holiness in the Perspective of Eucharistic Theology

  (Published in S.T.Kimbrough Jr. (ed.), Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality,  SVS Press 2002, pp. 101-116)

In the Biblical tradition, in both the Old and the New Testament, holiness is by no means a moral concept; it rather connotes a characteristic feature of deity.[1] In terms, therefore, of modern theological semiotics one could easily argue that it has dogmatic and not ethical dimension; as a matter of fact, as an attribute it can also be associated with his “holy” people, which in the N.T. is identified with the Church. In other words, it is not an exaggeration to state that it constitutes an “ecclesial” rather than a “personal” process, having a “collective” and not merely an “individual” character. Even in  later Christian tradition, when—as the result of the encounter with Greek philosophy (Stoic etc.)—a more personal understanding of holiness has gradually developed, it was always within this ecclesial framework that the concept of “holiness” of any individual believer (monastic etc.) has been understood. It is this ecclesial dimension of holiness that I propose to deal with in my presentation. More precisely, I will try to approach the Christian understanding of holiness from the perspective of a “eucharistic theology”.

Because, however, in almost all handbooks of Christian spirituality[2] the eucharistic spirituality is normally juxtaposed, or at least dealt, with the monastic one,[3] I will critically refer to these two essential expressions of Christian spirituality, analyzing as far as possible their relationship, differences and mutual interaction, having as a basic point of reference the radical biblical eschatology of the early Church. By underlining the tension between these two basic components of Christianity, one can better grasp, I believe, the subject we set out to examine.[4]

 A few preliminary observations, nevertheless, seem absolutely necessary. First of all, I adhere to the view that “the fundamental principles of Christian spirituality are the same in the East and in the West”;[5] after all, a great deal of Wesleyan spirituality and of the Methodist movement is exceptionally based on a rediscovery of the eastern Christian heritage.[6] Secondly, despite my firm conviction that a trinitarian (i.e. pneumatological) approach is more traditional to my Orthodox tradition, I will follow instead a christological one; in the framework of a meaningful encounter between the Orthodox and Wesleyan traditions, I decided to have as an overall starting point Christ and his basic kerygma, without of course avoiding trinitarian (i.e. pneumatological) augmentations. Thirdly, what follows is not a historical, namely confessional (i.e. Orthodox), approach, based on my Church’s spiritual heritage, but as far as possible an ecumenical contemporary theological reflection, based on the biblical foundation.

The Christological Background of the Understandingm  of Holiness

 Christian spirituality in general, and the understanding of holiness in particular, is based and determined by the teaching, life and work of Christ. His teaching, however, and especially his life and work, cannot be properly understood without reference to the eschatological expectations of Judaism. Without entering into the complexities of Jewish eschatology, we can very briefly say, that this eschatology was interwoven with the idea of the coming of a Messiah, who in the “last days” of history (“the Eschaton”) would establish his kingdom by calling the dispersed and afflicted people of God into one place to become one body united around him. As it was expressed in the prophetic tradition of the Judaism (Joel 3:1; Is 2:2, 59:21; Ez 36:24 etc.), the start of the eschatological period will be sound by the gathering of all the nations and the descent  of God’s Spirit to the sons and the daughters of God.[7] The statement in the Gospel of John about the Messiah's role is extremely important. There the writer interprets the words of the Jewish  High priest by affirming that “he prophesied that Jesus should die...not for the nation only but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (11:51-52).[8]

Throughout the Gospels Christ identifies himself with this Messiah. We see this in the various Messianic titles he chose for himself, or at least as witnessed by the most primitive Christian tradition (“Son of man”,  “Son of God”, etc., most of which had a collective meaning, whence the Christology of “corporate personality”). We see it as well in the parables of the kingdom, which summarize his teaching,  proclaiming that his coming initiates the new world of the kingdom of God,  in the Lord's Prayer, but also in his conscious acts (e.g. the selection of the twelve, etc.). In short,  Christ identified himself with the Messiah of the Eschaton who would be the center of the gathering of the dispersed people of God.

It was on this radical eschatological teaching of the Historical Jesus about the Kingdom of God (which as modern biblical research has shown moves dialectically between the “already” and the “not yet”; in other words, begins already in the present but will be completed in its final authentic form in the eschaton) that the early Church has developed its ecclesiology, on which their missionary activities, as well as their struggle for perfection and holiness, were based.

