My Own Troublesome Thoughts on the Eucharist
It seems to me the Eucharist is constantly blasphemed in our current day. It isn't just ranting atheists desecrating hosts on YouTube videos. It isn't just people in the pews who decide they deserve to receive whether they believe or not. The actual Church blasphemes against it too.
Think of all these bishops and priests who are in a state of mortal sin. Go to Bishop Accountability and check their lists of prosecutions and accusations. This is an incomplete, not up to date list. So it's only a partial listing. There are a thousand priests out there that were/are committing mortal sin.
I get that they think they are protected by the fact that the are not themselves but in persona Christi at the moment of consecration- though their flagrant sinning seems to indicate they don't really believe at all - but then, after they speak the words of consecration, they must consume the Eucharist themselves. And right there, they are committing blasphemy which they must know they are doing. And the Church for decades now has been covering for these priests and bishops. The clergy has known this was going on but has allowed it.
I honestly find this more egregious than any confused, ill catechized Catholic in the pew accidentally receiving when they shouldn't. (Not that that isn't a bad thing too). And I think this attitude, this atmosphere of priests not having to play by the same rules, accounts for a lot of the lack of respect and true understanding of how we are supposed to approach the gift of the Eucharist. This necessarily weakens the ability to evangelize and convey true Church teaching. This ties into the watered down, inept way that the catechism and the sacraments are taught to children. Why is the U.S. Church so weak in teaching their own baptized children? As someone who has taught religious education in a couple of parishes in my diocese over the course of several years, a diocese that is considered a more orthodox one, I can't tell you how abysmal I found the whole system of RE.
The whole fixation on whether divorced and remarried Catholics should be allowed to receive strikes me as a small problem when faced with the corruption and blasphemy of the clergy. I would say they are MORE culpable than the ill catechized divorced and remarried person who longs for the Eucharist. Not that I don't believe in what Jesus taught. I don't believe in divorce! But it seems to me that each case must be viewed on its own merits. It seems tragic to me to refuse the Eucharist to someone who had a bad first marriage, didn't understand the teachings of the Church, has remarried, had a conversion experience where they believe in and want to receive, yet are barred. Meanwhile Father Lecher is up there consuming the host and right after Mass he's going to trip out to a gay bar for a quickie.
Pardon my disgust.
But even as the Church itself commits these sins against her Savior and Founder, she seems to want to rely on the Eucharist as validation for her importance. We need priests for the sacraments, right?
Well, actually not for all sacraments. Deacons can perform baptisms, marriages, and funerals. Only priests can consecrate the host or hear confessions or administer last rites. The bishop can confirm and can ordain. People hardly go to confession any more, though I do think it is making a slight comeback in some areas nowadays. And last rites, or the anointing of the sick, is something people usually don't think about much in their life, until the very end. And it can only happen if the priest gets there in time. So the Eucharist, the source and summit, as they say (and I believe!), is the most visible sign of a priest's importance.
What strikes me as odd, is that in this time when many supposedly catechized Catholics don't believe in the true presence, or they don't believe in many of the Church's teachings; when the Church itself seems to have no remorse about allowing corrupt and depraved men as priests and bishops say the Mass, this is time when the Church seems to loosen its standards even more.
First of all we have Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, which was a big change and probably came about because of the priest shortage. Now I actually have no problem with Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. I am one! Though I don't usually serve anymore for a couple of personal reasons.* But having lay people distribute the Eucharist, even if unintended, does seem to have the consequence of pedestrianizing the reception of the Eucharist. Especially when the Extraordinary Minister is wearing jeans or something super casual. And I get that Jesus doesn't care about clothes and all that sort of thing. I am not a stuffy person. I wear slacks to Mass! (I always try to go for the business casual level of dress). I'm just saying that when you treat something casually, it might lose some of the respect it is owed. It might be taken for granted because nobody's making a big deal about it. It's a natural, psychological response.
In fact, it seems to be the trend to make the Eucharist more and more available to people even those openly not in communion with the Church. Back in the day, when there were even more practicing Catholics than the present day, the Church went through periods where it restricted the Eucharist. I remember reading that and being horrified by it. But now I wonder.
What if the Eucharist was something we really had to work for? What if instead of having to fast one hour (which many people ignore, and anyway this really only means: finish breakfast, brush your teeth, dress, drive to church, so by the time you line up to receive, an hour has passed by). And people don't even honor this. I see people chewing gum regularly at Mass. But what if we had to fast for 3 hours beforehand? Or what if we couldn't receive the Eucharist unless we had gone to confession in the last week before receiving? It used to be that everyone went to confession on Saturday afternoon, then had to fast from midnight until whenever they received the Eucharist on Sunday. This encouraged a lot of people to go to early Mass! I know this length of fast was hard on people like my Mom who was diabetic. She would have a big snack right before midnight and then get up early to go to Mass. At some point she got a dispensation, and then, later, they changed the rule to one hour which she could usually handle.
