« Mess in MI | Main | Radio Daze »
October 06, 2005
Word from Synod
An area of clash came in discussion of the Eucharist as sacrifice, and the need to balance between the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the Mass.
In the open session Wednesday night, Cardinal George Pell of Australia voiced concern that talk about “various presences” of Christ, such as in the community, in scripture, and in the individual believer can blur the centrality of the real presence in the Eucharist.
“We are not pantheists,” he warned the synod.
One bishop from Eastern Europe warned that a lack of reverence in treating the Eucharist reflected “maybe even veiled forms of profanation.”
At the same time, Bishop Jacques Perrier of Lourdes, France, warned that an exclusive focus on the real presence of Christ in the reserved host could lead precisely to a neglect of the other “real presences,” and an overly individualistic sense of the sacrament.
For the first time so far, two addresses in the synod drew applause Thursday morning: Archbishop Lucian Muresan from Romania, who offered a moving testimony on the suffering of the churches behind the Iron Curtain, and Cardinal Ignace Moussa I Daoud, who ended with a strong plea for unity among the various branches of the Christian family, including the capacity to celebrate the Eucharist around a common table.
Pope Benedict XVI was present Thursday morning, and was applauded as he exited by a group of American seminarians from the North American College.
In a touch reminiscent of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter carrying his own luggage, Benedict appeared the morning of Oct. 6 carrying his own tote bag with the documents from the synod, an “everyman” touch uncharacteristic of previous popes.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3317235
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Word from Synod:
Comments
"At the same time, Bishop Jacques Perrier of Lourdes, France, warned that an exclusive focus on the real presence of Christ in the reserved host could lead precisely to a neglect of the other “real presences,” and an overly individualistic sense of the sacrament."
[sarcasm]
Yes, me must not forgot those other "real presences."
[/sarcasm]
Though Cardinal Pell and (hopefully) many of the others are not pantheists, the Bishop from Lourdes appears to be.
Posted by: Boethius at Oct 6, 2005 12:06:34 PM
Let's be careful here about throwing the accustation of pantheism around.
Paul VI, in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei, issued while the Council was still in session, made it quite clear that talking of the "real" presence in the Blessed Sacrament was not to be understood to EXCLUDE the realness of Presence in other ways the good bishop of Lourdes noted, only to denote its presence par excellence.
One can commit error by being overly rigorist here, it would seem, too, just as with being pantheist.
Posted by: Liam at Oct 6, 2005 12:43:23 PM
Liam is correct.
I would not say that Bishop Perrier is necessarily a pantheist; what he says can be understood in unity with the tradition, and in a completely orthodox way. Now, whether he understands it himself that way I do not know, but the abuse does not take away the proper use.
I have to give Allen low marks on this report; the juxtaposition of Pell's and Perrier's comments insinuates that there are two competing "parties" in the synod whose views are opposed to each other. While that may be the case, I doubt it, since there is an orthodox synthesis of what both are saying.
Posted by: Nicholas at Oct 6, 2005 12:53:59 PM
Could Nicholas or Liam give me examples of Christ's real presence outside of the Eucharist, with some documentation to support the claim? If you could provide me with that, I will have to rethink my understanding of real presence. I was under the impression that if it can not be adored it is not the real presence. Thank you.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Oct 6, 2005 12:58:30 PM
Excerpt from Mysterium Fidei:
Various Ways in Which Christ is Present
35. All of us realize that there is more than one way in which Christ is present in His Church. We want to go into this very joyful subject, which the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy presented briefly, (30) at somewhat greater length. Christ is present in His Church when she prays, since He is the one who "prays for us and prays in us and to whom we pray: He prays for us as our priest, He prays in us as our head, He is prayed to by us as our God" (31); and He is the one who has promised, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them." (32) He is present in the Church as she performs her works of mercy, not just because whatever good we do to one of His least brethren we do to Christ Himself, (33)but also because Christ is the one who performs these works through the Church and who continually helps men with His divine love. He is present in the Church as she moves along on her pilgrimage with a longing to reach the portals of eternal life, for He is the one who dwells in our hearts through faith, (34) and who instills charity in them through the Holy Spirit whom He gives to us. (35)
36. In still another very genuine way, He is present in the Church as she preaches, since the Gospel which she proclaims is the word of God, and it is only in the name of Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, and by His authority and with His help that it is preached, so that there might be "one flock resting secure in one shepherd." (36)
37. He is present in His Church as she rules and governs the People of God, since her sacred power comes from Christ and since Christ, the "Shepherd of Shepherds," (37) is present in the bishops who exercise that power, in keeping with the promise He made to the Apostles.