In the first two decades after Pentecost the Christian community understood its existence as the perfect and genuine expression of the people of God.[9] With a series of terms taken from the Old Testament the early Christian community believed that it was the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), the “saints” (Acts 9:32, 41; 26:10; Rom 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25), “the elect” (Rom 8:33; Col 3:12 etc.), “the chosen race” (1 Pe 2:9 ), “the royal priesthood” (ibid.)  etc.; namely the holy people of God (laos tou theou), for whom all the promises of the Bible were to be fulfilled at the eschata. During this constructive period the concept in which the early Church understood herself was that of a people and not of an organization. An examination of both the Old and the New Testament terminology makes this quite clear. The chosen people of God were an ‘am (in Hebrew, especially in the prophets) or a laos  (in Greek), whereas the people of the outside world were designated by the Hebrew term goim and the Greek one ethne  (cf. Acts 15:14)

This consciousness that when God created a new community, he created a people, distinguished the Church from those guilds, clubs or religious societies so typical of the Greco-Roman period. It is quite significant that the first Christian community used the term ecclesia  in the Old Testament meaning; it is not accidental that this term (ecclesia) in the Septuagint, corresponds to the Hebrew qâhâl , i.e. to a term denoting the congregation of God’s people. The Septuagint never translates by ecclesia  the Hebrew ‘edhah, the usual translation of which is synagoge. In this primitive period, therefore, the members of the Christian community do not just belong to the Church; i.e. they are not simply members of an organization; they  are the Church.

The second generation after Pentecost is certainly characterized by the great theological contribution of St. Paul. The apostle takes over the above charismatic notion of the Church, but he gives it in addition a universal and ecumenical character. To the Church belong all human beings, Jews and Gentiles; for the latter have been joined to the same tree of the people of God (Rom 11:13ff). The Church, as the new Israel, is thus no longer constituted on grounds of external criteria (circumcision etc.), but of its faith to Jesus Christ  (cf. Rom 9:6 ). The term, however, with which St. Paul reminds the reader of the charismatic understanding of the Church is body of Christ. With this metaphorical expression St. Paul was able to express the charismatic nature of the Church by means of the Semitic concept of corporate personality. He emphasized that in the Church there exists a variety of gifts, exercised by the individual members of the community, and necessary for the building up and the nutrition of this body, Christ alone being its only head and authority.

The Johannine figure of the vine (John 15:1- 8) is equally impressive . As with the Pauline term soma, the double scheme vine-branches indicates the special relationship existing between people and Christ, which reveals the inner basis of ecclesial life. The other N. T. figures for the Church , “household of faith” (Eph 2:11ff), “fellowship” (1 Cor 1:9 etc.), “bride of Christ” (Eph 1:31f ; Rev 21:9), “little flock” (Lk 12:32 etc.) , “family of Christ”, oikos etc., all point to the same direction: namely that the new community is a people, bound together by love and the Spirit provided by God in Christ, and not by external structure.

St. Paul in particular was absolutely convinced that all who have believed in Christ have been incorporated into His body through Baptism, completing with the Eucharist their incorporation into the one people of God. However, even during the period of oral tradition there were clear indications of similar concepts as witnessed, for example, by the account of the multiplication of loaves and the words of institution[12] of the Eucharist. The 4th Gospel develops this radical eschatological teaching even further in regard to the unity of the people of God around Christ and their incorporation into Christ's body through the Eucharist above all. The main contribution of the early Church, as it is recorded in the N.T., emphasized and underlined most sharply by St. Luke, was that with Christ's Resurrection and especially with Pentecost the Eschaton had already entered history, and that the messianic eschatological community becomes a reality each time the Church, the new Israel, the holy people of God, gathers epi to auto (in one place), especially when they celebrate the Holy Eucharist. This development is undoubtedly the starting point of Christian mission, the springboard of the Church’s witnessing Exodus to the world, which in fact interpreted the imminent expectation of the Parousia in a dynamic and radical way.

The understanding of holiness stems exactly from this awareness of the Church. The people of God as being an eschatological, dynamic, radical, and corporate reality,  struggled to become “holy”, not in terms of individualistic perfection, but in order to authentically witness to the Kingdom of God “on earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10 par).[11] The apostles were commissioned to proclaim not a set of given religious convictions, doctrines, moral commands etc., but the coming Kingdom, the Gospel, i.e. the Good News of a new eschatological reality, which had as its center the crucified and resurrected Christ, the incarnate Logos of God and His permanent dwelling among us human beings, through the continuous presence of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, all faithful are called to holiness not as individuals, or rather not only as isolated persons, but as a corporate ecclesial entity. That is why they are called “holy”;  because they belonged to that chosen race of the people of God. That is why they were considered “royal priesthood”; because all of them, without exception (not just some special cast, such as the priests or levites) have priestly and spiritual authority to practice in the diaspora the work of the priestly class, reminded at the same time to be worthy of their election though their exemplary life and works[12]. That is why they were called to walk towards unity (“so that they may become perfectly one”,  Jn 17:23), to abandon all deeds of darkness and to perfect themselves. They are to become holy because the one, who called them out of darkness into light, “from non existence into being”, who took them as non-members of the people of God and made them into genuine members of the new eschatological community (“Once you were no people, now you are God's people,”  I Pe 2:10), is holy (“you shall be holy, for I am holy,”  I Pe 1:16; cf. Lev 11:44f, 19:2, 20:7) and perfect: (“I sanctify  myself that they also may be sanctified in truth,” John 17:19; see also Mt 5:48 and par., “You, therefore,  must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”).

One can summarize by saying that: the ideal of holiness is based on the firm conviction that the Church  sanctifies and saves the world not by what she does, or by what she says, but by what she is.  In other words, the primary status of holiness is inextricably related to a life of communion, experienced  in the “eucharistic,” in the wider sense, life itself.   

The Eucharistic Dimension of Holiness

 V. Lossky in his monumental work under the title The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church  has for almost half a century determined the characteristic feature of Orthodox theology, and by extension also the Orthodox understanding of holiness[13]. His mystical and apophatic approach was coupled with his “pneumatological”, i.e. “trinitarian” one. Trinitarian theology, in fact,  points to the fact that God is in God’s own self a life of communion and that God’s involvement in history aims at drawing humanity and creation in general into this communion with God’s very life. The implications of this assertion for a profound understanding of holiness are extremely important: holiness does not primarily aim at the individual perfection, but at sharing of the life of communion that exists in God.[14]

This trinitarian approach seems to be the prevailing among almost all Orthodox in recent time. One of the most serious contributions of modern Orthodox theology to the world theology was the reintroduction into current theological thinking of the trinitarian doctrine of the undivided Church.[15] Nevertheless, despite the fact that the trinitarian approach is widely recognized, and more and more applied even by non Orthodox[16] in dealing with current theological issues,I will approach, as I said, our theme from a eucharistic  perspective. I came to this decision not so much in order to avoid a strictly contextual (i.e. Orthodox) approach, but purely for methodological reasons. It is time, I think, to distance ourselves as much as possible from the dominant to modern scholarship syndrome of the priority of the texts over the experience, of theology over ecclesiology. There are many scholars who still cling to the dogma, imposed by the post-Enlightenment and post-Reformation hegemony over all scholarly theological outlook (and not only in the field of biblical scholarship or of Protestant theology), which can be summarized as follows: what constitutes the core of our Christian faith, cannot be extracted but from the expressed theological views, from a certain depositum fidei,  (hence the final authority of the Bible according to the Evangelicals, or of the Fathers, the canons and certain decisions of the Council, according to the Orthodox, etc.); very rarely is there any serious reference to the eucharistic communion event that has been responsible and produced these views.[17]

It is almost an assured result of modern scholarship, reinforced recently by the insights of cultural anthropology, that ritual in general and the liturgy in particular constitute an element of primal importance for a proper understanding of the religious experience. Christian scholarship in particular (biblical and liturgical alike) has come to the conclusion that the Eucharist in the early Church was “lived” not as a Mystery cult, but as a foretaste of the coming Kingdom of God, a proleptic manifestation within the tragic realities of history of an authentic life of communion, unity, justice and equality, with no practical differentiation (soteriological and beyond) between Jews and gentiles, slaves and freemen, women and men (cf. Gal 3:28). This was, after all,  the real meaning of the johannine term “eternal life”, and St. Ignatius’ expression “medicine of immortality”.

