I had the 7 AM Mass at St. Gregory the Great Church in Bluffton, South Carolina in the Diocese of Charleston. It is a spoken Mass so that the crowd can get Mass over with and get on with the joys of retirement, like golfing. The church is about 3/4’s full or about 700 people I guess.
At Communion time one of the women who came up to me received on the tongue. Either her tongue was dry or the Host stuck to my finger, either way, the Host fell off of her tongue and slid to the floor.
Normally, even when the laity receive on the hand, they won’t pick up the Host but wait for the priest or EMHC to pick up the Host.
Not so with this devout Catholic woman. Immediately she went to her knees bowed her body to the ground, licked up the Host and kissed the floor and got up and kept moving to her pew.
I have never had this expression of Eucharistic piety and reverence from a lay person, under these circumstances, until this Sunday morning.
30 comments:
And this is exactly what the Manage the Decline Novus Ordo fans DO NOT want anyone to see. In their revisionist history, such piety is just an example of a "rigid" Church that treats the laity and especially women as "second class" and encourages outdated thinking, such as the fact that the Eucharist IS the Body of Christ, literally.
Piety? You have got to be joking. We're too busy, clapping, dancing, militating our political agendas and being relevant and contemporary for THAT kind of outdated nonsense.
Your blog post reminds me of the possibly apocryphal story told by the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen described here: https://benedictinstitute.org/2021/06/little-li-the-child-martyr-of-the-eucharist-in-china/
This also reminds me of another reality from the disgrace of Communion in the hand:
Particles of the Host fall to the ground. When you come up for Holy Communion, you are walking on them (like I said before, who needs piety?). The church's vacuum cleaner picks much of it up and it is sacrilegiously thrown in the garbage.
Unless I am mistaken, there is NOTHING in the rubrics for the Novus Ordo that prohibits the use of the paten. It would be wonderful if more priests at least tried to DISCOURAGE Communion in the hand, encourage and catechize Communion on the tongue and had their altar boys (oops--sorry feminists, I mean altar SERVERS) using patens.
Sigh. We all know that's not gonna happen. A priest encouraging Communion on the tongue? You stand a better chance of passing a Stutz Bearcat on the freeway.
The Eucharist is not the Body and Blood of Christ, "literally."
It is the Body and Blood of Christ sacramentally.
Yes, the choice of words matters. Theology is a science and the words and phrases used must be used as carefully and accurately as the weights and measures of chemistry.
Were Christ literally in the host you could see human flesh, hair, fingers and toes. He is truly, sacramentally present, body and soul, humanity and divinity.
I guess you reject Transubstantiation. You and your bishop need to have a chat about this and why you vote pro abortion
St. Macarius the Great:
“He said: This is my Body; therefore the Eucharist is not the figure of his Body and Blood, as some have said, talking nonsense in their stupid minds, but it is in very truth the Blood and Body of Christ.”
Father K, you are not so unique. You are just more of the problem: A priest who publicly demonstrates more concern with showing off (motives? Who knows? Who cares?) rather than showing devotion to our savior and encouraging it in the faithful. If the intellectualized jargon of your seminary studies means that much to you, then, buy all means keep up the show.
Regardless, the Church calls it the REAL PRESENCE. Period. People VISIT the Blessed Sacrament--if Someone is NOT present in the Blessed Sacrament, it would be a waste of time--and evidently most Catholics have degenerated into thinking just that because those who visit are few and far between. And If SOMEONE is present in that sacrament, then every PARTICLE of Him, considering who HE is should be treated with veneration, reverence, caution and respect.
But hey, don't let me rob you of the satisfaction of your sophistication. After all, who needs piety in these times?
BY all means.
For the thread - from Pope Paul VI's Mysterium Fidei:
"For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His *physical “reality,”* corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place." (from MF 46, stars added)
Jerome - Under the forms of bread and wine Christ is present Body and Blood, Humanity and Divinity.
Your misuse of the word "literally" is, at present, my only concern.
My motive is to teach what the Church teaches. You can dismiss the correction as "showing off" or as "intellectualized jargon," but that doesn't change what the Church teaches - and what it does not teach. The Church does not teach that Christ is "literally" present. It teaches that He is really present, truly present, sacramentally present.
"Literally" is one of the most misused words at present, so your error is not surprising. When someone says, "There were literally a million people at that football game!" or "He was so mad his head literally exploded!" or, as I heard Jimmy Swaggart says once, "I was literally climbing the walls!" they are misusing the word.
No, there were not a million people there, there was a very large crowd. No, his head did not explode, he was very angry. No, the good preacher-man was not climbing the walls, he was overly anxious and agitated.
"...although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place..." is a very good reminder of why "literally" is inaccurate when describing the Real Presence of Christ under the forms of bread and wine.
God has been a Man, a burning bush, a dove, and a burning cloud. I think He can be bread and wine. Of course He was present in those things and not limited to them because He cannot be destroyed in the same ways. He is mysterious, certainly.
