Seeing or Eating -- Or Both?

[phatcatholic]

i just recently read an article on the consecration and post-vatican II Eucharistic theology, and some of the critiques in it were new to me. i would definitely like everyone's thoughts on them. i am particularly interested in the parts about how no one part of the eucharistic prayer should be given more emphasis (via the priests tone of voice) than the rest, how no part of the words should be addressed directly to the elements of bread and wine, and how these elements should not be raised once they become the Body and Blood of Christ.


[b]Seeing or Eating - or Both?[/b]
[url="http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/erastofernandez/theeucharist/14.asp"]http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/colum...ucharist/14.asp[/url]
[i][b]by Fr. Erasto Fernandez [/b][/i]

Undoubtedly, even today for most Christians the essential and most sacred action of the Eucharist is the 'consecration'. Over the years we have come to accept and now even take it for granted that it is while these solemn and important words are pronounced that our gifts of bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. That is the key reason why many priests take great care to pronounce these words correctly, distinctly and prayerfully, even if the rest of the EP is raced through. We also believe that the 'double' consecration is needed to ensure that the body and blood of Christ are separately made present, thus indicating also their separation in the death of Christ. Anyone familiar with post-Vatican theology of the Eucharist can see immediately 'how things have changed' in this important area.

[b]Post-Vatican Terminology[/b]

We have alluded to these changes in previous issues, but to help refresh our memories, we mention them here briefly. We speak today more in terms of 'sanctifying the gifts' by our prayer for an in-filling of the Spirit rather than of consecration. Further, the fact of a 'double' action with bread and cup refers not so much to the separation of body from blood indicating the death of Christ, but rather to the Semitic way of emphasizing an action through repetition. The action with the bread would have come almost at the start of the Passover Meal, as a kind of 'grace before meals.' The action with the Cup is practically the last gesture of the Meal and could be termed the 'grace after meals.' Both have clear references to the first alliance or covenant made through Moses after God had prepared the people over several years of their desert journeying. The double action simply emphasizes the importance of the action. Called today 'the Institution Narrative' this section must be proclaimed in the same tone of voice used for the rest of the EP. In short, this section should not stand out as something special or different from the other sections of the EP.

What possibly needs a fuller explanation is that post-Vatican Eucharistic theology does not focus on a 'particular moment' in which the transformation is supposed to occur. The entire EP, and not any specific portion of it, is seen as the transformative prayer. This approach has been prevalent in the Eastern liturgies from almost the very beginning. Several practical implications follow from such an assertion. First, since the prayer from start to finish is seen as one integral whole, the entire prayer should be prayed in the same tone of voice. No special emphasis should be given to the parts printed in dark, bold letters in the missal. Also, the Institution Narrative should be seen as the 'story' of what Jesus did at the Last Supper, recounted lovingly and gratefully so that we can not only make it present here and now, but also enter into its dynamic as we seek to fulfill Christ's command to 'do this as a memorial of me.' As a narrative, it should be addressed to the Father and in the presence of the assembly equally, to elicit their wholehearted response of faith and love. In no way are the words of the Institution Narrative to be addressed to the elements of bread and cup. Each of the various sections in the EP should get the same amount of emphasis, meaning that we do not pray any particular part with greater reverence, deliberation and so on. This was usually done for the Institution Narrative, while the rest was just raced through.

[b]Static Presence or Dynamic Action?[/b]

It is customary for priests to directly or indirectly invite the faithful to extend their adoration of the sacred species at the time of the Institution Narrative. In fact, there was a period in the history of the Eucharist when the Christian faithful came to Eucharist only to gaze on the sacred Host at the time of 'consecration'. They believed that a mere loving and faith-filled gaze would bring them untold gifts, even miracles. And so they came to Church but remained outside while the Eucharist continued. A warning bell was rung to bring them in for the 'consecration.' Their 'active participation' consisted only in spending a few precious minutes gazing on the sacred Host, after which they would hastily leave. The Celebrant, of course, had his back to the people and so, in order that they might gaze on the sacred Host, he had to raise it high after the words of consecration had been pronounced. This was the origin of the 'elevation' of the sacred host and Cup at this juncture. At times, depending on the devotion of the Celebrant, they would gaze on the sacred Host for as long as ten minutes. Once this was over, they left the Church and rushed to the next parish to catch the next Consecration-elevation. The movement from gazing on the sacred Host during the Eucharist to gazing on it outside of the celebration through 'exposition' in a monstrance is but a natural outcome and a foregone conclusion.

