Ritual and Symbolism of Holy Communion
Introduction
The ritual of the Eucharist plays an important part in a life of just
about every Christian believer. Nevertheless, while participating
in it, many Christians remain rather arrogant of this ritual’s
discursive implications. In my paper, I will explore the validity of
this suggestion at length, while promoting the idea that the ritual
in question is the integral part of humanity’s ‘archetypal’
memory.
Body of the paper
The Eucharist (a.k.a. The Holy Communion/ The Last Supper), is
a sacramental ritual, performed annually by the members of all
three major Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox,
Protestant), which essentially reenacts The Last Supper’s
ceremony of Jesus having offered the Apostles some wine and
bread, as such that were meant to symbolize his body and blood.
The account of this ceremony is contained in the Synoptic
Gospels (by Matthew, Mark, and Luke), as well as in the Gospel
of John.
However, it is specifically the First Epistle to the Corinthians by
Apostle Paul, which provides us with the most detailed
description, as to what the mentioned ritual was all about, in the
technical sense of this word: “And when he (Jesus) had given
thanks, he brake it (bread) and said, Take, eat: this is my body,
which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the
same manner also he took the cup (with wine), when he had
supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this
do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:23-
25).
The Gospel of John contains clues, as to the ritual’s actual
significance: “I (Jesus) am the living bread which came down
from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever”
(John 6:51). This, of course, implies that one could not possibly
qualify to be referred to as a Christian, unless he or she is willing
to participate in the annually held ritualistic acts of ‘consuming
Jesus’: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” (John
6:54). Thus, it is indeed fully appropriate to refer to the Eucharist,
as the ‘heart of Christianity’.
As of today, the Eucharist is often being referred to as the first
Christian ritual, which helped early Christians to remain well-
organized for the duration of a few centuries, after the presumed
resurrection of Jesus. Moreover, the ceremony in question is also
being usually defined as one of the main Christian ‘mysteries’
(such as the ‘self-ignition’ of the so-called ‘Holy Fire’, which
many people believe takes place in Jerusalem during Orthodox
Easter). The ritual’s religious interpretation can be defined as
follows: By eating bread and drinking wine, which represent
Jesus’ body and blood, believers express their gratitude for being
‘saved’ by the ‘Son of God’. In its turn, this helps them to grow
closer to the very spirit of divinity, which made the mentioned
salvation possible, in the first place.
Nevertheless, there are many notable differences to how the
actual significance of the ritual of the Eucharist is being
interpreted by every of the mentioned denominations.
In essence, the theological approaches to interpreting the meaning
of the Eucharist by Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox, can
be outlined as follows:
Catholics
According the Catholic theological doctrine, the ritual of the Holy
Communion symbolizes what the Catholic notion of ‘God’s
grace’ is all about – by providing believers with the annual
opportunity to have a bite of Christ’s body, God allows them to
attain the state of ‘oneness’ with the very spirit of divinity:
“When we receive Communion, we believe that we receive the
person of Jesus into our very beings. We become one with him,
and we become one with each other” (“Eucharist (Holy
Communion)” par. 3).
It is understood, of course, that by expressing their ceremonially
defined willingness to become ‘one’ with Christ, Catholics
naturally expect to substantially increase the likelihood for their
souls to end up being admitted to the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’. This,
of course, presupposes that the Catholic Holy Communion is a
highly ‘mystical/magical’ ceremony, which is based upon the
assumption that God is indeed capable of performing miracles on
a semi-scheduled basis.
The validity of this statement can be well illustrated, in regards to
the miraculous process of ‘transubstantiation’, which is the focal
point of the ceremony in question. According to Catholics, after
priests perform a number of the applicable ritualistic rites over
the loaf of bread and the bottle of wine in the church, during the
Passover Mass, these food-items instantaneously turn into
Christ’s flesh and blood – in the literal sense of this word.
Nevertheless, as far as the believers’ subjective perception of the
surrounding reality is being concerned, this flesh and blood
continue to appear in the form of bread and wine. In its turn, this
explains why during the Holy Communion ceremony, Catholics
handle the ritual’s actual subjects (bread and wine) with great
care – this is the consequence of the Catholic dogma about the
miraculous nature of ‘transubstantiation’.
