Some Conservative Talk
My job allows me to catch short segments on talk radio as I drive from point to point. Recently, I heard the morning show hosts discussing particular elements of Catholic teaching as apparently presented by one of the many so-called experts commenting on Pope Benedict’s visit to the United States. The gist of his comments were as follows: According to Catholic teaching, God made sexual relations pleasurable so that man would have a desire to reproduce, and having sexual relations strictly for pleasure is a sin. He went on to propose that God made eating pleasurable so that man would take nourishment for survival, and therefore, for Catholics, eating strictly for pleasure is also a sin. The co-host, who happens to be the host’s wife, responded by saying, “I’m sure glad we are Protestants! How can Catholics even enjoy a candy bar?”
These comments were made in a light-hearted way, but underneath, one detects the commonly held stereotypical notion that many Catholic beliefs are nonsense. The host making this observation is politically conservative. I am sure he would tell you he believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. He gets upset when judges legislate from the bench through liberal interpretations of the law. He disdains liberal protesters who undermine our nation and disrespect authority. He has great respect for the Founding Fathers, and for the Office of the Presidency. He is Pro-Life. He is a solid upstanding American.
It seems to me that anyone who considers himself a politically conservative Christian ought to be Catholic! One who holds the Office of the Presidency in high regard should hold the Office of the Papacy even higher. One who respects the wisdom of the Founding Fathers should also respect the wisdom of the Church Fathers. One who does not like judges interpreting law to suit their own political beliefs should not tolerate preachers interpreting the Bible to suit their own religious beliefs. One who respects the law of the land should also respect the doctrines of the Church.
When conservatives defend their Second Amendment Rights, liberals will often say the founders were thinking of muskets when they established the right to bear arms. The liberal says times have changed and interpretations of that law need to be adapted to the world in which we now live while the conservative holds fast to the historical interpretation. While the conservative remains firm against gun control, today he is unlikely to take a stand against artificial birth control. Yet prior to 1930, artificial birth control was taboo even for most Protestants. Do they realize how much their Scriptural interpretations have strayed from historical Christianity?
It’s been nearly 500 years since Luther started the Protestant revolt. Since then, split after split has taken much of Christianity far from its Catholic roots. For many Protestants today, Catholicism is no longer on their radar screen. They do not recognize the historical Church and therefore do not give it consideration. Self-interpretation of Scripture has enabled them to become worldly. This secularization is now so ingrained that relinquishing any of the acquired worldly pleasures in submission to a higher authority is unacceptable to them.
Conservatives yearning for absolute truth, respecting the clear demarcation between right and wrong, willing to place the good of the nation ahead of their personal agenda, yielding to the written law and those who protect it, would also find great spiritual comfort in the Catholic Faith. Our forefathers rejected the authority of the British to rule over us. The British rejected the authority of the Church to govern their spiritual life. The challenge to conservative ideals resulting from a self-centered rejection of the common good, may be rooted in a self-centered rejection of an authoritative Church.
I would like to challenge the political conservatives to take their conservatism one step farther. Take a serious look at the one true Church, established and given authority by Jesus Christ Himself. If you believe our nation was founded on Christian principles, and you believe in holding fast to those principles without capitulation, you should also pledge allegiance to the only Church that has continued to hold fast to those Christian principles without capitulation. To be consistently a true conservative and a true Christian requires allegiance to our Nation and fidelity to the Catholic Church.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Easter Vigilance
Well, my catechumen is now a neophyte! The Easter Vigil is over and the young lady I helped to prepare for the Sacraments of Initiation is a new Catholic. The experience was extremely rewarding for me personally. I hope my contribution to her catechesis was sufficient so that she be inspired to continue to grow in the Faith we are blessed to share.
All of this came about through my participation in a weekly Faith Enhancement class which suddenly took a new direction when a seventeen year-old high school student showed up one day expressing a desire to join the Catholic Church. This happened several months into the class. I went from student to student-teacher in the span of one week. My primary responsibility came at the dismissal following the homily at the Sunday Liturgy. The customary Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) calls for dismissing unbaptized catechumens from the Sunday Mass after the homily for private instruction, usually centering on the Scripture readings for that particular day. Our pastor asked me to fill this role and I agreed.
The weekly Faith Enhancement classes doubled as RCIA preparation for our new catechumen. The textbook we were using was not intended for RCIA, so it became incumbent on all of us to focus attention on our new student by explaining topic of discussion in detail. Our responsibilities increased further when the priest leading the process became incapacitated about mid-way through Lent. Fortunately, one other classmate had prior experience as an RCIA instructor. With preparation time running out, we abandoned the original class synopsis and devoted all of our class time to our catechumen.
Having taken an interest in Catholic apologetics about fifteen years ago, I considered my above average in my understanding of Catholicism. A few weeks into the Faith Enhancement Class, I realized how ignorant I still am. Yes, I have a grasp of Church teaching. I know about the rubics and the GIRM. I know how to scripturally rebut most Protestant misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith. But, my understanding of the history of salvation, especially as revealed in the Old Testament, is woefully lacking. I consider myself a C-student in theological kindergarten.
When all one has to do is attend Mass each week, it is fairly easy to hide a lack of knowledge. The priest never passes out pop-quizzes after the homily to test our comprehension of the material. No one knows our Catholic GPA. Once I was thrust into service as a minister of catechesis, I was quickly humbled. Exposing oneself to even simple questions can lead to some embarrassing admissions of ignorance. If nothing else, I learned where my weaknesses lie, and gained a renewed interest in filling some of those gaps.
