Friday, 23 May 2014

The Eucharistic Crisis

AND The need for A EUCHARISTIC RENEWAL IN PRIESTLY FORMATION
 From Part II of 'Eucharistic-Contemplation: A Spirituality of Divine Intimacy'.

The teachings of the Second Vatican Council sublimely developed Eucharistic theology, and they sought to reinforce Eucharistic devotion. In practice however, since Vatican II, false Eucharistic theologies have proliferated, along with a decline in the practice of Eucharistic Adoration.[1] In this regards, in 2003, referring to what we might call the Eucharistic-crisis, Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia de Eucharista writes:

In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet.[2]

This ‘confusion’ and ‘reductive understanding’ to which John Paul II refers; is demonstrated by a contemporary priest and theologian, who goes so far as to assert concerning Eucharistic Adoration: it is “a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward”[3]. On another occasion he writes it is a

Step back into the Middle Ages…It erodes the communal aspect, and it erodes the fact that the Eucharist is a meal. Holy Communion is something to be eaten, not to be adored… [it is a practice that ought to be] tolerated but not encouraged.[4]

This is of course antithetical to Church Teaching and Tradition. Since it is erroneous to assert that ‘to eat’ and ‘to adore’ the Eucharistic are conflicting practices; for as St. Augustine writes concerning the Eucharist: “No one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it.”[5] Furthermore “the Church, even from the beginning, adored the body of Christ under the appearance of bread”.[6] Thereby it is a practice which stems from the early Church and not merely from the Middle Ages. According to Church Teaching, Eucharistic Adoration is not a devotional practice which should be merely tolerated but encouraged. Pope Benedict XVI affirms the relevance of Eucharistic Adoration even today, in his Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis:

Besides encouraging individual believers to make time for personal prayer before the Sacrament of the Altar, I feel obliged to urge parishes and other church groups to set aside times for collective adoration.[7]

In further testament to the Eucharistic-crisis, firmly associated with the crisis of faith within the Church; Cardinal Joseph Bernardin stated: that “according to a Gallup poll only thirty percent of our [American] faithful believe what the Church teaches on the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.”[8] One reason behind this “confusion with regard to [the] sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning” the Eucharist, is priests and institutionally catechised teachers, who have been infected with false Eucharistic theologies. Such false Eucharistic theologies often reduce the Eucharist to its horizontal communal dimensions; or to a maligned understanding of the Real Presence. An example of such false Eucharistic theologies include theologies that reduce the Real Presence to the conceptions of ‘transfinalization’ and ‘transignification’.[9],[10] Though proponents of these theories such as Schillebeeckx and Rahner respectively, employ the term Real Presence, they reduce it to a type of ‘personal presence’ without the reality of the ‘spatial presence’, a reality which requires this ‘personal presence’ to be ontological or substantial. In other words, the Real Presence is deemed as a non-ontic personal presence that is mediated through the bread and wine; as opposed to the bread and wine becoming the ontic-personal presence of Christ; the latter of which is the true understanding of the Real Presence through transubstantiation. Pope Paul V I condemns these teachings in Mysterium Fidei under the heading: ‘False and Disturbing Teachings’. In this encyclical he refers to the role that the propagation of these teaching have in distorting true Eucharistic devotion and belief.

It is not permissible…to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, as if they involve nothing more than "transignification," or "transfinalization" as they call it…Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to belief in and devotion to the Eucharist.[11]

Furthermore Cardinal “Ratzinger is careful to point out that the species do not only receive a new meaning, as the term “transignification” might suggest, or a new function, as the term “transfinalization” might suggest.”[12] However those who espouse or defend the notions of transfinalization and transignification as acceptable teachings that are only false if the Real Presence is reduced to these understandings, promote a theology that collapses, even if they assert otherwise, the ontological reality of the Real Presence.[13] Since these teachings are inherently reductionist.  Here is a quotation from Rahner which demonstrates this,[14] by the twisting of the true definition of transubstantiation as the changing of the ontological substance of the bread and wine into the ontological substance of Christ; into a mere change in meaning:

The words of institution indicate a change. But [do] not give any guiding line for the interpretation of the actual process. As regarding transubstantiation it may be said, the substance, essence, meaning and purpose of the bread are identical but the meaning of a thing can be changed without changing the matter. The meaning of the bread has been changed through the consecration something which served profane use now becomes the dwelling place and the symbol of Christ who is present and gives Himself to His own.[15]

