I love
the early summer liturgical “trifecta” of Pentecost, Trinity, and Corpus
Christi, forming a kind of “encore” to the joyful Easter Season focusing in
succession on three fundamental realities of the Christian life: the Church,
the Triune Godhead, and the Eucharist. This
“trifecta” comes to an end this week with the celebration of the Body and Blood
of Christ.
The
Readings for this Solemnity obviously focus on types and descriptions of the
Eucharist, but there is a notably priestly theme that also runs through them.
In this way, we observe the
connection between priesthood and Eucharist.
This connection first dawned on me personally in the fall of 1999, when
I was first exposed to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Coming across St. Ignatius of
Antioch's famous passage concerning the Eucharist in his Letter to the
Smyrneans (ch. 7), I suddenly realized that the Real Presence of Christ in the
Eucharist was and is the constant belief of the Church from apostolic times to
the present day:
But
consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of
Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love, no care
for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of
the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,
because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus
Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness,
raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur
death in the midst of their disputes. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans
6-7)
Upon
reading this, supported with other teachings of the Fathers on the Eucharist, I
came to believe in the Real Presence. But
then the following chain of thoughts occurred to me: (1) Let us acknowledge
that Eucharist is truly transformed into the Body of Christ. (2) But does this
happen when any Christian, at any time, prays over bread? Does every Christian have the power
and authority to make bread into the true Body of the Lord? Surely that would
be ridiculous, and lead to abuses of all kinds: persons confecting the
Eucharist in sacrilegious ways, and treating the Eucharistic Lord without
proper reverence. (3) Therefore,
it must be the case that only certain persons, at certain times, can transform
bread into the Body of Christ. (4)
Who would those persons be, and what would those times be? Surely they must be persons
authorized by the Church to do so, at the times when the Church authorizes the
Eucharist to be celebrated. (5)
But to be entrusted by the Church with the authority to celebrate the Eucharist
is an awesome responsibility that marks a person out from among the laity of
the Church. (6) Therefore, the
Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist inevitably requires that there be a
class of persons marked out from among the ranks of believers who are set aside
and entrusted with the authority to celebrate the Eucharist at the proper
times. This class of persons
would constitute a priesthood.
This
line of reasoning could surely be stated better and more succinctly by others,
but I hope I have made it somewhat clear why a Real Presence doctrine of the
Eucharist, in which the bread and wine are truly transformed into the Body and
Blood of Christ, requires a new covenant priesthood. On the other hand, if the Eucharist
is merely symbolic, it does not require priests to celebrate it. And indeed: Protestantism has a
non-sacramental, non-priestly, purely functional view of their clergy.
On to
the Readings:
The First Reading is Gn
14:18-20:
In
those days, Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine,
and
being a priest of God Most High,
he
blessed Abram with these words:
“Blessed
be Abram by God Most High,
the
creator of heaven and earth;
and
blessed be God Most High,
who
delivered your foes into your hand.”
Then
Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
Melchizedek's
name is Hebrew for “King of Righteousness.”
He is identified as “king of Salem.”
“Salem” is a form of the Semitic root for “peace,” as in the Hebrew “Shalom.” “Salem” is also the archaic name for
Jerusalem, employed in at least one Egyptian inscription (I believe it is a
campaign itinerary of Ramses II, if memory serves) as a reference to the city.
Jewish
tradition held that Melchizedek was none other than Shem, son of Noah, based on
the fact that Shem lived into the lifespan of Abraham, and who else would be
qualified to invoke a blessing upon Abraham.
“Melchizedek” was then understood as a throne name (which it surely was,
whatever one may think of the identification with Shem). Thus, in the ancient Jewish view,
Melchizedek transmitted to Abraham the blessing of the patriarchs extending
through Noah all the way back to Adam.
Some
hold that the bread and wine brought out were merely for the refreshment of
Abraham and his men. The text,
however, connects the bread and wine to Melchizedek's priesthood and the
conferral of the blessing, so it would be better to understand the bread and
wine as liturgical offerings (i.e. a grain offering with a libation). This does
not exclude a practical use for the refreshment of those present, because
liturgical offerings in the ancient world were often consumed by the worshipers
as part of the ritual.
It seems
that the kingship of the city of Jerusalem carried with it a priestly role,
going back at least to the figure of Melchizedek. Later, in 2 Samuel 5, when David
becomes King of Jerusalem, he seems to take on the priestly role that comes
with his office, a kind of “Melchizedekian Succession.” In 2 Samuel 6, for example, we see
David functioning as a priest when the ark is brought up into Jerusalem (vv.
12-19). (The liturgical feast
that David provides on that occasion (2 Sam 6:17-19) is itself a type of the
Eucharist.) David's priestly
role was transmitted to his sons, according to 2 Sam 8:18. Jesus is the ultimate Son of David, whose
priesthood can be traced back to Melchizedek (and then, if Melchizedek is Shem,
back to Adam). Thus, Jesus'
priesthood is more ancient and venerable than the priesthood of the Levites,
which was only conferred on them after the sin of the Golden Calf (Exod
32:25-29). This is one of the
arguments of the Book of Hebrews.
To sum
up, Gen 14:18-20 reminds us that in Jesus we still have a priest who exercises
the priesthood of Melchizedek, a priesthood that involves the offering of bread
and wine which confers on the recipients blessing and salvation from their
enemies.
2. The Responsorial Psalm is Ps
110:1, 2, 3, 4:
R.