However, we readily realize that such a 'celebration' of Eucharist could do nothing for the lives of the people and that the Eucharist was approached only as a means of obtaining favours and blessings. The original intention of Jesus in giving us his presence in the form of bread broken and Cup shared was totally lost. Today, of course, we stress the fact that Jesus is dynamically present during the Eucharist - He is there for us, in order to transform us into himself and to send us out on mission in his name. Hence, in the context of a renewed Eucharistic Spirituality, a prominent raising of the sacred Host with a prolonged 'adoration' or the uttering of ejaculations like "My Lord and my God" are totally out of place at the Institution Narrative. Again, given the fact that the Celebrant now faces the congregation, would the 'elevation' be necessary? The proper place for this adoration is the time of silence after reception of holy Communion or prayer before the Sacrament outside of the Eucharistic celebration.

Further, the power and challenge of the Eucharist lies not just in gazing on the sacred Host, but in 'eating/drinking' or better, becoming one with Jesus in his redemptive mission. It invites us to 'put on the mind of Christ' and empty or break ourselves for the benefit of others. We recall how the question of eating his flesh and drinking his blood became the point of rejection of Jesus by his Jewish followers who accused him of cannibalism, in the context of John's Christian community. But, what Jesus asks of his followers is that they become assimilated into himself, become one with him to the extent of being ready to sacrifice their very lives for the benefit of others. This can be very demanding, as it requires us to become bread for the hungry, eyes to the blind, feet to the lame and so on. It strips us of the conceit and self-centredness that, so often, characterize our lives. In Jewish culture, to share a meal with someone is to enter into a deep personal relationship with that person/family. Using this meaningful background, Jesus goes further, in that he offers himself not just as a co-sharer of the meal (which he also is), but more than that, he becomes the very food we share. This points to and effects a far deeper union and oneness.

[b]Conclusion[/b]

In our day, there are very few participants in the Eucharist who do not share in the bread and the Cup. Some 'receive communion' even more than once a day! The practice of 'gazing on the sacred Host' still continues but it is rarely exaggerated. Many today perhaps need to be reminded that Jesus does not 'come down on our altars' at the Institution Narrative, but is present to us in different forms throughout the Eucharistic celebration. Nevertheless, a renewed Eucharistic Spirituality today challenges us to go back to the original intention of Jesus in giving us the Eucharist - not just that we may enjoy his continuing presence and adore him, but that we may be transformed by him and actively continue his redemptive mission in our surroundings. Once we can genuinely do that, then we will find that we can 'see' Jesus everywhere and in every person we deal with. The Risen Lord dwelling within us will 'open our eyes' to the reality of his dynamic presence all around us. 'In him we live and move and have our being.' Our lives would be drawn into a marvelous unity and the effect of Christ's transformation of us during the Eucharist would carry through into the rest of the day.

Everything we do or say would bear the stamp of his 'paschal event.' Through our Christ-like efforts, we would truly see the whole of creation being transformed into what God originally meant it to be - a reflection of his own love and care for his creatures. Eucharist would then become not just something celebrated only in a ritual, but a way of life, a way of relating to all people around us, a new style of living in this world as being already God's loving and loved children. Whether this transformed society and world will be only a dream of the future or a presently evolving reality - this is the challenge before us who celebrate Eucharist.

[qfnol31]

I'll be straightforward.

I don't care much for this article. It sounds like he's coming from a "post-Vatican II" perspective and that he wants to remove emphasis from the most Blessed Sacrament to other places, which has never been the Latin Church's way.

Further, he follows many in the error of trying to "Easternize the Church." Don't get me wrong, I have a fondness for many things Eastern, but knowing their theology, I cannot become one now. He wants to show how the Latin Church is trying to bring itself closer to the East, which actually destroys the purpose of Churches in themselves.

On a rather humerous sidenote: A friend of mine took his Greek Orthodox friend to a Novus Ordo Mass, which my friend said wasn't too bad as far as Masses (and abuses) go. However, his friend had to leave after fifteen minutes saying that he felt as though he was in a Protestant service.

Easternization will not and cannot work. Even the Greeks think we're too liberal in the Mass as it is. I know at least a few Orthodox who much prefer the Tridentine Mass.

I may not know as much as this Priest, but I do believe the Roman Missal calls for the Priest to say the words "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum" and "Hic est enim calix Sanguinis Mei" (the ones in bold, go figure) slowly and with his head bowed over the host and chalice. Lastly, the GIRM calls for the Priest to show the Sacred Species after Concecration and later (actually, it also implies he should still be facing away).

Of course, this is just a brief reading for now.

