As I read Fr Barnes article from Thinking Faith, there was something that made me feel instinctively uncomfortable with it. One aspect to this is a background that might be described as Rahnerian. There is a complex philosophy of religion behind this background, which leads to a recognising in ordinary things of life instances of specific Christian revelation. If you are used to thinking in a different philosophical/theological framework it is quite difficult to read an article written in this Rahnerian context.
A couple of phrases in the article bring in to focus the disagreements that I would have with it. The first is in the introductory paragraph, which refers to "our experience of the eucharist, during the liturgy and in our everyday lives". This is a phrase which has a clearly Rahnerian dimension to it - in not distinguishing between "eucharist in everyday life" and "eucharist in the liturgy". However, I do not think you should speak univocally of Eucharistic experience in these two areas of Christian life; there is a Eucharistic experience in these two different areas of Christian life, and those experiences should be in complete conformity with each other and not contradictory; but the nature of those two different experiences is not the same, is not identical. I think this is a point that could be made within a Rahnerian perspective, as well as through addressing the question from a different philosophical/theological perspective.
The second phrase refers to the "same ordinary objects and the same everyday gestures recorded in the Gospel story". The Rahnerian perspective is again apparent here. In one sense, the phrase is correct - bread and wine are ordinary objects. But, on the other hand, does it do justice to the Gospel accounts to reduce the choice of those objects (rooted in the historic tradition of the Jewish liturgy) to the "ordinary"? In the context of the Jewish liturgy from which they have come, are these objects and gestures really "ordinary"? Isn't it truer and more faithful to the intent of the Gospel texts to see them as being actually quite "extraordinary"?
In passing, Fr Barnes' account of Jesus' appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, where he relates their recognition of Jesus in the breaking of bread as a "eucharistic moment", seems to shy away from the suggestion that it is a "Eucharistic Moment" - Jesus disappears from their physical sight because he is present in the Bread of the Eucharist.
I think Cardinal Toppo's catechesis on "Eucharist and Mission" at the International Eucharistic Congress is interesting to read in conjunction with Fr Barnes' article. I think you should read it as a whole, but here are two extracts, one referring to the nature of the bread and wine brought in the offertory procession and the second to the nature of the mission received from participating in the Eucharist.
The bread and wine that they bring to the altar is the symbol of their daily life of interaction with one another. They are not mere ritual elements. They represent the community with its life of relationships. In the early Church these were taken from the table of sharing and thus expressed their relationship among themselves. Today, I believe it is again necessary to emphasize the social and communitarian dimension of the bread and wine that is brought to the altar. This can be done in the following manner. In the first place it is ideal that the faithful bring these gifts to the altar as a symbol of their own lives. Moreover, together with the bread and wine, it would be good if they bring other gifts which express the concern for the community. The offertory collection could be given a greater community building significance. The community gathered together as the body of Christ should realize that there are members among them who do not experience God’s love because there are not enough people who translate this love into human love and sharing.
I think one can add to Cardinal Toppo's presentation, without in any way undermining it, an idea that the bread and wine brought to the altar represent the renewed creation that is the specific work of the lay person in the life and mission of the Church. This idea gives an eschatological expression to the Cardinal's pastoral/missionary presentation.
We are sent out into the world to make the symbols of the Eucharistic worship become realities of a Eucharistic life. We go out into the world after the Eucharist challenged by the word of God, prophetically charged by the Spirit of the risen Lord and committed to work for the transformation of the world.
What I find interesting in this second extract is its direction - from our celebration of the Eucharist towards the world - where Fr Barnes' suggests a primacy of a movement in the opposite direction. Our own brokeness finds a meaning in the brokeness of Christ, and so there is a correct sense in which we experience a movement from the world towards the Eucharist. But, when viewed as a mission in the world, the primacy of movement is, I believe, in the opposite direction. We are sent to live Christ's brokeness for others - the Eucharist is a "gift of God for the life of the world".
No comments:
Post a Comment