My personal shortcomings were not the only obstacles to adequate preparation of our catechumen. She entered the program late, just after Christmas. The class, already having been in progress for several months, was not designed for RCIA. Easter came unusually early this year, giving us even less time to prepare. The priest’s unexpected absence for the duration of Lent left us without pastoral leadership. Despite all of this, I think we rose to the occasion. The one class participant with RCIA teaching experience took control during the final weeks and did a wonderful job leading the weekly sessions. When it came time for the Easter Vigil, we had covered the essentials with emphasis that growing in the Catholic Faith was a lifelong process. The Rites of Initiation are only the beginning, and we will continue with a period of mystagogy after Easter.
An elderly priest from our sister parish came to celebrate the Easter Vigil Liturgy. He told us he could not remember the last time he baptized an adult. During the afternoon rehearsal, we assisted him in following the various rites as prescribed in our missalettes. We were all a little confused at times, but we made notes and planned the liturgy as correctly as we knew how. Father was a bit frail in his advanced age, and having gone through a surgical heart procedure just before Christmas, we prayed that he would be able to tolerate the rather long Easter Vigil liturgy.
That night, we joyfully celebrated one of the most beautiful Easter Vigil liturgies I have ever witnessed. Father had obviously prepared himself well in the hours following the rehearsal. Our catechumen was Baptized, Confirmed, and made her First Holy Communion in the presence of God, family and friends. She selected Saint Therese of Lisieux as her patron and Father gave a lovely homily about the Little Flower. It was the perfect night. The alleluias rang out in celebration of the Lord’s Resurrection and we welcomed a new member to the Body of Christ. It doesn’t get any better than that!
Well, my catechumen is now a neophyte! The Easter Vigil is over and the young lady I helped to prepare for the Sacraments of Initiation is a new Catholic. The experience was extremely rewarding for me personally. I hope my contribution to her catechesis was sufficient so that she be inspired to continue to grow in the Faith we are blessed to share.
All of this came about through my participation in a weekly Faith Enhancement class which suddenly took a new direction when a seventeen year-old high school student showed up one day expressing a desire to join the Catholic Church. This happened several months into the class. I went from student to student-teacher in the span of one week. My primary responsibility came at the dismissal following the homily at the Sunday Liturgy. The customary Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) calls for dismissing unbaptized catechumens from the Sunday Mass after the homily for private instruction, usually centering on the Scripture readings for that particular day. Our pastor asked me to fill this role and I agreed.
The weekly Faith Enhancement classes doubled as RCIA preparation for our new catechumen. The textbook we were using was not intended for RCIA, so it became incumbent on all of us to focus attention on our new student by explaining topic of discussion in detail. Our responsibilities increased further when the priest leading the process became incapacitated about mid-way through Lent. Fortunately, one other classmate had prior experience as an RCIA instructor. With preparation time running out, we abandoned the original class synopsis and devoted all of our class time to our catechumen.
Having taken an interest in Catholic apologetics about fifteen years ago, I considered my above average in my understanding of Catholicism. A few weeks into the Faith Enhancement Class, I realized how ignorant I still am. Yes, I have a grasp of Church teaching. I know about the rubics and the GIRM. I know how to scripturally rebut most Protestant misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith. But, my understanding of the history of salvation, especially as revealed in the Old Testament, is woefully lacking. I consider myself a C-student in theological kindergarten.
When all one has to do is attend Mass each week, it is fairly easy to hide a lack of knowledge. The priest never passes out pop-quizzes after the homily to test our comprehension of the material. No one knows our Catholic GPA. Once I was thrust into service as a minister of catechesis, I was quickly humbled. Exposing oneself to even simple questions can lead to some embarrassing admissions of ignorance. If nothing else, I learned where my weaknesses lie, and gained a renewed interest in filling some of those gaps.
My personal shortcomings were not the only obstacles to adequate preparation of our catechumen. She entered the program late, just after Christmas. The class, already having been in progress for several months, was not designed for RCIA. Easter came unusually early this year, giving us even less time to prepare. The priest’s unexpected absence for the duration of Lent left us without pastoral leadership. Despite all of this, I think we rose to the occasion. The one class participant with RCIA teaching experience took control during the final weeks and did a wonderful job leading the weekly sessions. When it came time for the Easter Vigil, we had covered the essentials with emphasis that growing in the Catholic Faith was a lifelong process. The Rites of Initiation are only the beginning, and we will continue with a period of mystagogy after Easter.
An elderly priest from our sister parish came to celebrate the Easter Vigil Liturgy. He told us he could not remember the last time he baptized an adult. During the afternoon rehearsal, we assisted him in following the various rites as prescribed in our missalettes. We were all a little confused at times, but we made notes and planned the liturgy as correctly as we knew how. Father was a bit frail in his advanced age, and having gone through a surgical heart procedure just before Christmas, we prayed that he would be able to tolerate the rather long Easter Vigil liturgy.
That night, we joyfully celebrated one of the most beautiful Easter Vigil liturgies I have ever witnessed. Father had obviously prepared himself well in the hours following the rehearsal. Our catechumen was Baptized, Confirmed, and made her First Holy Communion in the presence of God, family and friends. She selected Saint Therese of Lisieux as her patron and Father gave a lovely homily about the Little Flower. It was the perfect night. The alleluias rang out in celebration of the Lord’s Resurrection and we welcomed a new member to the Body of Christ. It doesn’t get any better than that!
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Substance Abuse – The final word?
After spending the past couple of months writing about the nature of the Real Bodily Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, I was ready to move on to another topic this month, but then I opened the February 10, 2008 issue of the Northwest Indiana Catholic to page 15 and read a column by Rev. John Dietzen. A Catholic from California posed a question about something said in her parish Scripture study. The lady in charge told the class that Christ is equally present in Scripture as he is in the Eucharist. The questioner was confused. “I was always taught that Christ is uniquely present, soul and divinity, in the Eucharist. Besides, isn’t the Eucharist our focal point as Catholics?”
