Let’s Hear It for Jesus!
Near the end of our Faith Enhancement class this week, our leader mentioned what a wonderful homily the Monsignor gave at his parish last Sunday for the Feast of Corpus Christi. The priest pointed out how people stand and applaud when a king or queen enters the room, always conscious of proper protocol. Yet when our true king, Christ the King, becomes present on the altar, we do no such thing. At that point, he asked the entire congregation to stand and applaud the Presence of Jesus. The leader and other members of the class thought this was a wonderful gesture to acknowledge the Real Presence.
I can understand the message the good priest was trying to convey. Various polls show that many Catholics do not even believe in the Real Presence anymore. Many of those who do believe fail to show it by their actions at Mass, but is standing and applauding the proper sign of respect? I remember one of our parishioners complaining about the music we select for our Masses. She wanted something more lively and upbeat. What is wrong with applauding Jesus or clapping our hands to the rhythm of more lively Christian music at Mass?
Protestants occasionally accuse us Catholics of re-sacrificing Jesus at the Mass. Jesus died once and for all, they will tell us. Catholic apologists repeatedly have to explain that we do not re-sacrifice Jesus at the Mass. The Mass is the re-presentation of the same, once and for all Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary. The hyphen in re-presentation is to make clear the meaning. That very same Sacrifice on Calvary is made present again on the altar of every Catholic Church at every Mass. That very same Sacrifice is present for us, unlimited by space or time, in an unbloody manner. Every time we attend Mass, we are actually kneeling at the foot of the Cross.
Now, if we imagine ourselves at the foot of the Cross with the Blessed Mother, the apostle John, and Mary Magdalene, how would we behave? Would it be appropriate to stand and applaud? I don’t think so. Yet, the Mass is also a celebration. We experience joy in knowing Our Lord died for our salvation. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that everyone who believes in Him might not parish but might have eternal life. He also gives us this wonderful gift of the Eucharist. So, what is the proper response for us?
We should display our utmost reverence for the Presence of Our Lord on the altar. Our reverence should be reflected in the way we act, the way we dress, the way we worship, the way we pray, they way we sing, and the way we prepare ourselves to receive Him. Applause and fanfare may be adequate for an earthly king who did little to earn his throne beyond being born into the royal family. Christ the King who freed us from our sins by His death and resurrection, deserves much more from us.
This year, the Feast of Corpus Christi coincided with Memorial Day weekend. On Monday morning, we attended a Memorial Day service at the cemetery conducted by the local Veterans. The mood was somber and respectful as we remembered those who died to protect our freedom. There were salutes and prayers. Some choked back tears as they spoke of their fallen comrades. Others spoke of freedom we enjoy each day because of those who gave their lives. A bugler played taps. When he finished, there was no cheering or applause. No one complained that the music was not lively enough. People approached quietly and left quietly. Nobody told us how to act. Understanding where we were and what was going on, it just seemed like the appropriate way to behave. I believe there is a lesson to be learned here.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Memorial Day 2008
I have always wondered how so many Catholics stand firm in support of Democrats, the party of abortion. Recent polls cited Catholic support of Hillary Clinton as key to her wins in several primaries. Catholics have traditionally been Democrats, but the Democratic party of today is not the same as the party of years ago. What may have once been the party of hard-working blue collar Christian families has now succumbed to the wayward interests of the self-centered secular masses.
Today I read another article in our local Catholic paper critical of our involvement in the Iraq war. Nobody likes war. We don’t want to be there, but the argument can be made that we were justified in going in, and even if we were not, to abandon the Iraqi people now would be great disservice to them and those who gave their lives for their freedom.
The timing of our invasion followed the September 11th attack on our nation. The perpetrators of that event had to be confronted, and we are engaging them on their soil rather than ours. While Saddam Hussein may not have been directly responsible for 9/11, he was certainly responsible for the loss of many innocent lives during his rule. If we were to suddenly abandon the Iraqi people, civil war could lead to many more lost lives.
The point of all this is not to say we were right or wrong in going into Iraq. Certainly that is a matter for debate. We do need to acknowledge a responsibility, as the catechism says, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. When I read some of these anti-war statements by Catholic clergy and laymen, I sometimes find it difficult to determine if they are simply anti-policy or are they anti-Republican or even anti-American? Some give the impression they believe our motives for being in Iraq are evil which I do not believe. I wonder if some of them do so in order to justify their support for Democrats.
