Lord Himself summons and gathers people (Deut. 4:10), who are called to recognize themselves as God’s one people (Deut. 31:12), having responded to His call. In this context, in a liturgical sense, the assembly (qāhāl in the LXX ἐκκλησία ) is understood as a collective action in which the importance of unity is particularly emphasized (1 Sam 8:14). From this unity arises the community עֵדָה (ʿēda), as a single whole that collectively receives the law and is collectively responsible for sins (Lev 4:13–21). Uniting as a holy people implies not only a sense of unity but also the necessity of perceiving its members as neighbors רֵעַ (réaʿ). For example, chapter 19 of the Book of Leviticus speaks of the need to care for the poor, to be honest and just toward one’s brother and neighbor. However, the quintessence of the moral call that God addresses to people can be considered the exhortation: “Do not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). No less important in understanding the unity of the people is the concept of חָבֵר (châbêr), which means companions, allies, or those acting in unity. In various contexts, it could signify not only a pious union, but it is also worth noting that this word refers to those who unite on the basis of observing the commandments: “I am a companion to all who fear You and keep Your commandments” (Ps118:63), and is a companion and friend of the Anointed One (Ps 44:7). Finally, it is precisely this word that designates those who will be reunited for unity in the hand of God (Ezek 37:16,19).

The idea of the benefits of living together is also found quite frequently in the Old Testament. Thus, Ecclesiastes says: “If one is overpowered, two can defend themselves; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Eccl 4:12) and later, “Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor; for if one falls, the other will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is no one to lift him up” (Eccl 4:9–10). Moreover, even in the Old Testament, we find the idea that friendly fellowship helps people grow spiritually together: “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Prov. 27:17).

Christian Fellowship in the New Testament

Christian communities were often based on Jewish communities, in which the pursuit of brotherly unity had been shaped by centuries of living under the Covenant with God. In the mind of the average Jew, Old Testament texts had shaped a specific perception of the people as a holy community set apart for God, in which everyone is a “neighbor.” This love was experienced both in the context of specific relationships within a small local congregation and on the level of the entire people, since, while closed to Gentiles, the communities were open to one another.

As key terms revealing the theological content of Christian unity, first and foremost, we should mention the word “Church” itself—ἐκκλησία—the assembly of those who have responded to the call. Originally meaning an assembly of citizens gathered to resolve political issues, in the New Testament era it came to signify, for Christians, the assembly of those who responded to God’s call. However, in a moral sense, the term κοινωνία and its derivatives prove particularly important. For example, when describing the lives of the disciples, the Apostle Luke says that the believers “had everything in common— ἅπαντα __ κοινά” (Acts 2:44, 4:32). And of course, this refers not only to personal fellowship, much less the sharing of possessions. For the Apostle John, fellowship with them, as apostles, opens the way for people to fellowship with “the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:6). In turn, for the Apostle Paul, the fellowship of the disciples is fellowship in Christ: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation (κοινωνία) in the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16, cf. 1 Cor 1:9).

Given that the Greek Septuagint had a long-standing tradition of translating the Hebrew קָהָל as ἐκκλησία, it seems natural to transfer the Jewish experience of unity in the covenant to the Christian experience. However, the Christian Church is one not because of blood ties, but because it is united by Christ. The only commandment that He calls “new” and “His own” boils down to the call: “love one another,” which cannot be fulfilled outside of communal life. It is worth noting that in this case the Savior is not speaking of love for everyone, which is, of course, no less important for the disciples. However, the capacity for this love begins with the disciples learning to love “one another,” acquiring love “among themselves” within the community, which serves as a school of love. Moreover, this love itself is conceived as the restoration of the state originally intended by God: “For this is the message you have heard from the beginning: that we should love one another” (1 John 3:11). Moreover, the commandment of love is not theoretical or emotional in nature, but one of mutual service. The Apostle Paul writes to the Galatians: “Serve one another in love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Gal 5:13–14). He writes about this in even greater detail to the Philippians. For him, the life of Christians in a single community is by no means merely a gathering of people who barely know one another on Sundays for worship. On the contrary, it is about a shared life: “Have the same mindset, the same love; be in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil 2:2–4). Such fellowship among people should not be perceived as something imposed and performed out of duty, but as something embraced sincerely and with love. It is no coincidence that the Apostle Peter briefly exhorts: “Love one another” (1 Pet 2:17).

Theological Foundations of Community Life __

The Christian community exists not as a mere gathering of people united by a common interest, but as an organism living a single life—not only liturgical, but also social. Reflecting on this inclusion in communal life and the nature of Christian unity , Prof. George Florovsky says: “No one can be a true Christian while remaining a solitary and isolated being. Christianity is not primarily a doctrine or discipline that individual people can adopt for their own use and guidance. Christianity is precisely a community, that is, the Church. <…> The abstract term ‘Christianity’ is clearly of late origin. From the very beginning, it was understood in social terms. <…> All Christian sacraments are, by their very nature, ‘social sacraments,’ that is, sacraments that incorporate members. And Christian prayer is corporate prayer… Therefore, to build Christ’s Church means to build a new society, that is, to recreate human society on a new foundation. Unity and communal life were always strongly emphasized. One of the earliest names for Christians was simply “brothers.”