As the proof that such their interpretation of the significance of
the Eucharist is indeed legitimate, Catholics usually refer to the
absence of any indications in Bible that Jesus wanted to have his
most explicitly sounding commands to be taken figuratively.
What it means is that, by having prescribed people with eating his
body and drinking his blood, Jesus did mean just that: “Twelve
times he (Jesus) said he was the bread that came down from
heaven; four times he said they would have ‘to eat my flesh and
drink my blood’…it was a promise that could not be more
explicit” (“Christ in the Eucharist” par. 10). The implication of
this is apparent – by participating in the ritual of the Eucharist,
Catholics believe that they are being personally ‘touched’ by God
in the most direct manner.
Partially, this explains why the very process of receiving
Eucharistic bread and wine, Catholics consider unimaginably
sacred. Moreover, it directly relates to another purely Catholic
aspect of the discussed ceremony – the fact that: “some Catholics
choose to receive the Eucharist not in their hands, but directly on
their tongues” (Cardo and Mallick par. 6). Apparently, as a result
of having experienced the state of ‘oneness’ with God, induced
by the ritual of the Holy Communion, Catholics cannot help
developing the subsequential sensation of humility, reflected by
the above-mentioned practice, on their part.
The above-stated implies that for Catholics, accepting the Holy
Communion is a rather ‘magical’ experience, which also
represents a great utilitarian value – as it happened to be the case
with just about any magic-driven ritual.
Orthodox
Even though the affiliates of the Orthodox Church do believe
thatthe Eucharist is one of Christianity’s most sacramental
ceremonies/rituals, their interpretation of this ceremony’s
theological significance does not quite correlate with that of
Catholics. According to it, the ritual of the Eucharist does serve
the purpose of bringing believers closer to God. The main aspect
of it is that, unlike what it happened to be the case with Catholics,
the Orthodox do not refer to Eucharist bread and wine, as Jesus’
actual flesh and blood.
Rather, they think of the ritual’s ceremony of ‘breaking bread’, as
such that symbolizes that, despite the fact that people are by the
very virtue of their humanness predestined to remain thoroughly
biological, while facing life-challenges, they nevertheless are still
able to transcend beyond the ‘materialness’ of existence. The
Orthodox believers’ line of argumentation, in this respect, can be
outlined in the following manner:
Eating bread and drinking wine has been the essential part of
people’s lives, since the dawn of times. What God did is turning
these essentially ‘biological’ pursuits, on people’s part, into yet
another motivation for them to remain religiously faithful. Hence,
the Orthodox interpretation of the significance of the Eucharist –
this ritual is there to enable believers to rise above the petty
aspects of their everyday existence (at least once a year), in order
to be able to contemplate on the nature of divinity, without being
required to become less ‘material’.
This, of course, presupposes that the Eucharist’s actual meaning
is much more all-encompassing than Catholics happened to
believe. As Fitzgerald noted: “The Orthodox Church recognizes
the many facets of the Eucharist and wisely refuses to over-
emphasize one element to the detriment of the others” (par. 6).
Thus, whereas, the Catholic view on the Eucharist can be well
defined ‘magical’, the one of the Orthodox is best referred to as
‘symbolical’ or ‘ascetic’.
This particular suggestion helps to explain yet another qualitative
aspect of how the Orthodox Church construes the significance of
the Eucharist – namely, the fact that the Orthodox theological
framework presupposes the ritual of consumption Christ’s ‘body’
and ‘blood’ (in the form of wine and bread) by Christians, to be
the annual culmination of their ongoing endeavor to remain on
the path of a spiritual growth. It is understood, of course, that this
is being rather inconsistent with the Catholic view of the
Eucharist; as such that confirms the validity of the Catholic
concept of ‘God’s grace’.