I immediately thought of Jimmy Akin’s September 14, 2006 blog which I cited in my December 30th entry where he talks about “Flattening the Real Presence” by equating it to other modes of his presence mentioned in Scripture and theology. As Mr. Akin put it, “To do so speaks of either gross ignorance of the faith or an agenda of some sort that is so strong it overrides what is patently obvious.”
Still confounded by our pastor’s insistence that Christ is present in other people the same way He is present in the Eucharist, I was anxious to see how Father Dietzen responded to this question. Surely he would explain the difference between Our Lord’s mystical presence and the unique substantive Presence in the Eucharistic species. I was disappointed in his answer to say the least. I have read it several times and I am still not sure what he is saying.
In his reply, Father Dietzen says, “Any presence of God, of the Trinity or of Jesus in the Bible or in the Eucharist or anywhere else is ‘unique’ in the sense that it is different from all other presences.” “Unique does not necessarily mean it is better or superior, just that there is nothing more perfect of its kind or class.” He goes on to say, “We also cannot speak of there being ‘more’ of Jesus in one place or another. God is indivisible.” Father Dietzen then cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Nos. 1084-1090) in stating that in the sacraments, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, our Lord is present in several ways. CCC 1088 specifically lists the ways Christ is present.
As I continued reading Father Dietzen’s answer, I again got this sense of flattening of the uniqueness of the Corporeal Presence in the Eucharist. Yes, he says our Lord is present “especially in the celebration of the Eucharist,” but he stresses Christ’s Presence in all these other ways, applying the word unique to describe them also. He goes on to say, “It is important to note that when the church speaks of the Eucharist in this context it does not mean primarily the simple presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species, as it is in the tabernacle, for example. It means most directly and essentially the sacrificial liturgy of the Eucharist, the celebration of Mass by the Catholic community.” That is not exactly what CCC1088 says.
Is the presence of Christ in these other ways “unique” as Father Dietzen says? I suppose one could say His spiritual presence is “unique” since He is there in ways we cannot perceive with our five senses. But we can say fluoride is present in our water in ways we cannot perceive with our senses. I have trouble understanding the uniqueness of this presence when we also say God is present everywhere. Are there varying degrees of uniqueness? I do understand the “uniqueness” of the presence in the Holy Eucharist where the substance is specifically defined as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus and the accidents are perceptible to the senses.
The Catechism says, “By his power he is present in the sacraments . . .” Water held back by a dam has potential energy. We cannot see the energy itself, but we can witness the effects of it when it is unleashed. Similarly, we cannot necessarily see the power of Christ in the sacraments, but we can know the effects. How this presence occurs is a mystery. Is it not better to leave it at that rather than confuse simple-minded lay people accustomed to a physical world where they can better grasp the truly unique substantial presence in the physical form of bread and wine?
If Christ cannot be “more” present one way or another, what does it mean when the Church says He is “especially” present in the Eucharistic species. The Corporeal Presence of Jesus under the appearances of bread and wine transubstantiated is what makes this form of His Presence truly unique. CCC 1374 addresses this issue, but Father Dietzen does not make reference to it in his reply.
Father Dietzen does not use any form of the word substance is his entire reply. How can anyone explain the uniqueness of the Eucharist Presence without talking about transubstantiation? I would love to speak to the person who posed the original question in the article to see whether he or she thought Father Dietzen’s answer was clearly stated. I found it confusing, ambiguous and serving to further “flatten” the Real Presence, as Jimmy Akin put it.
All of this brought me back to my questions about the nature of the substantial presence which I have been pondering for the past couple of months. A handout the priest gave us in our Faith Enhancement class last week listed various statements by St. Thomas Aquinas, the great thirteenth century philosopher of the Church. Some of his words made me revisit my view of substance and accidents that I wrote about last month.
I am not sure where these particular ideas attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas on the handout originated. Perhaps they are found in the Summa Theologiae. Assuming they were reproduced accurately, he defined Substance as “that which has an essence to which it belongs not to exist in a subject – is made to be by its causes.” The Accident is “that to whose essence it belongs to exist in a subject – does not have its own existence.” (Not having the actual sources, I should emphasize that I do not know whether the statements on this handout were actual Thomistic quotes or someone’s summarization of his work.)
In trying to understand substance, several other statements caught my attention. “Man exists and operates as one substance, an individual man has but one substantial form, and this is his rational soul.” “The human soul is both an intellectual substance and by its nature the form of the body.” “The human soul is a spiritual substance with its own being – incomplete in essence – incorruptible and immortal.”
When I wrote last month about the nature of Christ’s presence in the person following the corruption of the accidents, I reasoned that the substantial presence would cease because it could not exist without the accidents. Therefore, the substantial presence would have to cease after fifteen minutes or so when the accidents are corrupted. Reading these statements attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas raised further questions in my mind.
If the human soul is a substance, it can exist after death without an accidental form, right? So, substance would not necessarily have an accidental form? The Thomistic handout says, man is a composite, comprising both soul and body. The soul and body share the same being. So, what happens when the body and soul are separated? Since the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, is it somehow possible after the corruption of the accidents that the spiritual substance of Jesus remains with the person?
At this point, my head was spinning. I am not a philosopher. I am not well-read. Thomistic philosophy interests me, but I get lost quickly in trying to understand much of what he says. I decided to write down the question that started this whole discussion, and pose it to someone qualified to give me a simple answer. EWTN’s website has an Ask an Expert section where philosophy questions can be submitted. I posted the following question last week and within minutes, had my answer.
‘nuff said.