V.N. Lossky was not exaggerating when he called ecclesiology the most important topic in twentieth-century theology. However, the matter is not only about theoretical questions, but about the fact that the doctrine of the Church directly influences our practical life. Practical ecclesiology poses a question to Christians: what does it mean to be the Church? The Creed speaks of four properties of the Church, and each of them has a moral dimension. However, in the discussion of the community, the third property of the Church — catholicity or conciliarity — plays a special role. Speaking of conciliarity, V.N. Lossky points to its two foundations, its two premises: Christological and pneumatological. He describes them as follows:

  1. Christological — “The work of the Son pertains to human nature, common to all—it is this nature that is redeemed, purified, and recreated by Christ,” who has united us as the head into one body.

  2. Pneumatological — “The work of the Spirit is directed toward individuals; He imparts the fullness of grace to every human person in the Church, transforming every member of the Church into a conscious co-worker of God, a personal witness to the Truth.”

The author views the work of the Son and the Spirit as an antinomy: the Spirit divides or distinguishes what Christ unites. However, He divides and distinguishes without disrupting harmony. In the sacrament of chrismation, the Spirit descends upon the faithful, just as sunlight passes through a kaleidoscope, so that the unique combination of circumstances and talents, like the unique combination of prisms, allows each person to appear as a wondrous and beautiful pattern. By virtue of this distinction, people, uniting in the Body of Christ, do not become a gray mass; they do not lose their own identities. Lossky sees the source of the teaching on the conciliarity of the Church in the dogma of the Holy Trinity, which reveals the mystery of “the identity of the whole and the parts.” The Church is conciliar because conciliarity can be perceived in the Holy Trinity. This understanding of conciliarity allows us to draw a crucial practical conclusion: “The Son and the Holy Spirit have revealed the Trinity to us not as intellectual knowledge, but as a rule of life.” Based on theological premises, a community could be defined as a parish in which believers consciously set as the goal of their conciliar life — living in the image of the Holy Trinity. Obviously, ideal communities do not exist, and every parish, to one degree or another, merely strives to become one.

It is often said that the word “liturgy” translates as “common cause,” from which it is suggested that we infer its unifying nature. In fact, it would be more accurate to translate this word as “public affair,” because etymologically it derives from the word λότον, which means “municipal building.” At the same time, there is no doubt—nor can there be any—that in terms of its content, the liturgical service has a unifying character.

The first appeal that the priest or deacon addresses to the people—the first petition of the Litany of Peace—can be translated as follows: “Let us pray to the Lord in peace with one another.” Given that this appeal is repeated many times in various forms (for example: “Let us pray to the Lord for the peace of the whole world, the prosperity of God’s holy Churches, and the unity of all”), its significance cannot be overstated. Furthermore, among the petitions, neither in the Liturgy nor in any other church service is there a single petition spoken on one’s own behalf, except for the priest’s sole prayer before the Cherubic Hymn (For none is worthy…). All prayers are spoken either on behalf of all those present or on behalf of the clergy, who pray for themselves and the laity.

A special role in the pursuit of unity among the faithful is played by the deacon’s exhortation, which in ancient times was: “Kiss one another with a holy kiss,” and in our days: “Let us love one another, that we may confess with one mind.” This kissing itself was not merely a brotherly or sisterly kiss, but was accompanied by a dialogue that is still heard today among the officiating clergy. Greeting his juniors, the senior clergyman says, “Christ is among us,” and hears in reply, “He is, and He will be.” Today, in some communities, the rite of kissing among the laity has been restored. Its significance is equally profound, for the unity it implies is not merely—and not even primarily—rational, emotional, or volitional in nature, but sacramental. In this dialogue, the faithful do not ask Christ for His presence nor do they ask “whether Christ is among them.” They bear witness that He is already among them, since they are gathered in His name and His promise is true. Human efforts have been made, for the believers sought to pray in peace; renouncing private petitions, they turned to God with what was common to them; yet, on their part, only God can accomplish what is most essential on this path.

The purpose of communal prayer is to overcome sinful division and the disunity of life, actions, and their goals — “ourselves, one another, and our whole life”—and to entrust them to Christ God. To surrender so that the prayer which Jesus Christ addressed to the Father may be fulfilled: “that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I am in You, so also may they be in**** Us” (John 17:21).