The reason for this is that, whereas, the Orthodox Church refers
to one’s Eucharistic communion with God in terms of an
interactive process, Catholics believe that it is being primarily
concerned with commemorating the Last Supper/experiencing the
‘transubstantiation’-related mystical feelings. Therefore, there is
nothing odd about the fact that there is difference between
Catholics and the Orthodox, in the sense of how they approach
taking part in the ritual and understanding its significance.
For example, according to the Catholic doctrine, it is specifically
priests, who enact the process of ‘transubstantiation’, by the mean
of conducting a series of rites over bread and wine. In its turn,
this presupposes that, during the ceremony, believers play a
rather passive role. The Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that,
in order for the Eucharistic food-items to be ‘activated’ (in the
sense of becoming mystical body and blood of Christ), service
attenders, as well as the present clergymen, must join invoking
the Holy Spirit.
Thus, as compared to the highly individualistic Catholic ritual of
the Eucharist, the Orthodox one appears to be much more
collective/communal. This suggestion correlates well with the
reputation of Catholicism, as a religion that, despite being
formally monotheistic, nevertheless contains a number of the
essentially polytheistic/heathen dogmas about the nature of
divinity. The same can be said about the suggestion’s relation to
the fact that the Orthodox Church is being traditionally known for
its ‘ascetic’ ways.
Protestant
The Protestant outlook on the Eucharist differs considerably from
two of the above-mentioned. In essence, Protestants (Baptists,
Adventists, Evangelicals, etc.) reject the idea that the ritual in
question is ‘miraculous’, which in turn causes them to believe
that the Biblical accounts of Christ having commanded The
Apostles to eat his body and drink his blood are utterly allegorical
and, as such, cannot be interpreted literally. As Courtois noted:
“In today’s world Catholics and Protestants understand Holy
Communion differently; the Catholic’s believe in the True
Presence and the Protestants claim Holy Communion is only a
symbol” (par. 2).
According to the Protestant interpretation of the Eucharist, while
encouraging his Apostles to consume bread and wine, as such
that symbolize God’s flesh and blood, Jesus simply meant to
emphasize the importance of his earthly service to humanity.
Therefore, even though Protestants do celebrate the Eucharist, it
is definitely not a focal point of their religious doctrine – quite
unlike what it happened to be the case with Catholics and the
Orthodox. The validity of this suggestion can be well illustrated,
in regards to the fact that Protestants are being known for their
practice of replacing bread with crackers and wine with grape-
juice, during the ritual’s course.
The above-described situation undoubtedly relates to the very
essence of Protestantism, as the ‘rationalization of Christianity’.
As Weber pointed out: “It was rationalization, which gave the
Reformed (Protestant) faith its peculiar ascetic tendency, and is
the basis both of its relationship to and its conflict with
Catholicism” (72). What makes Protestants different from the
members of other Christian denominations, is that their
understanding of God is thoroughly secularized.
To exemplify the validity of this suggestion, we can well refer to
the Protestants’ tendency of perceiving God in terms of some
distant authority, which imposes ethical rules and regulations,
without defining the actual course of one’s life. This, of course,
creates the objective preconditions for Protestants to believe that,
after having brought order into the universe, God cannot act in
the manner inconsistent with the main laws of how this universe
operates. As the ultimate consequence of this, Protestants do not
quite tolerate the idea that God is capable of performing miracles
on a continuous basis – especially if they are concerned with
entertaining people, such as the ‘miracle’ of the Eucharist.
What contributes to this state of affairs even more, is that being
rationally-minded, Protestants find it rather impossible to believe
that there can be ‘transubstantiation’ without the
‘transubstantiated’ objects living up to the term’s actual meaning.
That is, unless bread and wine turn into Christ’s flesh and blood
de facto, as a result of some magical rites having been performed
over them, there is no reason to believe in ‘transubstantiation’, in
the first place.