After spending the past couple of months writing about the nature of the Real Bodily Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, I was ready to move on to another topic this month, but then I opened the February 10, 2008 issue of the Northwest Indiana Catholic to page 15 and read a column by Rev. John Dietzen. A Catholic from California posed a question about something said in her parish Scripture study. The lady in charge told the class that Christ is equally present in Scripture as he is in the Eucharist. The questioner was confused. “I was always taught that Christ is uniquely present, soul and divinity, in the Eucharist. Besides, isn’t the Eucharist our focal point as Catholics?”
I immediately thought of Jimmy Akin’s September 14, 2006 blog which I cited in my December 30th entry where he talks about “Flattening the Real Presence” by equating it to other modes of his presence mentioned in Scripture and theology. As Mr. Akin put it, “To do so speaks of either gross ignorance of the faith or an agenda of some sort that is so strong it overrides what is patently obvious.”
Still confounded by our pastor’s insistence that Christ is present in other people the same way He is present in the Eucharist, I was anxious to see how Father Dietzen responded to this question. Surely he would explain the difference between Our Lord’s mystical presence and the unique substantive Presence in the Eucharistic species. I was disappointed in his answer to say the least. I have read it several times and I am still not sure what he is saying.
In his reply, Father Dietzen says, “Any presence of God, of the Trinity or of Jesus in the Bible or in the Eucharist or anywhere else is ‘unique’ in the sense that it is different from all other presences.” “Unique does not necessarily mean it is better or superior, just that there is nothing more perfect of its kind or class.” He goes on to say, “We also cannot speak of there being ‘more’ of Jesus in one place or another. God is indivisible.” Father Dietzen then cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Nos. 1084-1090) in stating that in the sacraments, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, our Lord is present in several ways. CCC 1088 specifically lists the ways Christ is present.
As I continued reading Father Dietzen’s answer, I again got this sense of flattening of the uniqueness of the Corporeal Presence in the Eucharist. Yes, he says our Lord is present “especially in the celebration of the Eucharist,” but he stresses Christ’s Presence in all these other ways, applying the word unique to describe them also. He goes on to say, “It is important to note that when the church speaks of the Eucharist in this context it does not mean primarily the simple presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species, as it is in the tabernacle, for example. It means most directly and essentially the sacrificial liturgy of the Eucharist, the celebration of Mass by the Catholic community.” That is not exactly what CCC1088 says.
CCC1088: “To accomplish so great a work” – the dispensation or communication of his work of salvation – “Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, ‘the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,’ but especially 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 the 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.’” (Sacrosanctum concilium; Matthew 18:20)
Is the presence of Christ in these other ways “unique” as Father Dietzen says? I suppose one could say His spiritual presence is “unique” since He is there in ways we cannot perceive with our five senses. But we can say fluoride is present in our water in ways we cannot perceive with our senses. I have trouble understanding the uniqueness of this presence when we also say God is present everywhere. Are there varying degrees of uniqueness? I do understand the “uniqueness” of the presence in the Holy Eucharist where the substance is specifically defined as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus and the accidents are perceptible to the senses.
The Catechism says, “By his power he is present in the sacraments . . .” Water held back by a dam has potential energy. We cannot see the energy itself, but we can witness the effects of it when it is unleashed. Similarly, we cannot necessarily see the power of Christ in the sacraments, but we can know the effects. How this presence occurs is a mystery. Is it not better to leave it at that rather than confuse simple-minded lay people accustomed to a physical world where they can better grasp the truly unique substantial presence in the physical form of bread and wine?
If Christ cannot be “more” present one way or another, what does it mean when the Church says He is “especially” present in the Eucharistic species. The Corporeal Presence of Jesus under the appearances of bread and wine transubstantiated is what makes this form of His Presence truly unique. CCC 1374 addresses this issue, but Father Dietzen does not make reference to it in his reply.
CCC1374: The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments to “the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.” In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.” “This presence is called ‘real’ –by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
Father Dietzen does not use any form of the word substance is his entire reply. How can anyone explain the uniqueness of the Eucharist Presence without talking about transubstantiation? I would love to speak to the person who posed the original question in the article to see whether he or she thought Father Dietzen’s answer was clearly stated. I found it confusing, ambiguous and serving to further “flatten” the Real Presence, as Jimmy Akin put it.
All of this brought me back to my questions about the nature of the substantial presence which I have been pondering for the past couple of months. A handout the priest gave us in our Faith Enhancement class last week listed various statements by St. Thomas Aquinas, the great thirteenth century philosopher of the Church. Some of his words made me revisit my view of substance and accidents that I wrote about last month.
I am not sure where these particular ideas attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas on the handout originated. Perhaps they are found in the Summa Theologiae. Assuming they were reproduced accurately, he defined Substance as “that which has an essence to which it belongs not to exist in a subject – is made to be by its causes.” The Accident is “that to whose essence it belongs to exist in a subject – does not have its own existence.” (Not having the actual sources, I should emphasize that I do not know whether the statements on this handout were actual Thomistic quotes or someone’s summarization of his work.)
In trying to understand substance, several other statements caught my attention. “Man exists and operates as one substance, an individual man has but one substantial form, and this is his rational soul.” “The human soul is both an intellectual substance and by its nature the form of the body.” “The human soul is a spiritual substance with its own being – incomplete in essence – incorruptible and immortal.”
When I wrote last month about the nature of Christ’s presence in the person following the corruption of the accidents, I reasoned that the substantial presence would cease because it could not exist without the accidents. Therefore, the substantial presence would have to cease after fifteen minutes or so when the accidents are corrupted. Reading these statements attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas raised further questions in my mind.
If the human soul is a substance, it can exist after death without an accidental form, right? So, substance would not necessarily have an accidental form? The Thomistic handout says, man is a composite, comprising both soul and body. The soul and body share the same being. So, what happens when the body and soul are separated? Since the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, is it somehow possible after the corruption of the accidents that the spiritual substance of Jesus remains with the person?
