I'm really starting to feel positively about my theory on communion. Why can't we think of the real presence of Christ as something temporal? Why can't the moment in time on the cross be brought near to the Eucharist while it is being served, a la Ratatouille on spiritual steroids? This would avoid the problem that evangelicals have, in that they they object (rightly) the idea that Jesus Christ is 'specially present' in the Eucharist. For, after all, Christ is always closer to the Christian than we are to ourselves, as He is present in our hearts. If Christ's spiritual presence is maintained as being the same everywhere all the time, but we talk of that moment time as temporally present in a special way, I don't see the problem. It is simply a miraculous moment in which time is transcended. The bodily presence of Christ is made sense of without changing the elements of the Eucharist. It is in the preparation and the act of the Eucharist that the moment on the Cross is brought near.
Nor do we have to worry about there being a new sacrifice every Sunday, as what is mediated is the moment of sacrifice two thousand years ago. It is not that Christ dies anew every Sunday but that we enter anew every Sunday into the moment of Christ's death. Yet Christ is present not in terms of being MORE present, but being present in a special way. Christ is no more present to me in Eucharist than he is right now as I type this. Yet at Eucharist, there is something mystical that goes on, for I travel to that moment in time when Christ died on the cross. The entire concepts of real presence and memorial feast seem to be rolled into one. I'm really enjoying this idea and think it has merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment