The Eucharist: Professing our Faith in Word and Action

Fr. Regis Scanlon,  OFM CAP.

CONTENTS

Part I—The Church’s Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence . . .  . . . Scripture and Tradition clearly teach transubstantiation

Berengarius of Tours and St. Thomas Aquinas

Martin Luther and John Calvin

Paul VI’s encyclical, Mysterium Fidei 

Every particle of the species is Christ!

Part II—The Challenge to the Church’s Eucharistic Doctrine             Karl Rahner’s Transfinalization (or Transignification)

Edward Schillebeeckx’s Transignification

United States theologians favor transignification  

Facing some uncomfortable facts  

Part III—Teaching the faith  by action (orthopraxy)

Required gestures and postures

The Caeremoniale Episcoporum (Ceremonial of Bishops)

A “strongly recommended act”

Kneeling is an irreplaceable “work” of  “faith”

Distinguishing between bows and genuflections

The book of the Gospel

Kneeling is especially important for children

Part IV—Challenging the faith by action (heteropraxy)

A strange de-emphasis of the Blessed Sacrament

A poor recommendation  

Standing denies the development of doctrine

Does standing or kneeling testify best  to the Resurrection? 

An ambiguous recommendation

Kneeling after the “Our Father”

Discouraging “latria” is perilous

Tell-tale signs of an inverted Eucharistic theology

“Better for us to obey God than men!” (Acts 5:29)

 Part V—The Eucharist, dissent, and Mass Apostasy

 Sin or dissent bars one from the Holy Communion

The more severe punishment of loss of faith 

Part VI—The Eucharist and the “end” times 

The real “holy of holies” is the Eucharist.

The Antichrist and Jn 6:66 

Part I—The Church’s Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real PresencePRIVATE

When one looks at the Church today one can see the power of God working everywhere. One example would be the charity of Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her Missionaries Sisters of Charity.  Many generous young women are giving up everything to follow in the footsteps of the  Christ by serving the poorest of the poor.  Then there is Pope John Paul II.  We are so fortunate today to have such a valiant Pope.  He has already shed his blood for Christ once and perhaps he will do it again in the future.

But, who would deny there are serious negative facts?  Today the world and the Church are both marked by turmoil. One need not give examples of the turmoil in the world.  The break down of law and order nationally and internationally is all too clear in everyone’s experience. And, the Catholic Church is also beset by factions which threaten to fracture the Church into pieces if not resolved.  The Catholic people notice this most clearly in the practice of their faith, in the  Liturgy of the Eucharist.

So, today there is a crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States over the Liturgy, a crisis which was not present in this country 30 years ago.  For, it is now the case that one priest may be able to offer Mass according to the Liturgy of one parish church, but, as a matter of conscience, he may not be able to offer Mass at another.  And the churches which this priest cannot serve, another priest feels that, as a matter of conscience, he must serve.  Again, Catholic people are seen church-shopping in search of a Liturgy that does not offend their Catholic faith and religious convictions.  Today there is a deep polarization within the visible Catholic Church.  This miserable experience has led countless numbers of priests and religious to abandon their vocations and the number entering these sacred vocations have dwindled to an all time low.

One cannot help asking what is the fundamental problem in the Church and the world today?  The Second Vatican Council taught that the Church is the “soul of human society.” [1]  The Council has also taught that the Eucharist is that from which “grace is poured forth upon us as from a fountain” and It is the “end”  “to which all activities of the Church are directed.” [2]  So, the Eucharist is the center or heart of the Church. In a certain sense the Eucharist is the soul of the Church and the Church is the soul of human society.   The trouble in the world, then, must in some way be linked to trouble in the Church and the trouble in the Church must in some way be linked to trouble over the Eucharist.  Indeed, in light of Church history, it is quite logical to suspect that whenever there is strife in the Church, one will find division over the Eucharist at the bottom of it all.

So, there is really only one problem or issue today—division over the Eucharist.  Straighten this out and you will have peace in the Church and, consequently, peace in the world. We must, therefore, carefully examine the Church’s most important Eucharistic doctrine, the Real Presence of the Christ in the Eucharist, as it is taught by the Church and as it is presented by theologians and believed by Catholic people today.  This will enable us to clarify any divisions among Catholic peoples’ understanding of the Eucharist today and to move toward unity in the  Church and then in the world. 

Scripture and Tradition clearly teach  transubstantiation

When Jesus told his disciples that “my flesh is real food and my blood real drink” (Jn. 6:55),  his disciples took Him literally and said: “This sort of talk is hard to endure!  How can anyone take it seriously?” (Jn. 6:60).  Then St. John’s Gospel reports:  “Jesus was fully aware that his disciples were murmuring in protest at what he had said.  ‘Does it shake your faith?’ he asked them.  ‘What, then, if you were to see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before. . . ?’” (Jn. 6:61-62).  John then states that “From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer.  Jesus then said to the Twelve, ‘Do you want to leave me too?’” (Jn. 6:66-67).  Unlike, those that walked away, and unlike “Judas” who deceived everyone,  the Twelve stayed with Jesus because they trusted His words (Jn. 6:69-71).

Now, “Jesus was fully aware” that they understood his teaching literally.  Obviously, if Jesus had only meant that they would eat His Body and drink His Blood  figuratively or symbolically, He would have said so before they walk away.  Since He did not, He meant his words literally and, of course,  not sensibly or canniblistically, but miraculously!

Some non Catholic Christians become confused by Jesus remarks made within this chapter six of St. John ‘s Gospel.  After the disciples complain that “This sort of talk is hard to endure!  How can anyone take it seriously?,” Jesus states: “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless.  The words I spoke to you are spirit and life” (Jn. 6:63).   They mistakenly think that this is proof that Jesus is saying that He only means that the disciples will receive His flesh and blood spiritually and not literally.  But it is illogical that Jesus would say that His flesh is “useless” after saying that “the flesh of the Son of Man” gives “life” (Jn 6:53).  Rather Jesus is not talking about His flesh, but about their flesh.  In other words, Jesus is telling the disciples that they cannot grasp or come to His teaching on the Eucharist by their senses or their “flesh” which is “useless” for this purpose,  but  only through faith or “spirit.” 

This belief, that Jesus really gave us His Body and Blood to eat and drink, was the faith of the Church right from the beginning.  Second century St. Irenaeus of Lyons points out that the resurrection of Jesus’ body, the Eucharist, and our own resurrection is a matter of a real body that has risen, is present, and will rise, and not just a spiritual or incorporeal man.  For, he says, it is because the Word became flesh, and nourished our flesh and blood by his very own Flesh and Blood, that we can be certain that we too will rise someday in flesh and blood.  St. Irenaeus states:

If our flesh is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with his blood, the eucharistic chalice does not make us sharers in his blood, and the bread we break does not make us sharers in his body.  There can be no blood without veins, flesh and the rest of the human substance, and this the Word of God actually became: it was with is own blood that he redeemed us.  As the Apostle says:  In him, through his blood, we have been redeemed, our sins have been forgiven.

We are his members and we are nourished by creation, which is his gift to us, for it is he who causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall.  He declared that the chalice, which comes from his creation, was his blood, and he makes it the nourishment of our blood. He affirmed that the bread, which comes from his creation, was his body, and he makes it the nourishment of our body.  When the chalice we mix and the bread we bake receive the Word of God, the eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ, by which our bodies live and grow.  How then can it be said that flesh belonging to the Lord’s own body and nourished by his body and blood is incapable of receiving God’s gift of eternal life?  St. Paul says in his letter to the Ephesians that we are members of his body, of his flesh and bones.  He is not speaking of some spiritual and incorporeal kind of man, for spirits do not have flesh and bones. He is speaking of a real body composed of flesh, sinews and bones, nourished by the chalice of Christ’s blood and receiving growth from the bread which is his body.

The slip of a vine planted in the ground bears fruit at the proper time.  The grain of wheat falls into the ground and decays only to be raised up again and multiplied by the Spirit of God who sustains all things.  The Wisdom of God places these things at the service of man and when they receive God’s Word they become the eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ.  In the same way our bodies which have been nourished by the eucharist, will be buried in the earth and will decay, but they will rise again at the appointed time, for the Word of God will raise them up to the glory of God the Father.  [3]

Second century St. Justin Martyr points out that the Eucharist is not a matter of the assembly pretending that the bread and wine are Jesus Christ or that the bread and wine are merely Christ symbolically or figuratively through the imagination of the Christian worshipers.  Rather, the bread and wine really become the Body and Blood of Christ by means of the power of Christ’s own words spoken through the priest at the Mass (Prayer of Thanksgiving).  Justin  Martyr  states:

We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving. [4]

This is also the way the Fathers of the Church of the 4^th century understood the teaching of Jesus Christ on the Eucharist.  St. Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria states:

He said This is my body and this is my blood in a demonstrative fashion, so that you might not judge that what you see is a mere figure; instead the offerings are truly changed by the hidden power of God almighty into Christ’s body and blood, which bring us the life-giving and sanctifying power of Christ when we share in them.[5]

And,  St. Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan teaches about the power of the blessing (consecration) at the Eucharist when he says:

Let us be assured that this is not what nature formed but what the blessing has consecrated; and there is greater power in the blessing than in nature, since nature itself is changed through the blessing. . . . Surely the word of Christ, who could make something that did not exist out of nothing, can change things that do exist into something they were not before.  For it is no less extraordinary to give new natures to things than it is to change nature.[6]

So, it is quite clear from the first centuries that the Eucharistic consecration “changes” the “nature” of the bread and wine into the “nature” of Jesus Christ and that the Eucharist is not just “a mere figure” of Jesus Christ but “truly” Jesus Christ Himself  in His very “nature.”

Berengarius of Tours and St. Thomas Aquinas

No one seriously challenged this teaching on Christ’s Eucharistic Real Presence until the 11^th century. Then, Archdeacon Berengarius of Tours held that  Christ was present in the Eucharist only “as mere sign and symbol” and that “’If bread is called the Body of Christ’” after the consecration, “’then bread must remain.’”[7]  Thus, Berengarius states: “That which is consecrated (the bread) is not able to cease existing materially.” [8]  St. Thomas Aquinas calls “Berengarius . . . the first deviser of this heresy,” that the consecrated Bread and Wine are only a “sign” of  Christ Body and Blood.[9] In 1079 Berengarius recanted and took the oath of Roman Council VI which stated:

I, Berengarius, in my heart believe and with my lips confess that through the mystery of the sacred prayer and words of our Redeemer the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are substantially changed into the true and proper living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord, and that after consecration it is the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and which, offered for the salvation of the world, was suspended on the Cross, and which sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and the true blood of Christ, which was poured out from His side not only through the sign and power of the sacrament, but in its property of nature and in truth of substance, as here briefly in a few words is contained and I have read and you understand.  Thus I believe, nor will I teach contrary to this belief.  So help me God and these holy Gospels of God. [10]

The faithful were quick to respond  to false teachings on the Eucharist by those such as Berengarius.  It was obvious that “honor should be paid to the Sacrament (but)  . . . all the more so when heresy had made an assault on faith in the Eucharist” [11] To counter the attacks against the Real Presence, the faithful demonstrated external acts of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.  St. Francis of Assisi, for example, stated: “When the priest is offering sacrifice at the altar or the Blessed Sacrament is being carried about, everyone should kneel down and give praise, glory, and honor to our Lord and God, living and true.” [12]

The Doctors of the Church also defended the Church’s Eucharistic teaching against the attack of men like Berengarius by clarifying the Church’s doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. St. Thomas Aquinas gave three reasons why there can be no real bread and wine present on the altar after the consecration. First of all:

. . . it remains that Christ’s body cannot begin to be anew in this sacrament except by change of the substance of bread into itself.  But what is changed into another thing, no longer remains after such change.  Hence the conclusion is that, saving the truth of this sacrament, the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration.

Secondly, because this position is contrary to the form of this sacrament, in which it is said:  This is My body, which would not be true if the substance of the bread were to remain there; for the substance of bread never is the body of Christ.  Rather should one say in that case:  Here is My body.

Thirdly, because it would be opposed to the veneration of this sacrament, if any substance were there, which could not be adored with adoration of latria.[13]

So, “the substance of bread never is the body of Christ.”  Thus, one says “this” is Christ and not “Here” (in this place) is Christ or Christ is in the bread .  St. Thomas also says that, if bread  remained after the consecration, we would be guilty of idolatry by giving mere creation the act of “latria (adoration) . . . which is proper to divine nature  alone.”[14]  So, bread does not remain!

St. Thomas taught that the “substance” of a thing  is its “matter and form.” [15]   Now, when St. Thomas speaks of the “matter and form” of a really existing individual man, he says that “matter” belongs to the “substance” of this particular man because “it belongs to the notion of this particular man to be composed of this soul, of this flesh, and of these bones.” [16]  Thus, the substance of an individual existing man or piece of bread includes its matter and, therefore, its  physical reality.  So, it must always be remembered that the physical is real.  It is part of the real man,  the real bread, the real wine, the real Jesus Christ, the Real Presence.

Martin Luther , John Calvin, and Trent

Another heresy concerning the Eucharist arose in the 16^th century.  Martin Luther  began the Lutheran church by breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church.  And, just as Luther had a different understanding of the Church, so he also had a different understanding of the Eucharist.  Luther taught the notion of “consubstantiation” instead of transubstantiation.[17]  He believed that both substances, the physical bread (and wine) along with the Body of Jesus Christ, existed after the consecration.  When Luther writes about the two substances,  the physical bread (and wine) and the Body of  Christ, he says:

It is not necessary, meanwhile, that one of the two disappear or be annihilated, but both the bread and the Body remain, and by virtue of the sacramental unity it is correct to say, “This is my Body,” designating the bread with the word “this.”  For now it is no longer ordinary bread in the oven but a “Flesh-bread” or “Body-bread,” i.e., a bread that has become one sacramental substance, one with the Body of Christ.  Likewise with the wine in the cup, “This is my blood,” designating the wine with the word “this.”  For it is no longer ordinary wine in the cellar but the “blood-wine,” i.e., a wine which has been united with the blood of Christ in one sacramental substance.[18]

Perhaps, the second most powerful heresy about the Eucharist in the 16^th century came from John Calvin the founder of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches.  For Calvin, the blessed bread and wine are symbols of one’s efficacious relationship with Jesus Christ, but they are not Christ Himself. First of all, Calvin indicates that he believes Catholic worship of the Blessed Sacrament to be idolatry when he concludes about the Roman Catholic Church: “the whole form of divine worship in general use in the present day is nothing but mere corruption.”[19]  Then, Calvin criticizes the Catholic doctrine on the Real Presence by stating:

While the sacrament ought to have been a means of raising pius minds to heaven, the sacred symbols of the Supper were abused to an entirely different purpose, and men, contented with gazing upon them and worshipping them, never once thought of Christ.[20]

Again, Calvin states about the Eucharist:

When celebrating the Supper, we shall indeed worship him as present, but with minds upraised to heaven, whither faith calls us, not fixed down on the bread, which were not less at variance with the right rule of faith, than with the glorious majesty of Christ.[21]

Clearly, for Calvin, the blessed bread was not Christ Himself and adoration of it was worship of “idols.” [22]

The Church defended its teaching on the Real Presence against Luther during the Council of Trent by condemning the statement that, after the consecration, “there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[23]   The Council of Trent (1545-1563),  in harmony with St. Thomas,  infallibly taught:

If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.[24]

And the Church (Trent) defended this teaching against Calvin with a dogma concerning  practice in regards to the Eucharist:

If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria (the act of adoration), and therefore not to be venerated with a special festive celebration, nor to be borne about in procession according to the praiseworthy and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or is not to be set before the people publicly to be adored, and that the adorers of it are idolaters; let him be anathema (cf. n. 878).[25]

Paul VI’s encyclical, Mysterium Fidei

Now this teaching of the Church on the Eucharist continued to be the belief of the  Catholic people up to modern times.  Then, it was brought to Paul VI’s attention during the Second Vatican Council that once again attempts were being made to introduce errors into the Church concerning the Eucharist.  Paul VI, therefore, issued an encyclical, Mysterium Fidei, during the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).  It is interesting to note that, since Mysterium Fidei was issued by the Pope himself (without the signatures of the Council Fathers) in the midst the Second Vatican Council, this document is not listed or promulgated among the Pre-Conciliar,  Conciliar, or Post Conciliar documents.  Consequently, many people do not know Mysterium Fidei.  And this is perhaps the greatest tragedy of our times since this document is perhaps the most important document ever on the Eucharist. [26]

Paul VI explained the dogma of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in Mysterium Fidei by first discussing the various ways in which  Christ is present in His Church.   The Pope points out that “Christ is present in His Church when she prays”;  “as she performs her works of mercy”; “as she preaches” and “proclaims” the “word”;  “as she rules and governs the People of God”; and “in a still more sublime manner as she offers the Sacrifice of the Mass in His name” and “as she administers the sacraments.” [27]   Next the Pope states:

But there is another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all the others.  It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is, for this reason, “a more consoling source of devotion, a lovelier object of contemplation and holier in what it contains” than all the other sacraments; for it contains Christ Himself and it is “a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments.”[28]

Continuing the Pope states:

This presence is called “real” not to exclude the idea that the others are “real” too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man.  And so it would be wrong for anyone to try to explain this manner of presence by dreaming up a so called “pneumatic” nature of the glorious body of Christ that would be present everywhere; or for anyone to limit it to symbolism, as if this most sacred Sacrament were to consist in nothing more than an efficacious sign “of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful, the members of His Mystical Body.’”[29]

Consequently, the Pope says that it is wrong to speak about the changes that occurs to the bread and the wine during the Eucharist as if they involve nothing more than ‘transignification,’ or ‘transfinalization’ as they call it.” [30]   Paul VI says:

As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. 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 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.[31]

So, Paul VI says that, after the consecration, “nothing remains of the bread and wine except for the species.”  But St. Thomas Aquinas says about the meaning of “species”:

From this we can see how essence or nature is related to the notion of species.  The notion of species is not one of those items that belong to the nature when it is considered absolutely, nor is it one of the accidents that follow upon the nature because of the being it has outside the soul, like whiteness or blackness.  Rather, the notion of species is one of the accidents that follow upon the nature because of the being it has in the intellect; and it is in this way, too, that the notions of genus and difference belong to it.[32]

“Species,” therefore, is not an essence, a substance, or a thing which exists outside the mind of the person.  Rather, it is an impression upon our senses caused by the thing, which the intellect uses to judge (categorize) what kind of the thing exists outside the mind. Species exists in the mind as a definition of the thing. “Species,” therefore, has “being” in the mind, but it does not have being “outside the soul.” Thus, St. Thomas says: “species is one of the accidents that follow upon the nature because of the being it has in the intellect.”

But, obviously, there is something physical outside the mind of the communicant after the consecration, or he could not handle and eat the Eucharist.  What is this something which is physical?  Paul VI gives us the answer when he sates: “Christ is present whole and entire in His physical ‘reality’ corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are present in place (totus et integer Christus adest in sua physica ‘realitate’ etiam corporaliter praesens, licet non eo modo quo corpora adsunt in loco).” [33]

Thus, after the consecration at the Eucharist, thing outside the mind (the bread and wine) causes an impression or species to be left upon the mind of the believer through the senses (taste, touch, etc.).  The species (impression) of the bread and wine combined with the species (information) obtained from the Scriptures enables the believer to judge that Christ has changed this bread and wine into Himself and that now the physical Eucharist outside his mind is not what it appears to be (bread and wine), but rather the Body and the Blood (the full reality) of Jesus Christ.  Thus, when Paul VI says that “nothing remains of the bread and wine except the species,” he is saying that the species of bread and wine exists only in the mind of the believer and that the physical thing (outside the mind), which he handles and eats, is Jesus Christ Himself.  Therefore, when the Church teaches that the “whole substance of bread” and the “entire substance of wine” is changed into the whole substance of Jesus Christ, she is saying that transubstantiation includes a change in “matter” and “body,” which is a change in the “physical” order of reality. The “physical reality” which exists outside the mind  after the consecration is not bread and wine.  It is Jesus Christ!

Every particle of the species is Christ!

Because the Church teaches that the Eucharist is the “physical ‘reality’” of Jesus Christ “bodily present,” some will certainly ask: What happens when the Host is broken into pieces at Mass?  Is Jesus broken into parts, or is each part totally Jesus?   The Council of Trent answered this question by means of the following statements on the Eucharist:

Can. 3. If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made:  let him be anathema [cf. n. 876].

Can. 4. If anyone says that after the completion of the consecration that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in the marvelous sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles, which are reserved or remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain:  let him be anathema [cf. n. 876].[34]

And, 4^th century St. Cyril of Jerusalem warns the Christian who is about to take the Blessed Sacrament in Communion:  “receive it:  be careful lest you loose any of it.” [35] “For as St. Hippolytus says) it is the Body of Christ.” [36]

But St. Thomas Aquinas adds a note to all of this.  He asks whether the Sacramental species can be corrupted?  In the following, St. Thomas talks about whether Christ is still present in a consecrated host or cup which has been changed or corrupted:

But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.[37]

So, for example, in order for the species of bread to remain, the particle of bread must be able to be eaten (chewed and swallowed). But even a particle the size of the head of a match stick or perhaps even the size of the head of a pin can be masticated and swallowed.  A piece this size, therefore, would most likely still be the Body of Christ.  But it would seem that those fine dust-like particles, which float down from the priest’s fingers when he distributes Holy Communion, are probably not the Body of Christ.  But they should be treated reverently since they would be like the bandages of Christ’s wounds if His wounds had been bound.

Part II—The Challenge to the Church’s Eucharistic Doctrine

Karl Rahner’s  Transfinalization ( or Transignification)

Because Karl Rahner S. J., and Edward Schillebeeckx, O. P. published their books on the Eucharist in 1966 and 1968 respectively, one suspects that it was reports of their emerging Eucharistic theologies of the Real Presence that prompted Paul VI to issue his encyclical, Mysterium Fidei, in 1965.[38] Surely, by 1965, it was already clear that a so-called new theology of the Real Presence was developing among theologians and would soon appear in print. The philosophical basis for this so-called new Eucharistic theology most likely came from the deceased German Idealist, Karl Rahner, who denied that the physical is real or part of a thing’s substance.  Rahner states:

The mental event as such is the individually occurring real and actual event.  The fact that besides this there is physical being with activities, but not present to itself in its own awareness, does not make such being a paradigm case of what being “real” means.  The physical must be regarded as a deficient mode of that being and reality which is immanently present to itself and precisely thereby brings its own ontological nature as an objective datum before itself.[39]

While it is true that “physical being” is not the only “real” being, Rahner is saying here that to be “physical” does not mean to be “real” at all,  i.e., “physical  being”  is not “real” being.

Even though Karl Rahner states that the “ ‘substance’ of bread” changes to the “substance of the body of Christ” by means of “transubstantiation” at the consecration of the Mass, he later states that “it is not quite clear what ‘substantia panis’ (substance of bread) means.”[40]   Furthermore, Rahner states that “one can no longer maintain today that bread is a substance, as St. Thomas and the Fathers of the Council obviously thought it was.”[41]  He says that we can no longer accept the “thought” or meaning of substance “as the ‘ens per se et in se’ (as the ‘being through itself and in itself’).” [42] Thus, Rahner rejects the Thomistic-Tridentine view of ontology, that the “substance” of a thing (like bread) is its “matter and form,” including its physical being or reality. [43]  But, obviously, Rahner could not reject the Thomistic-Tridentine meaning of “substance” without also rejecting the meaning ( content) of Trent’s dogma of tran-substan-tiation (change of substance).

So, what new meaning does Rahner give to “substance” in the concept, transubstantiation? This new meaning can be found in Rahner’s Encyclopedia of Theology, which he edited and for which he is responsible.  This work states about the Eucharistic consecration:

The more recent approaches suggest the following considerations.  One has to remember that the words of institution indicate a change but do not give any guiding line for the interpretation of the actual process. As regards transubstantiation, it may then be said that substance, essence, meaning and purpose of the bread are identical.  But the meaning of a thing can be changed without detriment to its matter. [44]

In other words, the author of the article in the Encyclopedia, and Rahner as editor, claim that in transubstantiation, the meaning and purpose (the substance) of the bread and wine changes without bringing about a change in the material and physical bread and wine (i.e., the “matter”).  The Encyclopedia continues by discussing what happens after the consecration:

. . . 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.  This means that an ontological change has taken place in the bread.[45]

For Rahner, then, “substance” is now identified with the “meaning” and “purpose” of the thing rather than the “form and matter” of the thing.  And, an “ontological” change (change in being) is a change in the “meaning and purpose” of the thing, rather than a change in its physical being. Thus, for Rahner, the consecration changes the “meaning and purpose” of the bread and wine, but not its form and matter or physical being.  Strictly speaking it is the use of the bread and wine, and the mind of the celebrant and Christian community, which is changed and not the bread and wine, itself.  According to this view, one can speak of Christ as being in the bread and wine, since the bread and wine are a symbol of Christ for the community of worshipers.

But what exactly is this presence of Christ in the Eucharist as “symbol?”  First, Rahner’s Encyclopedia of Theology defines the meaning of symbol in the context of transubstantiation:

In a general way, three classes of symbols may be distinguished.  The first type are effects which actually point to their cause, like smoke and fire.  The second type have by their very nature a certain potential signification, which needs, however, to be actualized by being determined and expressed, e.g., washing with water as a symbol of purification from sin.  The third type of symbol do not by nature designate any given object either actually or potentially.  They only become signs through human convention, like the colors of traffic lights.[46]

Next, Rahner’s Encyclopedia states that the bread, as a symbol of Christ in the context of transubstantiation, should be understood in “the second type” of symbol. Continuing, Rahner’s Encyclopedia explains the new understanding of the nature of bread and of Christ’s presence as symbol in the Eucharist,  along with the new meaning of transubstantiation:

The bread should be included in the second type of symbols, since the fact that it is food makes it naturally apt to symbolize spiritual nourishment and union.  But the consecrated bread possesses the further property of signifying that the Lord who offers himself as food is not just at a distance but is present in the bread.  By virtue of this concentrated symbolism, the bread becomes the sacramental manifestation of the presence of Christ.  Hence transubstantiation means a change of finality and being in the bread and wine, because they are raised to being symbols of Christ who is present there and invites men to spiritual union.[47]

So, transubstantiation must now be understood as “transfinalization or transignification.” [48]  The bread is only a “symbol” of  Christ.  For Rahner, the bread is not Christ, Himself,  but rather Christ is “in the bread”  spiritually and symbolically. 