It is quite worthy to be noted that, it is not only that Protestants
do not assign any sacramental value to the ritual of the Eucharist
– they actually experience the sensation of a certain emotional
discomfort, due to Christ’s commandments (in regards to what
true believers should do with his body and blood) indeed being
rather explicit. The reason for this is that, because of the earlier
mentioned rational-mindedness, on the part of Protestants, they
cannot help thinking of the process of Jesus’ flesh being devoured
inside of people’s stomachs, as anything but the explicit act of
cannibalism. This suggestion is fully consistent with the fact that,
unlike what it happened to be the case with Catholics and the
Orthodox, Protestants are known for their tendency to come up
with ever more ‘updated’ interpretations of what Jesus had in
mind, while addressing his followers.
What has been said earlier implies that, in order for us to be able
to gain an in-depth insight into the actual meaning of the
Eucharist, we would have to tackle the subject matter outside of
the theological framework of religion. After all, there can be
indeed as many theological interpretations of the Eucharist, as
there are Christians. Yet, neither of them would be able to offer a
comprehensive and logically substantiated answer, as to the
ritual’s actual significance and origins. This simply could not be
otherwise – the religious mode of thinking is utterly inconsistent
with the very notion of logic. What it means that the only the
pathway that can lead us towards acquiring a better understanding
of what the Eucharist is all about, is a scientific/analytical one.
Before proceeding to address the concerned religious
phenomenon, as such that reveals essentially the animalistic
workings of people’s unconscious psyche, we will need to
establish the following theoretical premises:
a. The Eucharist fits perfectly well into the classical definition
of a ritual, as such that implies the spatial extendedness of
the periodically performed ritual acts, and points out to the
fact that, within the ritual’s procedural context, the notion
of ‘sacredness’ is being synonymous with the notion of
‘pointlessness’.
b. The objectively existing laws of nature affect the
representatives ofHHomo SapiensHspecies, as much as they
affect plants and animals, which in turn suggests that it is
indeed fully legitimate to refer to people as ‘hairless apes’,
whose behavior is being rather instinctively then
consciously determined.
In light of these two scientifically proven premises, the actual
reason why Christians participate in the Eucharistic ritual of
‘breaking bread’ appears to be only formally related to these
people’s willingness to demonstrate the sheer strength of their
religious commitment. Rather, it is being concerned with these
believers’ unconscious strive to ensure their physical survival –
just as it happened to be the case with higher mammals, whose
behavioral patterns feature a high degree of ritualization.
After all, it has been indeed observed that many animals do tend
to ‘ritualize’ even the most ordinary aspects of their daily
existence: “Water shrews that were used to jump over a stone that
was in their familiar path kept jumping even after removal of the
stone… as if the performance of motor template overrides the
sensory input that the stone is not there anymore” (Eilam, Zor,
Hermesh, and Szechtman 6). Nevertheless, even though the
ritualistic-mindedness of animals appears to be of a clearly
phenomenological nature, this is far from being the case. Because
animals are quite unable of understanding what accounts for the
spatially prolonged relationship between causes and effects, it is
specifically their ability to memorize ‘consistency patterns’, on
which they mostly rely, when trying to survive in the hostile
environment.
The mechanics of how it works are quite simple: animals repeat
the behaviors, unconsciously associated with a particular
‘existential successes’ that they have had in the past. In plain
words, if prior to be given some food, one’s dog was barking,
then it will be tempted to use barking again and again, as the
‘magical’ mean of inducing food-offering– regardless of the
would-be consequences. It is also fully explainable why the
rituals of animals revolve around the themes of food, sex and
domination – these three objectives represent the biological
purpose of just about any living organism’s existence.
This is exactly the reason why there is much similarity between
what can be referred to as humanity’s main ‘primeval myths’,
upon which the religious rituals appear to be based (Levi-Strauss
429). Being essentially ‘hairless apes’, humans do not differ
much from animals, in this respect. After all, just as it is being the
case with the animalistic rituals, the ones performed by people
also appear to emanate the strong spirit of ‘utilitarianism’, which
in turn implies that they belong to the realm of a ‘primeval myth’
(Kalsched and Jones 1).
The religious ritual of the Eucharist illustrates the validity of this
suggestion perfectly well, because its origins can be traced back
to the time when the dividing line between animals and humans
was invisibly thin. Back then, people’s postures in life used to be
primarily affected by: a) the shortage of food, b) the state of a
never-ending tribal war, in which they were forced to exist
throughout their lifetime.