At this point, my head was spinning. I am not a philosopher. I am not well-read. Thomistic philosophy interests me, but I get lost quickly in trying to understand much of what he says. I decided to write down the question that started this whole discussion, and pose it to someone qualified to give me a simple answer. EWTN’s website has an Ask an Expert section where philosophy questions can be submitted. I posted the following question last week and within minutes, had my answer.
Christ's Substantial Presence
Question from Richard A. on 2/18/2008:
During a Faith Enhancement Class, our parish priest spoke of seeing “Eucharist” in other people as members of the Body of Christ. This led to questions about the Eucharistic Presence in the person following the reception of Holy Communion. Our priest stated that the Eucharistic Presence remains in the person as long as the person remains in a state of grace. It was my belief that Christ remains present in some mystical way, but the substantial Presence remains only until the accidents are corrupted by the digestive process, approximately 15 minutes after consumption. The priest vehemently disagreed saying that Christ’s Presence in the human person continues to be a substantial Presence beyond the corruption of the accidents.
I have been searching this site and a number of other sources, including Thomas Aquinas, looking for clarification on this, and I find myself still confused. If the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ (substance), and substance does not require accidents to exist (i.e. the soul), is it correct to say the Christ’s ongoing Presence in the human person is substantial? If so, what actually ceases to exist after the corruption of the accidents?
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 2/18/2008:
Dear Richard,
You were right and the priest was wrong.
Dr. Geraghty
COPYRIGHT 2008
‘nuff said.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
More Substantial Thought
Last month I wrote about a lively discussion with our parish priest about the Eucharistic Presence of Christ in the human person. He seemed to take the position that Christ’s Substantial Presence remains in the person beyond the existence of the accidents. The key word here is substantial, meaning the substance of Christ’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity. While I am confident he expressed a view contrary to Church teaching, it did cause me to further ponder the mystery.
It occurred to me that substance could not exist without accidents and, not being well versed on Thomistic philosophy, I began searching for someone who was in order to confirm my belief. An internet search turned up the Thomistic Philosophy Page by Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D, the Director of Campus Ministry at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. He earned his Ph.D. from the Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of Saint Thomas, Houston, Texas, and is author of the book Unmixing the Intellect: Aristotle on Cognitive Powers and Bodily Organs. In his discourse on substance and accidents, he says the following:
So there! When transubstantiated at the Consecration, the substance of bread and wine no longer exists while the accidents remain. After consumption, the digestive process eventually destroys the accidents. Once the accidents appearing as bread and wine no longer exist, neither does the substance. If the substance were to continue in existence beyond this point, it would necessarily be under a different form. For the substance to remain, it would have to have accidents. (I rethink some of this next month -- see my February 24, 2008 entry)
Could God do this if He wanted to? Of course, but no such substantial transformation in the human person has ever been revealed or taught by the Church. Renowned Catholic author Frank J. Sheed says the following in an excerpt posted by EWTN from one of his writings:
I would love to revisit this topic with our priest again, but our class has taken a new direction. Last week a parishioner brought her seventeen year-old granddaughter to our class. She wants to become Catholic and after an interview, our priest has determined she is sufficiently prepared to enter the Church this Easter despite getting a very late start in her catechesis. Mavis and I are blessed to serve as her catechists. We have only a few precious weeks to prepare her for the Sacraments of Initiation. During our session with her this evening, we discussed the distinction between substance and accidents. We want to make sure she understands.
Last month I wrote about a lively discussion with our parish priest about the Eucharistic Presence of Christ in the human person. He seemed to take the position that Christ’s Substantial Presence remains in the person beyond the existence of the accidents. The key word here is substantial, meaning the substance of Christ’s Body Blood Soul and Divinity. While I am confident he expressed a view contrary to Church teaching, it did cause me to further ponder the mystery.
It occurred to me that substance could not exist without accidents and, not being well versed on Thomistic philosophy, I began searching for someone who was in order to confirm my belief. An internet search turned up the Thomistic Philosophy Page by Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D, the Director of Campus Ministry at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. He earned his Ph.D. from the Center for Thomistic Studies at the University of Saint Thomas, Houston, Texas, and is author of the book Unmixing the Intellect: Aristotle on Cognitive Powers and Bodily Organs. In his discourse on substance and accidents, he says the following:
One never finds any substance that we experience without some accidents, nor an accident that is not the accident of a substance.
So there! When transubstantiated at the Consecration, the substance of bread and wine no longer exists while the accidents remain. After consumption, the digestive process eventually destroys the accidents. Once the accidents appearing as bread and wine no longer exist, neither does the substance. If the substance were to continue in existence beyond this point, it would necessarily be under a different form. For the substance to remain, it would have to have accidents. (I rethink some of this next month -- see my February 24, 2008 entry)
Could God do this if He wanted to? Of course, but no such substantial transformation in the human person has ever been revealed or taught by the Church. Renowned Catholic author Frank J. Sheed says the following in an excerpt posted by EWTN from one of his writings:
Christ's body remains in the communicant as long as the accidents remain themselves. Where, in the normal action of our bodily processes, they are so changed as to be no longer accidents of bread or accidents of wine, the Real Presence in us of Christ's own individual body ceases. But we live on in his Mystical Body. -Taken from Theology for Beginners (c) 1981 by Frank J. Sheed, Chapter 18.