Edward Schillebeeckx’s Transignification

This understanding, that the sign of the bread and wine (rather than the physical reality of the bread and wine) is changed during the Eucharist into the sign of Jesus Christ (rather than the whole Christ including His physical reality), has been promoted throughout the Church primarily by Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, O. P., who gets his basic thought from Piet Schoonenberg.    Schillebeeckx,  quoting  Schoonenberg intermittently,  states:

“The Eucharist begins with a praesentia realis . . . and its aim is to make this presence more intimate.” Indeed, anyone who denies this context is bound to misunderstand transubstantiation and make it too “objective.” The signs of the eucharistic bread only imply a presence as an offer, emanating from the Lord in his assembled community.  The “real presence” that is peculiar to the Eucharist is thus confined to the category of personal presence. “It is interpersonal—the host mediates between the Lord (in his Church) and me (in the same Church).  I kneel, not before a Christ who is, as it were, condensed in the host, but before the Lord himself who is offering his reality, his body, to me through the host.”  The host is Christ’s gift of himself, and Christ’s presence is that of the giver in the gift, as J. Moller and, later, L. Smits have argued.  The gift here is food and drink, but these are not a gift from an ordinary man, but from Jesus, the Christ, and they are therefore the non-deceptive, but irrevocably authentic gift of Christ himself.  It is, of course, true that Christ also gives himself in the other sacraments.  But his gift of himself is realized in the most supreme way in the Eucharist—the bread and the wine become fully signs. “What takes place in the Eucharist is a change of sign.” Transubstantiation is a transfinalization or a transignification, but at a depth which only Christ reaches in his most real gift of himself. Bread and wine become (together with the words of consecration) the signs which realize this most deep gift of Christ himself.[49]

So, “The Eucharist begins with a praesentia realis.”  From this it is quite clear that the “praesentia realis (real presence)” is already there before the consecration.  Schoonenberg and Schillebeeckx are not talking about the “host” as being the Real Presence of Christ, but rather it is “the assembled community” which is the real presence of Christ.  Thus, Schillebeeckx states:  “The signs of the eucharistic bread only imply a presence as an offer, emanating from the Lord in his assembled community.”  And, this real presence of Christ in the assembled community only  becomes “more intimate” as the Eucharistic liturgy progresses.

Schoonenberg and Schillebeeckx also say about the Eucharist: “’It is interpersonal—the host mediates between the Lord (in his Church) and me (in the same Church).  I kneel, not before a Christ who is, as it were, condensed in the host, but before the Lord himself who is offering his reality, his body, to me through the host.’”   But what do they mean by: “I kneel,  not before a Christ  . . . in the host . . . but before the Lord himself.”  They must see a difference between “the host” and “the Lord himself.”  For these men, “the host” and “the Lord himself” are not the same thing or being.  “The host” only “mediates” an interpersonal relationship between the person and “the Lord himself.”  “The host” is only “food” and “drink” being offered to the person as a gift from no ordinary man.  Clearly, neither men believe that “the host” is “the Lord himself.”  The only change involved after the consecration, therefore, is a change in the “sign” of the bread and wine.  The physical bread and wine still remain after the consecration.

United  States theologians favor transignification

While this theory of transignification has thoroughly permeated theology in the United States, we will only look at a couple examples here. No one in the United States sums up the position of the so-called new theology of the Real Presence more succinctly than Tad W. Guzie, S. J. of Marquette University,  who says:

The “change” in the bread and wine can be understood  as a change at the second level of looking at reality (Symbol): as a very real change, but not one that has to do with the physical order.  . . . .

In recent years theologians have brought into play concepts like “transignification” which strive to emphasize that the change is not a physical one.  I have heard teachers say that contemporary theology is simply attempting to “translate” transubstantiation and make it meaningful to our age. [50]

But, Guzie continues by stating that he does not agree with these teachers who say that “transignification” is a translation of “transubstantiation.” Rather, Guize says that it is vice versa.  He thinks that transubstantiation is really the translation of transignification.  Guzie says that today we are returning to the important symbolic meaning of the Last Supper (transignification), for this is what Jesus originally intended for us to do by celebrating the Eucharist. [51]

Monika K. Hellwig, a “theology professor at Georgetown University,” was recently “named director of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the higher-education unit of the National Catholic Education Association.”[52] She “will assume her new position July 1 (1996).”[53] Hellwig, who dedicated her earlier book, Jesus: The Compassion of God, to Piet Schoonenberg, now states about Jesus and the Eucharist in her book, Understanding Catholicism:

In breaking it and giving it to them, he says: “Take and eat, for this is my body.” It has generally been assumed that this was intended to mean, “This bread is my body,” and that the task of interpretation was concerned with what is meant by equating the two. Scholars have, however, suggested that it more probably was intended to mean that his action of blessing, breaking, sharing and eating in such an assembly in his name and memory was to be seen as the embodiment of the presence and Spirit and power of Jesus in the community.[54]

Now, it is quite important to understand that, as of July 1 1996, the National Catholic Education Association of the United States, will have an executive member who believes that Jesus’ intention at the Last Super was to spiritually change the people or community, rather than the bread and wine, into the Body and Blood of Christ. 

Finally, these so-called new theological theories on the Eucharist have made a deep impression upon catechetics in the United States.  Anthony J. Wilhelm, the author of Christ Among Us  (which boasts of “2 million copies sold”), for example, brazenly rejects the traditional Catholic doctrine on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by saying:

When we say that the bread and wine “become Christ” we are not saying that bread and wine are Christ, nor are we practicing some form of cannibalism when we take this in communion.  What we mean is that the bread and wine are a sign of Christ present, here and now, in a special way—not in a mere  physical way, as if condensed into a wafer.  Somehow his presence has “taken over” the bread and wine, so that, for us who believe, it is no longer merely bread that is present, but Christ himself. [55]

Facing some uncomfortable facts

Some obvious conclusions can be drawn form the above discussion on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  First of all, Rahner, according to his own words, rejected the Council of Trent’s “thought” or “meaning” of “substance.”  But, obviously, it is impossible to reject Trent’s meaning of “substance” without also rejecting the meaning of Trent’s infallible dogma on “transubstantiation.”  And, because Rahner’s Encyclopedia of Theology maintains that the “meaning” of a thing is its “substance,” one would have to say that, according to Rahner himself,  Rahner rejected the “substance” of Trent’s infallible teaching on transubstantiation.  But, to reject the “substance” of Trent’s infallible teaching (dogma) on transubstantiation and the Real Presence, is to reject the dogma itself.

Once more, by rejecting Trent’s “thought” or meaning of “substance” and  “transubstantiation,”  Rahner also rejected the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic teaching, which states that the “understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained” and that “there must never be recession from that meaning.” [56]  So, Rahner also clearly rejected the First Vatican Council’s infallible definition that a “meaning” cannot be given to the dogmas “different from that which the Church understood and understands.”[57]

Rahner, therefore, denied at least two infallible teachings (dogmas) of the Church, one being the central dogma of the Catholic faith on the Eucharist.   But, it is impossible to deny the dogma on the Eucharist and “believe,” even if you are Rahner and  don’t walk away (Jn. 6:64)!

Secondly, the so-called new theology of the Real Presence professed by Rahner, Schillebeeckx and the above mentioned American theologians (i.e., “transignification or transfinalization),” is really just a resurrection of the nine hundred year old heresy of Berengarius of Tours, which views the Eucharist “as a mere sign or symbol” of Christ. This so-called new theology of the Real Presence was published in English in 1966 and it has been taught in seminaries and universities of the United States for the past quarter of a century. Because  seminarians and students often learn and believe what they are taught, no one should be surprised  that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin stated in 1992 that:  “according to a Gallup poll only 30% of our faithful believe what the Church teaches on the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.” [58] No one should be surprised that 70% of our so-called Catholics today do not know or believe in the Church’s (Trent’s) teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Finally, a question remains. We know that the Eucharist is valid (“ex opere operato”) when it “is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church.”[59]  But, it seems that Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and others, have positively excluded the “meaning,” and therefore the “intention,” of the Council of Trent’s teaching on transubstantiation in favor of their own notion of transubstantiation (i.e. transignification or transfinalization).  So, were Karl Rahner’s Eucharists valid from 1966 until the day he died?  Have Edward Schillebeeckx’s Eucharist’s been valid since 1968? And, what about the priests who have studied their works in theology and the seminarians who are now studying? This question about the validity of the Eucharists celebrated in the United States involves a most serious matter of justice to the faithful. For the faithful have a right to know whether they are offering, receiving, and adoring Jesus Christ, or just bread and wine!   

Part III—Teaching the faith by action (orthopraxy)

Most people today do not know that the intention of the Second Vatican Council was to increase the devotion of the faithful to the Blessed Sacrament.  Paul VI stated in Mysterium Fidei, that the goal of the Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium) was “that a new wave of Eucharistic devotion will sweep over the Church.”[60]  But, in order to increase the devotion of the faithful to the Eucharist the Church needs more than words.  For many churchmen use the same words as the Church in their theological theories but they give the Church’s words a different meaning.  Consequently, the Church not only needs correct doctrine (orthodoxy), she must also have correct actions (orthopraxy) to match her doctrines.  And especially, the Church needs  orthopraxy in her Liturgy.

Required gestures and postures

So, when many theologians today discuss the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they use the same term, “transubstantiation,”  as the Church does when she teaches about he Real Presence, but they mean something different.  Instead of meaning that the whole Christ is bodily present, even in His physical reality, they mean that Christ is only spiritual present as a symbol or sign.  Because these theologians use the same term, “transubstantiation,” but mean something different, there is no way to determine what they believe with just mere words.  Thus, the Church  requires the faithful to give an act of latria  before the Eucharist and this separates those who believe in the Church’s teaching about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist from those who believe something less.

Thus, the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments stated in their 1973 document Immensae Caritatis that “It is necessary to instruct the faithful that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that the same worship and adoration given to God is owed to Him present under the sacramental signs.” [61]    And, the new 1983 Code of Canon Law states:

Christ’s faithful are to hold the blessed Eucharist in the highest honor.  They should take an active part in the celebration of the most august Sacrifice of the Mass; they should receive the sacrament with great devotion and frequently, and should reverence it with the greatest adoration.  In explaining the doctrine of this sacrament, pastors of souls are assiduously to instruct the faithful about their obligation in this regard. [62]

Now there is a difference in the signs, gestures, and posture of the various Rites of the Church.  The signs, gestures, and postures of the Latin or Roman Rite do not necessarily have the same meaning as the signs, gestures, and postures of the Oriental or Eastern Rites.  This is why it is very poor Liturgy to use the signs, gestures, and postures of the Eastern Rites within the Latin Rite Liturgy and vice versa. This can only cause confusion. Obviously, what is said here about signs, gestures, and postures is intended to apply only to the Latin or Roman Rite Liturgy.

So, how do we express, by means of signs, gestures, and postures in the Latin or Roman  Rite, the above stated requirement of Canon Law, that the faithful should reverence the Eucharist with the “greatest adoration?”  Clearly, the Church has instructed that the traditional act of genuflection toward the Blessed Sacrament be maintained following the Second Vatican Council.  The Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship says:

The venerable practice of genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament, whether enclosed in the tabernacle or publicly exposed, as a sign of adoration, is to be maintained.  This act requires that it be performed in a recollected way.  In order that the heart may bow before God in profound reverence, the genuflection must be neither hurried nor careless. [63]

Kneeling is also to be retained after the Second Vatican Council as a sign of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in the Mass.  After the Second Vatican Council, the Church stated in her General Instructions of the Roman Missal: “They (the faithful) should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by lack of space, large numbers, or other reasonable cause.”[64] This means kneeling from the beginning of the epiclesis (the invocation of the Holy Spirit over the elements of bread and wine) until after the Consecration. The epiclesis is denoted by the priest “with hands outstretched over the offerings.”[65]

Following its directive for the faithful to kneel at the Consecration, the General Instructions of the Roman Missal says:

The conference of bishops may adapt the actions and postures described in the Order of the Roman Mass to the usage of the people, but these adaptations must correspond to the character and meaning of each part of the celebration.[66]

Consequently, the Catholic Bishops of the United States stated in The Sacramentary that this Roman Missal directive to kneel at the Consecration be extended so that the faithful kneel, not only during the Consecration, but also from after the Sanctus (Holy, Holy) up to the Our Father.  The Sacramentary states:

At its meeting in November 1969, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops voted that in general the directives of the Roman Missal concerning the posture of the congregation at Mass should be left unchanged, but that No. 21 of the General Instruction should be so adapted that the people kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic prayer, that is, before the Our Father. [67]

The Caeremoniale Episcoporum (Ceremonial of Bishops)

The authoritative post-Vatican II directives on gestures and postures in the Roman Rite Liturgy can be found in the 1985 Caeremoniale Episcoporum. [68]  The Congregation of Divine Worship indicates this in the Caeremoniale, itself.  In the Ceremonial of Bishops, the English translation of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, we find that the “norms” of the Ceremonial are to be a “model for all other celebrations”  and “a model for the entire diocese.” [69]   Finally, the Ceremonial states:

The greater part of the liturgical laws contained in the new Ceremonial have their force from the liturgical books already published.  Whatever is changed in the new Ceremonial is to be carried out in the manner the Ceremonial prescribes.[70]

It is clear that the Congregation intends the directives of the Ceremonial to be strictly applied. These directives are requirements and not options.  This is evident in the Ceremonial’s note on the alternative (for certain cultures) to substitute a cultural act of reverence for the celebrant’s kissing of the altar when entering or leaving the sanctuary at the Eucharistic Liturgy. Even here, in this apparently minor matter, a bishop should only choose an alternative “after informing the Apostolic See.” [71]

Let us continue to examine the required gestures and postures of the faithful toward the Blessed Sacrament during the Eucharist while keeping the authority of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum  in mind.

