Communion is an important theological concept, both in terms of its theoretical and doctrinal significance and from a practical perspective. The term derives from communio-communionis, which means to be together, to function together, to do things together. This is the meaning of the term in Romanian, which derives from its Latin etymology. In Latin theological literature, the term is used to denote a shared bond between people and God. It is based on an earlier, pre-theological meaning, but with ethical, social and even political applications. From an ethical point of view, being in communion with someone means having an emotional or communicative bond with that person. This is a moral duty derived from the social nature of humankind, namely to live in community. The term belongs to the same lexical family as the words ‘common’, ‘communication’ and others of a similar nature, which indicate humankind’s relationship with their fellow human beings and the environment resulting from these bonds. From a social perspective, communion refers to the generalised, free interaction between the individuals who make up a society. Sociology, which, following Émile Durkheim, established a school of classical sociology within Western culture, has sought to highlight humanity’s need to be social beings and the fact that their entire existence is determined by this social dimension. It stems from the need to share, to have communion, so that there may be coordination and so that the human species may survive and progress. Thirdly, from a political perspective, the term ‘communion’ denotes a relationship of friendship between two political actors, whether individuals, state entities or other bodies. In order to survive politically, it is necessary for people to form alliances and develop friendly or compromising relationships in order to achieve their goals. For this reason, ‘communion’ conveys the status of a bond.
In Greek, the term used is ‘koinonia’, which, even in ancient pre-Christian language, carries a certain connotation of affinity or shared calling between two or more people, united by a passion, an idea, a belief or a particular form of social activism. This conceptual nuance is frequently encountered in the New Testament with the meaning of participation in the Passion of Christ, of empathy with His suffering. The idea of empathy is also reflected in early theological literature through the pietistic attitude displayed by some communities, which highlights the Christian’s need to meditate on the Passion of the Saviour, Jesus Christ. These ideas developed further within Western Christianity, which, over time, placed greater emphasis on the theology of Christ’s sacrifice, by glorifying Christ’s sacrifice, which thus became an ethical benchmark of the Latin-speaking Christian mindset. This is why, in Western communities, Good Friday is a festive occasion just as important and popular as Christmas. In the Christian East, the theological emphasis lies on the Resurrection of Christ, as it involves the idea of the recapitulation of human nature within Him, as well as its restoration and deification. Although it originated in the Eastern tradition, the meaning of the term koinonia, that is, empathy, has been expressed more in the sense of embarking on a mystical path analogous to the mission and work of Christ, which also entails accepting limitations—beyond the physical, spiritual and social. Eastern mystical theology understood the empathy of koinonia more as a likeness to Christ on a path of the cross and humility (1), and less as meditation on the nature of the sufferings endured by the Son. For this reason, within the Orthodox tradition, what has emerged is not a theology of being or an ethics of sacrifice, but rather a theology of the Sacrifice which is the Person Himself who takes this upon Himself 2. The organised, ecclesially integrated nature of a mystical path of the cross points to a form of fundamental humility or personal kenosis, embraced by each individual Christian, within which they are not alone, but suffer alongside Christ—or rather, see Christ Himself as suffering alongside them in their wretched condition. Christ is present in the personal drama of every person who repents and who, for the salvation of their soul, embarks on a path of repentance. He helps them, supports them and encourages them to bear with optimism their mystical cross of self-denial and to follow Christ on a similar kenotic path.
In early Christianity, koinonia entailed the relationship between man and Christ through the Eucharist, that is, participation in the liturgical synaxis and communion with the Body of Christ 3. This is an essential act and, viewed in this light, believers linked it to the very condition of being a Christian. One cannot speak of Christ outside of Christianity, nor of participation in Christianity without faith in Christ, which is followed, in practice, by communion with Christ Himself. Communion with Christ means receiving Christ not only into the human soul, but also into the body, into one’s biological life and, above all, into one’s life of decision-making. Communion with Christ entails a broad, non-exhaustive spectrum of a person’s exposure to a comprehensive communion—that is, not merely a doctrinal or informative one, but also a moral one, involving acceptance of His will, and, in addition to these, a physical communion through the concrete act of receiving the Eucharist within the liturgical context. This integral communion is realised in a concentrated and specific manner through the Eucharist, which must not be regarded as a form of assimilating a part of Christ, even though we call the Eucharist the Body of Christ. It is not merely the Body of Christ understood as a substance belonging to Him, but is Christ Himself in the entirety of His Person.
