|
TEACHING MOMENTS You may read more of my editorials and commentaries on this page, where I store old editorials with other material.
|
Signs of the Times Click on box for scriptural re- Editorial (03/06/10) Worthy is the Lamb I continually find myself in a car, zipping here or there. I try to use my time well while I drive, for life is short, and minutes worth more than diamonds. Often I pray the Rosary or Divine Mercy chaplet, this latter in reparation for my own many sins, and also those of my spiritual children, my flock, and the sins of the whole world. For every priest is by nature an intercessor for the salvation of others, and in pursuing the salvation of others, therein finds his own. But also, I frequently listen to recorded books, with a special affection for the entire Tolkien opus, and also to EWTN, and to other things. For a priest is not only an intercessor, but a teacher, and to be a good teacher, he must be an excellent pupil, and never cease to educate himself. The Story about a Eucharistic Sacrilege Now, It happened this week that I caught a part of a Catholic Answers show with Patrick Madrid. I have nothing but praise for Patrick, and for Colin Donovan, and many of the other brilliant Catholics who intelligently and persuasively propose the integrity of the faith in the media. Yet some at Catholic Answers, it seems, do not reciprocate that esteem; at least some of those among the multitude who participate in the on-line forums (it should be “fora”). Regretfully, I have no time to follow many blogs. But others do, and by them I have been informed that I am treated regularly better on non-Catholic fora than on the Catholic Answers forum; but that is the doing neither of the great apologists Madrid or Donovan, but rather of minds enjoying far inferior acumen than they. Therefore, my esteem and praise of the apologetics especially of these two men and of C.A. is none the less. It also fills me with great pride and joy that a Trailblazers alumna, Julissa Vazquez, is a religious of Mother Angelica’s magnificent women’s community, the Poor Claires. Mother Angelica and EWTN are a real blessing on the Church. On this particular show, a woman called in, justly horrified at how someone else had treated a host. The story is approximately as follows. She had two funerals to attend. At the first, a relative of hers, who was not Catholic, went up to communion; but she noticed he did not consume the host. She later confronted him, “Are you Catholic?” “No.” “Then why did you go up for communion?” He pulled his wallet out, and pulled out the host. (If you feel horrified at this moment, as was she, good, you should.) “I’m Seventh Day Adventist, and I will take this to my Church, and show them what you worship: a piece of bread.” She attempted to take it from him, but he resisted. Her call was about how far should one go in defending the host. When the woman later, at the second funeral, asked the priest to say something about communion to prevent this, the priest refused. I did not hear Patrick’s full reply, but only the start of his reply. I could hear in his voice how profoundly he was moved, and what great sorrow and love for the Eucharist stirred within him. He was correct when he accused that Seventh Day Adventist of sacrilege, blasphemy and even a lack of basic decency towards the religious convictions of others. May God reward Patrick for his fearless, even devout, defense of the Eucharist! And may God reward this good woman who called in for her affection and love for the Eucharist! When the Son of Man returns, will he find any faith? Much could be said about this episode, but I wish to focus on some matters regarding the Eucharist. First of all, I can think of no clearer example to demonstrate why communion in the hand should be abolished completely. No, it’s not against natural law; but it is against prudence, and in my opinion, given the matter, gravely against prudence. Why? First, because the ease with which persons can acquire a host for reasons besides communion is magnified to the point of scandal. Not only do sacrilegious and blasphemous Seventh Day Adventists, or other similarly vicious members of different religious communities, have the chance to ridicule the host, but in the world there are those who use the host, or market it for a great price, for black masses. But even less malicious persons can abuse, such as the person who takes the host back to the pew for a few moments of private adoration, or keep the host to take it home for a similar reason. But other reasons appear as well. The most obvious to me is the question of particles. Of course, every particle that falls from the host – such as the small crumbs even as small as we might call dust – is the fullness of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, our Merciful Savior. This has always been the faith of the Church – Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in his tiny but erudite book, Dominus Est!, presents the evidence that this is the perennial faith of the Church, and the only position possible if one adheres to the truth about the Eucharist (namely, transubstantiation). Yet with communion on the hand, particles (or even entire hosts) fall to the floor when passing the host, and particles remain in the hand and either neglected or brushed away. Yes, communion in the hand by far outstrips communion on the tongue as an occasion for hosts to fall on the floor; physics explains this (hands are dry, tongues are wet and “sticky”), and experience corroborates this. Such is matter of gravest sacrilege, even if completely unintended by the standard communicant. A third reason is the gross negligence of Catholic priests regarding the host. If a priest permits this usage, he should take upon himself the responsibility