Ecclesiology consists in articulating what the Word of God tells us about the Church. It has been the central theme of the last two general councils, Vatican I and Vatican II. During the twentieth century, several leading Catholic and Orthodox theologians wondered whether over time the faithful had acquired a conception of the Church that was more juridical than Eucharistic. In accordance with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic tradition, the early Church was keenly aware that the Church is constituted above all in the celebration of the Eucharist. As St. Paul teaches, the Church becomes the body of Christ by offering and receiving his body in the Eucharist. “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). The twentieth-century retrieval of these teachings became known as eucharistic ecclesiology and is sometimes summed up by saying that “the Eucharist builds the Church and the Church makes the Eucharist.” (John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia 26). However, it has also been criticised for offering a partial view of the Church. Nevertheless, understanding the place of the Eucharist in the Church is indispensable for leading the Christian life in full.
In this interview, Dr. Richard G. DeClue, Jr., will explain eucharistic ecclesiology and five recommended books on the subject.
Richard G. DeClue, Jr., S.Th.D. is the Professor of Theology at the Word on Fire Institute. He specializes in systematic theology with a particular interest and expertise in the thought of Joseph Ratzinger / Benedict XVI and has published articles on his theology in peer reviewed journals such as Communio and Nova et Vetera, he taught a college course on the thought of Pope Benedict XVI, and has written book, The Mind of Benedict XVI: A Theology of Communion (Word on Fire, 2024). He is also interested in the ecclesiology of Henri de Lubac, the debate over nature and grace, and developing a rapprochement between Communio (ressourcement) theology and Thomism.
- Corpus Mysticum: The Eucharist and the Church in the Middle Ages
by Henri de Lubac SJ - Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today
by Joseph Ratzinger - Flesh of the Church, Flesh of Christ: At the Source of the Ecclesiology of Communion
by Jean-Marie Roger Tillard - Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries
by John D. Zizioulas - Sacrament of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology
by Paul McPartlan
How would you define Eucharistic ecclesiology?
It is a way of understanding the Church through its intimate relationship to the sacrament of the Eucharist. It understands the nature, mission, and structure of the Church in light of the mystery of the Holy Eucharist.
The Eucharist makes the Church, and the Church makes the Eucharist. Could you explain each clause of this common summation of Eucharistic ecclesiology?
De Lubac talks about this. The second clause might seem more obvious. It is more obvious that the Church makes the Eucharist. The bishops and priests, through the words of the institution, can effect the Eucharist. The Church thereby makes the Eucharist.
The other clause—the Eucharist makes the Church—might be less obvious to the average person. In some ways, however, it is even truer. It is through the reception of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist that we become the body of Christ. “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:17) The Eucharist is a communion in the body and blood of Christ. St. Thomas Aquinas talks about this. As he puts it, the communion of the Church is the res of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The effect of the sacrament is the communion of the body of Christ.
Eucharistic ecclesiology is undoubtedly of interest to theologians, but how should it inform the faith, piety, and practice of the average Catholic?
It is very important. I would like to see it become more widely understood by the average Catholic. Maybe it should be a part of basic catechesis. It helps us understand the true essence of the Church and why the Eucharist is so central.
We are accustomed to thinking that the Eucharist is central because it is Christ himself: body, blood, soul, and divinity. That is true. However, Christ's real presence in the Eucharist is also the reason that its effects are real. You can fall into the trap of thinking that you receive the Eucharist for yourself and united yourself to Christ. If so, you are forgetting that we are called to communion as one Church. Many Catholics do not recognise that it is the reception of the Eucharist that unites us as one Church.
The Eucharist is central to our faith and Christ has established one Church. Sometimes, we see those as two separate truths. In reality, they go together and are linked intimately.
"Probably the best advances in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue have come through Eucharistic ecclesiology."
The books that you have recommended are by professional theologians. Which of these books is most suitable for the general reader or do you have an alternative recommended title for beginners?
If I had to recommend one, it would be Cardinal Ratzinger’s Called to Communion. Even though he is a professional theologian, he is fairly easy to read. He does a great job of focusing on the essential details. Moreover, this is a fairly short book. A decently educated person can understand it, follow it, and get a lot out of it.
Has Eucharistic ecclesiology facilitated ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
Yes, it has. Probably the best advances in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue have come through Eucharistic ecclesiology. There has been a joint declaration on The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity. In many ways, a lot of the dialogue has been focused on Eucharistic ecclesiology: understanding of the Church through the mystery of the Eucharist and how the essence of the Church, including its structure, is tied to the Eucharist itself. Eucharistic ecclesiology has become the scaffolding within which we can address some of our differences.
"Even in dialogue with Protestants, there has been some benefit from Eucharistic ecclesiology."