Communion with Christ means receiving Christ not only into the human soul, but also into the body, into one’s biological life and, above all, into one’s life of decision-making. Communion with Christ entails a broad, non-exhaustive spectrum of the human person’s exposure to a complete communion […]
Saint Nicholas Cabasilas emphasises in his work the importance of the act of communion within the ecclesial sphere 4. In his own time, the Church was one of the major institutional forces in the Byzantine Empire, whilst also exerting a powerful influence in other states across the known world. The morality of the Church was the morality of Christianity itself, representing a dominant aspect of the collective mindset or that of the masses throughout the Christian world. Within this context, the widespread practice of receiving Holy Communion sometimes became a routine act, perpetuating a formalistic nature to the act of communion. This was reduced to the act itself and was less concerned with the Christian’s moral life in Christ. It implies a certain indifference, which takes hold in those who receive Communion frequently and who are no longer interested in living according to Christ’s will, who no longer perceive Christ’s presence or are no longer aware of it. The discursive outcomes stemming from this attitude create a certain rift, which gradually widens, between the act and the awareness of the act. The establishment of this rift produces what Titu Maiorescu referred to in Romanian culture as ‘form without substance’ (5).
Receiving the Eucharistic Body of Christ without a concern for an awareness of the presence, His work and His goodness, turns the act of communion into a ‘form without substance’ for the conscience of the communicant. It can degenerate on a large scale into a separatist attitude amongst a segment of the ecclesial community that emphasises the liturgical gesture, which must be accepted uncritically because it embodies Christ’s work of giving himself entirely to humankind, regardless of the recipient’s level of awareness, and a segment of the community that emphasises the act of meaning or understanding, but which is pushed to such an intellectualist extreme that this becomes more important than the concrete support provided by the liturgical gesture itself. In this sense, the pragmatism of the gesture is superseded and thus open to relativisation, and this temptation creates an intellectualist Christian milieu within the Church, which reduces the act of faith to an understanding of it that transcends any gesture, form or empirical presence. This intellectualist milieu gives rise to a certain Christian culture which tends to supplant Christian morality, transforming it—through its relaxing nature, born of the self-sufficiency of understanding—into a substitute.
Another meaning of the term koinonia is specific to the canonical-legal sphere. It refers either to individuals – being in ecclesial communion with one another – or to ecclesial communities – being in communion with one another. On the one hand, interpersonal communion within the ecclesial sphere has several aspects. The most common of these relates to the situation of being part of the same liturgical community, in the most common and direct sense. That is to say, this entails a personal bond and direct contact between members of the same community, who attend the same liturgical gathering, at the same church in the locational sense, under the guidance of the same clergy, spiritual fathers or primates. This may also involve direct interaction at the same liturgical level or in the same social and charitable activities undertaken by the community.
On the other hand, the meaning of direct personal communion is linked to the liturgical assembly, to partaking of the Body of Christ, which unites the souls of those who receive Him eucharistically to Himself and to one another. The relationship generated by the communion of two or more people with Christ is far deeper than the relationship two or more people have on the basis of faith, empathy, ideas, vision, values, etc. Thus, by uniting people with Himself, Christ also places them in a mysterious interpersonal relationship with one another, even if they are not consciously aware of this communion. Unity in Christ bestows upon people a kind of unity that cannot be matched by any other relative principle, whether developed from the world’s models or created by them. In short, those who share in Christ are more closely united and show greater solidarity than any other possible form of human solidarity, to such an extent that the superlative and sublime nature of the former becomes a necessity that invalidates or thwarts any other unifying principle. The latter have no soteriological power and, therefore, require solidarity in Christ, so that they too may take on a meaningful form. This pertains to the soteriological plane; consequently, its apophatic aspect is, to some extent, inaccessible from the perspective of conventional logic. No one can show greater solidarity with their fellow human beings through a direct relationship than they do through their connection with the Person of Christ.
The communion between God and humankind imbues the communion between human beings with meaning, for it transforms them, leading them to the realisation that they are made in His image and must strive to become like Him through interpersonal solidarity, just as within the Holy Trinity there exists an absolute interpersonal communion, known as perichoresis or intersubjectivity. Saint Dumitru Stăniloae shows in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology that the expression ‘in the image of God’ refers not only to the similarity between the human soul and the Spirit or the spirituality of God, but to the fact that man is a person, just as God is a person 6.