  • The Moral Purpose of Priestly Service
  • Christian Сommunity
  • The Priest as Organizer of Community Life
  • Responsibility as a Principle of Community Life
  • Communal prayer as a moral activity
  • The goal of the Eucharist: unity with God and with one another
  • Moral Conditions for Participation in the Eucharist
  • Receiving Communion, Reflecting on the Body of Christ

From the texts of Holy Scripture, we learn that participation in the Eucharist leads a person to unity with God and with other people. At the same time, as is evident, unity can be genuine or illusory, depending on the state of the human heart. As is well known, the problem of a false assessment of one’s relationship with God was quite clearly addressed by the Apostle John the Theologian, who wrote: “Whoever says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, is a liar; for whoever does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And we have this commandment from Him, that whoever loves God must also love his brother” (1 John 4:20,21). In a surprising way, love for God, which we perceive as more exalted, is made dependent on love for one’s neighbor. However, the reason is obvious and lies in the fact that our neighbor is present in our lives with all his weaknesses and hardships, whereas a person can create false ideas about God and live in a world of what patristic theology called a phantasm. To prevent the believer from harboring illusions, the Apostle John points to the close connection between love for God and love for one’s neighbor, which allows one to verify the authenticity of love for God through love for His image. The parable of the Last Judgment indirectly speaks of the same thing, in which both the righteous and the sinners are surprised that the Lord refers to their attitude toward Him, even though they had not directly expressed their attitude. Responding to their bewilderment, the Son of Man says that one’s attitude toward God is manifested first and foremost through one’s attitude toward one’s neighbor, and not through any other actions. Although such things seem obvious in the context of Scripture, in everyday life we often demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of this principle.

At the end of the 20th century, a process commonly referred to as the Eucharistic Revival was observed in many local churches. Believers were beginning to receive Communion and strive to do so regularly. However, it is important to understand that participation in the Eucharist alone cannot mechanically change the lives of believers until they themselves make an effort toward this end. This raises the question: what kind of changes does this, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, require of a person?

To answer this question, the image of bread was already used in ancient times. Thus, the author of the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” quotes a prayer that was recited before the Eucharist: “Just as this [Bread], when broken, was scattered over the mountains and, when gathered, became one, so may Your Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom”[1]. The essence of this image is very simple. Individual grains are ground together to become a single loaf of bread. In the Christian assembly, the logic is the same: different people, raised in different families, in different traditions, rich and poor, of different psychological types, etc. …gather under one roof to become a single Church, in which all are brothers and sisters. Obviously, the closer the fellowship, the more likely conflict will arise from the very beginning, because people are different. And the point of communal prayer and communal meals is for strangers to become family, not only in a theological sense (Eph 2:19), but in a social sense as well. It is clear that when the Apostle Peter says, “…and you yourselves, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house…” (1 Peter 2:5), he does not mean that everyone who comes to the assembly is already a ready-made, perfect stone that can be easily fitted into the spiritual edifice right away, but rather that people must work on themselves.

In calling disciples to Himself, Christ addresses specific individuals, not social groups or nations. He says: “…whoever is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water” (John 7:37,38). However, all who come are called to unity and communion, because God Himself reveals Himself to the world as unity in communion. At the same time, not everyone who comes to God is ready for communion. A person may come to the church and desire to meet Christ, yet have their own agenda. Knowing this, the Savior says in the Sermon on the Mount: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). There can be no formalities in a relationship with God, and until a person prepares his heart for an encounter with Him, his efforts will be fruitless.

As is well known, in the context of dogmatic and liturgical theology, it is customary to speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. In turn, it turns out that the Eucharist itself has a condition that could be called a moral sacrifice, performed not only in the depths of the heart but also within the realm of interpersonal communion. Citing a situation familiar to every Jew, the Savior says: “Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift”. (Matt. 5:23,24).

At first glance, this call is quite traditional and may be associated with forgiving one’s neighbor. In a typical situation, if a person is called to forgive, it means that he is the one who is angry and offended. He is called to “forgive the debt” and pardon his neighbor’s transgressions. However, in this case, the Savior means that one must reconcile with the person one has wronged, which requires far greater moral effort. Forgiving another may go almost unnoticed, since a person both takes offense and forgives on their own. If, however, a person is called to reconcile with the one who has something against him, this means that he is called to a very thoughtful and attentive life. He cannot think that another person’s offense is the problem of the one who was offended, even if in reality this is the case. He must be the first to reconcile, even if he considers himself in the right. Commenting on these words of the Savior, Euthymius Zigaben writes: “So, whether you offer praise to God, or prayer (for this too is a sacrifice), or anything else, do not offer it without first making peace, knowing that He will accept nothing unless you have first made peace. These words apply equally to the one who causes the offense and to the one who suffers it. If you have been wronged by someone, forgive them for this wrong and be patient; if, however, you have wronged another, make amends for your wrongdoing and do not neglect anything that may serve to bring about reconciliation. By this he teaches that God detests the entire life of one whose sacrifice is not accepted because of enmity”[2].

Given that at times a person is unable to discern how their behavior or words have affected another, it has been customary in the Church since ancient times to exchange the so-called “kiss of peace” before the start of the Anaphora. After the exclamation “Kiss one another with a holy kiss,” the clergy in the sanctuary and the laity in the church would turn to one another with the words “Christ is among us,” to which one was required to respond, “He is and will be.” The essence of this act was that a person might be concealing issues to which his conscience had given him witness. He might realize that a brother “has something against him” or that he himself might “have something” against a brother. In other words, he could conceal his state of discord, which he now had to reveal and overcome within himself. In one of the ancient anaphora, a certain addition to these words has been preserved, according to which the deacon continued: “And whoever cannot offer the kiss of peace to one another, let him go out and pray elsewhere.” A person could no longer participate in the Eucharist, in communal prayer, if he was not reconciled with his neighbor and was aware of this. Thus, for unity to be genuine rather than illusory, it must be manifested through fellowship and active love for one another. Every Christian is called to recognize the measure God has given him (Rom. 9:21) and to serve others within that calling. The Apostle writes that through joint efforts, the Body of Christ, “held together and joined by every supporting ligament, as each part does its work, causes the Body to grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Eph 4:16).