I would love to revisit this topic with our priest again, but our class has taken a new direction. Last week a parishioner brought her seventeen year-old granddaughter to our class. She wants to become Catholic and after an interview, our priest has determined she is sufficiently prepared to enter the Church this Easter despite getting a very late start in her catechesis. Mavis and I are blessed to serve as her catechists. We have only a few precious weeks to prepare her for the Sacraments of Initiation. During our session with her this evening, we discussed the distinction between substance and accidents. We want to make sure she understands.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Christ’s Mass Presence
I recently wrote about our parish adult formation class that I have been attending. (See Sailing . . .October 27, 2007). The group began with just two of us plus our pastor. We were later joined by a couple from a nearby parish and the five of us have been studying Bishop Charles J. Chaput’s book, Living the Catholic Faith. The class has been quite interesting and the discussion quite spirited at times.
As I stated in my earlier post, the other parishioner (I’ll call her Mavis) and I have occasionally been at odds with our pastor concerning his expression of Catholic teaching. We try to be very orthodox in our Catholic belief and our pastor can be a bit liberal in his thinking. The new participants are long-time friends of our pastor and tend to think along the same lines. The wife is quite reserved while her husband is just the opposite. He keeps the class lively and is never at a loss for words. Some of his comments have drawn terse reaction from Mavis who can be somewhat cantankerous at times.
Our most recent sessions have focused on the Eucharist. At the close of one meeting, Father talked about “being Eucharist to one another” and “seeing Eucharist” in others. A few days after the class, Mavis asked me what Father meant by “seeing Eucharist” in other people. She pointed out that Eucharist literally means thanksgiving and asked how we see thanksgiving in others. I agreed that applying the term Eucharist to our vision of Christ’s presence in other people was confusing to say the least. Even if one can make the argument that such an expression is appropriate by some definition of the word, we both agreed that doing so can only diminish the sanctity of belief the unique Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
The following week, our session was progressing quite smoothly when Mavis said, “By the way Father, what did you mean last week when you talked about seeing Eucharist in others?” Father replied that Jesus is present is all of us. “But not in the same way He is present in the Eucharistic species,” Mavis interjected. “Yes, He is,” Father responded. Now I had to chime in. “Not substantially present,” I said looking for clarification. Again, Father responded that Jesus presence in others was substantial. Trying to assure myself that we were just misunderstanding each other, I stated that Jesus could be substantially present for fifteen minutes or so after receiving the Holy Eucharist. But again, Father reaffirmed his statement that the substantial Presence of Jesus exists in all of us beyond our reception of the Holy Eucharist.
I was astounded by what I was hearing. “So then, why shouldn’t I genuflect to those sitting around this table the same way I would genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament?” I asked. “You can do that,” Father replied. I could not believe my ears, and to complicate matters, the other gentleman at the table was agreeing with Father. “That’s heresy,” I said. By this time, Father’s face was red. He told me I was the one with the heretical belief. He started to express his frustration with me when I suggested we all calm down and discuss this further at a later time.
I didn’t sleep well that night. Many questions came to mind. Knowing what the Church teaches about transubstantiation, how can a Catholic priest believe that Christ is substantially present in others beyond the temporary Real Presence after the reception of Holy Communion? After transubstantiation occurs, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist and only the accidents remain. As understood and affirmed by the Council of Trent, the substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic species continues until the accidents are no longer intact, either as a result of consumption or natural deterioration. It seems to be generally taught that the Real Presence continues for about fifteen minutes after consumption. Then, how is it possible for Our Lord to be substantially present in a person beyond that point? Once the species of bread and wine are digested and no longer exist, how can the substantial Presence continue and under what form does it exist if it is not bread and wine?
The only conclusion I could reach was that our priest was just plain wrong. I began to look for evidence to present at our next session since I knew he would not accept me at my word. What I found confused me even more. Searching the EWTN website, I found an answer written by Father Robert J. Levis (08-31-2007) which said, “ . . . , The sacramental presence of Jesus remains about 15 minutes within us, as long as the species lasts.” Okay so far. Then he says, “The real presence, Jesus’ presence itself remains till mortal sin destroys it.”
The last sentence says the “real presence” (often capitalized when referring to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ) remains. Using the term “real presence” as he does can be understood to indicate the Eucharistic Bodily Presence of Jesus remains in the person as long as that person remains in a state of grace. I have to assume Father Levis is referring to a spiritual presence remaining as opposed to a substantial or bodily presence which he calls sacramental in the first sentence.
In search of clarification, I found another answer by Father Robert J. Levis (12-10-2005) to a similar question on the EWTN website where he says the “Eucharistic elements” remain with us for about fifteen minutes after reception. He goes on to say, “It is ideal to spend these few precious moments with Jesus in the Eucharist temporarily present within us, or for at least some of this time.” This affirms my statement to Father that the Real Bodily Eucharistic Presence in the person is only temporary.
My confidence in understanding the Real Presence comes from my rudimentary familiarization with the philosophical difference between substance and accidents as proposed by Aristotle. In transubstantiation, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist while the accidents or physical properties of bread and wine remain. The substance becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and continues until such time the accidents are corrupted. When I used the word “substantial” in my argument with Father, I was using it as a technical term derived from this philosophy.
While searching for more information on the topic, I came across an essay on the Adoremus website by Avery Cardinal Dulles which confused me a little more. In referring to the Substantial Presence as affirmed by the Council of Trent, he says the following:
Regardless of how one understands the meaning of substance, the Eucharistic Jesus is a unique corporeal presence that surpasses all other forms. This same issue was addressed in the Blog of Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin (September 14, 2006). In an entry titled Flattening the Real Presence, he was asked how to verbalize the difference between Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist as opposed to his presence where two or three are gathered or in the faces of the poor. He begins by saying this is not an easy question to answer because Jesus did not provide us with details in describing the manner of his presence in those other situations, but he goes on to say that Jesus’ presence in others is less than the full reality of his presence in the Eucharist. Mr. Akin says the following:
As evidence for the unique way Christ is present in the Eucharist, Mr. Akin highlights several statements from several sources, the first being the Compendium of the Catholic Catechism where it states that “Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way.” (#282) He also cites the Catechism itself. "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present." (CCC 1374) He also refers to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium Fidei which says, “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” [38].