According to some historians, the Church was able a few generations later, with the important contribution of the Greek Fathers of the golden age, to come up with the doctrine of trinity, and much later to further develop the important distinction between substance and energies, only because of the eschatological experience of koinonia in the Eucharist (both vertical with its head, and horizontal among the people of God, and by extension with the entire humanity through the Church’s mission) of the early Christian community, an experience which ever since continues to constitute the only expression of the Church’s self-consciousness, its Mystery par excellence.

No one, of course, can deny that early enough in the history of the Christian community, even from the time of St. Paul, there has been a “paradigm shift” in the understanding of this act (Eucharist) of self-consciousness of community as a koinonia of the eschata and as a proleptic manifestation of the coming kingdom of God. No matter for  what missionary reasons, there has been a shift of the center of gravity from the (eucharistic) experience  to the (Christian) message,  from eschatology  to Christology  (and further and consequently to soteriology),  from the event  (the Kingdom of God), to the  bearer and center of this event (Christ,  and more precisely his sacrifice on the cross). However, the Eucharist (the theia koinonia) has always remained (with the exception perhaps of some marginal cases in later Church history) the sole expression of the Church’s identity. And it is to the merits of modern theologians from all Christian traditions, and most recently of Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas,[18] who reaffirmed the paramount importance of the koinonia dimension of the Eucharist, stressing that not only the identity of the Church, but all its expressions (structure, authority, mission etc.) are in fact relational.[19]

In summury, if one wants to approach, and reflect on, any specific issue, like holiness, it is the eucharistic theology  in its broad sense that should guide this effort.[20]

Towards a Proper Understanding of Eucharist

In a mutual and meaningful encounter between Orthodox and Methodists one has at least to affirm a proper understanding of Eucharist, the Sacrament par excellence so revered and honored by the Orthodox, which nevertheless can be acceptable to the latter - at least not rejected by them right from the start. Weslean spirituality, of course, has laid a great deal of emphasis on the Eucharist,[21] and this makes our task easier. Nevertheless, one should never forget that a proper understanding of Eucharist has always been a stumbling block in Christian theology and life; not only during the first steps of the Christianity, when the Church had to struggle against a multitude of mystery cults, but also much later when scholastic theology (mostly in the West) has systematized a latent “sacramentalistic” view of the  Mystery par excellence  of the One, undivided, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In vain distinguished theologians of the East (most notably in the case of Cabasilas) attempted to redefine the Christian sacramental theology on the basis of the trinitarian theology (i.e. pneumatology). Seen from a modern theological perspective, this was a desperate attempt to reject certain tendencies which overemphasized the importance of Christology at the expense—and to the detriment—of the importance of the role of the Holy Spirit.

The controversy between East and West on the issues of the filioque, the epiclesis etc. are well known, though their consequences to the sacramental theology of the Church have yet to be fully and systematically examined. The tragic consequences of those tendencies were in fact felt a few generations after the final Schism between East and West with the further division of Western Christianity. One of the main focuses during the Reformation, and rightly so, was the “sacramentalistic” understanding of the Eucharist in Western Christianity which resulted,  among other things, in divergent views between Evangelical and Orthodox theology. The dialectic opposition between “sacramentalism” on the one hand, and “the complete rejection of sacraments” on the other, was the main reason of the tragic secularization of our society and the  transformation of the Church into a religion. The traditional Churches (some Orthodox included) into a cultic religions, Evangelical Christianity became exclusively evangelistic.

The first serious attempt to reflect upon the profound meaning of the Eucharist is to be found in the Bible itself, and in particular in the Gospel of John.[22] There we have the beginnings of what has become later axiomatic in Christian  theology: to have eternal life—in other words to live in a true and authentic way and not just live a conventional life—one has to be in koinonia (communion) with Christ. Communion with Christ, however, means participation in the perfect communion which exists between the Father and the Son (“Just as the living Father sent me, and I live through the Father, he who eats me will live through me” , 6:57), or as the Fathers of the Church developed later,  participation in the perfect communion which exists within the Holy Trinity.