[1] The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) IX.4

[2] Euthymius Zigabenus. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Compiled from the Ancient Patristic Commentaries by the 12th-Century Byzantine Scholar Monk Euthymius Zigabenus / translated from Greek. — Kiev: [s.n.], 1886. — p. 69.

However, the most detailed text from which it directly follows that a person’s participation in the Eucharist can be worthy or unworthy is chapter 11 of the Apostle Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians.

In instructing his disciples, he tells them, among other things: “You come together not for the better, but for the worse.” Literally, he does not say “for,” but “into,” that is, instead of gathering to become better, they become worse; they gather in such a way that the fruits of their gathering, instead of being good, turn out to be bad. It is worth remembering that for the Apostle, a gathering is always a Eucharistic gathering, a gathering for worship, which means that they are behaving improperly when they gather for communal prayer and the Eucharist.

The Apostle explains his words as follows: “For in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you” (1 Cor 11:18). Here, the expression “in the church” should not be associated with a place, since it can literally be translated as “in the assembly,” that is, it refers to the gathering of the local Corinthian community. The word “divisions” does not convey the complexity of the situation, since schism can mean discord and even a split. The apostle sees the cause of this in what he calls αἵρεσις, which is translated as “dissension” or “heresy.” It is indeed a matter of disagreement, but judging by other contexts in which this word is used, the apostle is referring not so much to doctrinal disagreement as to moral and cultural disagreement, which gives rise to friction and disputes that destroy genuine Christian love. However, the apostle says that they could turn even this disagreement to their advantage, to gain the skill of peaceful fellowship and become more adept at it, for as is well known, the Lord allows difficulties so that we may learn proper conduct.

The apostle further emphasizes that the absence of peace affects how they partake of the Lord’s Supper. He writes: “When you come together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper…” (1 Cor. 11:20)[1]. This is a very serious warning, because it literally means that if they gather incorrectly, it cannot be called the Lord’s Supper. But what exactly troubled the apostle so much?

He writes:

“For when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you are eating… For each one eats his own supper first. And one goes hungry while another gets drunk. Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” (1 Cor. 11:21–22).__

To understand what is being discussed, it is important to remember that originally, the Eucharist among Christians was celebrated following the example of the Last Supper, that is, it was a meal that concluded with Communion. As it spread throughout the ancient world, this meal came to be associated with the traditional ancient banquet. The difference was that all those gathered were Christians; they read the Holy Scriptures, prayed, ate, and received Communion. At the same time, given that the people gathered were diverse—free people and slaves, the poor and the rich, men and women—they all had different opportunities to participate in the communal meal, and thus their perception of the meal could vary: some ate the food they had brought, while others did not have time to eat and remained hungry. Behind these seemingly mundane details, the apostle sees a serious problem, which is that true brotherly and sisterly relationships had not developed in the Corinthian community. People were baptized; they even attended the Lord’s Supper, but they treated one another in such a way that, in essence, they could not be called brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, the apostle does not merely rebuke them, but tells his readers about the institution of the Eucharist and even quotes the words spoken by the Savior at the Last Supper. In this case, within the framework of Moral Theology, it makes no sense to determine to what extent these words coincide with those found in the canonical Gospels; it is far more important to understand why he does this. So, he writes:

“Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me; for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor 11:25,26).__

Literally, these words of the apostle can be understood as follows: do this in remembrance of Me, because every time you partake of the Lord’s Supper, you thereby proclaim / declare (from the Greek καταγγέλλω ), and you will continue to do so until the end of the age.

To understand what is being discussed, we must remember that, first of all, in the language of the Old Testament, remembrance is not associated with a sentimental feeling, but with the actual realization of what is being remembered. For example, the commandment “remember the Sabbath day” means not merely recalling God’s rest, but actually becoming like Him in that rest. That is, by celebrating the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Christ, the disciples actualized what had taken place in the Upper Room in Zion, returning to that experience of communion with Christ, the experience of His death and resurrection.

Second, to understand the apostle’s words, it is worth recalling who in history proclaimed the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection. Of course, it was the martyrs. In their faithfulness and devotion to Christ, they proclaimed to the pagans and to the whole world that Christ and His victory were more real to them than the torments to which they were subjected.

Finally, it is worth reflecting on how, by celebrating the Lord’s Supper, they bear witness to His victory. If they did not do this publicly, telling no one about it, since there was a rule of “disciplina arcani” that forbade such actions, there remains only one possibility: they bore witness to the reality of Christ’s victory to one another through their actions. They had once been baptized, and baptism is a spiritual entry into the experience of Christ’s death and resurrection; it is a moral rebirth in which a person ceases to live for oneself and lives for God, which, as is well known, manifests itself through love for one’s neighbor.