Eucharistic ecclesiology does not seem to be the most advisable starting point for ecumenical dialogue with Protestants. The ecclesial communities born in the Reformation, with their original rejection of the sacrament of Holy Orders and the traditional doctrine on the Eucharist, ceased to be churches. Should we start instead by discussing with our Protestant brethren the biblical testimony to the Eucharist?
That is an interesting question. Even in dialogue with Protestants, there has been some benefit from Eucharistic ecclesiology. The Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches issued a document. More Protestant communities are recognising the importance of the Eucharist and beginning to see their ecclesial communities as Eucharistic communities. With a few exceptions, this is something that was not as prevalent in the past.
However, the difficulty is that their understanding of the Eucharist and priesthood is vastly different from that of the Catholic Church. We run the risk of using the same terms equivocally. That is a major roadblock.
Nevertheless, there has been an advancement. There is a greater recognition among Protestants that the Eucharist is neither secondary nor optional but should be at the heart of our Christian life. That is an improvement and this recognition of the centrality of the Eucharist in Christian life might get them interested in examining its nature.
So, Eucharistic ecclesiology is really a decent place to start.
In 1992 Letter of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to bishops Communionis notio, Card. Ratzinger criticised Eucharistic ecclesiology for its one-sided emphasis on the local church. “It is claimed that, where the Eucharist is celebrated, the totality of the mystery of the Church would be made present in such a way as to render any other principle of unity or universality non-essential.” How would you counter this critique of Eucharistic ecclesiology?
It is not a critique of Eucharistic ecclesiology itself but of one strand of it.
Ratzinger himself holds to Eucharistic ecclesiology. He is critiquing one strand of Eucharistic ecclesiology: the Eastern Orthodox approach and, to be frank, that of Cardinal Walter Kasper. Their approach holds that, because the local church has the Eucharist, it has the whole Christ. Therefore, the diocese is the whole Christ. This approach conceives of the universal Church as a mere confederation of local churches.
I agree with Communionis notio on this point because I hold to a more Ratzingerian understanding of Eucharistic ecclesiology. Yes, Christ is wholly present in the Eucharist celebrated by each local church, but he is only one. Therefore, the universal Church has an ontological and temporal priority. The Church present with all of her essential elements in a given location is the local church. However, it is the one Church that is present. Hence, there is still a priority of the universal Church. So, Communionis notio is a great document for a truly Catholic understanding of Eucharistic ecclesiology.
The Catholic Church is currently engaged in a discussion about synodality. However, in its Alexandria document of June 2023, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church stated that a “eucharistic ecclesiology of communion is the key to articulating a sound theology of synodality and primacy” (5.3 Alexandria Document). How can eucharistic ecclesiology help us think correctly about synodality?
Synodality can occur at different levels of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Traditionally, there are either regional or universal synods. Synodality helps us understand how simultaneously there is both the full ecclesial quality of the local church (i.e. dioceses or particular churches) and the necessary communion of the local churches as one Church. It shows how these local churches are not meant to remain in isolation: their full ecclesial quality still necessitates this universal communion and their working together. The real authority of the local bishop and the ecclesial status of his church does not make them independent. The local church is only fully church within the community of the one Church. Synodality, therefore, helps us understand the need for unity at the regional and universal level, which is required for the full ecclesial reality of the local church itself. Consequently, there needs to be this collaboration among bishops. Synodality exists primarily amongst bishops.
Does not synodality have to do with the different ways that the bishop, presbyter, and lay people participate in the Eucharist? The bishop’s power to govern is linked to his role as priest. Nowadays, much of the debate about synodality seems to confuse participation in the Church with participation in the three munera (sanctificandi, docendi, regendi) or offices that are proper to bishops and presbyters. I imagine that the Orthodox also conceive synodality along these lines.
With the Eastern Orthodox, synodality is focussed heavily on the cooperation amongst the bishops themselves.
Has eucharistic ecclesiology run its course, made its contribution, and become superseded or absorbed by better approaches to ecclesiology?
In my opinion, it is still the best ecclesiology on offer.
1.
Your first recommended book is Henri de Lubac’s Corpus mysticum: The Eucharist and the Church in the Middle Ages. De Lubac stumbled upon the central discoveries of this study by chance. He was assigned as an examiner of a doctoral dissertation on a ninth-century French theologian and decided to read some of the other theologians of the period to prepare for the task (Paschasius Radbertus, Ratramnus, Godescalc, and Rabanus Maurus). To his surprise, he realised that there had been a shift in the meaning of the term ‘mystical body’. Originally, ‘mystical body’ designated the Eucharist, not the Church. What brought about this shift in meaning?