What we have in John, is in fact a parallel expression to the classic statement of II Peter 1:4 (partakers of the divine nature), which has become in later patristic literature the biblical foundation of the doctrine of divinization (theosis). In the case of the Gospel of John, however, this idea is expressed in a more descriptive and  less abstract way that in II Peter. If we now take this argument a little further, we can say that johannine theology more fully develops the earlier interpretation of the Eucharist as the continuously repeated act of sealing the “new covenant” of God with his new people. This interpretation  is evidenced in both the synoptic and the Pauline tradition, although there the covenantal interpretation of Jesus' death (in the phrase “this is my blood of the covenant”, Mk 14:24 par and I Cor 11:25), is somewhat hidden by the soteriological formula “which is shed for you” (ibid.).

What comes out of this biblical understanding of Eucharist (with its more direct emphasis on the idea of the covenant, and of koinonia) is the transformation of Jeremiah's vision—which was at the same time also a promise—from a marginal to a central feature. Just as in the book of Jeremiah, so also in early Christianity - at least in John - it is the ideas of a new covenant, of communion,  and of the Church as a people, that are most strongly emphasized. Listen to what the prophet was saying: “and I will make a covenant. . . a new covenant”,  Jer 38.31; and “I will give them a heart to know that I am the Lord....and they shall be unto me a people”,  Jer 24.7).

During this normative period, the Eucharist was understood in its “ecclesial” dimension, as a communion event, and not as an act of personal devotion, or even a merely cultic act; in other words as an expression of the Church as the people of God and as the Body of Christ mystically united with its head, and not as a sacramentalist quasi-magical rite.[23] The eucharistic theology of the Early Church was by no means related to any “sacramental” practices of the ancient Mystery cults.

To sum up: The Eucharist, as the unique and primary Mystery of the Church, is the authentic and dynamic expression of the communion of the people of God, and a proleptic manifestation of the Kingdom to come, and as such, mutatis mutandis, is a reflection of the communion that exists between the persons of the Holy Trinity.

The Tension Between Eucharistic and Therapeutic Spirituality

 There is no doubt that quite early in the history of Christianity the original eucharistic-horizontal- eschatological spirituality (stemming from a biblical/Semitic background) was mingled with a more personal-vertical-soteriological one (influenced by Greek philosophy). Nevertheless, it is more than clear that the horizontal-eschatological view was the predominant one in New Testament and in other early Christian writings. The vertical-soteriological view was always understood within the context of the horizontal-eschatological perspective as supplemental and complementary. This is why the liturgical experience of the early Church is incomprehensible without its social dimension (see Acts 2:42ff., 1 Cor 11:1ff., Heb 13:10-16; Justin, 1 Apology  67; Irenaeus, Adver. Her. 18:1, etc.).

This understanding of spirituality in the early Church is also clearly reflected within its liturgical order, which from the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch onwards considers the eschatological people of God, gathered in one place around Christ, as reflected in the offices of the Church: the bishop is the image of Christ, while the presbyters around him re-present the apostles. Above all it is the eucharistic gathering which authentically expresses the mystery of the Church. This eucharistic/liturgical understanding of early Christian community’s identity, considering the Church as an icon of the Eschaton, also resulted in an understanding of holiness as an imperative duty to witness its being as an authentic expression in a particular time and place of the eschatological glory of the Kingdom of God, with all that this could imply for social life. It is to be noted, that a conviction began to grow among Church writers, beginning with the author of Hebrews (10:1) and more fully developed in the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor, that the events of the Old Testament were “shadow” of future riches, and that present Church reality is only an “image” (eikon) of the “truth”, which is only to be revealed in the Eschaton.