First of all the Ceremonial states:

69. A genuflection, made by bending only the right knee to the ground signifies adoration, and is therefore reserved for the Blessed Sacrament whether exposed or reserved in the tabernacle, and for the holy Cross from the time of the solemn adoration in the liturgical celebration of Good Friday until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

70. Neither a genuflection nor a deep bow is made by those carrying articles used in a celebration, for example, the cross, candlesticks, the book of the Gospels.

71. No one who enters a church should fail to adore the Blessed Sacrament, either by visiting the Blessed Sacrament chapel or at least by genuflecting.

Similarly, those who pass before the Blessed Sacrament genuflect, except when they are walking in procession. [72]

The requirement in The Sacramentary that the faithful should kneel during the Consecration is consistent with the Ceremonial’s directives for deacons (especially during incensation) and for non-celebrating bishops who preside at the Eucharistic Liturgy.  The Ceremonial states that “the blessed sacrament is incensed from a kneeling position,” not from a standing position as in all other cases of incensation. [73]  Then the Ceremonial says:

One of the deacons puts incense into the censer and incenses the host and the cup at each elevation.  The deacons remain kneeling from the epiclesis to the elevation of the cup. [74]

Later the Ceremonial states about bishops who preside but do not celebrate:

From the epiclesis until after the elevation of the cup, the bishop kneels facing the altar on a kneeler provided for him either in front of the chair or in some other convenient place.  After the elevation, he stands once again at the chair.[75]

A strongly recommended act

While the Church requires certain acts of reverence as adoration to the Eucharist, she also recommends others. An act of reverence (immediately before receiving Holy Communion), which has been “strongly recommended” by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1967 and repeated by the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship in 1980, is as follows:

When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration.

When they receive communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Blessed Sacrament.  This should be done at the right time and place, so that the order of people going to and from communion should not be disrupted.[76]

Now, it appears from the context of the statement that the Congregations are here strongly recommending a genuflection, and not merely a sign of the cross or a mere bow of the head.  First of all, the Congregations previously referred to “kneeling” as “a sign of adoration” and secondly, the reverential act which they recommend, if done out of place, would “disrupt” or interfere with “the order of people going to and from communion,”  which would not be the case if the recommended act was a mere sign  of the cross or a bow of the head.[77]

That this sign of reverence is a genuflection, and not even a full body bow, is supported by the Ceremonial of Bishops.  It has just been stated that the Ceremonial reserves the “genuflection” for the “Blessed Sacrament.”  Once more, since this Ceremonial is a “model” for all Masses of the Roman Rite throughout the universal Church and since the spirituality of bishops and priests should be an example to the laity, the way the bishop and priests receive the  Blessed Sacrament at communion is a “model” for the laity.  The Ceremonial states about the Communion of the Mass in which the bishop concelebrates with priests and distributes communion to the priests before saying “Lord, I am not worthy”:

After saying inaudibly the prayer before communion, the bishop genuflects and takes the paten.  One by one the concelebrants approach the bishop, genuflect, and reverently receive from him the body of Christ. [78]

Now, if it is proper for priests to come up and genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament prior to receiving communion from the bishop (who also genuflects), it should also be proper for the laity to come up and genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament prior to receiving communion from the priest or Eucharistic minister.  The statement by the Church regarding the laity’s reception of Holy Communion should be interpreted consistently with the Ceremonial.  The officially “recommended” act of reverence prior to receiving communion, when receiving in a standing position, is  clearly a “genuflection”.

Kneeling is an irreplaceable “work” of “faith”

There is a good reason why the Church reserves the genuflection for its official act of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament.  Not just any act can be used for an act of adoration.  For example, one could never use standing as an act of adoration in our culture nor in the oriental culture.  We stand when a bishop or the President of the United States comes into the room, but this does not symbolize that we adore either one of them.  Similarly, today, many give a body bow at the presence of great dignitaries and human authority, but this is not a sign that they adore them.  This is also the case in oriental cultures today.  While the act of standing and a body bow do indicate respect or reverence for creatures, they simply do not convey the message of adoration. But where do people kneel before any person or thing today?  Some people may try to genuflect to the Pope, but the Pope is usually  seen trying to raise the person up immediately. Since the genuflection is the most appropriate and rare sign or symbol of adoration, this act is specified and reserved for the Blessed Sacrament today in the Latin or Roman Rite.           Once more, the act of bending the knee before Jesus Christ is not just a relative act, or an act that is based purely on culture.  Rather, it transcends culture because it is an act that has scriptural, traditional, and cosmic significance.  God the Father says through Isaiah:  “To me every knee shall bend” (Isaiah 45:23).  And St. Paul says, “for it is written: ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me’” (Romans 14:11).  Again, St. Paul states:  “at Jesus’ name every knee must bend in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth” (Philip. 2:10).  And, this “kneeling,” or “bending of the knee,” is the act of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament which has developed in the Tradition of the Church and which the faithful have adopted down through the ages.  For example, as mentioned earlier, St. Francis of Assisi said in his twelfth century “Letter to All Superiors of the Friars Minor”:

When the priest is offering sacrifice at the altar or the Blessed Sacrament is being carried about, everyone should kneel down and give praise, glory, and honor to our Lord  and God, living and true. [79]

Thus, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger states in one of his theological works about the act of  “kneeling” during the Liturgy: “Here the bodily gesture attains the status of a confession  of faith in Christ: words could not replace such a confession.” [80]

This statement of Cardinal Ratzinger reminds one of a theological maxim drawn from Church History and applied in the General Instructions of the Roman Missal: “lex orandi, lex credendi” (“what is prayed indicates what may and must be believed”).[81]  This Latin phrase “makes the rule of prayer a norm of belief.” [82]  It points out that “worship influences doctrine” and vice versa. [83] This “influence” of “worship” on “doctrine” also includes the gestures and postures of worship.  Consequently, when Catholics “worship” by “bending the knee” in Eucharistic adoration, they strengthen belief in the doctrine of Christ’s Eucharistic Real Presence, for themselves and for the entire Church.  And when they can and do not, they weaken it.

There are always those who will say that the only thing that is important is that one adore the Blessed Sacrament internally and that one must not get hung up on externals, like “kneeling.”  This resembles the argument used by the wealthy against feeding and clothing the poor. St. James dispels this argument against external actions of caring for the poor by saying:  “Be assured, then, that faith without works is as dead as a body without breath” (Jas. 2:26).  And earlier St. James says:  “Such faith has no power to save one, has it” (Jas. 2:14)?  The same can be said in reference to kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament at the consecration in the Mass.  When one claims to adore the Blessed Sacrament, but refuses  to demonstrate “latria” (the act of adoration) on one’s knees (when not prevented from doing so through some justifiable reason, like old age, etc.),  one’s “faith” in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is “as dead as a body without breath.” [84]  “Such faith has no power to save one, has it?”

People, who ridicule Catholics for genuflecting and kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament by saying that these Catholics are hung up on the externals of the Liturgy,  forget the purpose of the Liturgy is to express and profess one’s belief in Jesus Christ openly by words and actions and not to keep one’s faith silent in one’s mind and intention.   I wonder what these same people would say if someone suggested that they do away with the Kiss of Peace and just silently hug people in their intentions.  No doubt, they would scoff at the suggestion.  Well, are they hung up on externals?

The real problem today seems to be that the traditional devotion to the God Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament has been replaced by a modern devotion toward the community or toward oneself.  I remember first spotting this new devotion when I was a deacon.  An older priest and I were invited to attend a mass at a convent of nuns.  When we arrived we found the nuns in mini-skirts and the priest offering the Mass in secular clothes except for a stole.  We sat through the whole Mass except at the Kiss of Peace, at which time the celebrant and nuns rushed toward us and toward one another dispensing liberal hugs.  Our Eucharistic Lord remained alone abandoned on the altar while everyone shared embraces.  No one had as much as one small genuflection to give to Our Savior. 

Distinguishing between bows and genuflections

In order to understand the importance of kneeling and genuflecting in the Liturgy as an effective symbol or sign of adoration of the Eucharist, it is necessary to distinguish  bending the knee from other signs in the Liturgy.  Thus, the Ceremonial  distinguishes between bows and genuflections in the Roman or Latin Rite.  The Ceremonial states:

68. A bow signifies reverence and honor toward persons or toward objects that represent persons.

There are two kinds of bows, a bow of the head and a bow of the body:

a.   a bow of the head is made at the name of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saint in whose honor the Mass . . . is being celebrated.

b.   a bow of the body, or deep bow, is made: to the altar if there is no tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament on the altar; to the bishop, before and after incensation, as indicated in no. 91; whenever it is expressly called for by the rubrics of the various liturgical books.[85]

 

            Now, there are those who will think that the body bow is also a sufficient gesture of reverence for the Eucharist.  They will point out that the new Catechism of the Catholic Church  states:  “In the Liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord.” [86]  But these people must remember that the Catechism is not only intended for the faithful of the Latin or Roman Rite, but also for the faithful of the  Eastern Rites and the “Oriental Catholic Churches.” [87]  Now, there is a profound bow in the Eastern Rite which is greater than the body bow of the Latin Rite.  It is not a mere act of reverence,  like the body bow which is given to the bishop or altar in the Latin Rite.   Rather the “profound bow” is an act of adoration which can only be given to God and it is equivalent to the genuflection of the Latin Rite.[88]    B. I. Mullahy, states that “During the early centuries the profound bow rather than the genuflection, was prescribed by the Church as the customary act of adoration, and this practice has persisted in the Eastern Churches.” [89]

             The Byzantines call this deep or “profound”  bow “The Metany, or Reverence” and the term originates from the New Testament word “metanoia” which  means “change of heart and repentance.”  [90]   Most Reverend Joseph Raya and Baron Jose De Vinck say about the word “Metany”:  “Thus  the word came to signify also a deep reverence or prostration of the body or a lying upon the ground,”  as an expression  of “deep humiliation, shame and sorrow before God.” [91]   Once more they state: “The Metany is commonly used in private prayer and in some official liturgical prayers.  With the palm of the right hand turned upward, the worshiper lowers his hand almost to the ground making a deep bow with his whole body.” [92]  

As one can see, then, this Eastern Rite “profound bow” is a much “deeper” bow than the mere body bow given to the altar and bishop during he Roman Rite Liturgy.  In fact, this Eastern Rite “profound bow” reminds one more of the action recommended by John Paul II when he stated: “Whoever comes before the Eucharist with faith can only prostrate himself in adoration, making his own the words of St. Thomas: ‘My Lord and My God’ (Jn 20:28).” [93]  So, the Catechism is most likely referring to this “profound bow” of the Eastern Rite Liturgy when it states: “In the Liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord.”    

In concluding this section about the “profound bow” and the genuflection, it should be mentioned that some pastors feel justified to suggest or command the faithful  to use the  Eastern Rite “profound bow” in place of the genuflection at the consecration and immediately prior to receiving Holy Communion at the Eucharist.  This, however, is incorrect because it violates the rights of the faithful as mentioned in Canon 214 of the new Code of Canon Law which states:

The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the legitimate pastors of the Church, and to follow their own form of spiritual life consonant with the teaching of the Church. [94]

And, of course, it would be an even greater error in the Latin Rite Eucharist if a pastor suggested or commanded the faithful to use a mere “bow of the body” (an act merely signifying reverence as homage to creatures, like the bishop or the altar)  in place of the genuflection (an act of latria signifying reverence as adoration of the Divine Nature) during the consecration and immediately prior to receiving Holy Communion.

Because there is a tendency for some today to treat the book of the Gospels with almost as much reverence as they treat the Eucharist, it is necessary to examine the reverence that the Church demonstrates to the book of the Gospels.  Let us examine reverence for the book of the Gospels in light of Church documents, like the Ceremonial for Bishops.

The book of the Gospel

It should be noted that, while the deacon incenses the lectionary before proclaiming the Gospel and the bishop kisses the lectionary after, still the Ceremonial of Bishops does not even require that a bow of the head be made to the lectionary when one approaches or passes by this book in the Liturgy.[95]  This might surprise some people who have a tendency to place reverence for the lectionary on par with - or even above - reverence for the Blessed Sacrament by giving the lectionary the most prominent position in the sanctuary.  Occasionally, one hears it said that the Second Vatican Council taught an equal reverence to lectionary and Blessed Sacrament.  The Council is quoted:

The Church has always venerated the divine scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord, in so far as she never ceases, particularly in the sacred liturgy, to partake of the bread of life and to offer it to the faithful from the one table of the Word of God and the Body of Christ. [96]

But, the “in so far as” limits the similarity of reverence to the fact that the faithful have always been nourished from “the one table of the Word of God and the Body of Christ.”

