ARTICLES

NEWS

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC

Contents © 1999
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

Not Just Nit-Picking

Dialogue on The Cardinal's Liturgical Renewal

Editor's note: The following series of letters are a condensation of an e-mail dialogue between myself and a Mission reader. The reader, writing under the pseudonym of Sean Owen, objected to our critique of the video guide to Roger Cardinal Mahony's letter on the liturgy, Gather Faithfully Together ("Mahony's Mass," April 1999 Mission). This article reiterated a critique of the cardinal's letter found in two previous articles, "Ever Ambiguous" and "Still Ambiguous," published in the July/August and October 1997 issues of the Mission. We publish this correspondence to clarify for our readers the Mission's position.

Sean Owen, Irvine: In response to your article on Cardinal Mahony's pastoral letter on the Mass ["Mahony's Mass," April 1999 Mission] I must take exception to the implication that the cardinal stresses the doctrine of the presence of Christ in the community to the detriment of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The confederacy of conservatives in this country accuses the cardinal of causing confusion in his presentation and obfuscating doctrine. The cardinal's purpose is to focus on the Church as communion so that members will all the more appreciate the presence of Christ in sacramental communion. The doctrine of the Communion of Saints as enunciated in the earliest dogmas and the developed doctrine of the Mystical Body as taught by Pius XII and the Second Vatican Council is in more danger of unbelief today than even the doctrine of transubstantiation. How many people believe that the Trinity is present in the soul in grace? That dogma is too Evangelical! How sure are people of the presence of Christ in the community? The cardinal's presentation of these essential doctrines does not subvert or deny the doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist. From a pedagogical and pastoral viewpoint, he is correct to start with the community because of the widespread individualism (so dear to conservative thinking) of our times. As Cardinal Ratzinger's congregation stated in 1992, "the concept of communion is the key to renewal of Christian ecclesiology." The either-or fallacy learned in logic should have prevented you from your conclusion about the cardinal. Does he have to repeat the whole catechism when he stresses one important doctrine?

Christopher Zehnder: No, it is not necessary for the cardinal to repeat the whole catechism; but it is important for him to fully explain the nature of the Eucharistic liturgy when treating of it. The presence of Christ in the community of believers is not prior to His Eucharistic presence, but flows from it. The Eucharist is the sacrifice of Christ, the source of all sacraments, the source of the Christ's mystical body, the Church. We can only understand the unity of the faithful in liturgical worship in light of the Eucharistic presence that makes them one.

It is traditional to call the Church the Body of Christ; it is not traditional to call it, as Cardinal Mahony does in Gather Faithfully Together, his letter on the Sunday liturgy, the "Body and Blood" of Christ. Such phraseology has traditionally been reserved to the Eucharist alone. To call the assembly the Body and Blood of Christ is confusing, especially as the cardinal does not call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ except in connection with communion; elsewhere, when referring to the Eucharist, he speaks of "consecrated bread" and "consecrated wine." The danger inherent in the cardinal's confusing language arises from the fact that so often in the Church today one hears that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is no more "real" than His presence in the assembly.

While I embrace the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. I object, however, to its misapplication. The development of more external congregational participation in the Mass, I think, sufficiently underscores this mystery; one need go no farther.

Sean Owen: The use of "consecrated" is traditional. Most of the priests I have talked to see no problem whatever in Cardinal Mahony's wording. You at least run the risk of nit-picking. I think that the cardinal may want to emphasize all the meanings of all the presences of Jesus. The cardinal's purpose to establish the church as an essential means of salvation (not merely of precept) must disturb those who see the Eucharist as merely personal communion."There is no Christ without the Church and of course, there is not Church without Christ." (Tillard). These are more than adequately maintained in the archbishops's pastoral.

I like to read the Mission, but I get uneasy because of the seemingly deliberate vitriol. All the priests that I have talked with and very educated Catholics say the same. Be a prophet, but not at the expense of charity, unity and justice. Pope John XXIII said --"overlook most of the problems and correct the few that need to be corrected."