So, the apostle told the Corinthians about the institution of the Eucharist and reminded them of the reality of the Savior’s death and resurrection for a reason. In discussing this, he lays a theological foundation to show them that selfish behavior during the Eucharist is not merely improper conduct, but a renunciation of the commitment one made upon entering the Church. How is it possible to neglect the poor during the meal, when at its end you must share the Body and Blood of the Lord with him? How can you ignore the latecomer and the hungry one, getting drunk and gorging yourself, and then teach him the kiss of love and say, “Christ is among us”?

Having provided a theological basis for his rebuke, the apostle begins to speak of the consequences of such an attitude toward the Eucharist. He says: “Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord”, (1 Cor 11:27). It is noteworthy that the apostle chooses the word ἄξιος to describe this act, which is translated as “unworthy,” but could also be rendered as “not commensurate in value,” since etymologically the word ἄξιος derives from the word “weight”[2]. In other words, when speaking of unworthiness, the apostle implies that a person’s spiritual state does not correspond to the state that should be the fruit of communion. The one who attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable and, by disregarding the brother standing beside him, seeks to be one with the Lord—is found guilty against the Lord’s Body and Blood. It is equally important to recall that the word ἔνοχος, meaning “guilty” in the context of the LXX, almost always refers to one who must die. This guilt itself, of course, does not imply that anyone must carry out any sentence. The apostle is speaking of something else; he means that the desire to be with God and to be in His Body—the Church—without the desire to be with one’s neighbor proves fruitless.

Of course, the apostle does not want anything like this to happen in Christian communities, and therefore he calls on the disciples to reflect on what they do and how they do it. In his view, every person should partake of the Body and Blood of Christ only after examining themselves, that is, recognizing their own condition (1 Cor 11:27). Moreover, the apostle immediately explains the essence of unworthy behavior, saying: _“For whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment (_κρίμα —a court decision, verdict, condemnation) upon himself, not discerning the Lord’s Body” (1 Cor 11:29). These words of the apostle seem quite simple. However, this simplicity is only apparent, and it arises because, first, we take this verse out of context, and second, we approach it intellectually, having been conditioned since the dawn of the modern era to rationalize everything.

It seems to us that to reflect on the Lord’s Body means to ask ourselves, “How do we believe? What is before us?” An atheist will say it is bread and wine; a believer who is not enlightened will say it is consecrated bread and wine; finally, a person knowledgeable in doctrine will say that before him is the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ. It might seem that this “discussion” could end here, since the correct answer has been given. But in the context of moral theology, the discussion is only just beginning. Thus, St. Basil the Great writes, “He who approaches Communion without understanding the purpose for which the Body and Blood of Christ are given receives no benefit from it”[3]. This means that, having accepted the dogma as a given of revelation, a person must then ask himself how he should conduct himself if the truth is before him. How is his faith meant to change his life?

Before answering this question, it is worth noting that in most ancient manuscripts the word “Lord’s” is absent from verse 29. The question arises: of which “Body” is the apostle writing? Of the Body of the Eucharist or the Body of the Church?

More than a thousand years after the Apostle, St. Nicholas Cabasilas would write: “If anyone wishes to see Christ, he may look upon the Church, for She is His Body”[4]. Approaching the Chalice with the Body and Blood of Christ, a person, of course, first and foremost reflects on the Body that is now to be given to him, ponders the greatness of the Gift that is bestowed upon him. However, in his reflections, he must go further, to the understanding that the Body in the Chalice is directly related to the people standing nearby. And if a person has correctly understood the essence of the Gift being given to him from the Chalice, he will inevitably realize what his attitude toward the Body of Christ, as the Church, should be. He must strive for peace, love, and mutual service, and not treat his brothers and sisters with contempt. On the contrary, whoever, in good conscience, knows that he does not strive for peace, that he is at enmity with his neighbors, that he causes them pain, and yet partakes of the Lord’s Supper—is attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable; he does not discern the Lord’s Body and eats and drinks “judgment upon himself.”

The Apostle writes that as a result of such “unworthy” communion, many of the Corinthians are “weak and sick, and not a few are dying” (1 Cor 11:30). Naturally, the Apostle, speaking of spiritual phenomena, has in mind first and foremost spiritual sickness and death. Before him are members of the Church whose illness is the habit of combining a bad attitude toward their neighbors with the Eucharist. Having gradually accustomed their consciences to the idea that such a thing is possible, these people, according to the Apostle, come to spiritual death—that is, they die as members of the Body of Christ and fall away from the Church.

For many modern Christians, the apostle’s words serve as a reason to refuse participation in the Eucharist, feeling their unworthiness. However, for the apostle, such logic was unthinkable, because refusing the Eucharist in the context of his theology is a refusal to be a member of the Church. He thinks quite differently. For if he is faced with people who are consciously acting wrongly, it is unclear how they were baptized at all; if their behavior is unconscious, they must learn what he calls “to judge themselves,” so as not to be “condemned with the world” (1 Cor 11:31,32). In other words, the apostle asserts that a person who has decided to be a Christian must reflect on their attitude toward their neighbor, because it is precisely in this that their attitude toward Christ is revealed.