Houston, we have a problem!
Ignorance of the Catholic belief in the Real Presence is “sophistication?”
Of course, after I wrote my reply to Father K, I remembered his tendentious accusation that I am "anti-intellectual. Yeah.
The intellectual precision of "a chemist" works great in the ivory towered halls of Catholic academia. The average Catholic doesn't always need your showy precision however, we just need to know WHO is present and treat Him accordingly. Under our feet and in the vacuum cleaner--or, for that matter, in the unconsecrated hands of the laity (even IF permitted) hardly fits the bill.
Jerome Merwick,
Of course he rejects Transubstantiation and what Paul VI said in Mysterium Fidei. His "belief" in the Eucharist is akin to Martin Luther's:
"Martin Luther opposed the doctrine of transubstantiation because he believed that Christ was present in the elements of bread and wine in a spiritual sense, not a physical sense. Luther did not believe that the bread and wine were miraculously changed into the body and blood of Christ. He rejected the idea that the change was a physical one, arguing that it was only a spiritual change."
There is nothing scientific or sophisticated about Father K
Jerome - You've regularly attacked education and those with more education than you. That's your schtick, and I'm sticking with that story. So, if the shoe fits...
Heaven forfend that anyone should use "intellectualized jargon" in speaking of matters of Catholic doctrine! Classes on soteriology and eschatology are unnecessary. Studies related to the hypostatic union should be banned. Moral theologians are wasting their time looking into the priniciple of double effect. And Canon Lawyers - the worst - use such elitist terms as amentia, Defect of Form, inhabilitating, ligamen, peregrinus, which, as you are well aware I am sure, is not to be confused with vagus.
And Heaven Forfend! that we should attempt to be accurate. Why quibble over the iota in homoiousios (ηομοιουσιος) when it sounds so much like homoousios (ηομοουσιος)? Because the former - of similar substance - is heterodox and the latter (of the same substance) is orthodox.
rcg - Yes, God has been present in many forms from the bush to the pillar of clouds to the "gentle whisper" heard by Elijah. Jesus Christ is also present sacramentally under the forms of bread and wine in the Eucharist.
Impressive Father K.
Think what you want--but all of the esoteric jargon means very little to a Church where the majority of its members don't even know the basic catechism. If they did, we'd see a far different Church than the current mess we've inherited.
Sacramentally or literally, in either case I've got enough precision in my faith to know that Jesus does not belong on the floor or in the bag of a vacuum cleaner.
Jerome Merwick,
Fr K is what is known as a “pseudo intellectual.” Often wrong, but never in doubt. He does not believe in Transubstantiation
Jerome - My faith is also precise. You use "esoteric jargon" as a slam, but I appreciate the necessity of the precision of this esoterica
No one believes that Jesus belongs on the floor on in a vacuum bag. I don't believe that licking the floor in the even a host is dropped is needed to prevent those things.
Jerome Merwick,
Notice how he won’t touch the word “Transubstantiation?”
TJM,
My respect from the priesthood keeps me from commenting. But the obvious is obvious. Glaringly obvious.
I like what St. Macarius the Great had to said about the Eucharist and also what Pope Paul VI wrote in Mysterium Fidei (above). It is so necessary to learn what the Church and her Saints have to say about the Eucharist and other doctrinal and dogmatic topics. As well, there are the most necessary definitive and infallible teachings of the Pope and the Councils provided to us, that with the help of Divine grace, we believe and accept.
But wait... our God is so solicitous and caring for us, that he at times even reveals the actual presence of His physical Body and Blood in what are termed Eucharistic miracles. Of course every Eucharist is a miracle which, although Christ's Body and Blood are unseen, we believe in by faith. How gracious,kind,and caring is our God toward us.
Notice "he" has repeatedly said that the Eucharist is really and truly the Real Presence of Jesus, Body and Blood, Humanity and Divinity.
Notice you won’t use the Catholic term Transubstantiation! Your definition tracks Martin Luther’s!
For 1200 years the Church taught and believed in the Real Presence, as I do today, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus, without using the term "transubstantiation."
I like being traditional...
Fr K,
I suspect your using the term Transubstantiation, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, repels you like a Vampire seeing the Cross. Traditional, you are not.
People LUV being "traditional" when it suits their preferences, but run from it when it does not.
TJM,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLpjtEHbHyQ
Just let it go. Stop taking the bait.
Jerome Merwick,
We know Fr K is heterodox. He confirmed it. Fortunately his days of ruining the Church are close at hand. He plans to move to New York City where he belongs. He will fit right in at Crazyville.
Jerome,
Thanks for sending me the youtube which explains his behavior. Sad
I am late to this interesting discussion. It seems that words really do matter, including the words used in surveys of Catholics concerning their belief in the real presence/transubstantiation. The following Wikipedia article is illuminating regarding this point as well as regarding the history and theology of the doctrine of the real presence/transubstantiation (and the way in which the latter term has changed its meaning in the Church over time):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
Post a Comment