(4b) You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
The LORD
said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand
till I
make your enemies your footstool.”
R.
You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
The
scepter of your power the LORD will stretch forth from Zion:
“Rule in
the midst of your enemies.”
R.
You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
“Yours
is princely power in the day of your birth, in holy splendor;
before
the daystar, like the dew, I have begotten you.”
R.
You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
The LORD
has sworn, and he will not repent:
“You are
a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.”
R.
You are a priest for ever, in the line of Melchizedek.
Psalm
110, like Psalm 2, was probably an ancient coronation hymn sung when each new
successor of David mounted the throne to begin his reign. Psalm 110 reminds the new Davidic
king of his noble priestly role, a role (as we saw above) that goes back to the
great Melchizedek himself. The
words of this hymn are hyperbolic when applied to any of the merely natural
sons of David, but the words reach their full potential and meaning when
applied to Jesus Christ. He is
the one truly “begotten” by God, like the “dew,” which forms before the start
of the “day,” (that is, before the dawn of creation). He is a priest “forever”
in the fullest sense, for he never dies. Nonetheless, the Father has not yet
made all his enemies “at footstool for his feet,” and he “rules in the midst of
his foes,” that is, He leads us (the Church) to victory even though we are
surrounded by enemies and persecutions in this life.
3. The
Second Reading is 1 Cor 11:23-26:
Brothers
and sisters:
I
received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,
that
the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over,
took
bread, and, after he had given thanks,
broke
it and said, “This is my body that is for you.
Do
this in remembrance of me.”
In
the same way also the cup, after supper, saying,
“This
cup is the new covenant in my blood.
Do
this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For
as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup,
you
proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
In the
New Testament the sequence of verbs “take,” “give thanks” (or “bless”), “break,”
and “give” are almost a technical sequence denoting the celebration of the
Eucharist or its types. In this
recitation of the Eucharistic “Institution Narrative” by St. Paul (which most
closely resembles Luke of all the Gospels), we see the first three in this
verbal sequence: “take,” “give thanks” (Gk eucharisteo), and “break.”
We note
here the role of tradition. This
passage, in fact, is witness to the process of sacred Tradition: authoritative
teaching handed down from Christ through the Apostles. St. Paul speaks of “receiving” (Gk paralambano)
teaching from the Lord and then “handing it on” (Gk paradidomi). The verb for “hand on” (paradidomi)
corresponds to the Greek noun for “tradition” (paradosis). The Eucharist is the great tradition par
excellence of the Church. The
Eucharist is the “new covenant.”
As Dr. Scott Hahn is fond of pointing out, the “new covenant” (or “new
testament”) is not first of all a collection of 27 sacred books. It is, first of all, a liturgical
act, a ritual celebration of bread and wine transformed into the Body and Blood
of Jesus. The twenty-seven books
of the “New Testament” only come to take on that name because of their
association with the celebration of the Eucharist. They are the books read at each
renewal of the new covenant.
It is so
striking that Jesus identifies his Eucharistic Body and Blood as the new
covenant itself. This fulfills
the prophecies of Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8, that the “servant of the LORD” would
actually become a covenant. We
recall that a covenant, in the ancient world, was essentially a conferral of
kinship via an oath. The
Eucharist confers divine kinship in the most direct way possible, by placing
within us the very body and blood of God.
4. The
Gospel is Lk 9:11b-17:
Jesus
spoke to the crowds about the kingdom of God,
and
he healed those who needed to be cured.
As
the day was drawing to a close,
the
Twelve approached him and said,
“Dismiss
the crowd
so
that they can go to the surrounding villages and farms
and
find lodging and provisions;
for
we are in a deserted place here.”
He
said to them, “Give them some food yourselves.”
They
replied, “Five loaves and two fish are all we have,
unless
we ourselves go and buy food for all these people.”
Now
the men there numbered about five thousand.
Then
he said to his disciples,
“Have
them sit down in groups of about fifty.”
They
did so and made them all sit down.
Then
taking the five loaves and the two fish,
and
looking up to heaven,
he
said the blessing over them, broke them,
and
gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.
They
all ate and were satisfied.
And
when the leftover fragments were picked up,
they
filled twelve wicker baskets.
Here we
see the sequence of Greek verbs by which the New Testament typically denotes
the Eucharist or its types: “take”, “bless” (functional equivalent of “give
thanks”), “break,” “give.” Although
the Church gives the most liturgical attention to the account of the Feeding of
the 5000 in John 6, this miracle narrative functions as a Eucharistic
anticipation in all four of the Gospels.
We learn
about the Eucharist by reflection on this miracle. The Eucharist is our supernatural
food. It is not the product of
the personal efforts of the clergy: the disciples admit they don't have the
resources to feed the people.
The
Eucharist comes to us as we live in distress in the midst of the world. This world is truly a spiritually “deserted
place,” a place without any lasting satisfaction, a place without the resources
to satisfy our deepest hunger, which is for God Himself.
But the
Eucharist is the food we may eat and truly “be satisfied.” Twelve baskets full are picked up
afterwards, which (1) foreshadows the care for every particle of the Eucharist
that later will be manifest by the Church, and (2) denotes by the number twelve
the fullness of the tribes of Israel. Those
who partake of the Eucharist are constituted as the New Israel, the new Twelve
Tribes ruled over by the Son of David who is a “priest forever after the order
of Melchizedek.”
No comments:
Post a Comment