He locates it primarily in the controversy surrounding Berangar of Tours.
In the patristic era, the Eucharist is viewed as Christ’s mystical body. Sacrament and mystery (mustērion) were interchangeable terms. The Eucharist is the body of Christ in the mystery or sacrament. The sacramental presence is the mystical body.
Berengar of Tours began to question what this means concretely about the elements of the sacrament: the bread and the wine. He wonders whether there is a real change or merely a symbolic one. These questions about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist led the Church to focus on the real presence. Since ‘mystical body’ could lead one to think that his presence in the Eucharist is not real, the Church began to stress the ‘real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.’ The term ‘mystical body’ was applied increasingly to the Church instead.
The same understanding of the Eucharist and the Church is present. The terms are just flipped: from ‘mystical body’ to ‘real body’.
De Lubac’s Corpus mysticum has topped your list. Why is it still worth reading today?
It gives you a good foundation in the primary sources. It gives you the lay of the land and explains how the terminology shifted over time. It is primarily in a historical study. At least, that is de Lubac’s claim. You can build on it by reading more systematic treatments. It is always good to have a historical background before delving into the more speculative questions.
"In many ways, Eucharistic ecclesiology is the nexus between different mysteries of our faith. It is almost a microcosm of the macrocosm that is our faith."
De Lubac wrote Corpus mysticum after his first published book, Catholicism: The Social Aspects of Dogma. There appears to be some continuity between the two books since eucharistic ecclesiology stresses that the celebration and reception of the Eucharist is not an individual act of worship and sanctification, but ecclesial in its nature, meaning, and effects. Could you explain a bit more about this aspect of the Eucharist?
In many ways, Eucharistic ecclesiology is the nexus between different mysteries of our faith. It is almost a microcosm of the macrocosm that is our faith.
It is highly Trinitarian. Its basic notion is that the triune God is the origin and end of everything. Moreover, the triune God is the loving community of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If salvation is a sharing in the divine life, then salvation is a communal reality, not an individualistic one. It includes the communion of the saints. That is why the Eucharist is so important for making us the one body of Christ. It brings us into communion with one another in Christ. It is the fusion of the vertical union between God and man that Christ has established. It is also the source of the horizontal community between the members of the body of Christ. It makes the Church the sacrament of salvation and unity for the whole human race here on earth. The social aspects of dogma or the communal understanding of Catholicism shines forth in Eucharist ecclesiology.
Yes, you are correct. Catholicism and Corpus mysticum go hand in hand in many ways.
2.
Why have you chosen Card. Joseph Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, a collection of talks he gave in the early nineties and published shortly after as “a sort of primer of Catholic ecclesiology”?
I chose it for a couple of reasons. As I mentioned earlier, it is fairly easy and enjoyable to read. It is full of wisdom and insight, as well as good biblical and patristic citations. It gets to the core of Catholic ecclesiology. It is amazing how Ratzinger does all this in such an accessible way.
3.
What does the next book, Fr. Jean-Marie Roger Tillard’s Flesh of the Church, Flesh of Christ add to the discussion?
Mainly because he is one of the most important twentieth-century Catholic ecumenists but does not receive as much attention as other Eucharistic ecclesiologists.
Tillard wrote several books on the topic. This was his last.
It is difficult to say what it adds to the other books. There is much overlap between these authors. One contribution is his insistence on the coincidence of the flesh of the Church and the flesh of Christ. As he says,
“in the Eucharist there are not two bodies, the personal body and the ecclesial body. There is a sacramental coincidence and union of the two into one, in which the former surrounds the latter and irrigates it with its own life through the gift of its Spirit and in which the latter lets itself be seized by the former in order to become, in it, a living sacrifice to the glory of the Father.”
Such language is somewhat mystical and poetic language. You might have difficulty parsing it metaphysically. However, Tillard expresses how the Church and the Eucharist are related intimately. He stresses that the Church as the body of Christ and the Eucharist as the body of Christ are two parts of one mystery, not two separate mysteries that happen to be named with similar terms. He also tackles the issue of Christ’s sacrifice and how that one sacrifice brings all into unity. It dovetails well with questions of soteriology.
4.
The next book is by the Orthodox Bishop John D. Zizioulas: Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries. Have you chosen it because it completed the work of earlier Orthodox proponents of eucharistic ecclesiology, Nikolai Afanassieff (1893–1966) and Alexander Schmemann, by insisting not only on the veritical communion by which the Church is incorporated in Christ but also on the bishop as the visible head and centre of the horizontal communion between the members of the Church?