I was moved this Memorial Day Weekend by a local woman, Holly Bochnicka, who took the time to write in her own hand, the names of every member of our military who died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war began. She spent the winter meticulously printing nearly 4600 names on long red white and blue banners which are now displayed near the Veteran’s Memorial in our town park. One cannot help but shudder at the loss of so many lives in a land so far away that posed no threat to us. Yet, American men and women unselfishly went there to free people from oppression of an evil dictator.
While those 4600 lives were being lost in the war, the number of pregnancies aborted in the United States numbered in the millions. Many of those who are quick to condemn our involvement protecting the freedom of the Iraqi people, are the same ones to stand up for protecting the legal right for American women to kill their unborn children.
Come November, we will have to choose between two candidates for the presidency of our country. One of them wants to pull our troops out of Iraq while protecting abortion rights. The other wants to stay the course in Iraq as long as necessary while being Pro-life, though not to the extent we would like. Neither choice is ideal.
I would be really curious to know how these Catholics who are so critical of our policies under George Bush will vote this November. Will they place the several thousand lives lost in war in Iraq over the millions of lives lost here in the United States through abortion? If so, I can no longer take any of their arguments seriously. To vote for a pro-abortion Democrat over a pro-life Republican strictly based on trying to save lives is hypocrisy.
Every human life is precious beyond measure, whether it be a soldier in Iraq or a baby in its mother’s womb. On this Memorial Day, we pray for the souls of those who have died in the war and those in the womb. We pray for the families who bear the pain of loss. May their suffering be united to the suffering of Our Lord for the remission of sins and may God have mercy on us all.
I have always wondered how so many Catholics stand firm in support of Democrats, the party of abortion. Recent polls cited Catholic support of Hillary Clinton as key to her wins in several primaries. Catholics have traditionally been Democrats, but the Democratic party of today is not the same as the party of years ago. What may have once been the party of hard-working blue collar Christian families has now succumbed to the wayward interests of the self-centered secular masses.
Today I read another article in our local Catholic paper critical of our involvement in the Iraq war. Nobody likes war. We don’t want to be there, but the argument can be made that we were justified in going in, and even if we were not, to abandon the Iraqi people now would be great disservice to them and those who gave their lives for their freedom.
The timing of our invasion followed the September 11th attack on our nation. The perpetrators of that event had to be confronted, and we are engaging them on their soil rather than ours. While Saddam Hussein may not have been directly responsible for 9/11, he was certainly responsible for the loss of many innocent lives during his rule. If we were to suddenly abandon the Iraqi people, civil war could lead to many more lost lives.
The point of all this is not to say we were right or wrong in going into Iraq. Certainly that is a matter for debate. We do need to acknowledge a responsibility, as the catechism says, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. When I read some of these anti-war statements by Catholic clergy and laymen, I sometimes find it difficult to determine if they are simply anti-policy or are they anti-Republican or even anti-American? Some give the impression they believe our motives for being in Iraq are evil which I do not believe. I wonder if some of them do so in order to justify their support for Democrats.
I was moved this Memorial Day Weekend by a local woman, Holly Bochnicka, who took the time to write in her own hand, the names of every member of our military who died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war began. She spent the winter meticulously printing nearly 4600 names on long red white and blue banners which are now displayed near the Veteran’s Memorial in our town park. One cannot help but shudder at the loss of so many lives in a land so far away that posed no threat to us. Yet, American men and women unselfishly went there to free people from oppression of an evil dictator.
While those 4600 lives were being lost in the war, the number of pregnancies aborted in the United States numbered in the millions. Many of those who are quick to condemn our involvement protecting the freedom of the Iraqi people, are the same ones to stand up for protecting the legal right for American women to kill their unborn children.
Come November, we will have to choose between two candidates for the presidency of our country. One of them wants to pull our troops out of Iraq while protecting abortion rights. The other wants to stay the course in Iraq as long as necessary while being Pro-life, though not to the extent we would like. Neither choice is ideal.
I would be really curious to know how these Catholics who are so critical of our policies under George Bush will vote this November. Will they place the several thousand lives lost in war in Iraq over the millions of lives lost here in the United States through abortion? If so, I can no longer take any of their arguments seriously. To vote for a pro-abortion Democrat over a pro-life Republican strictly based on trying to save lives is hypocrisy.
Every human life is precious beyond measure, whether it be a soldier in Iraq or a baby in its mother’s womb. On this Memorial Day, we pray for the souls of those who have died in the war and those in the womb. We pray for the families who bear the pain of loss. May their suffering be united to the suffering of Our Lord for the remission of sins and may God have mercy on us all.
Monday, April 28, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)