So, what have I learned after contemplating all of this? To a novice philosopher like me, it seems the substance does not exist apart from the accidents. Therefore, when the accidents no longer remain, neither does the substance. If the form of bread and wine become corrupted after about fifteen minutes of digestion, the substantial form of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus is no longer present in that form. Beyond that, Jesus can still be present in one who remains in a state of grace in some other form, but how this occurs is a mystery. I am still confident in my statement that Christ’s substantial presence in the human person is only temporary, but I am less confident that I will be able to win an argument with our pastor.
I recently wrote about our parish adult formation class that I have been attending. (See Sailing . . .October 27, 2007). The group began with just two of us plus our pastor. We were later joined by a couple from a nearby parish and the five of us have been studying Bishop Charles J. Chaput’s book, Living the Catholic Faith. The class has been quite interesting and the discussion quite spirited at times.
As I stated in my earlier post, the other parishioner (I’ll call her Mavis) and I have occasionally been at odds with our pastor concerning his expression of Catholic teaching. We try to be very orthodox in our Catholic belief and our pastor can be a bit liberal in his thinking. The new participants are long-time friends of our pastor and tend to think along the same lines. The wife is quite reserved while her husband is just the opposite. He keeps the class lively and is never at a loss for words. Some of his comments have drawn terse reaction from Mavis who can be somewhat cantankerous at times.
Our most recent sessions have focused on the Eucharist. At the close of one meeting, Father talked about “being Eucharist to one another” and “seeing Eucharist” in others. A few days after the class, Mavis asked me what Father meant by “seeing Eucharist” in other people. She pointed out that Eucharist literally means thanksgiving and asked how we see thanksgiving in others. I agreed that applying the term Eucharist to our vision of Christ’s presence in other people was confusing to say the least. Even if one can make the argument that such an expression is appropriate by some definition of the word, we both agreed that doing so can only diminish the sanctity of belief the unique Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.
The following week, our session was progressing quite smoothly when Mavis said, “By the way Father, what did you mean last week when you talked about seeing Eucharist in others?” Father replied that Jesus is present is all of us. “But not in the same way He is present in the Eucharistic species,” Mavis interjected. “Yes, He is,” Father responded. Now I had to chime in. “Not substantially present,” I said looking for clarification. Again, Father responded that Jesus presence in others was substantial. Trying to assure myself that we were just misunderstanding each other, I stated that Jesus could be substantially present for fifteen minutes or so after receiving the Holy Eucharist. But again, Father reaffirmed his statement that the substantial Presence of Jesus exists in all of us beyond our reception of the Holy Eucharist.
I was astounded by what I was hearing. “So then, why shouldn’t I genuflect to those sitting around this table the same way I would genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament?” I asked. “You can do that,” Father replied. I could not believe my ears, and to complicate matters, the other gentleman at the table was agreeing with Father. “That’s heresy,” I said. By this time, Father’s face was red. He told me I was the one with the heretical belief. He started to express his frustration with me when I suggested we all calm down and discuss this further at a later time.
I didn’t sleep well that night. Many questions came to mind. Knowing what the Church teaches about transubstantiation, how can a Catholic priest believe that Christ is substantially present in others beyond the temporary Real Presence after the reception of Holy Communion? After transubstantiation occurs, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist and only the accidents remain. As understood and affirmed by the Council of Trent, the substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic species continues until the accidents are no longer intact, either as a result of consumption or natural deterioration. It seems to be generally taught that the Real Presence continues for about fifteen minutes after consumption. Then, how is it possible for Our Lord to be substantially present in a person beyond that point? Once the species of bread and wine are digested and no longer exist, how can the substantial Presence continue and under what form does it exist if it is not bread and wine?
The only conclusion I could reach was that our priest was just plain wrong. I began to look for evidence to present at our next session since I knew he would not accept me at my word. What I found confused me even more. Searching the EWTN website, I found an answer written by Father Robert J. Levis (08-31-2007) which said, “ . . . , The sacramental presence of Jesus remains about 15 minutes within us, as long as the species lasts.” Okay so far. Then he says, “The real presence, Jesus’ presence itself remains till mortal sin destroys it.”
The last sentence says the “real presence” (often capitalized when referring to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ) remains. Using the term “real presence” as he does can be understood to indicate the Eucharistic Bodily Presence of Jesus remains in the person as long as that person remains in a state of grace. I have to assume Father Levis is referring to a spiritual presence remaining as opposed to a substantial or bodily presence which he calls sacramental in the first sentence.
In search of clarification, I found another answer by Father Robert J. Levis (12-10-2005) to a similar question on the EWTN website where he says the “Eucharistic elements” remain with us for about fifteen minutes after reception. He goes on to say, “It is ideal to spend these few precious moments with Jesus in the Eucharist temporarily present within us, or for at least some of this time.” This affirms my statement to Father that the Real Bodily Eucharistic Presence in the person is only temporary.
My confidence in understanding the Real Presence comes from my rudimentary familiarization with the philosophical difference between substance and accidents as proposed by Aristotle. In transubstantiation, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist while the accidents or physical properties of bread and wine remain. The substance becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and continues until such time the accidents are corrupted. When I used the word “substantial” in my argument with Father, I was using it as a technical term derived from this philosophy.