What I'm saying is that a more meaningful preparation might help with understanding what the Eucharist truly is. It might help us all receive it with the proper attitude. Because it seems to me a major element that is missing from frequent, easy reception of the Eucharist is that people are blocked from receiving its graces.
How many times did Cardinal McCarrick consume the Eucharist? Does he seem like someone who received grace from this? How many times did the numerous other gravely sinful bishops and priests consume the Eucharist? Do they seem holier? I myself received the Eucharist from a priest who was later arrested for buying child porn on line. I witnessed his consecration of the host many times. Didn't seem to lead him to holiness. And I personally know people who left the Church after his arrest. No wonder people don't believe in the real presence. Jesus can only connect with us if we are open to receiving Him. If it is just a rote exercise or ritual - it seems pretty empty.
I would posit that it is an absolutely necessary ingredient in gaining the benefits of grace from reception of the Eucharist to be properly open to the grace. It simply doesn't work otherwise.
If we receive when we are not open to it, blocked by our own mortal sin, then we do not receive the grace Jesus is trying to give us.
It becomes a sham, a mockery, an empty ritual, in short, a blasphemy.
Therefore, I think it is incumbent on us to ensure that those who receive, understand the significance of the act and are exhorted to prepare themselves for the reception of the Body and Blood of their Savior. I think we need to make it a solemn, prayerful, intentional and precious interaction. That might mean making it something we have to work for. We must take the fact that we are to have the proper attitude very seriously when receiving the Host. We owe Christ that, I would think!
These are just my own musings. I could be missing big, theological points. I humbly post this just as a outlet for myself in dealing with my own troublesome questions.
*Right after I was commissioned to be an EMHC, I developed a problem with tiny warts all over my hands. I battled this problem for 2 or 3 years. I could have bought stock in Compound W! I felt so self-conscience when I was distributing Communion. And maybe coupled with this, I would experience terrible anxiety before I had to go up to the altar to distribute the Eucharist. It really distracted me from being able to pray during Mass. Here's the funny thing. I finally told the head EMHC that I just didn't feel comfortable being an EMHC anymore and the warts went away! Like within a few weeks! They just disappeared on their own! I haven't had any since then!!!
Think of all these bishops and priests who are in a state of mortal sin. Go to Bishop Accountability and check their lists of prosecutions and accusations. This is an incomplete, not up to date list. So it's only a partial listing. There are a thousand priests out there that were/are committing mortal sin.
I get that they think they are protected by the fact that the are not themselves but in persona Christi at the moment of consecration- though their flagrant sinning seems to indicate they don't really believe at all - but then, after they speak the words of consecration, they must consume the Eucharist themselves. And right there, they are committing blasphemy which they must know they are doing. And the Church for decades now has been covering for these priests and bishops. The clergy has known this was going on but has allowed it.
I honestly find this more egregious than any confused, ill catechized Catholic in the pew accidentally receiving when they shouldn't. (Not that that isn't a bad thing too). And I think this attitude, this atmosphere of priests not having to play by the same rules, accounts for a lot of the lack of respect and true understanding of how we are supposed to approach the gift of the Eucharist. This necessarily weakens the ability to evangelize and convey true Church teaching. This ties into the watered down, inept way that the catechism and the sacraments are taught to children. Why is the U.S. Church so weak in teaching their own baptized children? As someone who has taught religious education in a couple of parishes in my diocese over the course of several years, a diocese that is considered a more orthodox one, I can't tell you how abysmal I found the whole system of RE.
The whole fixation on whether divorced and remarried Catholics should be allowed to receive strikes me as a small problem when faced with the corruption and blasphemy of the clergy. I would say they are MORE culpable than the ill catechized divorced and remarried person who longs for the Eucharist. Not that I don't believe in what Jesus taught. I don't believe in divorce! But it seems to me that each case must be viewed on its own merits. It seems tragic to me to refuse the Eucharist to someone who had a bad first marriage, didn't understand the teachings of the Church, has remarried, had a conversion experience where they believe in and want to receive, yet are barred. Meanwhile Father Lecher is up there consuming the host and right after Mass he's going to trip out to a gay bar for a quickie.
Pardon my disgust.
But even as the Church itself commits these sins against her Savior and Founder, she seems to want to rely on the Eucharist as validation for her importance. We need priests for the sacraments, right?