38. Moreover, Christ is present in His Church in a still more sublime manner as she offers the Sacrifice of the Mass in His name; He is present in her as she administers the sacraments. On the matter of Christ's presence in the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass, We would like very much to call what St. John Chrysostom, overcome with awe, had to say in such accurate and eloquent words: "I wish to add something that is clearly awe-inspiring, but do not be surprised or upset. What is this? It is the same offering, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul. It is the same one that Christ gave to His disciples and the same one that priests now perform: the latter is in no way inferior to the former, for it is not men who sanctify the latter, but He who sanctified the former. For just as the words which God spoke are the same as those that the priest now pronounces, so too the offering is the same." (38) No one is unaware that the sacraments are the actions of Christ who administers them through men. And so the sacraments are holy in themselves and they pour grace into the soul by the power of Christ, when they touch the body. The Highest Kind of Presence.
These various ways in which Christ is present fill the mind with astonishment and offer the Church a mystery for her contemplation. But there is another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all the others. It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is, for this reason, "a more consoling source of devotion, a lovelier object of contemplation and holier in what it contains" (39) than all the other sacraments; for it contains Christ Himself and it is "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments." (40)
39. This presence is called "real" not to exclude the idea that the others are "real" too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man. (41) And so it would be wrong for anyone to try to explain this manner of presence by dreaming up a so-called "pneumatic" nature of the glorious body of Christ that would be present everywhere; or for anyone to limit it to symbolism, as if this most sacred Sacrament were to consist in nothing more than an efficacious sign "of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful, the members of His Mystical Body." (42)
Posted by: Liam at Oct 6, 2005 1:08:24 PM
Dangit, Liam...you beat me. :)
The parenthetical numbers refer to the endnotes:
(30) Cf. c. 1, n. 7; AAS LVI (1964), 100-101.
(31) St. Augustine, On Psalm 85.1: PL 37.1081.
(32) Mt 18.20.
(33) Cf. Mt 25.40.
(34) Cf. Eph 3.17.
(35) Cf. Rom 5.5.
(36) St. Augustine, Against the Letter ot Petiliani, III, 10.11; PL 43.353.
(37) St. Augustine, On Psalm 86.3; PL 37.1102.
(38) Homily on the Second Epistle to Timothy 2.4; PG 62.612.
(39) Aegidius Romanus, Theorems on the Body of Christ, theor. 50 (Venice, 1521), p. 127.
(40) St. Thomas, Summa Theol., IIIa, p. 73, a. 3, c.
(41) Cf. Council of Trent, Decree on the Holy Eucharist, c. 3.
(42) Pius XII, Encyclical letter Humani generis; AAS XLII (1950), 578.
Posted by: Nicholas at Oct 6, 2005 1:10:35 PM
So, per sec. 39, we should avoid understanding "real" as referring to other presences of Christ as somehow unreal or less real. It is intended, rather, to designate a presence par excellence.
That nuance is completely orthodox in the Tradition, not a Vatican II novelty. In fact, it is logically deduced from the very ontology of the Church. (And ontology is very important, we Americans especially need catechesis on that dimension of reality.)
I am notorious at a more progressively-oriented board for being something of a scourge those who are careless in avoiding reference to the presence of Christ par excellence in the Blessed Sacrament as a way of equivocating (as I am fond of noting, we congregants are not on the corporal on the altar....). So I feel some obligation to scourge the opposite error.
Posted by: Liam at Oct 6, 2005 1:13:21 PM
Pell's just up to his usual "one presence, no more" antics -- he was screaming about this back in June.
How heterodox.
Posted by: Rocco Palmo at Oct 6, 2005 1:13:32 PM
Rocco
Depends on how he means it. If he means only one presence par excellence, then that can be harmonized with Tradition.
But it would help if people worked with the trajectory of emphasis that the Popes of the 20th century laid of avoiding sacramental reductionism. With regard to the Mass, particularly undersoring the relationship of the Real Action and the Real Presence(s).
