Communion, Community, and otherness

An abbreviated version of Metropolitan John Zizioulas’ thoughts on these topics (amongst others) many be found HERE. Given the ugliness of the topic in the last post (Holy Eucharist being a battleground), I was particularly intrigued by this (it’s long for a blog post, but please read anyway and be comforted by the fact that it is not me writing):

It is not by accident that the Church has given to the Eucharist the name of "Communion," for in the Eucharist we find all the dimensions of communion: God communicates Himself to us, we enter into communion with Him, the participants of the sacrament enter into communion with one another, and creation as a whole enters through Man into communion with God -- all this taking place in Christ and the Holy Spirit Who brings the last days into history and offers to the world a foretaste of the Kingdom of God.

The Eucharist does not only affirm and sanctify communion; it sanctifies otherness as well. It is the place where difference ceases to be divisive and becomes good. Communion in the Eucharist does not destroy but affirms diversity and otherness.
Whenever this does not happen, the Eucharist is distorted and even invalidated even if all the other requirements for a "valid" Eucharist are satisfied. A Eucharist which excludes in one way or another those of a different race, sex, age or profession is a false Eucharist. The Eucharist must include all these, for it us there that otherness of a natural or social kind can be transcended. A Church which does not celebrate the Eucharist in this inclusive way loses her catholicity.

But are there no limits to otherness in eucharistic communion? Is the Eucharist not a "closed" community in some sense? Do we not have such a thing as exclusion from eucharistic communion? These questions can only be answered in the affirmative. There is indeed exclusion from communion in the Eucharist, and the "doors" of the synaxis are indeed shut at some point in the Liturgy. How are we to understand this exclusion of the other?

Eucharistic communion permits only one kind of exclusion: the exclusion of exclusion: all those things that involve rejection and division, which in principle distort Trinitarian faith. Heresy involves a distorted faith that has inevitable practical consequences concerning communion and otherness. Schism is also an act of exclusion; when schism occurs, the eucharistic community becomes exclusive. In the case of both heresy and schism, we cannot pretend that we have communion with the other when in fact we have not.

To this I would simply add that sin is also an act of exclusion. When I sin, that sin is not the breaking of a law by which God and I must come to terms – rather it is also a breaking of community that includes my brothers and sisters in Christ (and really the whole of creation.) Schism and heresy, by definition, are sins never repented of.

Furthermore, the communal natrure of sin speaks also to the beauty, wonder, and neccesity for the Sacrament of Confession.

Comments

Seraphima said…
Have you read Zizioulas' Being As Communion? With no offense intended toward its author, I think it is one of the poorest descriptions of the Eucharist I have ever read. While the quote taken seems fine at first glance, when the book is looked to as a whole, it seeks to define the Eucharist communally, and in doing so allows the idea of 'communion' to be reduced to that of a chess club; it seeks ecumenism (specifically with Catholics) at the expense of dogmatic theology. Of course, perhaps this quote does not go into this depth (and it's a good post anyway!), but the book as a whole...anyone else read it?
8:59 PM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts