Advaita By Communion
Jesus came to share himself with us so that we can become one with him – God became man so that man can become God. But that means we are to follow his example and, having found ourselves in Christ, we are to share our lives with others. All of this can be seen in the eucharist. As we come together, our individuality is broken down, and this is the only way communion can be established, communion with God and communion with each other. We become witnesses of the non-duality of the absolute, as we experience that non-duality in ourselves. Because we are opened up to Christ, to becoming the body of Christ, we find ourselves united one to each other, and our sense of individual self is overcome as we open ourselves up to communion, a communion which does not see “me” and “you” but only the Body of Christ. The self dies in communion, to be reborn as a person in the action of community, to be reborn not closed unto itself, but open to others. We become witnesses of the breakdown of the individual, of the ego breaking its shell to experience a greater sense of the wonder of reality which knows no boundaries, no division. Jesus tell us: “Abide in me as I abide in you (John 15:4a).” By opening up and removing the egotistical shell that surrounds our lives, we open ourselves to the mutual-indwelling, Jesus in us, with us in Jesus, ending up, of course, with the different members of the Church finding themselves one with each other, so that the Body of Christ can be one, even as Jesus is one.
Comments are closed.
Nice, Henry. We are, indeed, transubstantiated. We are not annihilated, but our very reality, our substance, comes to be identified with the ground of all reality which has revealed itself as loving communion.
Well put, Henry. This hospitable longing to be one with God and with others ought to motivate the way in which we deal with others, even and especially our enemies.
I love to contemplate the implications of our being a Eucharistic people, a people of communio, then sent out into the world.
Yes, Kyle, it is something we should do — and more than strive to do, and yet it is difficult. We can know what is right, and not do it. It’s a complex mystery. We are weak, and fail God all the time :(
Henry,
I’ll bet most of the nasty comments that appear on this site through the week will have come from those who received Holy Communion on Sunday?
What does that say? I know the obvious answer — the egotistical shell hasn’t been broken — but I’m looking for something deeper, more penetrating into our current predicament.
I’ve never seen such acrimony among Catholics as I’ve witnessed in the last decade. Notre Dame just highlighted what happens routinely. What has happened to us as a community, the Holy Eucharist notwithstanding?
There was a time during the 50s and 60s when I thought Catholics would make a profound contribution to the enrichment of American culture. Deeper and far-reaching questions would be asked and addressed. Intellectual inquiry would bring reveal an added dimension to our lives. Through struggle — social, economic, political, cultural — American principles would acquire deeper meaning. Dignity, freedom and solidarity would be guiding lights for us all. We would be on the march building a better tomorrow.
I began my career with that goal in mind and it has directed me to this day.
But, on the whole, one of this has happened. The loudest voices today are shrill and demanding. They add nothing and perfect nothing. Their sole impact is to stir the acrimony that is so troublesome. Every dialogue reduces to a “throwing of stones.” Intellectual and moral corruption abounds. I wonder if we are going anywhere.
Do Catholics have anything to offer America? Or has Holy Communion — the significance of which you express so beautifully — been reduced by individual will to just another form of narcissism? My suspicion is that the Holy Eucharist has not been able to pierce the “egotistical shell” of American individualistic culture. What we are creating is a “war of all against all.”
Like Mark, I too “love to contemplate the implications of being a Eucharistic people.” But I do so with less hope today than yesterday.
I hope some aspect of this lament resonates.
Gerald,
Yes, American individualism is trying to break up the body of Christ, and it is doing so, at least on an external level, which is causing great scandal to the Church. The way the eucharist has been used by some as a political tool demonstrates how some people forgot to give themselves over to Christ as a work of love, and want to use the eucharist as a magical good to be given only to the elect.
At heart, that is what a black mass, a Satanic mass, is all about.
There has been talk about the “smoke of Satan” coming in the Church. It really has, but not in the way the people who bring it up mention it. It’s the individualistic ethos which uses the Church for individualistic aims.
As for hope — we should all hope in Christ, while realizing world history will, as Balthasar says, increase the hostility to Christ as well. We see that today. The hostility is often coming from those who, like Judas, are within, and think they can use Christ for an end they see is just. The problem is always the means. But we must always respond with love, and never give up.
It’s hard. I know.
But we must realize, the eucharist is proof this Satanic ideology, in the end, can not last. Even if those who partake of the eucharist do so Satanically, they are partaking of Christ, putting themselves into Christ: Christ is calling them. Let’s help with that call.
I’ve never seen such acrimony among Catholics as I’ve witnessed in the last decade. Notre Dame just highlighted what happens routinely. What has happened to us as a community, the Holy Eucharist notwithstanding?
I don’t know that it is anything new. Sadly, we have always been a people who have been willing to put other allegiances first, even going so far as to kill one another in the name of such allegiances. We are a community that thrives on its ability to draw boundaries and to exclude people. The Notre Dame situation is merely annoying and mildly amusing compared to other moments in our history.
I don’t think it’s accurate to equate “transubstantiation” with theosis, which is the better word to describe the increasing indwelling of God without annihilation of substance. In fact, I think a great deal of metaphysical oddness (at best) comes from conflating the two ideas.
Michael I:
When we speak of “we have always been a people” are you referring to Americans specifically or something more general?
Henry:
As we come together, our individuality is broken down,
I don’t think that’s wrong (judging by the rest of the post), but you may want to be careful. B/c our individual persons are created by God they are good, so our individuality is maintained (it has to be in order for us to be able to choose to love God). Now, “individuality” in the sense of unnatural separateness from God and neighbor due to sin is broken by the Eucharist. I think you meant the latter but thought it should be pointed out.
Michael Denton
http://vox-nova.com/2008/03/11/person-vs-individual/
That old post should have differentiate between “individual” and “unique person.”
Michael Denton – I am referring to the Roman Catholic Church.
One of the reasons we need a Church at all is that we cannot experience God as individuals. We can’t know what the word ‘God’ means if we don’t live in communion with others. I think that the reason we are so vicious with each other in the blogosphere is that here we can engage ideas without relationships. If I disagree with someone at my parish I know (to a degree at least) their family, their contributions to community life, their service and devotion, their personal struggles. If I disagree with someone in the blogosphere all I know is that they are wrong on something of great import. We need to remind ourselves that if someone is putting in the time to blog or read blogs they probably have the Church’s best interests in mind. Our disagreements need to be tempered by an awareness of communion that is easy to overlook in the virtual world. Maybe someone needs to develop forms of virtual community prayer. Maybe a weekly prayer at Vox Nova posted for our brothers and sisters in the blogosphere with whom we seek God.
Liam,
Could you elaborate on the specific problems that might emerge from my reflection? I would like to be aware of them so I can avoid them if possible.
My deeper point, which can probably be made without ‘conflating’ the two changes, is that Eucharistic change understood as a divine magic trick is useless. If we don’t understand the change in the bread as intrinsically related to a change in us then things like Eucharistic adoration simply serve our individualism.
Well, there’s Occam’s razor, as it were. I don’t think you’ve explained why it’s necessary. Transubstantiation had a very specific focus; it remains controversial not only with Protestants but even with the Eastern and Oriental Churches (for very different reasons). Expanding its scope raises all sorts of vexing ecumenical issues. Importantly, the Church has never approved this expansion; I am not even aware that expanding it would represent a dominant opinion of theologians, or even that it’s permitted. Moreover, and happily, there’s a much older theological concept to deal with the aspect you want to address, and it’s not nearly as ecumenically vexing: theosis and related ideas. Finally, transubstantiation involves a change to the Eucharistic species that is very much not like the change in us: our substance remains. The Eucharistic species are not newly re-created; they are replaced with a very different substance. Whereas we have a destiny in a new creation, glorified and divinized but *not* divine. Applying transubstantiation to us raises myriad nasty, awful problems that I as yet see zero good reason for raising. Ultimately, I think it’s trying to fix something that’s not broken.
Hmm, and I thought that such a presentation would actually help ecumenical issues by making the Catholic idea of Eucharist less reified. I was not trying to expand it’s scope so much as see it in relation to other truths of Christian faith – truths that we hold together with the Orthodox and the Protestants.
In any case, as I read him, Thomas is pretty clear the substance of the bread is not replaced, but changed. It is not pure coincidence that we call both the community and the species “Body of Christ” even if there are important differences.
I’m still not sure you have enumerated the ‘myriad’, ‘nasty’, ‘awful’ and ‘vexing’ issues my formulation brings up, though you have developed more fully your reasons for thinking such issues will exist.
Brett
A quick comment in a combox is not going to be a place to get into it all. While it’s not quite Twitter, it’s an idiom hostile to doing that. I would hope you would understand that.
Sure. I meant nothing hostile. I was hoping for an elaboration so as to better express myself next time. I am not one to force an elaboration on anyone without the time. Goodness knows some people are still waiting on my most recent promise on ‘sacramental presence’.
Peace.
Brett
I did not mean you were hostile: I meant the idiom of comboxes is an very poor environment to have that discussion.
I have been contemplating light for several years in response to a Thursday morning run while praying the Rosary soon after my return to my faith that I had hated for 40 years. The word luminous popped into my brain during the first decade and then the different frequencies of light came to my awareness and that energy is given off in the form of light. God’s Light being luminous and everything else is less than perfect.
John 17 then entered my awareness and Christ praying that we be one as He and the Father are one–in Love. It appears that He implies that we also are one when He uses the word ‘as’. Consequently, it would seem to be that we are one in a state that is not love and this is clearly expressed in the safety of the blogosphere and in 2 ton vehicles.
Quantum physics explores the basic dynamic of quantum entanglement that is described in John 17. The entire chapter in and of itself is a doctoral dissertation for physics, philosophy, psychology, theology, etc.
Just as prayer has its spiritual influence, feelings and thoughts also have influence prior to any action. The commandments give another example of the power of thought. Christ talking about being angry with a brother and indicating that we have already murdered him is another indication of this influence.
If we do not love God’s creation of human beings then how can we receive the Eucharist and expect to be united to God in true love of others?
How can Christ be real to the world if we are not united in love with God and others? This is what Jesus prays for in John 17.
Buddha stated that we must know our hate before we can love. When some spiritual advisers have judged someone to be scrupulous I believe their judgment is terribly flawed. The mystics see that there is no small sin that does not do harm to others.
Anyone interested in an in depth discussion about the above? If not, I understand.
Ronald
I think this is the whole point of putting everything in the light of judgment under Christ, and why confession is an important part of our spiritual rule (and was, to be sure, part of monastic discipline in Buddhism as well). We must confront our hate — if love is God, then hate is what leads us away from God; even the smallest bit of hate is wrong, though of course, the problem if over-scrupulous people misjudge the level of hate, and where one focus should be — one usually purifies and refines by taking on the gross error first.
Henry, After I wrote the above the thought came to me that is the last line in your note. Then that thought led to the thought that celibacy has taken the heart out of the faith by dissociating from the passion of the feelings and thus a gross error evolves into the belief that reason is the foundation of truth and truth can only be known by the path of reason.
It seems that the theology of the body misses the understanding of the human heart. The human heart cannot be known through celibacy. Celibacy leaves a void that seems to be filled with the theology of imagination. The woman’s heart and the woman remain a mystery to men and men cannot know themselves without knowing the love of a woman and the loss of that woman.
Reason can only be complete in the joy of love found with another and the pain of love lost with another. This dynamic takes place everyday that a couple are together. It is in that where reason evolves out of the wisdom of suffering the daily pain and joy of love.