I chose it for two reasons. First, any Catholic who is serious about Eucharistic ecclesiology needs to engage the Orthodox. In many ways, the Russian Orthodox in France were the ones to bring it to the attention of Catholics during the twentieth century. Zizioulas was the head of the Orthodox dialogue with the Catholic Church at the international level. Second, he deals with the development of the parish system and does a great job of showing the implications of Eucharistic ecclesiology for the local church. This is an aspect of Eucharistic ecclesiology that can get lost but which helps us understand this situation we are currently in. Eucharistic ecclesiology emphasises that wherever you have the Eucharist, you have the Church in its fullness. We tend to think of our parish, say, the 11:00 am Mass at St. Anne’s. However, we need to do some backpedalling. Technically, by the Church in its fulness we mean the diocese, not the parish and its particular liturgy.
Zizioulas explains how the parish system developed at the end of the third century and, mainly, throughout the fourth century. He shows how we still need to understand the Eucharist as being presided over by the bishop rather than the presbyter.
Zizioulas complains that one drawback of the inevitable establishment of parishes is that “the bishop, from being par excellence the ‘president’ of the Eucharist, was largely transformed into an administrator and coordinator of the life of the parishes.” In your view, is eucharistic ecclesiology a salutary reminder that bishops and priests should dedicate their energies to the celebration of the liturgy, and cut back on administrative tasks?
Yes, it could do that. It is also a good reminder that even when the presbyter celebrates the Eucharist, in some sense he always does so as the vicar of the bishop. He is sent to do this by the bishop and in the bishop’s name. That is why the bishop is mentioned in the Eucharistic prayer.
However, you are right. It can be easy for bishops to end up in an ivory tower, where they have very little contact with their people, and become administrators. Eucharistic ecclesiology helps remind the bishop that he is the centre of the whole ecclesial life of the diocese, its communion, and that his missionary, sanctifying office needs to take more precedence.
From a Catholic perspective, are there limitations and lacunae in the eucharistic ecclesiology, of Zizioulas, say, regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome?
Obviously, Zizioulas is Greek Orthodox. He does not have a fully Catholic understanding of primacy. However, I have written on Zizioulas and Ratzinger and compared their conceptions of the universal primacy in the light of the Eucharist. Zizioulas is amenable to, at least, a quasi-Catholic understanding of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. For instance, he contested the view of some Orthodox theologians who held that universal primacy is only of ecclesial right, not divine right. He argued that this does not make any sense. Orthodox theology states that synodality is of divine right. However, you cannot have a synod without a protos, a primate. If a primate is a sine qua non of a synod, and synods exist by divine right, then primacy too must exist by divine right. In this sense, Zizioulas was amenable to admitting that even universal primacy is of divine right and that, ideally and properly, it belongs to Rome.
The lacunae are in his understanding of what this means. He tries to apply Apostolic Canon 34, which says that the synod cannot do anything without the primate, and that the primate cannot do anything without the synod. He tries to apply this to the universal church. However, this is a canon about regional synods, not the universal Church. This is where Zizioulas’s understanding of universal primacy is lacking.
5.
Finally, there is Fr. Paul McPartlan’s introduction to eucharistic ecclesiology, Sacrament of Salvation. He takes the title from Vatican II, which calls the Church the universal sacrament of salvation. As he points out, the Eucharist is also the sacrament of salvation. The title, therefore, points to the constitutive interconnection between Church and Eucharist. What makes this book a good introduction to the subject?
It is a good introduction because it is brief and deals with the main features. It is heavily influenced by de Lubac and Zizioulas and is a follow-up book to his much longer study of the Eucharistic ecclesiology of these two authors.
So, it is a great introduction because it gets to the essentials. It constitutes a short course on Eucharistic ecclesiology.
It also adds some things I have not seen elsewhere. For example, there is Fr. McPartlan’s insight that we really need a Eucharistic hermeneutic of the New Testament. The epistles and the gospels were written to Eucharistic communities. This challenges us to be on the lookout for implicit references to the Eucharist in the epistles. Fr. McPartlan gives an example from Hebrews. As St. Justin Martyr attests in his First Apology, the Eucharist began with readings from the gospels and then moved on to what we now call the liturgy of the Eucharist. In McPartlan's view, this shows how the Eucharistic assembly was the audience for the gospels and the epistles. It is the context and environment for understanding the New Testament. It is the context in which the New Testament was meant to be read.
Finally, we might think of Eucharistic ecclesiology as a preserve of theologians. However, it has been received into several Church documents, both those of Vatican II and even more explicitly in John Paul II's encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Where else does the modern magisterium references Eucharistic ecclesiology?
You have mentioned Ecclesia de Eucharistia, which I recommend. Another important document and great read is Benedict XVI’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation Sacramentum caritatis. In it, he sets out Eucharistic ecclesiology and emphasises its importance for the life of the Church.