Unless we want Catholics to start genuflecting before the lectionary at Mass, we must conclude that those calling for an equal reverence have misinterpreted the Council.  It is certainly true that we should reverence the “divine scriptures” as the “Word of God” just as we reverence the Eucharist as the “Body of Christ,” but one must not confuse the physical or corporeal lectionary or bible with the “divine scriptures” or the “Word of God.”  The “divine scriptures” as the “Word of God” is something spiritual which issues from the Father and lives in the minds and hearts of the faithful. The physical and corporeal lectionary or bible, made of cardboard and paper, is only a symbol of this spiritual Word of God.  The Word of God has a physical reality and corporeal form that can be handled and adored, only in the Blessed Sacrament.  While the physical lectionary is a symbol of the Word of God, the Blessed Sacrament is the Very Being of the Word of God.

So, one should respect the lectionary or bible, but one must only adore the Blessed Sacrament.  Now, it is just as wrong to loose a part of the Word of God through carelessness and neglect as it would be to loose a particle of the Body of Christ at communion.  But, one looses part of the Word of God through carelessness and neglect by omitting some portion of the Word of God, or distorting the Magisterium’s interpretation of it, when teaching and preaching, especially from the pulpit—not by failing to place the physical lectionary in the center of the sanctuary, crimping its pages, or loosing its binding and cover.

Kneeling is especially important for children

Finally, it is necessary to call attention to the importance for children to kneel before the Blessed Sacrament, especially in the Liturgy. It is impossible for children around the age of seven to grasp the faith through concepts like, “transubstantiation,” and phrases like, “the physical ‘reality’” of Christ is “bodily present.”  Words alone cannot suffice to teach young first communicants the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Indeed, teachers of first communicants should recall the words of St. Anthony of Padua, the thirteenth century doctor of the Church, who stated that when it comes to teaching the Catholic faith, “Actions speak louder than words.”[97]  And, St. Anthony was especially aware of the importance of the act of kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament when teaching the doctrine of the Real Presence because God endorsed this act of adoration by means of a miracle which St. Anthony and others witnessed.   This miracle is recalled by Martin Herbert in a special 1994 Eucharistic Adoration issue of the Immaculata published by the Franciscan Friars of Marytown in Kenosha Wisconsin. Martin Herbert  tells the story as follows:

A certain heretic by the name of Bononillo was unmoved by the persuasive reasoning of the Saint (Anthony).  He was as stubborn as the mule standing beside him in denying the Real Presence.

Eyeing the mule, Anthony made an offer to Bononillo.  He asked him whether he would give up his heresy if the mule were to bow down and adore its Creator present in the Blessed Sacrament. The heretic answered he would, provided he could lay down certain conditions: for two days the mule was not to be fed, and on the third day it was to be led into the public square.  On one side of the square would be placed a tempting pile of fresh feed, on the opposite side Anthony could stand with what Bononillo contemptuously called the “body of Christ.”  Anthony agreed, but in all humility made one condition.  If the animal did not kneel before the Blessed Sacrament, his sins alone were to be blamed.

The day arrived for this strange contest and the square was crowed with people. When the derisive Bononillo arrived with his half-starved mule, he was fully confident that his mule had sense and appetite enough to go after the feed.  But he was wrong.  Anthony had implored his Lord in the intervening two days for the soul of this heretic. God did not let his faithful servant down.  When turned loose, the mule without the least hesitation advance toward Anthony and knelt in an attitude of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament. With much emotion and contrition the heretic too fell on his knees and give up his heresy.[98]                

So, in order to teach the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist one must accompany one’s words of instruction with an outward act of kneeling in adoration. God Himself confirmed this point with a miracle at the time of St. Anthony.

The phenomenon of children talking, chewing gum, or poking one another when in the communion line, as if they were coming up to receive a cookie, is directly related to the lack of kneeling or genuflecting by priests, parents, parishioners, and especially the children themselves when in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.  If pastors, deacons, parents, Eucharistic ministers, and teachers wish to instruct their children about the doctrine of the Real Presence in preparation for their first Holy Communion, they must make acts of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament, especially during the Eucharist, along with the children.

Part IV—Challenging the faith by action (heteropraxy)

A strange de-emphasis of the Blessed Sacrament

One might now wonder why Catholic people in America are not all  kneeling at the consecration and at the “Lord, I am not worthy,” nor all genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament. This is certainly unusual since kneeling at the Consecration and before the Blessed Sacrament are so clearly required in the Vatican’s Conciliar and Post Conciliar documents on the Liturgy and kneeling at the “Lord, I am not worthy” is a centuries-old custom in the United States.

Now, there may be more than one reason for this de-emphasis on liturgical kneeling.  But, one should have noticed that the phrase, “ut Corpus et Sanguis fiant Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi,”  found in Eucharistic Prayer III of the Vatican’s Latin Roman Missal has been translated into English in The Sacramentary as “that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,” by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL).[99]  In fact, the ICEL consistently de-capitalized “Corpus” and  “Sanguis” to “body” and “blood” throughout The Sacramentary.

It is also interesting to note that, on one hand, the Vatican Congregation consistently capitalizes “Blessed Sacrament (Ss.mum Sacramentum),” but not “book (liber)” in the phrase, “book of the Gospels (liber Evangeliorum),” of its original and official Latin Caeremoniale Episcoporum. [100] The ICEL, on the other hand, consistently capitalizes “Book” in the phrase “Book of the Gospels” and consistently deletes the capitals of the term “blessed sacrament” in the Ceremonial of Bishops, their  translation of the  Caeremoniale. [101]  This is indeed strange since even a vulgar  secular work, Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, capitalizes “Blessed Sacrament” when it defines “Blessed Sacrament” as “Communion elements.” [102]  The same kind of de-emphasis of terms symbolizing the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist through lower case language signification can be found when the ICEL translates the term, “Corpus Christi,” found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, to “body of Christ” in their Ceremonial of Bishops.[103]        While these de-capitalizations could be mere oversights by others, they could hardly be such by expert translators.  In fact, the pre-Vatican II hand missals, some of which were published by the same publishing house as the present Sacramentary,  translated “Corpus” and “Sanguis” with “Body” and “Blood.”[104]   ICEL, therefore,  had to be aware of the capitalization of “Body” and “Blood” in previous English translations.  However, what is most important is the fact that ICEL went out of their way to alter the original  text of the Latin Caeremoniale Episcoporum to capitalize “Book of the Gospel.”  This clearly indicates that they did place at least some importance on upper and lower case language signification.  So, from all of this, it seems that ICEL deliberately deleted the capitals from the words, “Blessed  Sacrament” and “Body of Christ” in both The Sacramentary and the Ceremonial of Bishops, and  that they subtly gave a greater importance to the Book of the Gospel than the Blessed Sacrament by means of capitalization and de-capitalization.  The importance of these facts obviously does not lie in revealing the minor errors that ICEL has already made in translating the books of the Liturgy.  Rather, the importance of these facts lies in hinting what major translating errors ICEL might make in the future regarding the relationship between the Book of the Gospel and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

While these de-capitalizations and capitalizations alone might not be too disturbing, it is alarming when one adds to this the recommendation of the American diocesan liturgists at their 1990 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (FDLC).  The Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions Newsletter states:

It is the position of the delegates to the 1990 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions that the BCL Task Force on American Adaptations of the Roman Missal provide for the assembly to stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer in the revised Sacramentary for use in the United States.[105]

And it passed with 95% voting for it. [106] 

Now, it is important for everyone to know that at the June 1995 Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States it was recommended that the bishops permit standing as an option to kneeling during the consecration of the Mass.  But, the bishops objected and pointed out that there is only one law and this is to kneel at the consecration.  The recommendation was then withdrawn.[107]

The question is: what reason do these liturgists give for recommending that the congregation “stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer?”  The Newsletter does not say, but one suspects that it is the same reason mentioned by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. This Conference recommended “standing” in imitation of the early Christians who stood during the Liturgy on Sundays in honor of the Resurrection.  [108] No doubt, they got this from the Council of Nicea I (325) which stated:

Since there are some who are bending their knee on Sunday and on the days of Pentecost, the holy council has decided, so that there will be uniformity of practice in all things in every diocese, that prayers are to be directed to God in a standing position. [109]

But this statement of Nicea (I) in the 4^th century refers to kneeling for penance in general throughout the entire Mass and not just to kneeling in part of the Mass and certainly not to kneeling for adoration.  P. F. Mulhern states:  “Kneeling during religious services began as a penitential practice and at one time was not permitted on feast days.” [110]  The statement of Nicea (I), therefore, is most likely a reference to those, like the 4^th century “substrati,” who, as members of the “ordo paenitentium, . . .  remained inside (at the Eucharist) but were on their knees the whole time.”  [111] Kneeling throughout the entire Mass on weekdays and then also on Sundays must have seemed to the Council of Nicea like fasting all during Lent and then also fasting on Easter Sunday. Thus, in order to show that the Resurrection was a victory over sin Nicea (I) ruled that these penitential Christians should take a break in their penitential posture of kneeling throughout the entire Mass in prayer on weekdays, by generally praying in a standing position on Sundays.

So, this statement of Nicea (I) is not a ruling on posture, especially kneeling, as an act of latria (adoration) during the consecration of the Eucharist.  If  some act or form of latria at the consecration of the Eucharist had already developed during the first few centuries of the Church, this statement of Nicea (I) would not have been taken as an order to do away with that act of latria at the moment of Consecration.  It would have merely been understood as doing away with the general penitential posture (kneeling for the sake of penance) at other times during prayer and the liturgy on Sundays.  Most likely, it was only when the general act of kneeling for the sake of penance was eliminated during the Sunday and feast day liturgies that the specific act of kneeling for the sake of adoration could be distinguished from kneeling for the sake of penance and come to the fore.

A poor recommendation

This recommendation “to stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer” has many problems.  First of all, standing throughout the entire Eucharistic Prayer without making any gesture of latria whatsoever would be a total exclusion of the act of latria (the visible act of adoration of Jesus Christ) from the Liturgy.  But, if we do not adore Christ in the Blessed Sacrament during the Liturgy by means of faith in the heart, this is pure heresy.   And if we adore Christ in the Blessed Sacrament during the Liturgy by means of faith in the heart, but do not express this outwardly and liturgically,  this is very poor Liturgy.

Secondly, this recommendation to “stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer” clearly contradicts the official directives of the Church as found in the General Instructions of the Roman Missal and the Caeremoniale. Standing during the Consecration would therefore proclaim disunity with the universal Church at that very moment when we gather in the unity of the love of Christ.  John Paul II has stated that “It is a very serious thing when division is introduced precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor, in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by refusing  obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere.” [112]

Thirdly, this recommendation that we stand in imitation of the early Church betrays a tendency to conclude that there was a falling away from the correct notion of liturgy after the early years of the Church.  But James T. O’Connor says in The Hidden Manna:  “Such a tendency, however, misses the riches that came to the Church from the development of Eucharistic devotion during the Middle Ages (e.g., St. Francis of Assisi).” [113]

Standing denies the development of doctrine

John Henry Newman says about development of doctrine that this should be consistent or “logical.”  [114] In other words, as the Church grew more and more conscious of her treasure of the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, the actions of the people developed accordingly: from standing (if they were not already prostrate with a profound bow) to kneeling during the consecration.  Instead the Canadian and the FDLC proposal presents the Liturgy and Eucharistic piety as inconsistent and dialectical, i.e., standing, kneeling, and back to standing during the consecration.  Now, if this FDLC combination (standing®kneeling®standing) were actually accepted by the Church, it would mean in the history of the Church that the development of “latria” toward the Eucharist was followed by the elimination of “latria” toward the Eucharist.  This would not be doctrinal development but doctrinal “recession” and reversal.[115]  It would be heteropraxis (practical heresy)!

This point, that kneeling at the consecration is a legitimate liturgical development, while standing is not, can also be seen from Sacred Scripture.  The Second Vatican Council states in its document, Sacrosanctum Concilium:  “In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the Holy City of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right of God, Minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle.”[116]  And, since the Church’s earthly Liturgy is directed toward (on route to) this heavenly Liturgy, any legitimate liturgical development will move the Church closer in resemblance to this fully developed heavenly Liturgy described in the Book of Revelations.

Now, St. John describes this fully developed heavenly Liturgy in his Book of Revelations when he talks about the “Vision of Heavenly Worship” where “Christ is the Paschal Lamb without blemish whose blood saved the new Israel from sin and death.”  [117]  St. John says: “the twenty-four elders fall down before the One seated on the throne, and worship him who lives fovea and ever” (Rev. 4:10).  Again, in the Book of Revelations,  St. John states:

Then I heard the voices of every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea; everything in the universe cried aloud: “To the One seated on the throne, and to the Lamb, be praise and honor, glory and might, forever and ever!”  The four living creatures answered, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshipped (Rev. 5:13-14).

Thus, St. John  says that in the ultimate and perfect Liturgy in Heaven  creatures “fell down and worshipped”  the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.  