Furthermore, the theology of the person and the development of this concept show that it is the most important from an existential point of view, representing being at its highest level. This fact can be directly observed in the concreteness of forms of life and their categorical classification. Stăniloae also asserts that modern theology demonstrates this fact not only within the Orthodox tradition, but also in the Catholic tradition and even in some modern Protestant doctrines, which, in their discourse, draw close to the realm of philosophy 7. At the level of basic cosmological considerations, the categorical division of beings has been a concern of philosophy since its earliest and classical periods, and it continues to be so in the practice of philosophy in the modern era. There can be no reasoning without taking into account a conception of the world, humanity and the cosmos, without a classification of beings into different categories. For this reason, a classification based on divine revelation is specific to Christianity, within which humankind is the purpose of God’s creative act and the recipient of the creation of the cosmos, which is interpreted by Saint Stăniloae as a ‘plasticised reason’8; that is to say, a form of God’s communication to humankind. The cosmos itself is a language through which God communicates to humankind, and the events of nature represent that communication itself. Thus, insofar as the cosmos was created for humankind, it is not detached from humankind but integrated into it, for humankind is part of the cosmos and represents the synthesis of the cosmos, as St Maximus the Confessor affirms through the term ‘microcosmos’, by which he characterises humankind 9.
The cosmos itself is a language through which God communicates with humankind, and the events of nature represent that communication itself. […] Man is part of the cosmos and represents the synthesis of the cosmos, as St Maximus the Confessor affirms through the term ‘microcosmos’, by which he characterises man.
The idea of man’s centrality in the cosmos is not unique, but is realised in harmony with the idea that Christ is central to man, that is, the central Hypostasis of human nature. Following the Incarnation, the Word of God is the universal model and the object of the whole of creation; therefore, man’s purpose and vocation is to become like the Logos.
Given this classification of beings, theology asserts that personal beings possess the highest degree of being, whereas objects, things or non-personal beings do not participate in the quality of being to the fullest extent. The argument for this superiority of being at the level of personal existence is linked to the fact that the person is an ontological category superior to other forms of being through their capacity for self-determination. Possessing free will, the person can determine their own higher ontological direction, whereas non-personal beings exhibit a certain dependence on their nature. Persons can make decisions outside or contrary to needs linked to their instinctive dimension. Thus, to be a person is to make decisions independently of the determinations of nature, and the independence of the hypostasis from its nature—which it hypostasises through this very act—justifies its superiority. Inanimate objects or personal beings have a certain determinable framework of dependence on an ontological limit of their own, whereas personal beings—humans in particular—are characterised by a certain independence from a limiting ontological framework, for, being able to rise above any necessity, human beings possess freedom at an absolute level.
The person is an ontological category superior to other forms of being by virtue of their capacity for self-determination. Possessing free will, the person can determine their own higher ontological direction, whereas non-personal beings exhibit a certain dependence on their nature. Persons can make decisions outside or contrary to instinctive needs linked to their instinctive dimension. Thus, to be a person means to make decisions independently of the forms of determination imposed by nature.
Furthermore, Father Stăniloae highlights the nature and role of consciousness, namely that every personal being undoubtedly possesses self-awareness—that is, perceives itself—and, starting from its own level, begins to value those like itself, other persons and hypostases. In this sense, we cannot know our fellow human beings, nor can we relate to them objectively, unless we are aware of the condition to which we belong; nor can we be aware of this unless we possess the capacity for self-perception—in other words, self-consciousness. From this perspective, koinonia is a concept that also carries a profound implication of engaging with, and perceiving, the other on the same axiological level at which we perceive ourselves; and, in this context, we develop a sense of our own existence only in relation to the person of a fellow human being, never in isolation from them.
The idea of communion as understood in the field of sociology is based on this communicative aspect of the human being, whilst from a Christian theological perspective, it is based on the understanding that the human being is realised in persons who, in turn, possess this communicative vocation. Communication as a function arises from an instrumental rationale, as a means of achieving interpersonal communion. Communication is a means of expressing one’s ‘self’ to the ‘self’ of another fellow human being.