While searching for more information on the topic, I came across an essay on the Adoremus website by Avery Cardinal Dulles which confused me a little more. In referring to the Substantial Presence as affirmed by the Council of Trent, he says the following:
. . . . Trent tells us that Christ's presence in the sacrament is substantial. The word "substance" as here used is not a technical philosophical term, such as might be found in the philosophy of Aristotle. It was used in the early Middle Ages long before the works of Aristotle were current. "Substance" in common-sense usage denotes the basic reality of the thing, i.e., what it is in itself. Derived from the Latin root "sub-stare", it means what stands under the appearances, which can shift from one moment to the next while leaving the subject intact.
Regardless of how one understands the meaning of substance, the Eucharistic Jesus is a unique corporeal presence that surpasses all other forms. This same issue was addressed in the Blog of Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin (September 14, 2006). In an entry titled Flattening the Real Presence, he was asked how to verbalize the difference between Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist as opposed to his presence where two or three are gathered or in the faces of the poor. He begins by saying this is not an easy question to answer because Jesus did not provide us with details in describing the manner of his presence in those other situations, but he goes on to say that Jesus’ presence in others is less than the full reality of his presence in the Eucharist. Mr. Akin says the following:
Therefore, one does an injustice to the Eucharist – and to Jesus himself – if one attempts to flatten the uniqueness of the Eucharistic presence and reduce it to the other modes of his presence which Scripture and theology speak of. To do so speaks of either gross ignorance of the faith or an agenda of some sort that is so strong it overrides what is patently obvious.
As evidence for the unique way Christ is present in the Eucharist, Mr. Akin highlights several statements from several sources, the first being the Compendium of the Catholic Catechism where it states that “Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way.” (#282) He also cites the Catechism itself. "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present." (CCC 1374) He also refers to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium Fidei which says, “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” [38].
So, what have I learned after contemplating all of this? To a novice philosopher like me, it seems the substance does not exist apart from the accidents. Therefore, when the accidents no longer remain, neither does the substance. If the form of bread and wine become corrupted after about fifteen minutes of digestion, the substantial form of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus is no longer present in that form. Beyond that, Jesus can still be present in one who remains in a state of grace in some other form, but how this occurs is a mystery. I am still confident in my statement that Christ’s substantial presence in the human person is only temporary, but I am less confident that I will be able to win an argument with our pastor.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Priests and Politics
At least twice in the past couple of months, our Catholic newspaper has printed articles about Catholic leaders taking sides in political debate. Where morally non-negotiable issues are concerned, all Catholics have a responsibility to speak out. But where the proper course of action is questionable, our Catholic leaders should butt out.
The latest issue involves the expansion of the SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) which President Bush vetoed and the House of Representatives failed to override. According to the published report from CNS, “Father Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA, decried the fact that ‘there were not enough House members willing to stand up for children and vote to override this ill-conceived veto of a bill that would have helped so many children without health insurance.’”
President Bush agrees that some expansion of the SCHIP is necessary, but the Democrats, in a political move probably intended to make the President look bad, offered an increase so drastic that a presidential veto was responsibly necessary. The proposed 25 billion dollar increase would have covered people who can afford their own insurance and considered children to be up to 25 years old.
A further move toward socialized medicine is not going to be in the best long term interest of children or anyone else for that matter. Expanded social programs cost money. They result in higher taxes which means fewer jobs and less self-reliance. Not every problem can be solved by throwing more money at it. Government mandates often create more problems than they solve.
Yes, the United States is blessed with riches. We are also the most generous nation in the world. We can be this way because of our free markets which create incentives for individual success. One does not develop self-worth by depending on others for his basic needs. Of course, when people are unable to care for themselves, we take on that responsibility, and do so gladly.
Father Larry Snyder could be aiding and abetting the Democratic Party strategy of demeaning Republicans in any way possible in order to bolster their chance for regaining control of the White House in the next election. He has every right to speak out on behalf of those who cannot afford health care, but he should be very cautious when becoming involved in the process. By voicing Catholic support for what may be a calculated political ploy, he may unwittingly help advance their entire agenda which includes abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and other morally unacceptable positions.
At least twice in the past couple of months, our Catholic newspaper has printed articles about Catholic leaders taking sides in political debate. Where morally non-negotiable issues are concerned, all Catholics have a responsibility to speak out. But where the proper course of action is questionable, our Catholic leaders should butt out.
The latest issue involves the expansion of the SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) which President Bush vetoed and the House of Representatives failed to override. According to the published report from CNS, “Father Larry Snyder, president of Catholic Charities USA, decried the fact that ‘there were not enough House members willing to stand up for children and vote to override this ill-conceived veto of a bill that would have helped so many children without health insurance.’”
President Bush agrees that some expansion of the SCHIP is necessary, but the Democrats, in a political move probably intended to make the President look bad, offered an increase so drastic that a presidential veto was responsibly necessary. The proposed 25 billion dollar increase would have covered people who can afford their own insurance and considered children to be up to 25 years old.
A further move toward socialized medicine is not going to be in the best long term interest of children or anyone else for that matter. Expanded social programs cost money. They result in higher taxes which means fewer jobs and less self-reliance. Not every problem can be solved by throwing more money at it. Government mandates often create more problems than they solve.
Yes, the United States is blessed with riches. We are also the most generous nation in the world. We can be this way because of our free markets which create incentives for individual success. One does not develop self-worth by depending on others for his basic needs. Of course, when people are unable to care for themselves, we take on that responsibility, and do so gladly.
Father Larry Snyder could be aiding and abetting the Democratic Party strategy of demeaning Republicans in any way possible in order to bolster their chance for regaining control of the White House in the next election. He has every right to speak out on behalf of those who cannot afford health care, but he should be very cautious when becoming involved in the process. By voicing Catholic support for what may be a calculated political ploy, he may unwittingly help advance their entire agenda which includes abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, and other morally unacceptable positions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)