Well, actually not for all sacraments. Deacons can perform baptisms, marriages, and funerals. Only priests can consecrate the host or hear confessions or administer last rites. The bishop can confirm and can ordain. People hardly go to confession any more, though I do think it is making a slight comeback in some areas nowadays. And last rites, or the anointing of the sick, is something people usually don't think about much in their life, until the very end. And it can only happen if the priest gets there in time. So the Eucharist, the source and summit, as they say (and I believe!), is the most visible sign of a priest's importance.
What strikes me as odd, is that in this time when many supposedly catechized Catholics don't believe in the true presence, or they don't believe in many of the Church's teachings; when the Church itself seems to have no remorse about allowing corrupt and depraved men as priests and bishops say the Mass, this is time when the Church seems to loosen its standards even more.
First of all we have Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, which was a big change and probably came about because of the priest shortage. Now I actually have no problem with Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. I am one! Though I don't usually serve anymore for a couple of personal reasons.* But having lay people distribute the Eucharist, even if unintended, does seem to have the consequence of pedestrianizing the reception of the Eucharist. Especially when the Extraordinary Minister is wearing jeans or something super casual. And I get that Jesus doesn't care about clothes and all that sort of thing. I am not a stuffy person. I wear slacks to Mass! (I always try to go for the business casual level of dress). I'm just saying that when you treat something casually, it might lose some of the respect it is owed. It might be taken for granted because nobody's making a big deal about it. It's a natural, psychological response.
In fact, it seems to be the trend to make the Eucharist more and more available to people even those openly not in communion with the Church. Back in the day, when there were even more practicing Catholics than the present day, the Church went through periods where it restricted the Eucharist. I remember reading that and being horrified by it. But now I wonder.
What if the Eucharist was something we really had to work for? What if instead of having to fast one hour (which many people ignore, and anyway this really only means: finish breakfast, brush your teeth, dress, drive to church, so by the time you line up to receive, an hour has passed by). And people don't even honor this. I see people chewing gum regularly at Mass. But what if we had to fast for 3 hours beforehand? Or what if we couldn't receive the Eucharist unless we had gone to confession in the last week before receiving? It used to be that everyone went to confession on Saturday afternoon, then had to fast from midnight until whenever they received the Eucharist on Sunday. This encouraged a lot of people to go to early Mass! I know this length of fast was hard on people like my Mom who was diabetic. She would have a big snack right before midnight and then get up early to go to Mass. At some point she got a dispensation, and then, later, they changed the rule to one hour which she could usually handle.
What I'm saying is that a more meaningful preparation might help with understanding what the Eucharist truly is. It might help us all receive it with the proper attitude. Because it seems to me a major element that is missing from frequent, easy reception of the Eucharist is that people are blocked from receiving its graces.
How many times did Cardinal McCarrick consume the Eucharist? Does he seem like someone who received grace from this? How many times did the numerous other gravely sinful bishops and priests consume the Eucharist? Do they seem holier? I myself received the Eucharist from a priest who was later arrested for buying child porn on line. I witnessed his consecration of the host many times. Didn't seem to lead him to holiness. And I personally know people who left the Church after his arrest. No wonder people don't believe in the real presence. Jesus can only connect with us if we are open to receiving Him. If it is just a rote exercise or ritual - it seems pretty empty.
I would posit that it is an absolutely necessary ingredient in gaining the benefits of grace from reception of the Eucharist to be properly open to the grace. It simply doesn't work otherwise.
If we receive when we are not open to it, blocked by our own mortal sin, then we do not receive the grace Jesus is trying to give us.
It becomes a sham, a mockery, an empty ritual, in short, a blasphemy.
Therefore, I think it is incumbent on us to ensure that those who receive, understand the significance of the act and are exhorted to prepare themselves for the reception of the Body and Blood of their Savior. I think we need to make it a solemn, prayerful, intentional and precious interaction. That might mean making it something we have to work for. We must take the fact that we are to have the proper attitude very seriously when receiving the Host. We owe Christ that, I would think!
These are just my own musings. I could be missing big, theological points. I humbly post this just as a outlet for myself in dealing with my own troublesome questions.
*Right after I was commissioned to be an EMHC, I developed a problem with tiny warts all over my hands. I battled this problem for 2 or 3 years. I could have bought stock in Compound W! I felt so self-conscience when I was distributing Communion. And maybe coupled with this, I would experience terrible anxiety before I had to go up to the altar to distribute the Eucharist. It really distracted me from being able to pray during Mass. Here's the funny thing. I finally told the head EMHC that I just didn't feel comfortable being an EMHC anymore and the warts went away! Like within a few weeks! They just disappeared on their own! I haven't had any since then!!!
Comments
Post a Comment