The Real Presence
One of Shenoute’s main concerns in his polemic against
the Origenists is the question of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood
in the Eucharist. Shenoute is adamant that the bread and wine do not merely
symbolize them, but become them. The charge of denying the real presence was
not only leveled at the Origenists, however, but was also simultaneously directed
against Nestorius, who is also attacked by Shenoute in I Am Amazed. Moroever,
while he identifies those who question the real presence, asking “how can the body
and the blood of the Lord be bread and wine?” as Origenists, the influence of
such ideas seems also to have extended into Shenoute’s own monasteries, for he
states that “there are some from among us who have said this, since
their hearts have been wounded by the words of Origen.” Shenoute charges the
Origenists with the belief that the eucharistic elements are not really “the
body of Christ and his blood, but only a type (ⲧⲩⲡⲟⲥ),” and
rhetorically attacks them, asking: “If this is your faith, to whom are you
praying? Who will pay heed to you? Do you even have a god?” “Cursed be those
who receive from (the Eucharist) faithlessly, and especially he who confesses
it with his mouth while giving to others, (saying): ‘body of Christ, blood of
Christ’ (ⲥⲱⲙⲁ ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲓⲙⲁ ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲩ),
while denying it, (saying): ‘it is not really his body and his blood.’”
Again Shenoute is worried about the influence of such
notions among his own, and argues that those “among us” who hold this
particular heretical notion are even worse than the pagans, for while good
Christians would not be led astray by pagans, whom they know not to trust,
Shenoute argues that many might be led astray by people whom they believe to be
trustworthy in matters of faith.80 Similarly, the characterization of those who
would deny the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist
as “more wicked than the dogs and the pigs,” is especially applied to “those
from among us”.
Those who would disagree and reject the real presence are
in Shenoute’s eyes not only “more wicked than the beasts,” but even “more
wicked than the impure demons,” and he finds especially objectionable those
cases where such a person
is a presbyter or a cleric according to his rank in the
priesthood, and he does not believe that God can do everything, and more than
this. Let him be silent, praying and begging the exalted one, saying: ‘This is
my body that will be given to you for the forgiveness of your sins.’ And also: ‘This
is my blood that will be poured out for the sake of many for the forgiveness of
their sins.’” (Shenoute, I Am Amazed, 354, HB 31)
Such insincere people, who did not believe in the real
presence, should not be officiating
the Eucharist:
And why were you not silent, as I said before, (rather
than) saying to the Lord, ‘the bread of the blessing, the bread of the
cleansing, and the immortality and the life eternal,’ and, ‘the cup of
immortality, the cup of the new covenant,’ and, ‘this is the body and the blood
of your only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord’? (Shenoute, I Am Amazed,
355, HB 32)
Shenoute argues on the basis of First Corinthians that
those who reject the real presence
do not have the Holy Spirit:
It is impossible for a man speaking in the Holy Spirit
ever to say that the Holy Mystery is not the body and the blood of Christ. And
it is impossible for a man to say that the Holy Mystery is the body and the
blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God, if not in a Holy Spirit. (Shenoute, I
Am Amazed, 383, HB 39)
The real presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the
Eucharist should simply be accepted as a profound mystery with all due respect
and reverence. “Do we say that it is bread which we partake of?”, Shenoute
asks. “Is it not a mystery, according to the Scriptures?” The reality of the
mystery should be accepted on faith, for as Shenoute states elsewhere, “If you have
faith, then you have the fullness of the mystery.”
As for the rejection of the real presence, Shenoute also
connects it with the heresy that Christ was not conceived by Mary, and brands
it as a “new impiety” with an inner-Christian
origin:
Is this not another new impiety (ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ⲧⲁⲥⲉⲃⲏⲥ),88
having not been revealed among the pagans, for the work of those (people) always
slanders the Scriptures, but a new lawlessness having been uncovered
among us, namely that Mary did not conceive the Savior, and furthermore,
that what we are partaking of is not his body and his blood? (I Am Amazed,
367, HB 35=DT 87)
For Shenoute, the question of the real presence, and
questions concerning the nature of
God and the begetting of the Son, are not matters for
rational understanding or discussion.
Instead he appeals to Scripture, faith and the mysterious
nature of the Eucharist. (Hugo Lundhaug, “Shenoute’s Eucharistic Theology in
Context,” in The Eucharist—Its Origins and Contexts, ed. David Hellholm
and Deiter Sänger, 3 vols. [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 376; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017], 2:1242-43)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