This fundamental biblical and early Christian understanding of spirituality, based on the eucharistic/liturgical and eschatological understanding of the Church, by the third century AD began (under the intense ideological pressure of Christian Gnosticism and especially Platonism) to gradually fall out of favor, or at best to coexist with concepts promulgated by the Catechetical School of Alexandria. The main representatives of this school, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, gave Christian ecclesiology (and by extension its missiology and its struggle for perfection and holiness) a new direction which, as Metropolitan John Zizioulas emphatically put, was “not merely a change (trope), but a complete reversal (anatrope)[24] Gradually the Church ceased to be an icon of the Eschaton; it became instead an icon of the origin of beings, of creation. The Alexandrines, under the influence of the ancient Greek philosophy, particularly Platonism, believed that the original condition of beings represents perfection and that all subsequent history is a decline. The mystery of the incarnation contributes almost nothing to this system of thought,[25] Christ being primarily considered as the source of the union of humankind with God, and as the recapitulation, in some sense, of the human fallen nature. But if earlier in the Church's life “recapitulation” was understood in the biblical sense,[26] with the Alexandrines the concept is torn completely from its biblical roots in eschatology. The Eschaton is no longer the focal point and apex of the Divine Economy. The direction of interest has been reversed, and now the focus is on Creation. Thus we have a cosmological approach to the Church and to its mission, and not a historical one, as in the Holy Scriptures. The Church is now understood, completely apart from the historical community, as a perfect and eternal Idea.

Naturally, therefore, interest in the collective character of spirituality and the ecclesial dimension of holiness has diminished, and along with that any concern for the historical process, and even for the institutional reality of the Church. The latter’ s purpose is now characterized, at best, as “sanatorium of souls”. The Church’s spirituality is now directed not in bringing about synergicly  and prolepticly the Kingdom of God, but toward the salvation of the souls of every individual Christian. Historically this new development of spirituality is connected with the origins of monasticism. In the eastern, but also the western, monasteries the works of Origen were studied with great reverence, even after his synodical condemnation.

A decisive turning point in the development of Christian spirituality came, when the corpus Areopagiticum affected the Christian liturgy. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite was the catalyst in departing from eucharistic ecclesiology and spirituality. His theological analyses made a tremendous impact on the shaping of subsequent theology,[27] affecting the very heart of Christian eschatology as expressed in the eucharistic liturgy.[28] Using the anagogic method[29] of approach, Pseudo-Dionysius interpreted the liturgical rites of the Church by attempting to raise them from the letter to the spirit, from the visible acts of the sacraments to the mystery of the Unseen.[30] The bishop's very movements within the church are seen now as a divine return to the origin of beings. With this method, however, the eschatological view of the Eucharist finally disappears. The sole function of worship is now to mystically lead the soul (mystagogia)  to the spiritual realities of the unseen world.[31]

It has been rightly maintained that “in the dionysian system there is little room for biblical typology. Allegorical anagogy predominates: the liturgy is an allegory of the soul’ s progress from the divisiveness of sin to the divine communion, through the process of purification, illumination, perfection imaged forth in the rites (Eccl.Hier., I PG 3 cols. 369-77). There is very little reference to the earthly economy of Christ, and none whatever to His divine-human mediatorship, to His saving death and resurrection (Eccl. Hier., III 1, 3.3 PG 3 cols. 424ff.)”.[32] It was inevitable, therefore, that in the dionysian system a mediating “hierarchy” was absolutely necessary.[33] But this was something which according to the fundamental teaching of Hebrews had been abolished “once and for all” (ephapax) by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. According to the late Fr. John Meyendorff, “those who followed Dionysian symbolism approached the Eucharist in the context of a Hellenistic hierarchical cosmos, and understood it as the center of salvific action through mystical contemplation”.[34] That is why there is no mention here at all of Christ's self-sacrifice, nor of his mediatory and high-priestly role;[35] mediation is the work of the earthly hierarchy and the rites which it (and not the community as a whole) performs.

However, where the dionysian system reaches its most extreme is in overturning the eschatological and historical dimensions of the Eucharist. There is not a single reference to the fundamental Pauline interpretation of the Eucharist, according to which at every eucharistic gathering “we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes”, 1 Cor 11:26). Even communion, the most important act of the Eucharist, is no more than a symbol of man's union and absorption with the divine hypostasis.[36] In other words, there is a clear shift from a communion of  the Body of Christ (the incarnate Logos) and in the Body of Christ (the Church), to a communion with  the pre-existing Logos.