While waging wars on each other, our primeval ancestors did not
only seek to ensure their domination, but also to guarantee the
steady flow of nutrients into their bodies – in the literal sense of
this word. As Bell noted: “Anthropologists believe that
cannibalism began in earliest human history and proliferated with
man’s increasing attempt to appease the gods, survive famine, or
exact revenge on or control his enemies” (par. 1). We can
hypothesize that the early ritualization of cannibalism must have
occurred following the first cannibal’s realization that, after
having consumed some parts of its freshly killed enemy, he was
able to take good care of his sense of hunger – hence, endowing
him with the sense of being empowered: “The savage thought of
all the original character passing over with the flesh and blood.
If bread could strengthen man and wine make glad his heart,
surely the brave, strong, sacred body of an animal could impart
its own excellence” (Smith 164). This, of course, naturally
predetermined the process of the practice of cannibalism
becoming progressively less concerned with nutrition, while
growing increasingly ritualistic. The rationale behind this
suggestion is quite apparent – the ongoing socio-technological
progress implies that, the more technologically/culturally
advanced people happened to be, the more they generate of the
so-called ‘surplus product’.
Nevertheless, just as it was pointed out earlier, one of the most
prominent characteristics of a true ritual, is that its apparent
pointlessness does not have much of an effect of the measure of
this ritual’s popularity. Apparently, people simply could not resist
the pressure or their consciously suppressed ‘archetypal’ (DNA-
coded) memories, concerned with the sensation of empowerment,
experienced by a cannibal, in the aftermath of his meal. As Eliade
pointed out: “For the archaic mentality, reality manifests itself as
force, effectiveness, and duration” (11).
In its turn, this prompted the emergence of theophagy, defined as
the: “Sacramental eating of a god typically in the form of an
animal, image, or other symbol as a part of a religious ritual and
commonly for the purpose of communion with or the receiving of
power from the god” (“theophagy” par. 1). As of today, there is a
plenty of historical data, as to the fact that, prior to the time when
it began to be the case with Christianity, theophagy was already
well incorporated in a number of the world’s animistic religions.
There were two forms of religious theophagy, which can be
defined as ‘cannibalistic’ and ‘symbolical’. The first of them was
is in essence pure cannibalism – just as its name implies. For
example, the ancient Aztecs used to perform the annual religious
ritual of locating the best-looking youth in the community,
proclaiming him a ‘god’ and serving him as his lowly servants for
the duration of one year – only to have him killed and quartered
in the end, with the parts of ‘god’s’ body distributed among
believers. As time went on, however, the religious extrapolations
of theophagy were becoming increasingly more ‘symbolical’.
In this respect, we can refer to yet another religious ritual, which
used to be performed by the ancient Aztecs – the symbolic eating
of the god Huitzilopochtli: “Twice a year, in May and December,
an image of the great Mexican god Huitzilopochtli or Vitzilipuztli
was made of dough, then broken in pieces, and solemnly eaten by
his worshippers” (Fraser par. 1). The religion of Mithraism,
which used to thrive in the Roman Empire throughout the first
centuries A.D., can also be considered the ‘symbolic’ form of
theophagy.
What is particularly notable, in this respect, is that regardless of
whether their practice of ‘consuming God’ was de facto
cannibalistic or merely symbolical of cannibalism, the ritual’s
early affiliates never doubted the validity of the assumption that
the ‘eating of God’ (in the literal sense of this word) is the actual
pathway towards happiness/respect of others. This, of course,
suggests the conceptual fallaciousness of the Protestant idea that,
by encouraging his disciplines to ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ him, Jesus
meant something different from what he was actually referring to.
This simply could not be otherwise –the earlier provided insights
into the origins of desire for theophagy in people, and the fact
that Jesus used to preach amongst the
uneducated/superstitious/rurally-based Jews, leaves only a few
doubts that the Protestant interpretation of the Eucharist does not
hold much water.