Now, only that which moves something towards its end or fully developed state can be called a true development. Consequently, the correct posture at the consecration of the Mass and before the Blessed Sacrament (God) in the earthly Liturgy, is one which approximates the falling down in worship before the “Lamb” (God) in the fully developed heavenly Liturgy.  Thus, kneeling at the consecration and before the Blessed Sacrament can be considered a legitimate liturgical development in the direction of heavenly Liturgy.  Like prostration, kneeling is a type of falling down (standing®kneeling®prostration). But, since standing at the consecration and before the Blessed Sacrament is moving backward and away from imitation of the heavenly Liturgy (i.e., from the falling down in worship) described in the Book of Revelations, it is not a legitimate liturgical development. 

So, this recommendation to stand during the entire Eucharistic Prayer denies development of (Eucharistic) doctrine through “worship” in “Sacred Tradition,” particularly through the Eucharistic piety of the laity in the Liturgy.[118]  Those developing this so-called Eucharistic Theology refuse to acknowledge the Vatican II teaching:  “That the Tradition that comes from the Apostles makes progress in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.” [119]

Does standing or kneeling testify best to the Resurrection?

Some today say that standing at the consecration of the Mass is a better sign of the Resurrection than kneeling at the consecration.  While it is certainly true that standing throughout the Mass for the sake of celebration is a better sign of the Resurrection than kneeling throughout the Mass for the sake of penance. For kneeling throughout the Mass for the sake of penance expresses the labor of suffering under the weight of sin, while standing expresses victory over sin. But, what happens when the sign, meaning, and purpose of kneeling at the consecration of the Mass and before the Blessed Sacrament is changed from penance to adoration, as it has over the centuries in the Church?  Then, one must ask: Is standing at the consecration of the Mass a better sign of the Resurrection than kneeling at the consecration for the sake of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament?  Let’s examine this matter.

St. Paul says that “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is void of content and your faith is empty too. . . . If Christ was not raised, your faith is worthless . . . we are the most pitiable of men” (1 Cor. 1514-19).  And, fifth century St. Augustine makes a theological  point that can be expanded systematically when he says: “It was in the flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . .  and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it,  but we would be sinning if we did not do so.”[120]   So, the Word was made “flesh”; the Word died in the “flesh”; the Word rose in the “flesh”;  the Word is before us on the altar in the “flesh”; and He will come again to raise us up in the “flesh.”  This is Gospel  realism!

Now, an act of latria testifies to all four fundamental doctrines because kneeling in adoration of the Eucharist is the clearest testimony that the Word really and truly is on the altar in the flesh.  And, if the Word really is on the altar in the flesh, then the Word must have truly risen from the dead in the flesh and previously become flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary.  Once more, He will come again to raise us up in the flesh.  This is why, immediately after the priest proclaims “Mystery of Faith (Mysterium Fidei)” following the consecration, the faithful respond in true Gospel Realism with a joyful Eucharistic Acclamation : “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”[121]

Some today say that the act of rising, or going from a sitting position to a standing position and remaining such throughout the Eucharist Prayer, is a sign or demonstration of the Resurrection.  This is true.  In fact, going from a laying position to a rising position would be an even better sign of a body rising from the grave. But, standing during the consecration is not act of latria or adoration of the Eucharist.  And, to replace kneeling with standing during the consecration is to eliminate the testimony that Jesus Christ really is on the altar in the flesh. And, if Jesus Christ is not really on the altar in the flesh, then maybe the Word did not really rise in the flesh.  And if the Word did not really rise in the flesh, then perhaps He did not really become flesh in  Mary’s womb.  And perhaps He will not really come again to raise us up in the flesh.

While it may be true that rising to a standing position from a sitting position is a way of imaging the Resurrection, it does not testify to the Church’s belief that the Word really is on the altar in the flesh and, therefore, really did rise from the dead in the flesh.  So, when this sign argument is used as the basis for standing throughout the Eucharist Prayer to the exclusion of the act of latria at the consecration, this betrays a grave misunderstanding of the nature of the Catholic Liturgy.  Those who value standing over kneeling at the consecration of the Mass mistakenly view Liturgy as theatrics and pantomime instead of the act of professing and testifying to the Church’s faith.

An ambiguous recommendation

Beside this poor recommendation to stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer, the FDLC has also made an ambiguous recommendation.  At their 1993 national meeting, the FDLC stated:

It is the position of the delegates of the 1993 National Meeting of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions that the movement fostering the practice of perpetual exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in parishes is a matter of significant and immediate concern; and the delegates further urge that the Board of Directors of the FDLC assist the BCL to encourage the Executive Committee of the NCCB to clarify with the appropriate Vatican Congregations or Secretariats the matter of Eucharistic adoration and Eucharistic exposition and communicate this clarification to the bishops of the United States as soon as possible and in an appropriate way.[122]

One gets the distinct impression that the words “significant and immediate concern” mean that the FDLC is somewhat unhappy or disturbed about the increase of perpetual exposition of the Eucharist in parishes throughout the United States.  While the FDLC might be afraid of possible abuse of the Blessed Sacrament through neglect and that some parishes may be proceeding with perpetual exposition without Rome’s permission, one hopes that their “immediate concern” is not due to the fact that there is  a greater emphasis upon adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and an increase in Eucharistic devotion among the faithful.[123]  If the latter is the case, then their “significant and immediate concern” should itself be “a matter of significant and immediate concern” for the Vatican, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and all Catholics in the United States.

Surely the FDLC knows that the Vatican has permitted prolonged exposition just so there is a sufficient number of people present for the exposition.[124]  The Sacred Congregation of Rites has stated:

For any grave and general need, the local ordinary can order that there should be prayer before the Blessed Sacrament exposed over a long period, and which can be strictly continuous, in those churches where there are large numbers of the faithful.[125]

While this is not a blanket permission for “perpetual exposition” at parishes, the Vatican is clearly promoting frequent exposition and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament with a minimum of prolonged exposition and adoration “once a year” (i.e., Forty Hours).[126]  And, if belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist among those who label themselves Catholic has dipped to an all time low of 30%, this certainly qualifies as a “grave and general need” for any Catholic parish.

Actually the FDLC should be rejoicing over the increase in exposition and devotion to the Eucharist since the goal of the Second Vatican Council and its liturgical document, Sacrosanctum concilium, is being achieved.[127]  For, as mentioned earlier, Paul VI stated in Mysterium Fidei, that the goal of the Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum concilium) was “that a new wave of Eucharistic devotion will sweep over the Church.” [128] This seems to be happening in some quarters of the United States.  One can only hope that it will also occur among the members of the FDLC and the ICEL.

Kneeling after the “Our Father”

Kneeling at the “Ecce Agnus Dei” is an act of faith!

The act of bending the knee before the Real Presence of Christ in Eucharist is not just a relative act, or an act that is based purely on culture. God says through Isaiah: “To me every knee shall bend” (Isaiah 45:23). And St. Paul says, “for it is written: ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me’” (Rm 14:11). Again, St. Paul states: “at Jesus’ name every knee must bend in the heavens, on the earth, and under the earth” (Philip. 2:10).  Kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament communicates in a physical way the submission to Christ expressed by the centurion’s words in the Gospel, “Lord I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed” (Mt 8:8).  This same spirit of humility and  submission to the Eucharistic living God has become part of the Church’s tradition.  For example,  twelfth century St. Francis of Assisi prescribed: “When the priest is offering sacrifice at the altar or the Blessed Sacrament is being carried about, everyone should kneel down and give praise, glory, and honor to our Lord and God, living and true.”[129]  And, this falling down on one’s knees before the Blessed Sacrament is also liturgically progressive because it anticipates that future fully developed  “Heavenly Worship” in which “the twenty four elders fell down before the Lamb” (Rev. 5:8) and “worshipped” (Rev. 5:14).[130]  So, lowering oneself in humility by falling down or bending the knee before Christ’s Real Eucharistic Presence transcends culture because it is an act that has scriptural, traditional, cosmic, and eschatological  significance.

Consequently, lowering oneself or falling down, either in the milder form of a “genuflection” or “kneeling,” or in the more radical form of a prostration, is designated by the Church as “reserved for the Blessed Sacrament” because it is the specific act of submission and “adoration” in the Roman Rite.[131]  On the other hand, the “bow of the body, or deep bow,” is given to the “bishop” or “altar” because it is merely a sign of reverence for creatures, and not a sign of adoration to God, in the Roman Rite. [132]  This is clearly stated in the 1984 Caeremoniale Episcoporum, the most authoritative liturgical document of the Church to this date. [133]

            But, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church  states:  “In the Liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord.”[134]  If the genuflection is the act of adoration which is reserved for the Blessed Sacrament, one might wonder why the Catechism says that “bowing deeply” is also a sign of adoration.  One must remember here that the Catechism is not only intended for the faithful of the Latin or Roman Rite, but also for the faithful of the  Eastern Rites and the “Oriental Catholic Churches.” [135] And, there is a profound bow in the Eastern Rite which is a deeper bow than the body bow of the Roman Rite.  It is not a mere act of reverence,  like the body bow which is given to the bishop or altar in the Roman Rite.  Rather the “profound bow” of the Eastern Rites is an act of adoration which can only be given to God and it is equivalent to the genuflection of the Roman Rite.[136]   B. I. Mullahy, states that “During the early centuries the profound bow rather than the genuflection, was prescribed by the Church as the customary act of adoration, and this practice has persisted in the Eastern Churches.” [137]

            The Byzantines call this deep or “profound”  bow “The Metany, or Reverence” and the term originates from the New Testament word “metanoia” which  means “change of heart and repentance.”[138]  Most Reverend Joseph Raya and Baron Jose De Vinck say about the word “Metany”:  “Thus  the word came to signify also a deep reverence or prostration of the body or a lying upon the ground,”  as an expression  of “deep humiliation, shame and sorrow before God.”[139]  Once more, they state: “The Metany is commonly used in private prayer and in some official liturgical prayers.  With the palm of the right hand turned upward, the worshiper lowers his hand almost to the ground making a deep bow with his whole body.”[140]   If one were to try this in the Roman Rite churches, one would bang one’s head on the pew! 

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1378, therefore, should clearly distinguish between the body bow of the Roman Rite (which is not an act of adoration) and the deeper profound bow of the Eastern Rite (which is an act of adoration). Hopefully, the final Latin typical edition (editio typica) of the Catechism will clearly point out that the profound bow is a sign of adoration in the Eastern Rites, but the body bow is not a sign of adoration in the  Roman Rite![141]

John Paul II recognizes that this act of lowering oneself  before the Eucharist is necessary when he says that “Whoever comes before the Eucharist with faith can only prostrate himself in adoration, making his own the words of St. Thomas: ‘My Lord and My God’ (Jn 20:28).”[142]  Again, He says: “every genuflection that you make before the Blessed Sacrament is important because it is an act of faith in Christ, an act of love for Christ.”[143] And, Cardinal Ratzinger stated about “kneeling” during the Liturgy: “Here the bodily gesture attains the status of a confession of faith in Christ: words could not replace such a confession.”[144]  So, lowering oneself or falling down in submission and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, either by kneeling or prostration, is no mere liturgical, penitential,  or devotional act.  Rather, it is an act of faith!

Catholics today in the United States, therefore, return to a kneeling position at the “Agnus Dei” especially to prepare for the “Ecce Agnus Dei (Behold the Lamb of God).” And, this traditional act is not limited to United States.  Peter J. Elliot says in his Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite that “In some countries all kneel at the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).”[145] And, it is especially reasonable to kneel at the Agnus Dei because, immediately following this, the celebrant invites the faithful to “Behold the Lamb of God (Ecce Agnus Dei)” and to respond in humility with “Lord, I am not worthy (Domine, non sum dignus).”  Except for the consecration, there is no more proper time in the Mass for Catholics to outwardly express their submission and adoration to the incarnate Son of God by kneeling, than at the “Ecce Agnus Dei” and the “Domine, non sum dignus.” For, here, the people are doing what the official words signify. They are testifying to the presence of the incarnate (physical) Jesus Christ in the Eucharist by means of an incarnate (physical) act of adoration of their own.  It’s good liturgy!

A 30 year custom?

However, Bishop Jerome G. Hanus, O.S.B., speaking for the Bishops Committee on the Liturgy (BCL), stated at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (NCCB’s) June 1995 meeting that the directives on the Liturgy should be interpreted so that the faithful remain standing after the Our Father until the end of Mass. [146]   And, a number of  bishops and pastors in the United States are already attempting to put this into practice. For example, Bishop of Boise, Idaho, Tod D. Brown, stated in the March 1, 1996  Idaho Catholic Register:

In our society standing suggests honor and respect as when the crowd stands for an important person such as the president of the United States . . . . 

A well intentioned but misguided practice has arisen of the congregation kneeling after the Lamb of God until Communion . . . The rules for Mass call for the congregation to stand at this time . . . . 