Communication and communion are two distinct concepts, although they are often regarded as similar; they do not refer to the same thing, since communication is a means, whilst communion is an end. From a theological perspective, communication is more than simply people’s ability to speak; it encompasses a broader spectrum of expression than mere speech. From a technical perspective, we observe that there are also means of non-verbal communication, which fall within the spectrum of gestures or signals. These may refer to something visible, but there is also non-verbal communication that opens up a space and an intuitive function. For example, analogy or symbolism constitute modes of communication beyond the physical world, as they appeal to understanding, that is, to a noetic 10 plane. Whether realised through words, actions and images, or through other sensory stimuli, analogies or symbols point towards a higher form of knowledge, open to the spiritual plane, which brings to light the spiritual identity of the human being. From this it follows that the person, as an ontological entity, is superior, because they project their meaning beyond the limiting, determinative realm of the physical world, into a spiritual space of infinite possibilities. This is why communion is a higher act, of which only forms of personal existence are capable. That is to say, only humans and angels are capable of communion, because this is a voluntary, conscious act of self-meaning, which other living beings do not possess. Because they possess self-awareness—that is, they perceive their own existence—personal beings also have the option to choose, as they become aware of this choice on the basis of this perception of their own existence. Personal beings are automatically endowed with a sense of self, which makes them receptive to their own existence to such an extent that they view themselves from the perspective of their own meaning and purpose. This leads them to view their own selves in a far more articulate manner than other living beings, and with greater detachment from the context of which they form part. They identify themselves by distinguishing themselves from the surrounding world, viewing themselves as distinct, which enables them to see themselves independently of the cosmos. This leads to viewing the self within a hypothetical multitude of other existential settings or possibilities, so that they are able to consider the meaning of their existence regardless of context and, by implication, to seek it beyond any relationship with their surroundings. This form of noetic and epistemic detachment enables personal beings to view themselves in relation to everything, in relation to one another, in relation to themselves, in relation to the changing dynamics of the universe of which they form part, and independently of all their own transformations.
Communion is a higher act, of which only forms of personal existence are capable. That is to say, only humans and angels are capable of communion, because it is a voluntary act of self-awareness […]
Turning to the question of context, personal beings observe that it is ever-changing; they are therefore, in a sense, prompted to find meaning within this dynamic of transformation in the world around them. They thus raise the question of their own constancy—of what they are in relation to what is changing around them. Furthermore, they recognise their own transformation as a consequence of being forms of existence that interact with a changeable environment; moreover, their material and spiritual constitution is inevitably subject to a process of transformation. Against this backdrop of transformation, persons also develop a certain way of understanding temporality, which non-personal beings fail to perceive in its complexity, but only at an empirical level, as a physical-mechanical act.
The realisation of temporality is the result of this self-reflection, which stems from self-awareness. Thus, time exists for personal beings, who understand it in three essential moments: the present, that is, what they are at the moment they perceive themselves; the past, which they understand in relation to what they were—that is, they have become aware of this and have remembered it in comparison with what they are at the present moment; and the future, that is, what they may become through a realistic, predictable estimation in relation to what they are at the present moment or have been in the past. So the question of time is debatable from an epistemic point of view, from the perspective of one’s personal ontological stance, from a personal frame of reference. Time, in its sense as a conceptual category, is therefore the product of a higher hypothetical abstraction, which develops from an analytical reflex.
People often find that they cannot make sense of themselves when viewed in isolation, but only when they are together with one another. Singularity cannot be justified through self-validation, because when a person perceives themselves, they often ask themselves how they are validated by other people like themselves, at the same level as them, or by someone who perceives at a higher level than them. This is how the need to be validated by others arises – by those who are on the same level, or perhaps better placed epistemologically than one’s own self. This is how the concept of objectivity, or objective knowledge, is created – by correlating one’s own perception with the perceptions of others, whether similar or superior, and, implicitly, the need to be validated in terms of value within a shared, correlative universe of their combined perceptions. Thus, people feel the need to perceive themselves objectively by seeking references from others, and for this reason it is evident that their entire existence manifests the necessity of a presence on this objective plane of reality. Starting from this point, we observe that relating to our fellow human beings can become a problem in defining objectivity, as it is evident that other personal beings, like ourselves, may also struggle to attain a true understanding of reality. Therefore, seeking some form of validation from them can be problematic, as their point of view cannot be objective either.