Apparently, one of the reasons why Christianity was able to
prevail in the West, as its dominant religion, is that while
preaching the ‘good news’, Jesus proved himself as a rather
efficient psychologist – contrary to the fact that it will take
another two millennia for the term to emerge. Somehow, he knew
perfectly well that many people are unconsciously predisposed
towards theophagy, as a ritual thoroughly consistent with the
manner, in which they perceive the surrounding reality. This
refers to the fact that, as many scientific studies indicate, the
workings of one’s mind are being strongly reflective of what
happened to be the qualitative particulars of the ‘collective
archetype’ (Jungian term), with which he or she is being
affiliated.
Because the deepest roots of this archetype reach the innermost
depths of people’s unconscious psyche, there is nothing
surprising about the fact that, as practice indicates, the idea of
eating God’s flesh/drinking his blood does emanate a strong
appeal to many. The reason for this is the layer of the
culturally/intellectually refined humanness around just about
anyone is only skin-deep. Deep inside, the representatives of the
human race continue to remain nothing short of animals. And, as
etiologists are being well aware of, one of the main existential
advantages of animals over people, is their ‘stealth’ – in the sense
of being able to blend with the natural environment.
If we assume that people did evolve out of animals, then we
should be able to detect the psychological signs that this was
indeed the case. One of these signs can be considered the fact that
many people appear to be endowed with the so-called ‘holistic’
mentality – something that is being extrapolated by these
people’s close affiliation with the ideas of pantheism/orientalism.
The mentioned ideas are ultimately concerned with the
assumption that, in this world, everything has to do with
everything, and that humans are most definitely not ‘special’. To
be a ‘holistically minded’ individual, is to be trying to attain the
state of objectification (oneness) with the surrounding reality –
something that often assumes the form of one’s unconscious
desire to be ‘dissolved’ within the environment, as its integral
part. This is what the religion of Buddhism is all about.
Thus, the actual significance of the Eucharist, can be interpreted
as follows: It is one of the clearest indications that, as far as the
unconscious workings of the most ardent monotheistic believers
are being concerned, these individuals never cease being
polytheists. The reason for this is that, by consuming (and
consequentially digesting) Christ’s ‘body’ and ‘blood’, Christians
extrapolate their deep-seated emotional discomfort with the idea
of the hierarchically organized universe – even though it is being
strongly endorsed by just about every Christian denomination.
As Turner noted: “Rituals of status reversal… mask the weak in
strength and demand of the strong that they be passive” (176).
After all, the possibility for God’s flesh to be devoured by its
very followers, presupposes the erroneousness of the
monotheistic dogma about the omnipotence of God. The ritual of
the Eucharist symbolizes that the observable emanations of the
surrounding reality are innately interrelated and that it is possible
for effects to be simultaneously their own causes – something that
is being fully consistent with the provisions of today’s Quantum
Physics.
The discursive implication of the above-argued is quite apparent
– it is specifically Catholicism, which provides the most
‘genuine’ Christian interpretation of the ritual in question.
However, this is not because Catholicism is being more
‘Christian’ than the rest of the world’s major Christian religions.
Rather, it is a consequence of this religion continuing to remain
utterly ‘magical’ – contrary to its own negative stance towards
magic.
Just as it used to be the case with Jesus, who knew that if he had
not periodically performed miracles in front of his followers, he
would not have followers, in the first place, the high-ranked
members of the Catholic clergy are being fully aware that the
Church must provide believers with the opportunity to experience
‘miracles’. How this can be done, given the fact that miracles are
simply nowhere to be found? The ritual of the Eucharist comes
quite handy, in the respect. After all, just as it can be interpreted
as the indication of people’s psychological primevalness, it can
also serve as the tool of convincing believers that miracles do
occur – even despite being undetected by one’s perceptual
apparatus.
This is the reason why the Catholic dogma of ‘transubstantiaon’
came into being, in the first place. Once a particular Catholic has
enough faith in miracles, he or she will be able to ‘perform
miraculously’ on its own – something that can be well illustrated,
in regards to the phenomenon of stigmata. The same can be done
in regards to the fact that the rate of ‘miraculous recoveries’
among terminally ill Catholics is indeed comparatively high.