I hate false dichotomies, but most people adore them (pun intended).
Posted by: Liam at Oct 6, 2005 1:19:10 PM
Thank you Liam. But notice para. 39. Only the Eucharist is called the "real presence" because it is "substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire." My point and the first poster's is that the term "real presence" has a precise theological meaning that can only apply the Eucharist, because only there is Christ "substantially" present. Unfortunately, many use the term “real presence” to detract from the uniqueness of the Eucharist. Certainly, the Bishop could be using sloppy theological language, and I assume he is not saying that Christ is substantially present in the Congregation for example (or denying that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist). But if that is the case he should not have implied an equality between the presences of Christ that are real but not called the “real presence” and the substantial presence of Christ which is the only mystery given the theological term “real presence.”
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Oct 6, 2005 1:23:29 PM
But we must be careful to avoid excluding the reality of the other presences. And I have to say that is a danger too.
I remember, for example, when someone was questioning the orthodoxy of the prefatory dialogue to the proclamation of the Gospel; how could we glorify the Lord in the second person (Glory to You, O Lord). It's because the Lord is present in the proclamation of the Gospel. He's not only present in the Blessed Sacrament.
It's neglect of understanding those things that Mysterium Fidei was getting at. Because the understandable concern was, where you reduce the reality of Christ's presence only to the Blessed Sacrament, you get the situation where people reduced the Divine Liturgy to It. And, nothwithstanding the abuses deriving from the opposite error of understanding, this too remains something of a problem.
Again, it's not a dichotomy, but a harmony. It helps to promote it as such.
Posted by: Liam at Oct 6, 2005 1:42:31 PM
In any event, accusing the bishop of Lourdes of pantheism for his remark was way out of bounds, unjustifiable. THere are more constructive and Christian ways to express the concern. Even Pell in June was careful to limit the nature of his remarks.
Posted by: Liam at Oct 6, 2005 1:45:15 PM
Good last point Liam (not that others weren't!)
the debate above seems to assume that one point of view makes the other one invalid. This is the false dichotomy trap we fall in so often.
The two bishops are presenting two perspectives on the issue. There is no doubt that they assign different priorities to them, but I don't see them as contradictory.
It reminds me of several protestant arguments that since we believe this it cannot be that, when in fact this and that form two sides of a whole, not two warring factions.
Posted by: Roberto at Oct 6, 2005 1:51:54 PM
But Liam there has to be distinctions made. For example I could say that by emphasizing the indwelling of the Trinity in the soul of a person in the state of grace, we are ignoring the presence of God in the damned angels in hell. Or by emphasizing the presence of Christ in the proclamation of the Gospel, we are neglecting the presence of Christ in the wooden pew, which would cease to exist if God withdrew His presence. So, I would say; yes emphasize the presence of God in all things, but when you do so be precise and discuss how He is present, and how He is not present. In the quote you give, I would say the priest would be remiss if he did not explain that yes Christ is present in the Gospel, but it is not a substantial presence, but it is a true presence. Especially, if the congregation went away thinking that Christ is present in the Gospel in the same way He is present in the Eucharist. The Bishop of Lourdes implied an equality.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Oct 6, 2005 1:53:17 PM
Also, when you have a Bishop in Florida ban Eucharistic adoration in his diocese because it detracts from the presence of Christ in the priest, you should at least understand the touchiness of the people with this issue.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Oct 6, 2005 1:57:00 PM
Christopher
I understand. But that in no way excuses careless accusations of heresy. One's touchiness, however hard-earned, doesn't justify that.
And I have been rather notorious, as I said, for drawing careful distinctions. But I have to say that, I have also found that some people often rely on that crutch to avoid discussing True Presences other than the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Which is not authentically Catholic when done as a matter of habit and a way of being.
Posted by: Liam at Oct 6, 2005 2:05:14 PM
Yes Liam, I should have said that it is wrong to throw out careless accusations of heresy. I hope that no one got the impression that I was accusing the bishop of Lourdes of heresy. I believe I said that the Bishop was using sloppy language for applying the term "real presence" to mysteries of Christ’s presence which are not substantial.
Also, it seems that we agree on the need for careful distinctions. Certainly, as long as everyone agrees on the theology of transubstantiation, we can discuss certain matters which would fall under the category of prudence, and therefore would be areas where good Catholics could disagree.