[Colleen]

In that article, it seems to be reducing the Eucharist to a mere meal. I really don't care for it either. I found several things troublesome in this article. Among them are:

[quote]Hence, in the context of a renewed Eucharistic Spirituality, a prominent raising of the sacred Host with a prolonged 'adoration' or the uttering of ejaculations like "My Lord and my God" are totally out of place at the Institution Narrative.[/quote]
What is wrong with adoration of the Host? And why is the pious practice of saying "My Lord and my God" at the elevation of the Host condemned? So many of the Saints recommended this, like St. Josemaria, for example.

[quote]Many today perhaps need to be reminded that Jesus does not 'come down on our altars' at the Institution Narrative, but is present to us in different forms throughout the Eucharistic celebration.[/quote]
There are a lot of questionable things implied in this statement.

[quote]In fact, there was a period in the history of the Eucharist when the Christian faithful came to Eucharist only to gaze on the sacred Host at the time of 'consecration'. They believed that a mere loving and faith-filled gaze would bring them untold gifts, even miracles. And so they came to Church but remained outside while the Eucharist continued. A warning bell was rung to bring them in for the 'consecration.' Their 'active participation' consisted only in spending a few precious minutes gazing on the sacred Host, after which they would hastily leave. The Celebrant, of course, had his back to the people and so, in order that they might gaze on the sacred Host, he had to raise it high after the words of consecration had been pronounced. This was the origin of the 'elevation' of the sacred host and Cup at this juncture. At times, depending on the devotion of the Celebrant, they would gaze on the sacred Host for as long as ten minutes. Once this was over, they left the Church and rushed to the next parish to catch the next Consecration-elevation. The movement from gazing on the sacred Host during the Eucharist to gazing on it outside of the celebration through 'exposition' in a monstrance is but a natural outcome and a foregone conclusion.[/quote]
I found this disturbing, because it seems to imply that until Vatican II came around as a "Catholic Enlightenment Movement," the ordinary people were just too stupid to understand what was going on at Mass. I think it gives an incorrect view of how things really were.

And another thing, I have always attended the Novus Ordo Mass, but the few times I've been to a Tridentine Mass, I've really understood better how awesome it is when the Priest is turned with his back towards the people. When the Priest raises Jesus up, it's like he's leading the people in adoration of Jesus. It's awe-inspiring, and I don't know why this writer frowns upon adoration of the Host. Jesus is God; He is meant to be adored.

[journeyman]

I know I'm not supposed to expect Jesus to "wander" into the bread and wine during or immediately after the consecration - no lightning bolt or shaft of light or descending dove

and one reason for that is set out in this statement that seems to be causing some problem:

[quote]Many today perhaps need to be reminded that Jesus does not 'come down on our altars' at the Institution Narrative, but is present to us in different forms throughout the Eucharistic celebration.
[/quote]

Because the author was speaking of the Eucharistic celebration in particular, I think he unnecessarily narrowed the statement . . . Jesus should be present to us in different forms throughout our lives . . . in the people we encounter, in the world we walk or drive through, in the Word we read and hear, and specifically in connection with the consecration, in the bread and wine

Is this author more concerned with the theology of consecration, or the rubrics . . . I can see his concern being with the fitness of actions matching words . . .

this isn't quite as clear cut a situation as this example . . . during the confiteor (especially the pre-1960 latin version), the speaker beat their breast three times as they said "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" . . . one blow for each repetition of the phrase of culpability . . . in the post-1960 text, there is only "through my own fault" and the action has been reduced from three blows to one. Three blows would match neither the rhythm nor the flow of the words.

Since we know that following the consecration, our Lord is actually present in the bread and wine, and since we have been able to witness the entire process (unlike the situation pre-1960 where the bread and wine were hidden from our view behind (in front of?) the priest, does it need to be elevated for us to whisper "my Lord and my God" . . . I don't have a problem with an elevation (visual cues are appropriate rubrics), but I also don't require it (as long as the Mass is offered in a language I understand!)

[qfnol31]

In the GIRM it mentions these:

[quote]a. A bow of the head is made when the three Divine Persons are named together and at the names of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Saint in whose honor Mass is being celebrated.
b. A bow of the body, that is to say a profound bow, is made to the altar; during the prayers Munda cor meum (Almighty God, cleanse my heart) and In spiritu humilitatis (Lord God, we ask you to receive); in the Creed at the words Et incarnatus est (by the power of the Holy Spirit . . . made man); in the Roman Canon at the words Supplices te rogamus (Almighty God, we pray that your angel). The same kind of bow is made by the deacon when he asks for a blessing before the proclamation of the Gospel. [b]In addition, the priest bows slightly as he speaks the words of the Lord at the consecration.[/b][/quote]

[photosynthesis]

thanks for posting this article!

[phatcatholic]

thanks everyone for your responses. anyone else?