This raises the question of an objective perspective on reality, and specifically who possesses it. An objective perspective belongs to the one who knows the world in its entirety and its meaning. It is said that people sometimes make objective judgements, that is, in accordance with reality, but these judgements do not encompass the whole of reality, only a part of it—namely, the segment to which the judgement made by someone at a given moment refers. From this perspective, all of people’s particular judgements do not constitute complete knowledge, but rather fragmentary, circumstantial knowledge, because it is linked to a specific place, a specific time, a specific circumstance, a specific subject and a specific object. People’s judgements and, more generally, the function of judgement that a person possesses depend on the person themselves as a subject, on their coordinates and on their referential limits. To speak objectively, however, means relating to the point of view of the object of reference, that is, to its intrinsic qualities, or to what Kant called the transcendent self, which cannot be known as what it is in itself, because any form of attributed knowledge has a unique nominal value within the knower’s frame of reference, so that whatever we call a property or attribute of something or someone constitutes the hallmark of a language valid only for the one who confers it 11. Those designations or attributions are valid only within a particular language, which refers to certain manifestations of the known thing. We do not, however, know whether they are the essence of the known thing. There is a certain fidelity of perception between subject and object, but this is not absolute, for what the thing is in itself cannot be known, and what is known about it comes only from its manifestations, from its perceptible aspect. Similarly, objective knowledge of a person is not possible in an absolute sense from the human perspective, but only from the perspective of God, Who possesses this absolute knowledge of reality. God is, and knows, the essence of every thing, for He is the Creator and controls practically everything we call reality. Therefore, objective knowledge is realised only from the perspective of God’s way of relating to the world, not from the human perspective of relating to the world. Human beings know in part, whereas God knows in full.
People’s judgements and, more generally, the function of judgement that a person possesses depend on the person as a subject, on their own frame of reference and on their referential limits. (…) Objective knowledge is attained only from the perspective of God’s way of relating to the world, not from the perspective of man’s way of relating to the world. People know only in part, whereas God knows in full.
Therefore, a relationship of communion with another person cannot serve as an argument for participation in an objective plan, and communion from this perspective is possible only when it is grounded in objective, rather than subjective, knowledge. This is why, in theology, it is said that God is love and that anyone who gathers without Him scatters. Through His system of reference, which He communicates to people, God constitutes an objective meeting point, a point of objective knowledge, within which everyone relates to a single, universal and absolute value, not only to inanimate, visible things, but also to their fellow human beings. This is why true communion is achieved through God, through our relationship with Him. And this fact is already a problem for those who have no concept of God as the absolute creative, mediating and teleological principle. Likewise, those who seek to deepen their understanding of the world apart from a single, creative, omnipresent and omnipotent God, will inevitably do so from the perspective of a world confined to their own consciousness, detached from knowledge of Him and, by implication, from objective knowledge of the world. And when we speak of communion, we speak not only of interaction, but also of knowledge. Communion, being the act of interaction between two self-aware persons, inevitably also involves the act of mutual knowledge, for communion is not an irrational act, but a volitional one, and thus takes place with full awareness of each other’s identities.
Communion, being the act of interaction between two self-aware persons, inevitably also involves the act of mutual knowledge, for communion is not an irrational act, but a volitional one, and therefore takes place with full knowledge of each other’s identities.
From an ecclesiastical-liturgical perspective, communion refers to the interaction between God and humankind. And this is not impossible when we consider the discrepancy between God and creation. The possibility of human interaction with God stems from a capacity conferred by Him to be known, and communion with Him is realised on that basis. The idea of a discontinuity between God and the world has a biblical basis in the second commandment of the Decalogue, in which people are urged not to form any idea of what God is like by associating Him with any created, visible or perceptible model, etc. But beyond this idea of God’s transcendence, which the chosen people learnt very quickly, we do not deny God’s capacity to interact with the world, even if He does not identify with it in terms of His very being. The question of God’s absolute transcendence, interpreted in dualistic doctrines as God’s non-interaction with the world, is unacceptable from a Christian doctrinal perspective, because it invalidates the idea of God’s omnipotence. In other words, this leads us to the conclusion that God cannot interact with the world because of His purity and keeps Himself uncontaminated by the world’s relativity, by not interacting with it. If we were to accept this idea of divine dilution through interaction with the relativity of creation, God would not be omnipotent because He cannot act outside His own identity. A God who cannot act outside His divine condition is not an almighty God. This idea underlies another, very important concept in Christianity, namely: the reality of God’s interaction with creation, even though He does not identify Himself with it in terms of identity.