So with regard to prudence, I would say that if we were living in 1940, where everyone believed in the real presence of Christ in Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass, I would say the Bishops points are important. However, today with less than half of Catholics according to polls having an orthodox understanding of the Mass and the Eucharist, I would say that the Bishop's fear is unfounded. Finally, my view is colored by my own experience. I grew up Catholic, going to CCD throughout high school, making my first Communion and being confirmed at 17.However, it was not until I was 23 that I learned about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the sacrificial nature of the Mass. I would suggest that perhaps the Bishop of Lourdes is seeing the Church as it existed a more than a generation ago.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Oct 6, 2005 2:34:17 PM
"I would suggest that perhaps the Bishop of Lourdes is seeing the Church as it existed a more than a generation ago."
I think we all often forget that time marches on and also, not coincidentally, that not everyone is the same age as we are. Hence the need for that "freshman profile" put out by some college.
"Our parents' generation..." said someone to me a few weeks ago who is as old as my parents. "Young mothers like me..." I began to say the other day, until I remembered I'm almost 40, definitely middle-aged!
Posted by: Anne-Marie at Oct 6, 2005 3:03:39 PM
To add to what Liam says, it should be kept in mind that the theology of multiple modes of Christ's presence has a long basis in magisterial teaching. Pius XII's Mediator Dei (1948) reads, "Christ is present at the august sacrifice of the altar both in the person of His minister and above all under the eucharistic species. He is present in the sacraments, infusing into them the power which makes them ready instruments of sanctification. He is present, finally, in prayer of praise and petition we direct to God, as it is written: 'Where there are two or three gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them.'"
Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium added the presence of Christ in the proclamation of the Word. Paul VI would even speak of "real presences." And, in the revised GIRM (2002), we read, "To accomplish so great a work Christ is always present in his church, especially in liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass both in the person of his minister, 'the same now offering through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,' and most of all in the eucharistic species. By his power he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes it is really Christ himself who baptizes. He is present in his word since it is he himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in church. Lastly, he is present when the church prays and sings, for he has promised 'where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them' (Mt 18:20)."
The danger of isolating the Eucharistic presence is that we lose the purpose of the sacrament (res sacramenti), which is the unity of the Church in Christ. Once the Eucharistic presence is divorced from the presence of Christ in the community, it cannot contribute in any meaningful way to our self-recognition as Church. For a few, the real presence in the Eucharist will become intensified, since it will then be the *only* presence of Christ in our world, and the *only* meaningful actions in this world will be the individual actions of adoration and reception. For many more, the real presence will become meaningless, since it will then lose much of its connection with reality - perhaps, even worse, it will rob reality, including our experiences of ecclesial belonging and reading Holy Scripture, of any theological significance altogether.
We should see the presence of Christ "above all" in the Eucharist and the other presences of Christ reinforcing one another. Their inseparability is what gives them theological depth. St Augustine tells us how this might work:
"The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it's you that are the body of Christ and its members, it's the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord's table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true" (Sermon 272).
Thanks.
Neil
Posted by: Neil at Oct 6, 2005 3:20:15 PM
Neil,
It seems we all might be over simplifying. The Eucharist has more than one purpose. One of the purposes is to unite the members of the Church, but how does this happen? - by us, individually, being united physically with the Incarnation. As Cyril of Alexandria said we become "concorporal" with Christ when we receive the Eucharist. Or St. John Eudes. Baptism unites us spiritually with Christ, the Eucharist unites us physically with Christ. The Eucharist is not a means to an end, but is the end itself, union with Christ - with God.
Also as a Catholic I must put my salvation above even the unity of the Church. What does it profit me to gain the unity of the Church and lose my soul to paraphrase? Personally, when I receive Communion my end is union with God, not union with my neighbor. For all worship has as its end God and not man, whether they are fellow members of the Church or not.
Finally, it is not that I disagree with anything you have said per se, but I think your emphasis at this time is imprudent. When no one believes in the real presence, it is the end of the unity of the Sacrament, because the union only comes as a consequence of our union with Christ, and if He is not there substantially there will be no more union, than the unity that exists between citizens of the same country.