Another reason such an understanding is erroneous is because it states that through the Eucharistic consecration the bread “becomes the dwelling place…of Christ”, which suggests the bread retains its ontological substance, as opposed to being transubstantiated into the ontological substance of Christ. Either Rahner with this view of transignification is suggesting that Christ ontologically dwells with or in the substance of the bread, and therefore falls into the heresy of of Consubstatiation; or he is suggesting that the substance of the bread remain after the consecration and Christ becomes present, but not present ontologically, but in some other manner (i.e. in meaning or purpose). Whichever position Rahner’s notion of transigification does imply, such a Eucharistic theology remains false; and therefore the propagation of this view, in unison with other erroneous teachings, have led to the “to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning”[16] the Eucharist. Such a false Eucharistic understandings that assault the doctrine of the Real Presence and degrade Eucharistic devotion have permeated entire nations.[17]

The reality of the Eucharistic-crisis as inferred through the evidence enlisted above, highlights the need for a reform of priestly formation in true and authentic Eucharistic theology and in true and intensified Eucharistic devotion. To address the issue the crisis of faith involving the contemporary Eucharistic-crisis in the Catholic Church, is to address the crisis of intimacy failure within the clergy (and even as suffered by the laity); because the Eucharist is Divine Intimacy itself, and it therefore a “healing remedy”[18] to the brokenness of intimacy failure. Such a Eucharistic renewal ought not to be reduced to a renewal in priestly formation, since the entire Church from laity, religious and clergy; to parishes, schools and religious congregations; is in need of such a renewal. However perfecting priestly formation through a Eucharistic renewal, is an essential corner stone to this movement known as the New Evangelisation. For a healthy flock is the fruit of a good shepherd. Yet a shepherd can only become good if he becomes koinonia (intimate companions) with Christ the Good Shepherd; wherefore he shall be transfigured into His Likeness. One meets this Good Shepherd on the summit of Mount Tabor. That summit which is the Holy Eucharist.




[1] Francis X. Rocca, “Vatican Tries to Revive Eucharistic Adoration,” The Christian Century, June 15, 2011, http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-06/vatican-tries-revive-eucharistic-adoration.
[2] op.cit., John Paul II, ‘Ecclesia De Eucharistia,’ 10.
[3] Richard McBrien, “Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration,“ National Catholic Reporter, September 8, 2009, http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/perpetual-eucharistic-adoration.
[4] op.cit., Francis X. Rocca, “Vatican Tries to Revive Eucharistic Adoration.”
[5] Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, 98,9.
[6] Pius XII, ‘Mediator Dei: Encyclical on the Sacred Liturgy,’ Vatican: the Holy See, 1947. Vatican Website: Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 129.
[7] op.cit., Benedict XVI, ‘Sacramentum Caritatis,’ 68.
[8] Regis Scalon, Modern Misconceptions about the Eucharist, http://www.ewtn.com /library/DOCTRINE/MOD MISC.TXT.
[9] “We might say that transfinalization is another name for transignification. In both cases the substance of bread and wine, I repeat and I wish to emphasize, remain. There is no change in their being bread and wine – merely take on a new meaning. Transignification, or new purpose, transfinalization.” Fr. John A. Hardon.
[10] Paul VI, ‘Mysterium Fidei: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Holy Eucharist,’ Vatican: the Holy See, Vatican Website: Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1965, 11.
[11] i.bid., 11, 12.
[12] Emerey de Gaal, The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI: The Christocentric Shift, (Palgrave Macmillan: New York, 2010), 262.
[13] As seems to be the case in Teresa Whalen, The Authentic Doctrine of the Eucharist, 73-80.
[14] However this is not to say that all the theologies of Rahner are completely false.
[15] John A. Hardon, Crisis of Faith and the Eucharist, http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Faith/Faith_006. htm.
[16] op.cit., John Paul II, ‘Ecclesia De Eucharistia,’ 10.
[17] op.cit., John. A. Hardon, Crisis of Faith and the Eucharist.
[18] Said by the priest at the breaking of the bread in the Eucharistic liturgy. 

No comments:

Post a Comment