This is best expressed by the concept of ‘uncreated energies’, developed in the work of St Gregory Palamas, which shows that God’s manifestations, whilst uncreated because they spring from His being, can have a created effect; although they are unlimited and absolute, they have a limited, created object of manifestation. The issue is explored more broadly in explaining God’s creative capacity, that is, His ability to bring into existence things that are not inherent to His divine nature and, above all, to sustain their existence or interact with them without altering or influencing their being, and, in the case of conscious beings, to influence their free will. This explains how God can work in an infinite manner through limited means or things, that is, to perform miracles through various, humble, finite things, and so on. He can manifest Himself in a limited way and, as we see in biblical history, He can also indicate and express preferences for something specific. On this point, one can argue from a Christological perspective for the possibility of the Incarnation of the Word and, by extension, any form of divine-human communion, ranging from that of the natures within His hypostatic unity to His interpersonal communion with the persons of all human beings to whom He extends Himself.
Communion, from the perspective of Christ’s mystical bond with humankind, is achievable in two main ways. These relate to the type of interpersonal communion mentioned earlier and to each person’s bond with their fellow human beings in Christ. These two ways refer to a direct bond between man and Christ, and to the relationship with Him, respectively. This is primarily oriented towards man, for the initiator of communion is Christ Himself. People cannot take such an initiative without some prior manifestation of God before them, or without some revelation of Him in their consciences, which He Himself initiates. Human communion with God is realised through the first mode in a universal way, on a general level, across the entire face of the earth and extending throughout all of history. That is to say, God is in a fundamental relationship with every human being who comes into existence, clearly revealing to them the concept of a single, almighty, creator and omnipresent God. This matter often clashes with the religious ideas of certain cultures, which may be polytheistic or atheistic, and which may have a more vague understanding of the concept of a personal God. Yet, despite these social constructs shaped by the religious traditions established throughout humanity, God reveals Himself mysteriously within the consciousness of every human being in the form of His uniqueness and universality. Yet this form of communion remains indistinct, as it is realised from the perspective of divine qualities that are perceived in the abstract. Nevertheless, human beings can become aware of and invoke this personal presence of God and thus interact with Him. We may say that this is indeed the highest way in which human beings can partake of natural revelation or the realisation of the unknown God, to which human reason—well-intentioned and undisturbed by passions—naturally aspires. This leads to a personal knowledge of God, in which He reveals His goodness and His benevolent intentions towards humankind and the meaning of human existence. Yet it does not fully elucidate the knowledge of God; rather, it is an incomplete one.
God reveals Himself mysteriously in the conscience of every human being in the form of His uniqueness and universality. (…) human beings can become aware of and invoke this personal presence of God and can thus interact with Him.
The second way of realising man’s communion with God is in Christ, in the knowledge of Him, that is, in the understanding that He is God Incarnate, Who became man out of love for mankind and is, as a result, both God and man at the same time. He sets a universal standard for human knowledge because He reveals Himself explicitly as a human being. There is no more fitting way for Him to reveal Himself than through the Incarnation, for He takes on the condition of the one who is made in His image. And, because He reveals Himself as a human being, we understand that man is the most rational being in all creation, thereby enhancing his rational capacities. A human being who does not consciously know God in His true identity does not know Him to the fullest extent of their capacities, but at a lower level, unworthy of the human condition and falling short of its standard. Thus, the quality of being made in God’s image—which man possesses and by which he is distinguished from other species—is not fully realised, but remains in a latent state, as a result of which man does not fully participate in God with all his faculties. In order to place God in the holiest place, He must be in communion with man through his unique, highest, rational faculties, not merely at a basic level. God’s most holy place, where He must rest, is precisely the highest component of the soul, which brings to the fore the idea of His image in man. This is referred to by some authors, such as St Simeon the New Theologian, as mystical communion (12). It is accompanied by a complementary communion on the physical level, which, in the words of Christ, is presented as necessary: ‘Whoever does not eat the Body of the Son of Man and drink His Blood has no life within them’ (John 6:53). The imperative nature of this is emphasised on several occasions within the same chapter of the Gospel according to John. From this it would appear that the purpose of the Son’s coming in the flesh is precisely God’s offering of Himself to humankind, in the form most familiar and most appropriate to humankind.
In order to place God in the holiest place, He must be in communion with humankind through its unique, highest and most rational faculties, not merely at a basic level. God’s most holy place, where He must rest, is precisely the highest component of the soul, which brings to the fore the idea of His image in man. This is referred to by some authors […] as mystical communion.