Therefore, as your bishop, I am asking you to observe the ancient discipline and stand from the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer through Communion.[147]

No. 21 of the General Instructions of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states that “Unless other provision is made, at every Mass they should stand . . . from the prayer over the gifts to the end of the Mass, with the exceptions below.”[148] And, there are a number of exceptions mentioned below, but the only exception related to kneeling is that “They should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by lack of space, large numbers, or other reasonable causes.”[149] And, the NCCB “Appendix” to the General Instruction reads:

At its meeting in November, 1969, the National  Conference of Catholic Bishops voted that in general the directives of the Roman Missal concerning the posture of the congregation at Mass should be left unchanged, but that no. 21 of the General Instruction should be so adapted that the people kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the eucharistic prayer, that is, before the Lord’s Prayer.[150]

Because kneeling after the Our Father was not one of the exceptions listed in the GIRM and  because the NCCB did not say in 1969 what the faithful should do after the Our Father, the Bishop’s Committee on the Liturgy must think that the phrase from the GIRM, “they should stand . . . from the prayer over the gifts to the end of the Mass,” implies that the faithful in the United States should stand after the Our Father until the Communion.

However, it is quite strange to now say that the NCCB intended in 1969 to have the faithful stand after the Our Father. It has been over a quarter of a century since the bishops issued their directives and the bishops knew that the faithful had returned to a kneeling position after the Our Father. Yet, no bishop during that quarter century publicly voiced the opinion that the mind of the bishops was not being followed on this matter.  So, why mention this now?

The timing is significant.  Can. 26 of the new Code of Canon Law says: 

Unless it has been specifically approved by the competent legislator, a custom which is contrary to the canon law currently in force, or is apart from the canon law, acquires the force of law only when it has been lawfully observed for a period of thirty continuous and complete years.  Only a centennial or immemorial custom can prevail over a canonical law which carries a clause forbidding future customs.

If one measures the custom of kneeling after the Our Father merely from the 1969 bishops’ adaptations of GIRM, then the 30 year period, when the custom of kneeling after the Our Father could have the force of law, will be completed in 3 years (1999). Thus, anyone, who would want to prevent this custom of kneeling after the Our Father from having the force of law, would have to take immediate action to get the faithful to stop kneeling after the Our Father.

Its already a “centennial or immemorial custom!”

But, the old rubrics found in the prayer manuals for the Mass (e.g., 1886-1941) show that,  for over the past one hundred years, the server knelt throughout the Mass except at the Gospel.[151]  And, the explanation of the Mass accompanying the 1941 Baltimore Catechism (No. 2) shows that the people knelt throughout the Mass except when they stood at the Gospel, Creed, and Last Gospel, and when they were seated at the Lavabo (washing of the hands).[152]  Consequently, because kneeling at the Ecce Agnus Dei continued over a hundred years, even though new postures were adopted immediately before and after it, kneeling at the Ecce Agnus Dei is already a “centennial or immemorial custom.”

Some pastors will argue that the custom of kneeling from the Sanctus to the Communion was broken when the faithful began standing for the Our Father in 1969, and, therefore, the new custom of kneeling after the Our Father must be counted from the year 1969.  But, while the custom of kneeling from the Sanctus to the Communion has ended for the faithful in the United States, the custom of kneeling from the Sanctus up to the Our Father and after the Our Father to the Communion has not ended. Indeed, the fact, that the faithful returned to a kneeling position after the Our Father without any prompting from Church authority in 1969, is quite significant. It indicates that the faithful wanted this custom of kneeling during the Ecce Agnus Dei to remain.

Kneeling after the Our Father, therefore, is clearly a particular “centennial or immemorial custom.”  And, can. 28 of the Code  states:

Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law.  But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.[153]

Thus, neither the universal law in GIRM (“they should stand . . .from the prayer over the gifts to the end of the Mass”), nor the bishops’ particular law in its 1969 document, “revokes” the centennial or immemorial custom of kneeling after the Our Father. The universal law in GIRM does not revoke it, because can. 28 says that “a universal law (does not) revoke particular customs.” And, the bishops 1969 document does not revoke it, because it is silent about kneeling after the Our Father and can. 28 says that “unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs.” So, pastors cannot forbid the faithful to kneel at the Ecce Agnus Dei because kneeling at the Ecce Agnus Dei is a particular centennial or immemorial custom which has already acquired “the force of law.”

Someone might object that, if universal law does not revoke particular centennial or immemorial customs, then the universal law to stand during the Our Father should not revoke the traditional practice in the United States of kneeling during the Our Father.  But, can. 24 § 2  states: “A custom which is contrary to or apart from canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.”[154]  The faithful welcomed the 1969 Church directive to stand during the Our Father because it would not be reasonable to continue their custom of kneeling during the Our Father when the universal Church has directed them to stand at this time. This does not mean that kneeling during the Our Father is not “reasonable” in itself.  Rather, this means that it is “not reasonable” to continue this custom of kneeling during the Our Father when the universal Church has directed that the faithful should stand at this time, because standing during the Our Father is also reasonable in itself. 

Indeed, it is quite reasonable for the faithful to stand and pray the Our Father with the incarnate Son to the distinct (not separate) unincarnated Person of the Father.[155] Likewise, it is reasonable to remain standing at the Kiss of Peace to greet the members of the assembly.  Similarly, however, it is reasonable for the faithful to return to a kneeling position after the Kiss of Peace, since the faithful are then shifting their attention and prayer back to the incarnate Eucharistic Son to humbly adore Him as the Lamb of God by means of an incarnate (physical) act of bending the knee. 

So, universal law does not revoke particular centennial or immemorial customs unless these customs are “not reasonable.”  And, while it would not be reasonable to continue to kneel during the Our Father in the face of a contrary directive by the universal law, it would be “reasonable” to kneel at the Ecce Agnus Dei, even though the universal law in GIRM says to stand at this time. This is so because kneeling during the Ecce Agnus Dei parallels kneeling during the consecration of the Mass. To kneel in adoration at the consecration of the Mass, when Jesus Christ arrives in the assembly, and not to kneel in adoration at the precise time when the celebrant invites the assembly to do so (at the Ecce Agnus Dei), is inconsistent. Therefore, kneeling during the Ecce Agnus Dei is more liturgically consistent than standing at the Ecce Agnus Dei. In this sense the Eucharistic Liturgy in the United States is more liturgically progressive, or has been more liturgically developed, than the Liturgy expressed in the GIRM.  And, it is illogical and contrary to the working of the Holy Spirit to move backwards liturgically, as if: one did not recognize that there is a development of (Eucharistic) doctrine through “worship” in “Sacred Tradition,” particularly through the Eucharistic piety of the laity in the Liturgy;[156]  or  as if one did not recognize “That the Tradition that comes from the Apostles makes progress in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.” [157]

Liturgical Laws are for the protection of  the faithful!

After the bishops issued their 1969 document, the faithful freely knelt during the Ecce Agnus Dei out of submission and adoration to their Eucharistic Lord. They never disturbed anyone who sat, nor anyone who could not or would not kneel.  But, some pastors today are publicly rebuking parishioners who kneel at the consecration and at the Ecce Agnus Dei.  And, reports are coming in from around the country that pastors are telling these parishioners privately to stop kneeling or attend another parish.[158] This is in effect a local excommunication for kneeling  at the Ecce Agnus Dei. These so called “liberal” pastors are showing themselves to be more totalitarian than any “conservative” pastor had ever been. The difference between the faithful’s returning to a kneeling position after the Our Father in 1969, and the recent directive of pastors  for the faithful to stand after the Our Father, is the difference between an authentic custom freely chosen by the faithful and an idea of the pastor imposed upon the faithful. But, only freedom characterizes a liturgical movement engendered by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:7) !

Kneeling at the consecration of the Mass is now a Latin Rite Church law, most likely because it was first a “centennial or immemorial custom” of the faithful (e.g., St. Francis of Assisi).  This law protects Catholics from pastors who would forbid kneeling at the consecration. Similarly kneeling during the Ecce Agnus Dei should also be a Church law in the United States because it is a “centennial or immemorial custom.”  Here, too, a law is needed to protect Catholics from pastors who would attempt to change a “centennial or immemorial custom” by forbidding the faithful to kneel  during the Ecce Agnus Dei.

But most important of all, pastors must realize that kneeling in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament during the Ecce Agnus Dei is not a just a simple liturgical, devotional, or penitential practice. Rather, as mentioned earlier, it is an act of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So, when pastors order the faithful to remain standing after the Our Father, they are actually forbidding the faithful to exercise (outwardly) their faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Once more, they are forbidding this exercise of faith in the Real Presence at the precise time and place in the Liturgy when the Church invites the faithful to do this.

But, pastors cannot introduce a new custom of standing during the Ecce Agnus Dei (to replace kneeling at this time) that would be binding on the faithful.  For, Can. 24 § 1 of the new Code of Canon Law, states: “No custom which is contrary to divine law can acquire the force of law.”  And, it is “contrary to the divine law” to tell the faithful not to adore the Eucharist “outwardly,” especially at the precise time that the Church invites it, because the Council of Trent infallibly teaches (as a dogma of divine faith) that “If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria (the act of adoration) . . . let him be anathema”![159]

Discouraging “latria” is  perilous

One can also ask: what happens to the person himself who uses some form of directive, coercion, or discouragement to get people to eliminate an explicit act of adoring the Blessed Sacrament?  This can be considered from two perspectives: from the perspective of interpersonal relationships and human dignity; and from the perspective of the Catholic doctrine involved.

From the first perspective, this act on the part of these religious authorities and laity is insidious.  When a person is coerced through directive or peer pressure to go against what he truly believes, his human dignity and integrity is violated. It is no wonder, then, that the Second Vatican Council labeled “undue psychological pressure” as “criminal” when it listed modern “violations of the integrity of the human person.” [160] Similarly, John Paul II recalled this teaching of the Second Vatican Council when he stated in his encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, that “attempts to coerce the spirit,”  are “intrinsically evil.” [161] 

From the perspective of the Catholic doctrine involved, discouraging Catholics from kneeling at the Consecration at Mass is evil. It was mentioned earlier that St. Augustine said:  “It was in the flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation.”  And, he added: “no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it ... and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so!”         One must understand that the teaching regarding  latria in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament is no mere liturgical rubric or disciplinary law of the Church. It was the subject of a definition of an ecumenical council of the Church.  Again, as mentioned earlier, the Council of Trent has affixed an “anathema” or condemnation to anyone who says that the Blessed Sacrament is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria.  The Council defined:

If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria (the act of adoration), and therefore not to be venerated with a special festive celebration, nor to be borne about in procession according to the praiseworthy and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or is not to be set before the people publicly to be adored, and that the adorers of it are idolaters; let him be anathema (cf. n. 878).[162]

Now, this does not mean that everyone who stands at the Consecration, or does not genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament, is condemned.  However, once the universal Church has designated “kneeling” at the Consecration and “genuflection” before the Blessed Sacrament specifically as the official acts of “latria” to be given to the Eucharist at these specified times, it is then impossible for someone to establish a policy which obliterates or discourage these acts at these times without also “saying,” or at least implying, that the “Son of God is not to be adored “outwardly” with the worship of latria.” Apparently, then, if a person deliberately, and with full knowledge, discourages kneeling at the Consecration or genuflection before the Blessed Sacrament, he or she is “anathema” (condemned)!   Most likely, the same thing can be said about anyone who deliberately and knowingly discourages exposition or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.

There are those who will say that, by discouraging kneeling at the consecration, genuflection before the Blessed Sacrament, and Eucharistic exposition, they are not denying the doctrine or theory of Trent, just denying the use or the practice of it at a particular time and place.  And, they just might be able to hire a canon lawyer to help them escape the official condemnation of the Church.  But how will they do on the day of judgment when they meet the One Who said: “I, the Lord, alone probe the mind and test the heart, To reward everyone according to his ways, according to the merit of his deeds” (Jer 17:10).  At the last judgment each one of us will stand by himself before Almighty God to be judged. We will not have our canon lawyers to speak on our behalf because each one of these lawyers will be answering questions for himself before the Just Judge.  And the Scriptures reveal that Jesus was most severe with  lawyers who twisted and turned the meaning of the Divine Law in an attempt to escape its obligations (Mk. 71-16). This is being said here not to condemn anyone, but only to help save some from eternal punishment, especially pastors.  Out of charity one cannot help but fear for them!

To understand the seriousness of discouraging someone from outwardly adoring the Eucharist at the Consecration, one must realize that refusing to give an act of latria, like kneeling, before the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharistic Liturgy out of embarrassment, is certainly a type of being ashamed to acknowledge the presence of Jesus Christ in the midst of men.   And about this, Jesus said:

I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men—the Son of Man will acknowledge him before the angels of God.  But the man who has disowned me in the presence of men will be disowned in the presence of the angels of God (Lk. 12:8-9).

So, the refusal to make an exterior act of adoration (latria) to the Blessed Sacrament (especially at the moment of the consecration) would be comparable to a man who would refuse to  publicly acknowledge Jesus as God and be associated with Him when He visibly walked the streets of Galilee.

Obviously, today, belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is failing miserably among baptized Catholics (70%).  It is urgent, therefore, that everyone, especially  deacons, Eucharistic ministers, and altar servers  kneel during the Consecration and at the “Lord, I am not worthy” in the Eucharistic Liturgy.  It is especially urgent that deacons, ministers, and servers kneel because of their visibility to the congregation and their leading roles in the Liturgy. The People will follow their lead in kneeling.  It is also important  for pastors to encourage their people to make use of the “strongly recommended” genuflection prior to receiving communion, or to use the legitimate option of having the people kneel to receive the Sacrament.  Then, those, who know the doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, will be affirmed, and those who do not know will ask about the kneeling and genuflection and learn.