Thus, this paper’s qualitative insights into the discussed subject
matter can be formulated as follows:
1. The literal interpretation of the Eucharist’s theological
significance, promoted by Catholics, is indeed consistent
with the original spirit of early Christianity, as initially a
pantheistic religion. This, of course, can be seen as the
proof that Catholics are ‘closer’ to God; as compared to
what it is being the case with the members of the rest of
Christian denominations. At the same time, however, this
claim can be countered by the reference to the fact that,
throughout the course of its history, Christianity never
ceased being theologically refined. What it means is that it
is indeed impossible to provide a definitive answer to the
question of what particular Christian doctrine can be
considered ‘genuinely Christian’.
2. The ritual of the Eucharist can be seen as one among many
indications that religions do not affect the innermost
workings of the affiliated believers’ psyche. It is
understood, of course, that this substantially undermines the
validity of just about any religion’s claim that it holds the
answers to all questions and that it alone has been
illuminated by the ‘shining truth of God’. After all, as it
was shown earlier, there can be no religion, as a ‘thing in
itself’ – just about every world’s religion is about
reinterpreting ‘divine’ messages.
3. The ritual of the Eucharist is ultimately concerned with the
practice of theophagy. The validity of this suggestion can
be easily illustrated by the Catholic postulate that, while
encouraging the Apostles to consume the symbolic
representations of his flesh and blood, Jesus did not mean
to sound figurative/allegorical. In its turn, this presupposes
that, contrary to what many Christians believe, the ritual’s
origins date back to the dawn of humankind’s history.
Simultaneously, this also implies that the ritual of the
Eucharist can be well used, within the context of
psychologists making a qualitative inquiry into what
accounts for the rudimentary ‘leftovers’ of the perceptual
atavism in people.
Conclusion
I believe that the provided line of argumentation, as to what
should be considered the Eucharist’s discursive significance, is
fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, it is
indeed fully appropriate reflecting upon what this ritual means
from the religiously unbiased perspective. This, however, does
not undermine the validity of the mentioned theological
interpretations of the Eucharist – especially given the fact that
they do reflect the unconscious longings of the affiliated
believers.
After all, people do tend to assess the significance of a particular
theological dogma in the manner that corresponds well with what
happened to be their largely biologically predetermined sense of
self-identity. What it means is that in this world, there can be no
absolute ‘truths’ and absolute ‘untruths’. It appears to be only the
matter of time, before the realization of this fact will affect the
world’s major religions, as well.
Works Cited
“theophagy”. Merriam-Webster. 2014. Web.
Bell, Rachael 2014. Cannibalism: The Ancient Taboo in Modern
Times. Web.
Cardo, Daniel and Marcus Mallick 2004. The Manner of
Receiving Holy Communion. Web.
Christ in the Eucharist 2004. Web.
Courtois, Charlie 2010. Understanding the Protestant and
Catholic Views of the Eucharist (Holy Communion). Web.
Eliade, Mircea. Cosmos and History. New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1959. Print.
Eilam, David; Zor, Rama; Hermesh, Haggai and Henry
Szechtman 2005. Rituals, Stereotypy and Compulsive Behavior
in Animals and Humans. Web.
Eucharist (Holy Communion) 2014. Web.
Fitzgerald, Thomas 2014. The Holy Eucharist. Web.
Fraser, James 1922. Eating the God among the Aztecs. Web.
Kalsched Donald and Alan Jones 1986. Myth and Psyche: The
Evolution of Consciousness. Web.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. “The Structural Study of Myth.” The
Journal of American Folklore 68.270 (1955): 428-444. Print.
Smith, Preserved. “Christian Theophagy: An Historical Sketch.”
The Monist 28.2 (1918): 161-208. Print.
The Holy Bible: King James Version. Iowa Falls, IA: World
Bible Publishers, 2001. Print.
Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure.
New York: Cornell University Press, 1966. Print.
Weber, Max 1905. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism. Web.