The Eucharistic reception of the Body of Christ represents the highest form of communion between God and man, for it is realised in the identity of His Person, as He offers Himself as the material basis for this communion. This highlights not only the superior qualities of man—that is, the idea of the image—but also the most fundamental aspect, namely the body or the biological medium. Thus, communion with Christ is realised at all levels and in all the constituent structures of man.
Saint Nicholas Cabasilas points out that if the Lord says that His Body is the true food and His Blood the true drink, this means that the meaning of human existence is revealed in this: in the Incarnate Word of God 13. Communion between man and God is realised eucharistically through the Church, for its purpose is to continue the works of Christ and to allow Christ Himself to be at work in people through His Body. The designation ‘Mystical Body of Christ’, attributed to the Church, indicates the manner of His presence par excellence in all the works of the Church.
What must be borne in mind regarding the theological concept of communion is that it is an existential programme to which we are all called. Secondly, it can be realised on several levels, not only in terms of external relationships, but also on the internal-personal or intra-personal level. Communion is realised on a personal level, not merely in terms of works.
- 1
See Vladimir Losski, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Bonifaciu Publishers, Bucharest, 1998, p. 6: ‘In the Eastern tradition, no clear distinction has ever been made between mysticism and theology, between the personal experience of the divine mysteries and the dogma affirmed by the Church. The words spoken a century ago by a great Orthodox theologian, Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow, express precisely this attitude: ‘None of the mysteries of God’s most hidden wisdom should seem alien or entirely beyond us; rather, we ought to direct our minds, with all humility, towards the contemplation of the divine.’
- 2
St Dumitru Stăniloae, Confessor, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, in Complete Works, vol. 10, Basilica, Bucharest, 2018, p. 337: ‘Christianity in the West has often tended to view human salvation in isolation from nature’
- 3
Mihai Burlacu, ‘Communion’, in: Ștefan Buchiu and Ioan Tulcan, Dictionary of Orthodox Theology, Basilica, Bucharest, 2019, pp. 185–187.
- 4
Nicolae Cabasila, On Life in Christ, IBMBOR, Bucharest, 2001, p. 23: “Here is something utterly strange: how can one be more closely united with another than with oneself? And yet, such a thing is possible, for the mystical union between Christ and the Church is even more complete than that between the head and the members, from the moment the saints become more firmly bound to the Saviour’s being than to their own lives.”
- 5
Titu Maiorescu, ‘Against the Current Trend in Romanian Culture’, in: Works, vol. 1, Minerva Publishers, Bucharest, 1978, p. 153: ‘The second truth, and the most significant, which we must fully grasp, is this: form without substance is not only of no use whatsoever, but is downright destructive, for it destroys a powerful means of culture. And, therefore, we shall say: it is better not to establish a school at all than to establish a bad one; it is better not to establish an art gallery at all than to establish one devoid of fine art; it is better not to have the statutes, the organisation, or the honorary and non-honorary members of an association at all, than to have them without the very spirit of association having been clearly manifested in the people who make it up; it is better not to establish academies at all—with their sections, their solemn meetings, their induction speeches and their annals to be compiled—than to establish all these things without the scientific maturity which alone gives them their raison d’être
- 6
St Dumitru Stăniloae, the Confessor, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, p. 411: ‘An impersonal absolute is not a true absolute. And a personal God who were not absolute would not ensure His eternal and personal existence in perfect communion. [...] Man cannot be content to remain confined to relationships with finite realities’
- 7
St Dumitru Stăniloae, the Confessor, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, p. 18.
- 8
St Dumitru Stăniloae, the Confessor, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, p. 371.
- 9
St Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy, published by the Biblical and Missionary Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Bucharest, 1995, pp. 15–16.
- 10
Ștefan Buchiu, Dogma and Theology, vol. 1, Sigma Publishing, Bucharest, 2006, p. 75: “Analogies in the field of dogmatic knowledge must neither be overestimated or overemphasised, nor underestimated [...] [T]he symbol reveals to us the deep, fundamental, religious dimension of reality
- 11
E. Kant discusses the transcendent self in his Critique of Pure Reason, in the chapter on Transcendental Analytic; see the Paidea edition, pp. 309–336.
- 12
St Simeon the New Theologian, Theological and Ethical Discourses, Deisis, Sibiu, 2001, p. 313.
- 13
St Nicholas Cabasilas, On Life in Christ, pp. 139–140.