Obviously, this condition may confuse those who are accustomed to reducing preparation for Communion to disciplinary requirements. A person may feel the urge to refuse the Eucharist on the grounds of an inability to overcome their lack of love for their neighbor. However, first, the necessity of reconciliation is not something new; it has always been regarded by tradition as a primary and essential means of preparation. Thus, the rule for Communion explicitly states that before drinking the blood of Christ in pursuit of communion with Him, one must be reconciled with those who have caused us sorrow. Second, none of those receiving Communion has ever thought that they could, by their own strength, overcome the sin within themselves that separates them from others. And yet, recalling Christ’s words, “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), Christians understand that moral effort is also required of them on the path of love for their neighbor.

It is worth explaining separately the meaning of the canons that mention the Eucharist. There are three of them in total, and their essence boils down, in one way or another, to the idea that a person who refuses to participate in communal communion commits an act of sacrilege. For example, the second canon of the Council of Antioch states: “All who enter the church and listen to the sacred Scriptures but, by some deviation from the order, do not participate in prayer with the people, or who turn away from receiving the Holy Eucharist, shall be excommunicated from the church until such time as they confess, show the fruits of repentance, and ask for forgiveness, and thus be able to receive it.” The 9th Apostolic Canon repeats this almost verbatim, while the 8th is addressed specifically to the clergy: “If a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone from the sacred order, does not receive Communion during the celebration of the sacrifice: let him present a reason, and if it is acceptable, let him be excused. If he does not give a reason, let him be excommunicated from the communion of the Church, as one who has caused harm to the people and cast suspicion on the one celebrating the sacrifice, as if he had performed it improperly.” The reason for such harsh judgments, it seems, can be attributed to the fact that participation in the Eucharist itself was perceived not as an act of personal piety, but as an act of a shared striving for communion in love. By refusing the Eucharist, a person was rejecting unity with the Lord and with one’s neighbors. The reason for this could only be a grave sin that the person refused to amend.

At the end of the Divine Liturgy, the faithful hear the exclamation “Let us go in peace.” It means that the peace they had attained through common prayer and participation in the Eucharist, they were to carry out into the world to be a light of truth for it. However, in order for the community to become a school of love for them, they had to learn this love within the community. As has already noted, prayer and the Eucharist fostered love, but the conditions of worship practically do not involve fellowship, which means that, by limiting themselves to participation only in liturgical life, the faithful cannot manifest all that Scripture speaks of. In order to become a school of love, that place where love and “living according to conscience” become a habit, there must be a church environment that serves as a space of communal life for brothers and sisters.

[1] A modern translation might be: “But what you do when you gather together cannot in any way be called participation in the Lord’s Supper.”

[2] Beekes R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden; Boston, 2010. Vol.

  1. p. 111

[3]Basil the Great, St.Moralia** 21.2**** __**

[4]Nicholas Cabasilas,Commentary on the Divine Liturgy** 38.2** __

The first and foremost principle of building a community is love, as an act of each person’s will. At the same time, both the Apostle’s epistles and other early Christian writings reveal that life in the communities was fraught with difficulties. Jews often looked down on former pagans, and the wealthy disregarded the poor. Even within the apostolic community itself, there was room for neglect and division over cultural issues (Acts 6:1). Of course, problems could arise in all communities, but the difficulties faced by the Christians in Corinth are described most vividly in Scripture. Speaking of the Church as the Body of Christ and of Christians as parts of that body, the apostle writes: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’; nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’” (1 Cor. 12:21). All this is so because “God has arranged the body, giving greater care to the less perfect parts, so that there may be no division in the body, but that all the members may care for one another equally” (1 Cor. 12:24). For the apostle, who sees a wide variety of problems, including selfishness and detachment from the fellowship of brotherly life, it is evident that “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it” (1 Cor 12:26). Commenting on these words, Fr. Alexander Elchaninov once drew a very tragic conclusion from the apostle’s words: “if we do not feel this, we are not in the Church”[1]. We have already spoken above about responsibility as the principle of a person’s inclusion in a covenant or agreement, which presupposes fidelity to common norms. However, in the Church, this fidelity is realized not only in the negative sense of personal responsibility for sins. Responsibility in the Christian sense implies an active stance in which a person feels their connection to everyone. It is no coincidence that the Apostle says: “Let us be attentive to one another, encouraging one another to love and good deeds. Let us not neglect meeting together, as is the habit of some, but let us encourage one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (Heb 10:24–25). Here the very rare word επισυναγωγη is used, which means “a regular gathering in a specific place”[2]. Since Christian unity is not imposed from above but is achieved through the guidance of a pastor and the joint efforts of the community, it necessarily implies that each person is called to personally recognize their place within a specific congregation. This refers not to a physical place in the church building, but to a spiritual connection with brothers and sisters that is independent of time and place. It is the realization that the Church, as the Body of Christ, is formed not only for you, but also through your participation. Every believer, as a co-worker of God, carries out God’s work on earth. A similar sentiment, though in a completely different vein, was expressed by the Russian writer Andrei Platonov through the words of his protagonist: “Without me, the people are not complete”[3].