Christopher Zehnder: My criticism of the cardinal's letter is not that he uses the terms "consecrated bread" and "consecrated wine;" I know these terms are traditional. I ask, however, why the cardinal calls the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ only does in connection with communion? Why does he call the assembly the Body and Blood of Christ? His terminology lacks clarity. A teacher must clarify his terms, especially if they are novel terms. This is especially true in a time like ours when such confusion reigns regarding the nature of the Eucharist. We would not tolerate such imprecision in a doctor of medicine; why do we tolerate it in a doctor of souls?

I know this must sound uppity -- who am I, a mere layman, to question an archbishop? However, one aspect of the Body of Christ obscured by undue clericalism is the fact that, though bishops are the authoritative teachers of the Faith, all, including laymen, have the duty to defend the Faith. Both we and the bishops and the pope are subject to a received religion; it is not the right of any of us to define that religion contrary to tradition. In my articles on the cardinal's pastoral I have pointed to what I think are serious problems. Granted, much of what I wrote may seem nit-picking -- but if you had nits, you would want them picked! The Fathers at the Council of Nicaea may have been thought to be nit-picking when they argued over one Greek letter; but upon that one iota rested a whole world of theological meaning.

Finally, unity in the Church must have a foundation. That foundation, true, is charity, but charity founded in truth. Any unity with any other foundation is a sham.

Sean Owen: The concept of communion is not univocal. Can it not be understood in different ways? Just as sacred scripture is interpreted in different senses -- to the confusion of the unlearned and the fundamentalists! The many senses of scripture so dear to the Church are likewise used by the cardinal in his intrepretation of communion. It must irritate old fashioned Catholics to see the cardinal use language common to Vatican II theology, scripture and Eastern Catholic Theology (see Lumen Gentium 26, and 11 and SC 42). The development of Christian doctrine -- another Catholic doctrine -- and the sensus fidelium give the cardinal ample room for the use of "communion" in more than the sense of sacramental presence in the Eucharist.

Christopher Zehnder: Tradition develops, and it is the office of the teacher of the Faith to declare both what is Catholic teaching and how it is in continuity with tradition. The words of scripture are confusing at times, and so it is the office of teachers (the Fathers, the popes, the bishops) to clarify scripture, and to unpack what is inherent in revelation. A teacher has not the leisure of scripture to be unclear or confusing. I will admit, as I have admitted in my articles, that the cardinal says nothing specifically heretical, but several things that could be taken as heretical. Whether this is by intent or not, I cannot say. The semi-Arians said nothing heretical, either, when they said Christ is of a similar substance to the Father (homoiousion) rather than of the same substance (homoousion); yet, their teaching was vague enough so as to be heretical-tending and could be used for the propagation of heresy. The Fathers of the period knew this, and so fought for a more exact terminology, not for the purpose simply of theological precision, but because the very Faith was at stake. In like manner, we who live in an era of so great a defection from the Faith (esp. as regards the Eucharist) must insist on precision from our teachers -- it is our right, if you will.

Sean Owen: The cardinal does talk about the presence of Christ in the gifts and in the church. He tells us the assembly receives the Blood of Christ and the Body of Christ. He follows the full teaching of the Church as seen in the Catechism (#1376). The presences of Christ in the community, in the individuals in grace, in the gifts, in the sacrifice and in the Eucharist are all maintained in one "communal" entirety. The letter is pastoral, a spiritual colloquy telling us who we are as Church. We are the hands of Christ as we are the mind of Christ and the branches of the vine. We are the body and blood of Christ, a fortiori, because we are other Christs. The Church is the sacrament of Christ as Christ is the Sacrament of God. Is not the presence of Christ in the Church also unique because of scripture and the Vatican Council? To say the only unique presence is the Eucharist might make the presence due to Baptism a secondary one; and is the presence of Christ in Confirmation greater than the presence in Baptism? Each presence enhances the other. The presences of Christ mentioned above are all real presences -- each different in their own mysterious way. Where do we find exact differences between these presences in modern theology? These are mystical but real presences, revealed as mysteries.

St. Bede says "the church gives birth to the church everyday" might well be applied to the cardinal's emphasis on the Eucharistic gathering, sacrifice and communion. "Christianity, says Komonchak,"is not a religion for the inner comforting of individuals alienated from the wider course of history." Putting emphasis on communion only as the main presence of Christ is to subvert the Church itself -- without which there is no Christ. I think the archbishop has begun a process of greater Catholic belief and consensus for the wholeness of the truth of God's extraordinary presence.

