Eucharist
I have been reading Jean Vanier’s The Scandal of Service: Jesus Washes our Feet. He notes the initial strangeness that the Gospel bearing John’s name does not have an account of the Eucharist even though it has an account of the Last Supper, and an earlier account (which no other Gospel contains) wherein attention is given to Jesus’ teaching about the bread of life and the gift of his body and blood (John 6).
While it lacks the Eucharist, John’s Last Supper does have the washing of the disciples feet, and after such a washing we hear Jesus say something quite similar to ‘Do this in memory of me,’ which we only hear him say after the Institution of the Eucharist in the Synoptics. This call to model Jesus links the Eucharist and the foot washing together.
It is these two acts that take place right before Jesus’ death, and in these final moments, Jesus is not teaching something new to his followers, but rather, as Vanier suggests, he is giving them something. Specifically, he is giving himself, and calling on those who follow him to give of themselves in a similar manner.
There is great gentleness and tenderness in these two gestures. Jesus wants to be with his followers, for he loves them and wants to live in them. He does not want to dominate or control them. On the contrary, he makes himself little and humble. He lets himself be eaten by the in them Eucharist and he takes the place of a slave or of a child in the foot-washing. In doing so he reveals to us a God hidden in littleness.
Vanier, The Scandal of Service (Toronto: Novalis, 1998), 30.
Vanier suggests that a reason why John might only mention the foot-washing is because though the foot-washing and Eucharist are so interlinked, thus far it has received scant attention. Vanier suggests that in order to wash the feet of others (not necessarily literally, but rather in order to be as humble and as loving as Jesus) we need the presence of Jesus within us, which the Eucharist allows for. "Without the presence of Jesus in us, it is impossible to live out such poverty and such humility; without the Eucharist we cannot live out such a deep presence and communion of the heart with others." (Vanier does not here diminish the possibility that Jesus makes himself available to those that do not consume the Eucharist).
Regarding the foot-washing and the Eucharist, Vanier writes that "you cannot understand the one without the other [and that] one necessarily leads to the other and that one without the other would be a distortion of what Jesus envisioned." Receiving the Eucharist and receiving no transformation as a result of it, is an example of such a distortion.
St. John Chrysostom long ago preached: "You have tasted the Blood of the Lord, yet you do not recognize your brother… You dishonour this table when you do not judge worthy of sharing your food someone judged worthy to take part in this meal. God freed you from all your sins and invited you here, but you have not become more merciful."
Different traditions attach different significances to the Eucharist, and yet if the implications of those beliefs are not lived out (by the washing of the feet of others, or less-literally, if one is not willing to become as humble and as loving as Jesus) then does the theological correctness of such beliefs surrounding the Eucharist really matter?
K.
Hi Kelly,
Thanks for bringing to our attention the relationship between the foot washing and the Eucharist.
Humility is the only virtue which is paradoxical, because in order to be humble (to make himself small) a person has to be big: “in order to wash the feet of others (not necessarily literally, but rather in order to be as humble and as loving as Jesus) we need the presence of Jesus within us…” And the Presence of Jesus is the biggest thing in the world.
We see something of an analogue to that in every science. It takes greatness to discern meaning in the little things, the details others dismiss as trivial. The details are too remote from the sweeping principles that lie at the foundation of a science. The poor, the sick and the helpless are too far from the human values which inspire love, concern and admiration. The great message of the Incarnation is that human values are no measure of a man’s worth because G-d presents himself to us in every man we meet: “as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.” To approach the humility that Jesus exemplifies in washing the feet of the disciples, we have to see Him—to see G-d– in every man. One of the Father’s purposes in sending us His Son was to teach us to do that. Only a person who sees big can be small.
Richard
Comment by Richard — December 2, 2007 @ 3:10 am
Hi Kelly
You Wrote: “Different traditions attach different significances to the Eucharist, and yet if the implications of those beliefs are not lived out (by the washing of the feet of others, or less-literally, if one is not willing to become as humble and as loving as Jesus) then does the theological correctness of such beliefs surrounding the Eucharist really matter?”
Faith, of course, needs to be lived out, but your question implies more than that: that faith that isn’t lived out doesn’t matter.
I think that’s going too far. People don’t live out their faith when they don’t take it seriously enough. Correct faith is the potential for the deeper conviction—that real conviction—which overflows in virtue. When faith is not correct, that potential isn’t there. Correct faith matters even when it is not lived out because it prepares a person for the deeper faith and practice of his faith which is the Christian ideal.
A person who has correct faith has advanced one vital step forward toward salvation: he has been well instructed. It was because they had correct faith—that they were instructed in the Gospel–that those who heard St. John Chrysostom could be moved by his rebuke. Their minds were willing, even if their flesh was weak.
Richard
Comment by Richard — December 2, 2007 @ 3:11 am
Richard, I am referring to theological correctness. Having the right theological beliefs (providing intellectual assent to a series of statements about God and the Church), if it does not lead to right living is quite irrelevant. Sure it provides a potential for growth, but apart from this, we are hoping for actualization, and could very well be hoping the entire of a wasted life.
Similarly, non-Catholic Christians who do not attach the same significance to the Communion that Catholics do, if such people, even through an incomplete understanding of the Eucharist, are motivated to a proper way of living and interacting with one another, then that is important.