Responsibility as a spiritual bond implies a readiness to pray for one another, to bear one another’s burdens and infirmities, and to serve one another with the gifts each has received in the sacrament of Chrismation. However, these gifts are given as God’s response to people’s desire to unite around the common Eucharistic Cup, common works, and common life. By seeing Christ in a brother or sister, and ultimately in every person who happens to be near them, believers, through their service to their neighbor, also serve the Savior Himself (Matt. 25:40). When coming to the Church, a person who has experienced love as passion, love as friendship, love as habit, etc., gains an experience of love that is far higher—and thus demands incomparably greater effort. In this way, the Church assembly becomes a place where believers find the peace of Christ, which they are called to bring into the outside world, a world that does not know it. Naturally, we should not completely devalue sensual love, which is backed by experiences dear to people, for people are often ready for truly self-sacrificing acts when it comes to family or friendship. At the same time, the Church does not reject such love, though it may seem so at first glance (Matt. 10:37), but rather transforms and purifies it through the love of Christ, because a person learns to see the image of God in another.

[1] Elchaninov, A.V., priest. Orthodoxy for Many: Excerpts from a Diary and Other Notes. Moscow: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, DAR Publishing House, 2006, p. 157.

[2] Hughes, P. E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews / P. E. Hughes. — Grand Rapids, Mich.: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977. P. 418

[3] Platonov, A. “The Old Mechanic.”

The goal of the Eucharist: unity with God and with one another.

The sacrament of the Eucharist completes and fulfills man’s entry into the Church as a community of disciples who become one in the Lord. If every sacrament allows us to enter in a special way into the mystery of Christ’s saving work, then in the Eucharist this occurs in a special way, because those who receive Communion literally and physically partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In Holy Scripture, this is most clearly expressed in chapter 6 of the Gospel of John:

“…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. … Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats Me will live because of Me” (John 6:53–57).__

In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul also writes: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:16,17).__

Although the question of the nature of union with Christ has long been, and perhaps remains, a matter of debate in Tradition, we may turn to the opinion of St. John of Damascus, who wrote: “The angels became partakers and communicants not of the divine nature, but of the divine action and grace; but among men, those who partake of and become partakers of the divine nature are those who receive the Holy Body of Christ and drink His Blood. For [the Body and Blood] are united with the divinity hypostatically; and the two natures in the Body of Christ that we receive are united hypostatically and inseparably; and we become partakers of both natures: the Body—corporeally, the Divinity—spiritually, or rather, both mutually. We are not one and the same [as the Savior] in hypostasis (for we first exist hypostatically and then [only] enter into union [with Him]), but through union with the Body and Blood”[1].

At the same time, while the doctrine of union with Christ—and in Him and through Him with God—seems obvious, the doctrine of the communion of the faithful with one another is not at all obvious to most believers. From being a matter of the whole Church, the Eucharist has long been perceived as a private matter, left to the discretion of the individual, as a matter of personal piety. However, both Holy Scripture and Tradition, within the framework of patristic theology and the Church’s canons, allow us to say that for a Christian and a member of the Church, the Eucharist cannot be a private matter, since each person occupies a place in the assembly that no one else can occupy. In a world that lies in evil, the Church, as the Body of Christ, is the place where believers enter into the experience of Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism, are adopted as children of God and sanctified by receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and are ultimately called to overcome the division and estrangement among people that resulted from the Fall. And if, according to the Savior’s words, Satan desires to scatter people “like wheat” (Luke 17:21), then Christ dies to “gather together the scattered children of God” (John 11:52).

As we know, the very motif of unity occurs quite frequently in the liturgy. However, it is Eucharistic unity that is particularly emphasized. For example, in the text of the Liturgy of the Apostolic Canons there is this petition: “We also pray to You for those who are absent for a blessed reason, that, preserving us all in piety, You may reunite us in the Kingdom of Your Christ…”[2]. In the Byzantine Anaphora of Basil the Great, after the Epiclesis, the priest prays: “And all of us who partake of the one bread and cup, unite us with one another in the communion of the one Holy Spirit…”[3], whereas the Syriac version of the same anaphora states: “And us who have partaken… that we may be united with one another, grant us the communion of the Holy Spirit” 4.

Drawing on the words of Holy Scripture, St. Cyril of Alexandria emphasizes that, by partaking of Christ, we become one body not only with Him but also with one another. He writes that Christ: “has established a certain, exquisite… way for us ourselves to come together and be united in oneness with God and with one another, even though we are separated from one another in soul and body into distinct persons… in one body, evidently His own, by blessing those who believe in Him through the sacrament of the Eucharist, makes them one body both with Himself and with one another”[4]. Much later, St. Theophylact of Bulgaria summarizes all these themes as follows: “God gives us His Body precisely to unite us both with Himself and with one another”[5].