I am firmly convinced that the confederacy of Catholic conservatives descend to a level of discourse that is not charitable, courteous or unifying. Your magazine would do well to be less personal. There is diversity in the Church and there is discussion about the doctrines taught in the Council; there is disagreement -- but let it be unifying, not demeaning.

Christopher Zehnder: Christ's presence in the Eucharist is ultimately a mystery. However, this does not mean that we cannot distinguish it from His presence in the Church. Christ is present in the Church mystically; that is, insofar as we are united to Him. However, we are not Christ Himself. We are His hands and feet, not literally, but mystically, insofar as we carry out His work in the world. We are Christ, too, insofar as we are related to Him as His brothers and sisters. We are Christ insofar as He dwells in our inmost being. We are Christ insofar as He is the New Adam and we are "re-created" in His likeness. The Eucharist, however, is Christ Himself. It is His real, not His mystical body. It is His blood and divinity.

Too, it is very problematic to call the people the Blood of Christ, as Cardinal Mahony does. Blood is the life-giving principle, the Body that which is given life by the blood. How can we who are the body be this blood?

I agree that the communal aspect of the Eucharist had been underemphasized in the past; it seems, however, that this communal aspect must be emphasized, not by de-emphasizing the Eucharistic presence of Jesus under the forms of bread and wine, nor by confusing it with other "presences" of Christ, nor by de-emphasizing the "deifying" and transforming nature of the Eucharist in the individual, but by better integrating all these emphases. While integrating the notion of communion of saints with the individual's union with Christ, the liturgy should never lose sight that at the pinnacle of the ascent of Mt. Sinai there is not a fellowship ring, but the vision of the Trinity, the union with the Trinity, of which we all partake together, but which transcends our union even with each other. That is why, I think, traditionally churches are oriented, with all facing the East of the Risen Son of God. We do not face each other, but, conscious of one another, we together face Christ. It is when we leave church that we seek Christ in all things -- in nature, in our hearts, in the poor, in all our brothers and sisters. We process out from the throne room of Christ, which is the church, into the world, where we look for Christ, not in Himself, but reflected in all that is -- and we bring Christ to where He is not. We return by withdrawing together from the images to the reality, from the icons to the prototype, which is Christ Himself, present in His whole being in the Eucharist.

I think the cardinal confuses all the presences of Christ in his letter and in the video of his Mass. In the setup of the "worship space" in the video, he abandons traditional church design and has us at the same time focus on Christ in the Eucharist and on our brothers. I think, too, he emphasizes the presence of Christ in our brothers over the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I thought the quote found from Environment and Art in Catholic Worship included in the General Questions of the Leader's Guide of the video particularly troublesome: "Among the symbols with which liturgy deals, none is more important than this assembly of believers." I would say the most important symbol is that of bread and wine, a symbol that conveys Christ, not as an icon, but in Himself.

Again, the cardinal cannot afford, in this time of confusion and dissent, to be too unclear. A footnote referring one to the Catechism is not enough -- how many read footnotes? Why confine such important teaching to an aside? When one is dealing with the Eucharistic liturgy, which helps us to approach the mystery of Christ in the Eucharist, how can one be unclear as to the nature of the Eucharist? It is the centrality of the Eucharist to our liturgy that gives it its essential difference.

You ask, "where do we find an exact definition of each presence as related to the others?" I would answer that no "exact" definitions of mystery are possible, but more or less accurate ones are -- we need not use such inaccurate language as to say that, since Christ is present in and interpenetrates all things, He is as present in a tree as in the Church or in the Eucharist! Tradition, again, provides the key: it is the doctrine coined "transubstantiation." The eucharistic bread and wine are not bread and wine, they are Christ's Body and Blood, His humanity and divinity; in a word, Christ Himself. We, through baptism, participate in the life of Christ; Christ is present in us, but we are not Christ. Thus, the Church calls us to adore the Eucharist, but not to adore the Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church underscores this: "The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as 'the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.' [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, 73, 3c.] 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.' [Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651.] '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.' [Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei 39.]"

TOP