Under this peculiar mysticism, holiness is no longer connected with the coming Kingdom, i.e. with the anticipation of a new eschatological community with a more authentic structure. It is rather identified with the soul's union with the Logos, and therefore, with the catharsis, the purification from all that prohibits union with the primal Logos, including all that is material, tangible and historical. The “maranatha” of the Pauline communities and the “come Lord” of the seer/prophet of the Apocalypse are replaced by continuous prayer and the struggle against the demons and the flesh.

In contrast, therefore, to the eucharistic spirituality and ecclesial holiness, this therapeutic/cathartic one has put the emphasis on the effort toward catharsis  (purification) of the soul from passions, and toward therapy  (healing) of the fallen nature of the human beings (men/women). In other words, the reference point is not the eschatological glory of the Kingdom of God, but the state of blessedness in Paradise before the Fall.

In the life of the Church these two basic expressions of spirituality have always remained parallel to each other, sometimes meeting together and forming a creative unity, and some other times moving apart creating dilemmas and conflicts. Where should one search to find personal wholeness and salvation, and what is the authentic mode of holiness? Is it in the eucharistic gathering around the bishop, where one could overcome creatively all schizophrenic dichotomies (spirit/matter, transcendence/ immanence, coming together/ going forth etc.) and social polarities? Or in the desert, the hermitage, the monastery, where naturally the effort for catharsis and for the healing of passions through ascetic discipline of the individual is more effective? This was, and remains, a critical dilemma in the life of the Church, especially in the East.

No doubt, the center of the Church's spiritual life, with few exceptions, has always remained the Eucharist, the sole place where the Church becomes what really is: the people of God, the Body of Christ, the communion of the Holy Spirit, a glimpse and foretaste of the Kingdom of God. And it was this eschatological dimension of the Christian ecclesiology that determines the authentic expression of holiness.[37]

In other words, holiness is inextricably linked with a eucharistic understanding of the Church as a communion of the eschaton.

The Rediscovery of the Eucharistic Awareness and Vision

 It was exactly this understanding of the Church and of holiness, that made Orthodox theologians in recent times speak of the “eucharistic ecclesiology”, a term coined for the first time in 1957 by N. Afanassieff,[38] in his intervention to the deliberation of the II Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church. Afanassieff had successfully argued for the existence from the very old times of the Church’s life of two clearly distinguished views about the Church: the widespread—even today—”universal ecclesiology”, and the “eucharistic ecclesiology”. More importantly, he has convincingly proved the priority and the authenticity of the latter. According to Afanassieff the effect of the universal ecclesiology was so strong, that for centuries it seemed the only possible option, almost an ecclesiological axiom, without which every single thought about the Church seemed impossible. However, Afanassieff went on, the universal ecclesiology was not the only one. And what is even most important, it was not the primitive ecclesiology; it took the place of a different ecclesiology, (which Afanassieff for the first time) called “eucharistic”[39], thus creating a new era in the ecumenical and ecclesiological discussions.[40]

  We do not propose to enter into more details of this radical ecclesiological view;  We only want to underline that, by using the eucharistic ecclesiology as a tool, the Eucharist remains the basic criterion of holiness,  the only expression of unity of the Church, and the point of reference of all the other mysteries (and of course of the priesthood and of the office of the bishop). That is why the catholicity of the Church is manifested completely in every local Church. “Wherever there is a eucharistic meeting there lives Christ too, there is also the Church of God in Christ”[41]. On the other hand, the “universal ecclesiology” (the beginnings of which are to be found in Cyprian of Carthage[42]) having as point of departure the fact that the whole is made up by parts,[43] understands the Church as having a strictly hierarchical structure (hence the theological importance of “primacy”[44]). But in this case first in importance and extremely determinative is the role of the bishop, whose office constitutes the preeminent expression of the unity of the Church, and in consequence the Eucharist one of his functions[45].