Also, could you point to somewhere where Paul VI use the term "real presence" when referring to something other than the Eucharist.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Oct 6, 2005 4:26:01 PM
Neil:
That's an excellent point about the mutual reinforcement--after all, you wouldn't know about the body-and-blood presence of Christ under the accidents of the Host but for the Word of God telling you so and the Body of Christ handing on the precise understanding of this reality to each generation of the faithful.
Good stuff.
Posted by: Dale Price at Oct 6, 2005 4:28:44 PM
Dear Christopher,
I hope that we don't disagree. Paul VI, in Mysterium Fidei, wrote, "This [Eucharistic]presence is called 'real' not to exclude the idea that the others are 'real' too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence." This language of "real" presences is then quoted in the Sacred Congration of Rites' Instruction on Eucharistic Worship (1967) n9. Thus, commentators have written of Paul VI's "real presences" (see Michael Witczak, "The Manifold Presence of Christ in the Liturgy," Theological Studies 59 [1998]).
Very quickly, St Thomas writes of the Eucharist, "the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark" (ST III.73.3). He had already written, "The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:17): 'For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread': from which it is clear that the Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church's unity."
This means that there really is no "individual" reception of the Eucharist. Furthermore, the statement, "Also as a Catholic I must put my salvation above even the unity of the Church," becomes quite unintelligible. It is the Church that is the sacrament of God (and, as Rahner writes, "the well-spring of the sacraments in the strict sense"), and the Church is "sign and instrument BOTH of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race" (my emphasis, Lumen Gentium). There is no salvation that is apart from both these unities.
A Eucharist that did not express and bring about the unity of all believers who form one body in Christ is unthinkable. Properly speaking, it would have no "reality." To give an Eastern view, Metropolitan John of Pergamon has written, "A Eucharist which excludes in one way or another those of a different race, sex, age or profession is a false Eucharist. The Eucharist must include all these, for it us there that otherness of a natural or social kind can be transcended." The unity of all believers, after all, is the transcending of humanity's natural and social divisons (we are not "strangers and sojourners" but "fellow citizens," in St Paul's words).
Does this make sense? Once more, I believe that emphasizing the presences of Christ in the liturgy can strengthen belief in the Real Presence.
Thanks for your generous reply.
Neil
Posted by: Neil at Oct 6, 2005 5:57:15 PM
Neil,
I dealt with Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei above, and as I pointed out he states the Eucharist is the "real presence" and not the other presences even though they are real. It is the "real presence" because Christ is substantially present. That comes in the next half of the sentence where you stopped. So Paul VI is saying that only the Eucharist should be referred to as the "real presence" of Christ. Unfortunately, many commentators have misrepresented the Pope on this.
As I said above and Thomas is saying: Individuals receive Christ to be united to Him in order to be saved. They do not receive Christ in order to be united to their neighbor. The union with other members of the Mystical Body is obviously brought about, because of our union with Christ, but our end is union with God, not with our neighbor.
Let me put it this way. If I were the only human to be in the Beatific Vision at the end of time (obviously I am using a hypothetical that can not be), knowing that all else are damned would not bother me in the least. The point I am trying to make is that union with Christ in the end is the only *essential* thing. The other things (union with others in the Church) are not essential, although they are wonderful.
Finally, I agree that about emphasizing the different types of the presence of God. However, when this is done distinctions must be made. How is Christ present in the Congregation, in your soul, in the Eucharist or in a tree? I for example grew singing one bread one body. I heard all types of talk of unity with members of Church. Yet it was all symbolic to me, because I was never taught the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist. When as little as 30% of Catholics believe in the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, you are wasting your time worrying about the Eucharist overshadowing the other presences of Christ. If we are to believe the polls the Eucharist means very little the average Catholic. As I said previously if all Catholics had a firm belief in the “real presence,” the Bishop might have a point. But that time is past. We have had 40 years of talking about other presences and we know what that has got us. When no distinction is made between the presence of Christ in your home and in the Bible and in the Mass, surprise! people no longer go to Mass. They can get more out of reading the Word at home. I think we need to stop reading pastoral solutions for problems that existed in the Church 50 years ago, and ask if we now have new problems that require new solutions. As I said, the Bishop seems to be stuck in time, back in the 50s.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Oct 6, 2005 7:03:08 PM
"I hate false dichotomies, but most people adore them (pun intended)".
