Eucharistic Presence: A Study in the Theology of Disclosure.

Toward the end of this important book, Robert Sokolowski notes that many recent writers on the question of eucharistic presence point out that "an important change in the concept of symbolism occurred in the transition between the Patristic period and the Middle Ages. For the Fathers of the church and for the ancient world generally, a symbol did not only signify something; it also was thought to participate in that thing and to make it concretely present. The symbolic was not contrasted with the real."

This strikes an Orthodox reader sympathetically. The eucharistic consecration in the Orthodox liturgy is completed with a prayer to the Father to send the Holy Spirit upon the people and the gifts, making them the body and blood of Christ. The anaphora of Saint Basil, used on the Sundays of Lent and on a few other occasions during the liturgical year, contains a striking difference from the usual formula, which asks that the Holy Spirit "make" the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. The liturgy of Saint Basil asks "that by favor of Thy goodness Thy Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon the gifts now offered, to bless, to hallow and to show this Bread to be the precious Body of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, and this Cup to be the precious Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ."

This sense of transformation as at one and the same time a disclosure, and the disclosure a transformation, is close to the spirit of what Sokolowski tries to do throughout this book.

Sokolowski's chosen tool is phenomenology, Husserl's branch of philosophy, which studies the way things appear-that is to say, phenomena--in the belief that appearances truly disclose to us the way things really are; intuition (seen not as a subjective thing but as a form of genuine insight) can lead us to the truth about the world. Sokolowski is convinced that "since the late Middle Ages and the early modern period, appearances have been badly misunderstood. Appearances have been turned into mere ideas, into subjective impacts that at best hint at what things in themselves really are and at worst prevent us from ever reaching things at all...." There is something urgent in his desire to present the importance of what is manifested, what is disclosed, by Christianity. What has happened to our way of understanding the world since the Enlightenment removes us from the possibility of understanding what the Bible and the Fathers tried to tell us in a symbolic language that was, for the Fathers, living and vital. "For modernity," Sokolowski says, "not only the symbolic but even the perceived needs to be restored; it is not only symbolism that is deprived of any real presence, but perception as well." He argues that a phenomenological approach can cut through many of the problems confronting modern theology, which tends either to retreat to medieval or patristic thought, or to ally itself with one or another strain in modern philosophy. Husserl's phenomenology, illuminated by the thought of Hans Urs von Balthasar, can look at how things are manifested and what this means in a way that allows us to avoid the traps laid by Cartesian and Kantian thought.

Although it is more conservative in many ways, Eucharistic Presence reminds me of another important book, Fergus Kerr's Theology after Wittgenstein. Both address the ways in which theology must challenge the post-Enlightenment under-standing of perception and embodiment and manifestation; both use some of the most interesting strains of modern philosophy as a challenge to common philosophical assumptions, without being co-opted by the secular assumptions of modernity, and in this they are very like the Fathers, who used the intellectual language of the age to transform permanently such concepts as "person," "nature," "substance," and "will,"

I have some problems with the book, as any Orthodox would--Sokolowski accepts a more uncritical stance toward Western Trinitarian theology than even some Catholic theologians would, and the references to the Eucharist as a "re-enactment" of Calvary cause problems not only for the Orthodox--but these differences with details are not as important as the overall direction of this book. Sokolowski's reflections on the Eucharist are rich and helpful; his arguments in favor of a phenomenological approach to Christian theology, liturgy, and the Bible are intriguing; and his argument that phenomenology offers a way through post-Enlightenment philosophical dilemmas is convincing.

My major criticism is that Sokolowski spends more time arguing for his theology of disclosure than he does using it, because when he applies his approach to liturgy or ot the meaning of Scripture or to non-Christian religion, the results are often very fruitful. For example, he shows that what the priest says and does during the liturgy

are not to be taken as a theatrical depiction of what Christ said and did at the Last Supper, but as a quotation of the words and actions of Christ. The difference between picturing and quoting is a phenomenological difference, a difference in appearance or in the manner of presentation....It is not the case that the difference between picturing and quoting is only a matter of the intention of the celebrant or the participants. No matter what the celebrant intends, and no matter of whether he is aware of it or not, he is quoting and not depicting when he pronounces the words of consecration and performs the gestures. The difference between quoting and depicting is not a mere psychological distinction, not something that arises "in the mind alone." It is not subject to our arbitrary will. Even if the celebrant were to become as overtly dramatic as an actor on a stage, he would still be quoting and not depicting; his behavior would simply be at odds with what he is doing.

The difference between depicting--that is, representing the Last Supper in a theatrical manner--and quoting is that the quotation of Jesus' words--"This is my body.... This is my blood.... Take this, all of you...." --draws us into this single time, from every age and from every part of the world. A depiction may aim at moving us, or reminding us; but quotation moves us into a place in which what is intended by the performer--always a concern in depiction--is made irrelevant. It is what Jesus did and does that is presented by quotation, and that is in some sense obscured or limited by depiction.

Liturgical innovators, take note. In speaking of the Eucharist, Sokolowski writes, the shedding of the blood of Christ is replaced by the offering and consumption of the bread and wine. To the bodily eye, the bread and wine are mere tokens; what material value do they have in comparison with the fatted calf or the first fruits of a harvest? All the more, in their triviality, do they call forth the obedience of those who participate in the sacrifice, the dedication of their lives in union with the dedication of Christ. If the offering were more spectacular, we could offer less of ourselves.

There are problems with the book--for example, the idea that the sacrifice of Calvary occurs "again" sacramentally--but where Sokolowski is most helpful is in his argument that the use of Husserl's phenomenology "makes it possible for us to think of the mind as public," to see "that the mind is 'outside' from the start and that the world itself presents itself to man." Phenomenology "will gradually help us realize that the 'problem of the real world' or 'the egocentric predicament' is not a problem or a predicament at all, only a difficulty we have talked ourselves into having. The 'problem' is not solved but dissolved."

This is an advantage of Wittgenstein's approach as well. Both Husserl and Wittgenstein can help us to cut through the individualism which has been part of philosophy at least since Descartes (and some Orthodox would argue that the way was paved for Descartes by the scholastics). This theological use of contemporary philosophy is closer to the spirit of the Fathers than is a retreat to classical patristic language; the belief that the Fathers can simply be rephrased in contemporary terms misses the boldness of what they were about. By appropriating the contemporary language of philosophy (Platonism and neo-Platonism, for the most part), they made it clear in their time that it was, at the very least, not unreasonable to be a Christian; and in the process they transformed such concepts as "the person" in such a way that even non-Christian philosophy was later forced to absorb the new meanings.

Sokolowski's critique of modernity is brief but convincing, and his use of Husserl and von Balthasar is not only helpful but frequently moving, and very much in the spirit of the Fathers.