 The focal point of the eucharistic ecclesiology (and by extension also the eucharistic theology) in all its expressions and variations, is the concept of the communion (hence the importance of Pneumatology), in contrast with the “universal ecclesiology”, which is characterized by the priority it gives to the external structure (hence the importance of Christology, and by extension of the role of the bishop, and consequently of primacy). In addition, the eucharistic theology underlines the eschatological dimension of the Church; that is why it understands all the offices of the Church, and especially those of the ordained priesthood, not as authorities or offices in the conventional sense, but as images of the authentic eschatological Kingdom of God. In opposition to this, the universal ecclesiology, having as its point of departure the historical expression of the Church, understands the unity and catholicity of the Church, as well as the apostolic succession, in a linear way;[46] that is why the bishop, even when interpreted as type and image of Christ, has priority over the eucharistic community. Thus, the Sacrament of Priesthood theoretically surpasses the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

This “eucharistic vision”, thanks to the contribution of the Orthodox, has also been the guiding principle of the ecumenical movement, ever since the VI assembly of the WCC (Vancouver 1983). As it has officially stated there: “Christ—the life of the world—unites heaven and earth, God and world, spiritual and secular. His body and blood, given to us in the elements of bread and wine, integrate liturgy and diaconate... Our eucharistic vision thus encompasses the whole reality of Christian worship, life and witness”[47]

Concluding Remarks on the Eucharistic Spirituality and Holiness

The ultimate goal of holiness cannot be dissociated from the problem of  the evil. According to the eucharistic approach of holiness, the problem of  overcoming the evil in the world is not at all a moral issue; it is basically, primarily and even exclusively an ecclesial  one. The moral and social responsibility of the Church (both as an institution and also on the part of her individual members), as the primary results of holiness, are the logical consequence of their ecclesial/eucharistic self-consciousness. Only in this way do the Christians bear witness to the fundamental characteristics of the Church, i. e. those of unity and catholicity.  Only in this way can “exclusiveness” give its place to the priority of the “communion” with the “others”. And only thus are all kinds of nationalistic and phyletistic behavior effectively overcome, promoting not only Church unity, but also actively contributing to the struggle for the unity of humankind.

 In terms of tangible effects, a eucharistic understanding of holiness always points towards a common evangelistic witness. For according to the biblical references (cf. Mt 25:31ff:) what really matters is not so much accepting, and believing in, the abundant love of our Triune God (confessional, religious exclusiveness), but exemplifying it to the world through witness (ecclesial inclusiveness). And the eucharistic understanding of holiness, in addition, goes far beyond denominational boundaries, beyond Christian limitations, even beyond the religious sphere in the conventional sense; its aim is the manifestation of the Kingdom of God, the restoration of God’s “household” (oikos), in its majestic eschatological splendor.

It was such a eucharistic understanding of holiness that has in many cases helped the Church to overcome the corrupted hierarchical order (which is a reflection of the fallen earthly order, and not of the kenotic divine one) both in society and in the priestly ecclesiastical order. An authentic understanding of holiness has traditionally insisted on the “iconic” perception of all priestly ministries. It has also contributed to a “conciliar” status in all sectors of the ecclesiastical life (i.e. participation of the entire laos to the priestly, royal and prophetic ministry of the Church), and to a genuine community of men and women. Finally, a eucharistic understanding of holiness has prevented the Church from all kinds of “christocentric universalism”, always directing her towards a “trinitarian” understanding of the divine reality and pointing to a mission that embraces the entire  “oikoumene” as the one household of life.

We live in a world different from the one in which our Fathers have developed unique indeed expressions of holiness and spirituality, a world that experienced  the existence of Saints, of Martyrs, of Confessors, of Defenders of the Apostolic Faith, of Monks and Nuns who day and night were saying the monologistos prayer, even the existence of puritan  expressions of the Christian life. The secular world we live in today, as well as the broken and divided humankind, need new forms of holiness. For Christians across denominational boundaries the future of humanity depends on a spiritual life that pays more attention to the perspectives of unity and communion. 

As during Jesus’ time, when the Son and Word of God came down to earth, that we “may have life, and have it more abundantly” (Jn 10:10), today once again the survival of humanity is based on unity. Let us once again recall the famous johannine saying: “I in them and You in me, that they may be perfectly one”  (Jn 17:23). Without excluding any (traditional or otherwise) expression of holiness, as well as the various forms of spirituality, which act as “therapy”,[48] it is essential to return to forms of “proleptic” spirituality and holiness. And this is what eucharistic spirituality and holiness is all about: an act, behavior and struggle directed towards the unity of the universe (humankind and the whole of creation). It is the affirmation of the created world (history and everything in material creation), and the referring of it all (anaphora) back to the Father Creator, while always keeping alive the vision of the eschaton.[49]