Actually, would-be journalist-stars on the make who are theological illiterates adore them the most (no names mentioned...)
Posted by: Charles A. at Oct 6, 2005 7:46:12 PM
Christoper, that was an excellent analysis.
Too bad you're not a cardinal; then we would be able to watch you called 'heterodox' by theologically illiterate would-be media stars.
Posted by: Charles A. at Oct 6, 2005 7:48:46 PM
Dear Christopher,
Of course, Jesus Christ is only present in the Eucharist substantially ("whole and entire, God and man"), but Mysterium Fidei does suggest that the other presences of Christ are indeed "real."
Once more, it seems as though St Thomas, in his definition of the res sacramenti - "the unity of the Mystical Body" - would suggest that union with Christ is achieved through unity with the Church, which, after all, is not another, lesser reality alongside the Mystical Body of Christ. Otherwise, there would clearly be an "entering into salvation outside the Church." And the Church is at once the sign and instrument of "a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race," not an aggregate of individuals. So, once again, I do not see how there can be an "individual" reception of the Eucharist - there is no union with God that leaves the neighbor unafffected.
"If I were the only human to be in the Beatific Vision at the end of time" is a hypothetical so incomprehensible (one would have to simply disregard the Preface to the Eucharistic Prayer, Mariology, and the Biblical descriptions of heaven as a communal banquet of joy, among other things) that I do not know what sort of argument could be based upon it.
As the sociologist James Davidson has written, the claim that only 30% of Catholic believe in the Real Presence, based on a 1992 and a 1994 poll, is quite flawed. He writes of seven more recent studies:
"And unlike the 1992 and 1994 surveys, these studies all indicate that a majority of Catholics, including young Catholics, continue to embrace this core church teaching on the Real Presence. In 1994, colleagues and I asked Catholic parishioners in Indiana to respond to this statement: 'In Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.' Eighty-seven percent agreed. In 1997, when Dean Hoge, William Dinges, Mary Johnson, and Juan Gonzales used the same item in their study of twenty-to-thirty-nine-year-old Catholic confirmands, they found that 96 percent of Latinos and 87 percent of non-Latinos agreed (see Hoge et al., Young Adult Catholics, 2001). That same year, the Roper polling company found that 82 percent of American Catholics believe that 'The bread and wine used in Mass are actually transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.' A national poll conducted this year by CARA (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) concludes that 70 percent of Catholics twenty years of age and older believe that 'Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist,' while 30 percent of those polled believe 'The bread and wine are symbols of Jesus, but Jesus is not really present.'"
And, as I have written above, isolating the Eucharistic Presence might actually be destructive to belief in it. An isolated Real Presence might become relatively meaningless, since it will then lose much of its connection with reality - perhaps, even worse, it will tend to strip reality, including our experiences of ecclesial belonging and listening to the Word of God, of any theological significance altogether, leaving only a few intensified moments of reception and adoration.
Does this make sense? (I've written it very quickly.) Thanks.
Neil
Posted by: Neil at Oct 6, 2005 8:43:15 PM
Christopher, it sounds like much of your reaction is based on your experience (my jaw dropped on reading that "a Bishop in Florida ban Eucharistic adoration in his diocese because it detracts from the presence of Christ in the priest."
That clearly has lost its focus. However, don't let someone else's (even a bishop's) off base belief have you create or perpetuate false dichotomies or deny Christ's presence in the other ways.
It's late (for me), so I'll just note one specific, that "as a Catholic I must put my salvation above even the unity of the Church" is a statement that is inconsistent with Church teaching.
Posted by: Mary Kay at Oct 6, 2005 9:24:44 PM
Christopher:
First of all, MF 39 simply does not say that only the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist - not his other "presences" - is called "real." It clarifies the unique sense in which the Eucharistic presence is "real" - but it doesn't say that you can't use "real presence" to refer to other presences.
And second - speaking of distinctions - I've said this before and I'll say it again: Bp. Lynch, for all his faults, did not ban or otherwise restrict "adoration." He restricted perpetual exposition. You don't need exposition at all to have adoration (and you certainly don't need perpetual exposition). I'm not saying exposition isn't good - it is very good. And it is also good when there are places of perpetual exposition. But please get Lynch's action right before you criticize it. (It's also worth noting, though, regarding the criticism, that his restrictions on perpetual exposition appear to be largely based on Rome's instructions to the USCCB.)
