Communion and Intercommunion

Communion and Intercommunion
By Kallistos Ware

"Why can't we all just have communion together and get over our petty differences?" Such is the heartfelt wish of so many Christians who long to have an expression of unity with fellow believers. But unity in what belief is the critical question. Bishop Kallistos Ware provides an excellent tool for those interested in this key question, or active in the ecumenical movement. Drawing upon Scripture, Patristics, Liturgy and modern orthodox theologians, Ware outlines the Eastern Orthodox position on the question of intercommunion and communion. While he does not support intercommunion (of the interdenominational sort), he compassionately and clearly explains why such a stance is grounded in the unbroken tradition of the Church. Basic to this premise is that communion is a sign of a preexisting communion of faith and order, a joyful proclamation of unity in belief and practice. In this sense, intercommunion is a bit illogical and untruthful since the parties involved do not always hold a common faith, thus negating the very act of communion. An unfortunate result of such practices is the rationalizing away of any so-called "minor" differences between the parties, leading to a "least common denominator" approach to the faith which is so typical in our times. The end result is an anemic Christology and Ecclesiology, leading many to ask, "What exactly does such a Eucharist represent other than warm feelings?" (Although Ware himself is not a bit polemic in his presentation.)

Ware also addresses the question in relation to baptism. Some argue analogically that if baptism is seen as Christ's and not the Church's, then the eucharist is as well. Ware points out that this is a flawed view, since all of the sacraments/holy mysteries are both vertical and horizontal in their meaning. They are Christ's, but the Church is the very Body of Christ, and the Church is a visible unity of that one Body. Again, more can be said about the important difference between heretics and schismatics, since that has some bearing on the issue, as does the Orthodox notions of oikonomia (economy). An invisible ecclesiology is more convenient for superficial patch-up jobs that gloss over real differences, but such a view has nothing to do with either the New Testament or the earliest (or later) patristic/liturgical tradition, as demonstrated by Werner Elert, John Zizioulas and others. I am afraid that conclusions to the contrary are more rooted in starting with a conclusion and twisting texts and ignoring strong evidence to the contrary. The intention is correct, but not the conclusion.

Those who will want communion at the expense of doctrinal unity should consider exactly what it is that constitutes the faith once delivered to the saints, and this becomes a question of what constitutes authority and what constitutes legitimate tradition (see The Meaning of Tradition and Tradition & Traditions). If the least common denominator theology is true, then Orthodox, Lutherans and Roman Catholics are wrong.

One final note in this book: It is a very slim volume and has large type. I found the print annoying to read. Read Werner Elert's Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries for a detailed account of the early communion and intercommunion practices in the Church. For a modern account of "Eucharistic ecclesiology" see The Eucharist Makes the Church and Sacrament of Salvation: An Introduction to Eucharistic Ecclesiology, which compares the thoughts of two leading 20th century exponents- John Zizioulas and Henri de Lubac. Alexander Schmemann's, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, is a great intro into sacramental theology for all Christians. Louis Bouyer's Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer and The Banquet's Wisdom: A Short History of the Theologies of the Lord's Supper are also detailed accounts of the Eucharistic celebration throughout history.