Sir, - Kevin Myers (An Irishman's Diary, January 9th) walks blindly into many traps in discussing the ecumenical theology of the Eucharist. Seasoned theologians approach this topic with great humility and an anxiety to learn. Mr Myers, like most of the contributors to the discussion on the President's Communion at Christ Church, seems to believe that memories of the Catechism are a sufficient basis for making sweeping assessments of the faith and worship of other churches. If he is really interested in a deeper understanding of the Eucharist, I would recommend him to read such works as Louis-Marie Chauvet's Symbol and Sacrament.
Mr Myers disparages Lutheranism on the grounds that not all its services are eucharistic. But the monopoly of the Eucharist in post-Vatican II Catholicism and its divorce from a wider liturgical context, such as the Church of England provides in its services of Matins and Evensong, are deeply problematic and savour of what Karl Rahner calls "eucharistic indiscretion".
Mr Myers fears that consensus on the Eucharist will make 500 years of controversy between Rome and the reformers seem in vain. He does not see that the basis of this consensus is a deeper understanding of the scriptural and patristic tradition on all sides. Theological disagreements acerbated to boiling point within a modern rationalistic context are startingly recontextualised when we return to biblical understandings of flesh and spirit, sign and signified, meal-event and paschal mystery. Then, of course, both sides are deeply ashamed of their venom and self-righteousness throughout the centuries, particularly insofar as it has led to bloodshed. After 30 years of religiously tinged bloodshed in the North, it is depressing to find so much unreconstructed religious chauvinism in your pages. - Yours, etc.
From (Rev) Joseph S. O'Leary, DD,
Tokyo, Japan.