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Oct 6, 2005 9:54:46 PM
Mary Kay,
Could you cite anywhere in Church teaching, where the faithful are taught that there are some goods that must be put above even their own salvation? I really do not think you will be able to find such a statement.
Second, I am not the one drawing a false dichotomy. It was the Bishop of Lourdes that was concerned that an emphasis on the "real presence" could detract from other presences of Christ. If you read my previous statements, it is clear that I understand about Christ's other presences and want them to be taught. I only want distinctions to be made, because there are priests in their zeal to defend the presence of Christ in the Gospels (as one example) give the impression to the faithful that there is equality of presence between the Eucharist and Gospel proclamation. I do not see the prudence or necessity of downplaying the Eucharist in order boost something else. You can do both, but only if the proper theological distinctions are made.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Oct 7, 2005 7:44:48 AM
Dear Mr. Miller,
I am sorry but Paul VI is clear:
“But there is another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all the others. It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is, for this reason, "a more consoling source of devotion, a lovelier object of contemplation and holier in what it contains" (39) than all the other sacraments; for it contains Christ Himself and it is "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments." (40)
39. This presence is called "real" not to exclude the idea that the others are "real" too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man.”
Notice Mr. Miller the Eucharistic Presence is the only one that is called real. The Pope is saying this does not mean that other presences are not real, but there is a special reason why only the Eucharistic presence is called real “because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man.” “Real Presence” has become a precise theological term that only applies only to the Eucharist. As the Pope said this does not mean that other presences are not real, however they are still not called the “real presence.”
With regard to Bishop Lynch: The document you cite is undated, I would be interested to know when the answers were give. Also the document does not discourage Perpetual Adoration, it only gives the norms that should be followed (most of which seem to be written to protect the Sacrament). Finally, it leaves up to the Bishop the prudence in allowing or disallowing the practice. This means Bishop Lynch will have to take responsibility for his action. Rome did not seem to take sides (although in the John Paul II’s encyclical on the Eucharist, I thought he encouraged adoration outside of Mass).
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Oct 7, 2005 8:00:54 AM
And I'll say it again:
Lynch's directive on PA sets up a number of subjective hoops for a parish to jump through, including--and I am not making this up--an assessment of the gusto with which the faithful sing. Given the obvious bent of the diocesan offices, this makes the institution PA effectively impossible. We set aside for another day the gobsmacking theological and historical ignorance displayed in the directive.
The proof of the impossibility is this: there is no PA anywhere in his diocese. But it is a great place to get no-bid church contracts and expert testimony on euthanasia, I have to admit.
Posted by: Dale Price at Oct 7, 2005 9:56:36 AM
Christopher, since this is off the main page, you may not see this, but I wanted to respond to you.
Let me remind you what your initial comment was: "as a Catholic I must put my salvation above even the unity of the Church."
Funny, I wanted to ask you where in Church teaching gives you permission to put your salvation over unity.
No place did I say that "the faithful are taught that there are some goods that must be put above even their own salvation."
My comment was that separating unity from salvation is inconsistent with Church teaching. That's what I meant by a false dichotomy.
You may want to re-read the 2nd reading for Sunday, September 25 which is taken from Phillipians 2:1-11. I'll quote just verses 2 through 4, added emphasis mine:
...complete my (Paul's) joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing.
Do nothing out of selfishness or out of vainglory; rather humbly regard others as more important than yourselves, each looking out not for his own interests, but also for those of others.
There are also the at least two Vatican documents that talk about the disunity among Christians as "grievous wounds" or language to that effect.
And then of course, there is always the "what do you mean by unity?" Does it mean license for "anything goes?" No, of course not.
It DOES mean praying and working that unity can be achieved. But if you put your salvation "above" unity, you're putting yourself above that prayer and work.
As for the bishop of Lourdes, I think you may be overly hasty to assume what he meant, especially given that the translation was not particularly good.
That the Eucharistic Real Presence is different that the presence in the Gospel goes without saying. But whenever I hear someone make comments similar to yours, it sounds like they are downplaying Christ's presence in Scripture.
I have an example to go with that, but since this post is already overlong, I'll leave it for another time.
Posted by: Mary Kay at Oct 7, 2005 4:33:20 PM