I don’t disagree with you claim that correct faith provides the potential for growth, but I would maintain that incorrect beliefs can still lead towards growth and God-ordained ends, and even towards correct belief, but even if it does not, we still see an expression in incorrect belief of what God intended in right belief: To motivate one towards right living.
K.
Comment by K. — December 2, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
“Jesus took bread and wine and said this is my body and blood.” The Catholics, therefore, believe that the bread and wine really are Jesus’ body and blood. But then what happened to that body and blood that was changed into a divine spirit? Jesus had compared his body and blood to bread and wine to explain a great spiritual mystery. He told his disciples that his body was made the way bread is made and his blood was made the way wine is made. The bodies of his ancestors were crushed the way the grain is crushed. They were beaten and thrashed in slavery in a way fine particles of grains are kneaded. They were baked in desert for 40 years. Only forty thousands survived to reach the land of Canaan. Thus, we see that in thousand year of captivity Jesus’ ancestors were sifted like grain is sifted from chaff. Only those who were the fittest and the best had survived under Egyptian, Babylonian and Roman rule. It was a kind of ethnic purification; in which only one woman most pure and virtuous had conceived Christ. For the reason Jesus had compared his body to bread. Further, he had compared his blood to wine. Was Jesus’ blood too was made the wine is made? Grapes are crushed to make wine. The bodies of his ancestors too were crushed in slavery. His ancestor’s blood had fermented in captivity like grape juice is fermented to produce wine. Bread and wine comprise only the most pure elements of grain and grapes; like wise Body and blood of Christ was made of consecrated elements of his ancestors. Bread is baked in oven; likewise body of Christ was baked in his passions. Wine is distilled to purify it further; likewise Jesus’ soul was purified in passions. In death the soul the consecrated elements of his ancestors had changed in Holy Spirit; and had conjoined to the pure spirit of God. Jesus had asked his followers to eat his body and drink his blood and he asked them to do this in his memory. The instance of ‘washing of the feet’ shows that he was humble because his ancestors were humbled before God. The Eucharist helps us to recall all this and Jesus’ passion, so we may remember and understand what he said.
Comment by Abranches — December 5, 2007 @ 2:43 am
I have nothing to quibble with in this creative interpretation. I simply wanted to highlight the fact that if we profess to believe in the value of something, that belief better produce transformation in our life, or else that mere belief is quite smiply meaningless.
K.
Comment by K. — December 8, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
I fully agree with you Kelly that the belief must transform our life or else it is meaningless. Jesus during ‘Last Supper’ had conveyed this very same thing. He asked us, “do these in memory of me”. In doing so we not merely receive the bread and wine rendered holy by religious rites; but we also receive something special which Jesus wanted us to receive.
We receive in our memory the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ Himself comes to live in our memory. Like bread after it is baked forms a crust; likewise His memory forms a crust on the uppermost conscious level. Our base nature is of Adam’s nature. It is Jesus memory, which protects us from our own sinful nature. It does not allow Adam’s nature to rise to the surface of consciousness.
Without Jesus’ memory if anyone tries to act like Jesus, be like Him in nature; he does so merely by mastering the art of pretence. Holy Eucharist helps to bring in us the Jesus’ very nature. This is how our belief transforms our life.
Comment by Abranches — December 8, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
Hey Kelly,
Is it me or are we really talking about the hearts of men? I debated whether or not to post raw from reading you initial post and opted to read through first. All the while I could not help to recall the psalm 95, “If you hear the voice of the Lord, harden not your hearts.
As your fathers did in the Desert; At Meriba, and Massa.”
This is the real problem that stands in front of our humility because even with the awesome power of God, He still allows us free will. The theological truths of the Eucharist remain fully intact and at out disposal if and only if we do not harden our hearts, if we apply our free will and open ourselves to Truth. Gentleman Jesus still stands at the door to our hearts, a door without a handle on His end.
There is a term called substantial change. Simply put, if you eat a carrot the carrot becomes you. It goes from being a living carrot in the ground, to being this package of chemicals in the shape, and color of a carrot. When we eat it it becomes us through digestion. The same thing happens to the material forms of the Eucharist, bread and wine become us.
But we all know that this is not all that the Eucharist is. Transubstantiation had made bread and wine Divine. When we consume the Eucharist we fall into who is greater; human or carrot, or to the point human or Divine. Jesus being the greater, being something that cannot be destroyed allows us to become Him. It is from the Eucharist that we find the source of the term Christ like. It’s the only place were it is an actual physical/ metaphysical reality – only if we do not harden our hearts.
So, as to your question, “Different traditions attach different significances to the Eucharist, and yet if the implications of those beliefs are not lived out (by the washing of the feet of others, or less-literally, if one is not willing to become as humble and as loving as Jesus) then does the theological correctness of such beliefs surrounding the Eucharist really matter?” It really shows us the value of free will in God’s eyes. The theological correctness of the Eucharist only matters if we are open to it. Those who receive the Eucharist and are not disposed to give Jesus reign in their hearts leave a great potential idle and waiting for us to open the door to our heart.
Comment by David — February 2, 2008 @ 1:22 am