of making sure the person puts the host in his or her mouth before walking anywhere, but right there before the priest’s eyes. Ah, but so few priests believe in the Real Presence, so they don’t really care. Just like so few priests believe that important matters such as contraception, slander, drunkenness and theft are sins! Yet Bishops are more eager to spend their time catering to such priests and suppressing anything that should smack of reform in the Church. O tempora, o mores! A Priestly Duty Priests need to continually catechize about communion. Priests are teachers. They must teach, yes, with words. With actions too, but by their office, they must teach doctrine. If a priest does not want to continually teach Church doctrine, he should leave the priesthood. The Church doesn’t need priests who betray their mission, they do more damage than good. I have found that, invariably, when the truth about transubstantiation, the Real Presence, the Unbloody Sacrifice, the Supernatural Food are proposed, or when the discipline around the Eucharist is enforced – how to give and receive communion, the use of the paten at communion time, reserve with the hosts lest just anyone lay hold of one, the norms and customs around the Priest’s communion visit at someone’s home, the need for confession before communion if there is an unconfessed mortal sin, and so forth – I get any number of outraged persons protesting with unbelievable energy. The most outraged, scandalously, are typically religious and priests. This is a sign of the times, I think; as St. Paul put it, “The secret power of iniquity is already at work.” But so is the Father’s power of good. And good always triumphs, soon or late. Sadly, some priests do teach. What do they teach? That Jesus was just a special guy, that all of his miracles can be explained away thanks to the cleverness of the arguments of the modernist heresy, that Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven, that he didn’t multiply bread, that he didn’t resurrect in the flesh. They teach that the Eucharist is a symbol of community (“community” is a catch-word, by the way; if you don’t do whatever trite stupidity the crazy dissenter priest or the lapel-pin-nun command, you’re divisive and you probably need some Rogerian and Jungian psychotherapy). They teach that the Eucharist is not to be adored, and even in angry terms. They teach that the altar is more important than the tabernacle, and hosts are simply “leftovers after our meal.” They teach “we make Eucharist” (no guys, only priests confect the Eucharist, with or without any congregation in attendance). They teach confession is not necessary for communion. They teach that those who are divorced and remarried, and that pro-abortion politicians, can all come to the Eucharist alike. Et cetera. Do you doubt that priests teach these things? I am personally a witness to each heresy I highlight in this paragraph, and some were even said by bishops. Yes, some priests teach… and they teach heresy. I think it is a sign of the influence – I do not say possession – of demons when priests so attack the Eucharist, and when priests, religious and laity become enflamed with rage when faithful priests stand up, unconditionally, behind the teachings and discipline surrounding this greatest of the sacraments. If you, Gentle Reader, are a priest and reading this, for I know some of you are (to the rest I say: I know because the occasionally write to me), be strong, be fearless, even give your life in defense of the truth about the Eucharist! Yet some priests, lacking in fortitude both manly and divine, are afraid of conflict; are too occupied with climbing ladders; are weak and always caving in to the pleasing and entertaining of the crowd. Or maybe simply have so neglected their prayer life, holy hours, silence, retreats, frequent confession, Rosary, breviary (we made a vow, under pain of mortal sin, dear brothers, when we were ordained, not to neglect the breviary!), and other such basics, that their hearts are cold, that they lack the divine appetite for this spiritual food. Or perhaps this mediocrity has crept in because of a self-absorbed lifestyle, the gossip and slander of others, the sins which the internet can bring even into the privacy of the rectory, or the abuse of alcohol or leisure time? And how can there be a priest in the world who simply neglects to say the Holy Mass, for the good of the Church militant and triumphant, every single day unless impeded beyond possibility?! Let this year of priests be an occasion to shake all that off, to turn a new page; trusting in mercy, let priests reform their lives and be not afraid to do so! Half-truth The Seventh Day Adventist was right in one thing, wrong in another: evidence of how sin makes people – forgive me for my bluntness – stupid. He was right in that we worship the host. He was wrong in calling it a piece of bread. For when a priest takes the host and, celebrating the sacrament, pronounces the words of consecration, that bread stops being bread, and becomes the Incarnate Son of God – not the Father, nor the Spirit, just as neither of these suffered the crucifixion, yet the Son enjoys the mutual indwelling with these. The species, however, remains the same, and so the Eternal Word comes to us in communion as… food! True bread from heaven! How unworthy we are of such great love, yet more unworthy still is the Word of the scorn of that Seventh Day Adventist. † |
USEFUL LINKS & CATHOLIC SITES  Vatican Vatican Radio USCCB Archdiocese of Detroit Gregorbo
blog Dave Armstrong: apologist Fr, Charles White PHOTO GALLERIES Great
Photos 2007 Great Photos 2006 Ice
Storm Gallery 2007 Trailblazers Galleries Michigan Spring 2007 Early Autumn Colors 2007:Contact
Me: I love hearing from people!
|
||