[1]St. John of Damascus. Three Defensive Discourses Against Those Who Condemn Holy Icons or Images. St. Petersburg, 1893; STSL, 1993. p. 10

[2]Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, ch. 12

[3] Anaphora of the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great

[4] Cyril of Alexandria, St. Commentary on the Gospel of John , Book 11, Chapter 11. In Works , Part 15, Sergiev Posad, 1912, p. 109.

[5] The Annunciator (Blagovestnik), or Commentary of Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria , Vol. 3. — Printing House of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, 2006, p. 204.

Traditionally, when considering the sacrament of the priesthood, one speaks of the priest’s three ministries: preaching, pastoral care, and, of course, the liturgy. These ministries are examined in detail within the frameworks of homiletics, pastoral theology, and liturgical theology, respectively. In the course on moral theology, it is proposed to view the priest’s entire activity from a specific perspective, recognizing as one of its most important goals the transformation of moral life, both of the priest himself and of the community he leads.

When sending Timothy to Ephesus to admonish certain members of the community, the Apostle Paul wrote: “The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith…” (1 Tim 1:5). The Apostle Paul clearly shows that the primary focus of a priest’s moral ministry is the promotion of Christian love toward one another as the foundation of the life of Christ’s disciples (John 13:35). Thus, the goal of pastoral care and public preaching must be not only the personal spiritual and moral perfection of the flock, but also the proper ordering of communal life and the teaching of people to love one another. In turn, the sacrament of the Eucharist serves as the liturgical means through which the Lord bestows the gift of love upon those who themselves strive for love.

Returning to the theme of the unity of believers, it is worth recalling once again the ancient Christian principle of Communio sanctorum , or “the communion of saints,” which signified both the communion of Christians with one another and the incorporation of the faithful into the Body of Christ through the Eucharist. In the Gospel itself, the Savior’s presence among the faithful is revealed as a response to their own efforts: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” (Matt. 18:20). At the same time, true unity is not created by human effort alone, but by participation in the Body of Christ: “There is one bread, and we, though many, are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:17). This means that, when speaking of the community, we must first speak of the human efforts that contribute to the creation of the community, and only then speak of how the Lord, through communion with His flesh, unites us into one body of the Church.

The covenant at Mount Sinai was made with the entire people. Every Jew was called to know the commandments and keep them. At the same time, priests and prophets bore a special responsibility for teaching the people the law and reminding them of the covenant. Thus, the prophet Malachi says: “For the lips of a priest should preserve knowledge, and people seek the law from his mouth, because he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.” (Mal 2:7). Although he is the last of the minor prophets in chronological order, the same idea, though expressed as a rebuke, occurs quite frequently in earlier texts (Ezek 34:1–10, Jer 23:1, 2). Moreover, the prophet is told directly: “And you, son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel… If I say to the wicked, ‘Wicked one, you shall surely die,’ and you do not warn him… he will die for his sin, but I will hold you accountable for his blood” (Ezek. 33:7–8). However, in the New Testament, believers are shown a different logic: “Brothers and sisters, if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever turns a sinner from his wrong path will save his soul from death” (James 5:19–20). All the more so, this principle of praying for the sinner proves important in the context of mutual love and communal prayer (Matt. 18:19–20).

Already in the New Testament, the Apostle Peter exhorts pastors: “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2–3). Indeed, the consciousness of the parish community depends in many ways on how the priest acts. This is precisely why all New Testament calls for unity and community are calls from pastors who saw their pastoral task in bringing people together. If we ask how a priest’s work in guiding community life should be structured, the answer may be quite simple: building a community is a conscious act of the shepherd, carried out together with the faithful.

The very image of building in Scripture is very vivid. In parables, God builds His vineyard (Matt. 21:33). The teachers of the people are accused precisely of rejecting Jesus as the cornerstone, instead of making Him “the head of the corner” (Matt. 21:42).

As the founder and spiritual leader of the Corinthian community, the Apostle Paul says of himself: “According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled architect, I laid the foundation, and another, builds upon it; but let each one take care how he builds upon it” (1 Cor 3:10). One might think that this refers to the mission and the founding of churches, but any bishop and any head of a congregation to whom he entrusts this must behave in the same way: “For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God” (Titus 1:7).

Of course, community leaders must understand that they are building with living stones, who must also freely participate in this, and they must understand what they are building and for what purpose. Calling them to this, the Apostle Peter says: “And you yourselves, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet 2:5). However, it is no coincidence that the apostle calls himself a fellow worker, for “every house is built by someone; but the builder of all is God” (Heb 3:4).

It is interesting that this same image is later used by St. Basil the Great, who, in the third prayer of the faithful—which in our tradition is called the “Prayer of the Placement of the Gifts on the Altar”—expresses the hope of receiving from God the reward of “faithful and wise builders on the day of judgment,” the righteous divine recompense. It is clear that the saint does not mean the literal construction of churches, but refers primarily to the structure of the body of the Church.

Graph View

Backlinks