The saying of the prophets in the Scripture had direct application here:  “Woe” to those people who prevent this “bending of the knee” at Mass and in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament!  And, “woe to the Shepherds” who permit the act of latria to disappear from the Eucharistic Liturgy (Ez. 34:1-16)!

Tell-tale signs of an inverted Eucharistic theology

There is probably no more strange occurrence in the Liturgy today than people vaulting over pews to get to a particular person at another part of the church to embrace him during the kiss of peace, while at the same time castigating another parishioner for kneeling during the consecration of the Mass or genuflecting before receiving the Eucharist.   John Paul II says that kneeling or the act of “genuflection” before the Blessed Sacrament is an “act of love for Christ.” [163] Therefore, the way that we directly give the kiss of peace to Jesus Christ  (embrace Him) in the Eucharist is by kneeling at the consecration and genuflecting before we receive Holy Communion.   If mere created people deserve our embrace and affection during the Eucharist, then all the more does the Lord Jesus Himself!

Clearly, if one believes that the greatest presence of Christ during the Eucharist is found  in the people, as some theologians say and imply,  then all attention during the Liturgy will be focused on the visible flesh and blood people at Mass.  But, if one believes that the Host of the at Mass is the very being of Jesus Christ, then all attention will be focused upon the Host during and after the consecration since this is the most important Person at the Eucharist.  Once more, if a person believes that the greatest presence of Christ is in the people at the Eucharist (and not the Host), then he will interpret a Catholic’s genuflection to the Host as a self-righteous proclamation of the Catholic’s own personal holiness.  For, even though the Catholic is genuflecting to proclaim the holiness of the Host, the one judging will consider this Catholic as believing himself to be full of grace and “better than thou.”  But, really the one who judges this way only reveals that he himself does not believe that the Host is the very being of  Jesus Christ (God).  He only reveals that he is not Catholic!

One should now be able to dispel at least one liturgical misunderstanding which has worked its way into some priests’ explanation of Holy Communion today.  From time to time one hears priests say that the Amen, that is said by the faithful at Holy Communion, is an affirmation that one is receiving the Church at this time and not the physical Body of Jesus Christ.   While one is certainly receiving the Church mystically or spiritually, since the Mystical Body is united to Jesus Christ its Head, still one is not receiving the Church’s physical Body at this time.  One is receiving only Jesus’ physical Body.  Thus, the primary meaning of the Amen is an affirmation that one believes that he or she is receiving  the Body of Jesus Christ.  This is why the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, stated in their 1980 document,  Inaestimabile donum, that  “The Amen said by the faithful when receiving communion is an act of personal faith in the presence of Christ.”[164]

“Better for us to obey God than men!” (Acts 5:29)

So, what is a person to do if a bishop, pastor, or religious superior tells one not to kneel during the consecration of the Mass nor genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament?  Here, the nature of obedience must be clearly understood.  One obeys to do the will of God.  One does  not obey because of political reasons or because one idolizes a certain bishop, pastor, or religious superior.  And, authority in the Church is One (it exists in the apostolic unity of the Holy Spirit) and it comes down from above and not up from below.  Consequently,  the directives of a higher authority in the Church must always be obeyed  over the directives of a lower authority.   Therefore, it is neither meritorious, nor the virtue of obedience, to heed the directive of a lower authority over the directives of a higher authority in the Church.   

When Paul VI speaks about obedience in relation to conscience in the context of religious life, he asks: “And yet, is it not possible to have conflicts between the superior’s authority and the conscience of the religious, the ‘sanctuary of a person where he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in the depths of his being?’” [165]  Furthermore, he says that when it is a case of: 

an order manifestly contrary to the laws of God or the constitutions of the institute, or one involving a serious and certain evil  . . . there is no obligation to obey . . . This exceptional situation will sometimes involve true interior suffering, after the pattern of Christ himself  “who learned obedience through suffering.” [166]

Now, it is most important to understand that the Pope has supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church and over each and every member of the faithful.  The First Vatican Council infallibly defined:

If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually; let him be anathema.[167]

Thus, no bishop, pastor, or religious superior can come between a directive from the Pope to the Church or any member of the faithful because the Pope’s authority over the individual member of the faithful is “ordinary and immediate.”  Not only does the individual member of the faithful have a right to obey in full all the directives of the Church coming from the hierarchical authority of the Church (esp. the Pope), but he or she has an obligation to carry out these directives in faith, morals, and “discipline” even if it involves suffering.

So, when it comes to kneeling at the consecration of the Mass or genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament, no one can come between the Pope and an individual member of the faithful on these matters.  Since the directives to kneel at the consecration of the Mass and genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament come from documents approved by the Pope, no one can direct the faithful to do otherwise.  If they do so, the faithful are not to heed the lower authority’s directive under a false guise of obedience or virtue. 

One must especially remember that, not only is this matter of kneeling at the consecration of the Mass and genuflecting before the Blessed Sacrament a matter of Church discipline in the liturgy and sacraments, it is a matter of adoration of God, a matter directly related to the Catholic faith as expressed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.   As mentioned earlier, St. Paul says:  “at Jesus’ name every knee must bend” (Phil. 2:10).  “Name,” here, does not just mean the verbal pronunciation of title, “Jesus,” but it means “something somehow identical with the person who possesses it (the title).” [168]  In other words “Jesus’ name” means here His nature.  And, because God states in the first precept of the decalogue that “You shall not have other gods beside me” (Deut.  5:7) and  “Therefore, you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deut. 6:5),  the faithful cannot heed the direction to stand during the consecration or to eliminate the genuflection before the Blessed Sacrament (i.e., not to adore the nature of Jesus) by an authority lesser than the divine authority.   As St. Peter says:  “Better for us to obey God than men!”

Finally, it must be said that the true spirit of obedience demands that we carry out not only  the “commands” but also the “suggestions” or recommendations of our superiors. [169]  And, since the Pope “strongly recommends” the faithful to make an act of reverence (surely a  genuflection) immediately prior to receiving Holy Communion, no one can interfere with the right of the faithful to do this act as long as the communicant does not interrupt the flow of people going to and from Holy Communion.  But, since the Pope only “recommends” and does not command this activity, the one receiving Holy Communion does not have to genuflect.  Consequently, it might be more prudent for the one receiving Holy Communion to obey a superior’s requests not to genuflect immediately prior to receiving the Sacrament in the hope that the entire community could someday come to the unanimous conclusion that a genuflection should be made.

Now we will examine how the teaching on Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist is related to the Sacrament of Penance and a possible mass apostasy in the Catholic Church.

Part V—The Eucharist, dissent, and Mass Apostasy

Sin or  dissent bars one from Holy Communion 

The night before He died Jesus said to his disciples:  “this is my commandment:  love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12).  He also prayed to the Father “that all may be one” (Jn 17:21).  Once more, Jesus changed the bread and wine into his Body and Blood by saying at the Last Supper “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Mt. 26:26-28).  Consequently, St. Paul teaches:  “Because the bread is one, we though many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17).  Furthermore, St. Paul says:

This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord.  A man should examine himself first; only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself. This is why many among you are sick and infirm, and why so many are dying.  If we were to examine ourselves, we would not be falling under judgment in this way; but since it is the Lord who judges us, he chastens us to keep us from being condemned with the rest of the world (1 Cor. 11:27-32).

Thus, St. Thomas says about the Eucharist:  “whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying . . . and . . . sacrilege.” [170] 

It is impossible to please God by receiving Holy Communion when one is not in the state of sanctifying grace.  Thus, the Church teaches in her 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible  (Can. 916).

The situation of the perfect contrition in case of necessity should not be abused.  An example of real necessity would be a priest in a rural parish who is in mortal sin and who must offer Mass on a Sunday.  He may have committed a mortal sin Saturday night and may not have access to a priest to go to confession before offering Sunday Mass, at which the priest must receive Holy Communion.

But, sin is not the only thing that bars one from Holy Communion.  Dissent from the Pope’s teaching also bars one from this Sacrament.  When visiting the United States in 1987, Archbishop John R. Quinn, representing the National Conference of  Catholic Bishops,  publicly stated to John Paul II that “We as pastors are greatly concerned that some particular areas of the Church’s teaching in both sexual and social morality are at times subjected to negative criticism in our country and sometimes even by Catholics of good will.” [171]  John Paul II replied:

It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage.  Some are reported as not accepting the Church’s clear position on abortion.  It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teachings.  It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments.  This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.[172]

Now, this means that those, who receive Holy Communion while rejecting the Pope’s teaching on contraception, are making a “grave error.”  And, this means to receive Holy Communion worthily one must accept the Pope’s teaching on contraception, not only externally but also internally.  For, the Second Vatican Council taught in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), that the Pope and the bishops are the “successors” of the “apostles” and the faithful must give an “adherence” in “mind” (“will and intellect”) to the Pope’s faith and moral teachings “even when he does not speak ex cathedra.” [173]  Consequently, not only married people, but also bishops, priests, deacons, religious lay brothers and sisters, and all lay people, must assent to the Pope’s teaching condemning contraception if they are to receive Holy Communion worthily.

The more severe punishment of loss of faith

But, what happens to a person who receives Holy Communion while dissenting from the Pope’s teaching on faith or morals?  The punishment for receiving communion unworthily are of two types.  One is severe and the other far worse.  The first is mentioned by St. Paul when he says:  “That is why many among you are sick and infirm, and why so many are dying . . . but since it is the Lord who is judging us, he chastens us to keep us from being condemned with the rest of the world.” These people are punished in this life with sickness and even eventual death but they get a chance to repent on their deathbed and are still saved in eternal life.

The far greater “judgment” or punishment for receiving Holy Communion “unworthily” and “without recognizing the body” is the punishment given to the betrayer Judas, “the one to whom I hand the morsel, after I have dipped it” (Jn 13:26).  Remember, “After he took the morsel, Satan entered him” (Jn 13:27).  This is the punishment of the loss of one’s faith for receiving the Eucharist “unworthily.”  It is the disbelief which finally led Judas to despair and the loss of his eternal salvation.  This is clear from Jesus works”  “I kept careful watch, and not one of them was lost, none but him who was destined to be lost—in fulfillment of the Scripture” (Jn 17:12).

We are not saying here that by “taking the morsel” Judas was receiving Holy Communion, since he had already received Holy Communion earlier (Lk 22:17-23).  Rather, this “taking the morsel” or “dipped” bread, signifies the great ingratitude which Judas had done earlier by receiving Holy Communion while at the same time betraying Christ, just as “Satan entering him” reveals the great punishment which came to Judas for receiving Holy Communion while at the same time betraying Christ.  This is the opinion of both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.[174]

So which one of these punishments are people who dissent from the Pope’s teachings receiving today?  The 1992 Gallup Poll of the United States Catholics shows that about 70% of so-called Catholics dissent from papal teaching in many areas, especially in the area of human sexuality, i.e. contraception, etc..[175]  And, as mentioned earlier, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago recently stated that  “according to a Gallup poll only 30% of our faithful believe what the Church teaches on the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.”  This suggests: that the 30% of Catholics in the United Sates, who believe the teaching of the Church on the Eucharist, are the same 30% of Catholics who assent to the Pope’s teaching on human sexuality; and that the 70% of so-called Catholics in the United States, who dissent from the Pope’s teaching on human sexuality, are the same 70% who do not believe what the Church teaches on the Eucharist. 

But it doesn’t seem that these 70%, who dissent from the Pope,  are falling down ill and dying, as happened to the Corinthians who received the merciful chastening from the Father for their unworthy reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This 70% are not being punished with the more merciful penalty mentioned by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11:31-32.  So, perhaps they are ignorant of the Pope’s teaching because of the failure of pastors and they are, therefore, excused in the eyes of God.  But, it could also be the case that this 70% are receiving the more severe punishment that Judas received for receiving Holy Communion unworthily.  It could be that this 70%, who dissent from the Pope’s teaching on contraception while receiving Holy Communion, are being punished with the loss of their Catholic faith.  If this is true, then, the Church today is experiencing a mass apostasy from the faith.

Let us now see how this possible mass apostasy could very well indicate that we have arrived at a most particular and important time in history.

Part VI—The Eucharist and the “end  times”

The real “holy of holies” is the Eucharist

The temple was the most sacred place for the Jews of the Old Testament since it housed the ark of the covenant and was the place where the priest offered sacrifice (the blood of goats and bulls) for the atonement of the peoples’ sins (Hebrews 9:3-5). Thus, the Old Testament Scriptures report: “The priests brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord to its place beneath the wings of the cherubim in the sanctuary, the holy of holies of the temple” (1 Kgs. 8:6). 

All of this was a foreshadowing of the New Covenant and the sacrifice made by Christ “the high priest . . .  once and for all . . . not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood” which  “achieved eternal redemption “ (Heb. 9:11-12).  It was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ who “remains forever” and of his “priesthood which does not pass away” as it is eternally celebrated by the Church in the Eucharist (Heb. 7:24).  And the new “holy of holies” is the tabernacle of the Catholic Church where the Real Presence of Jesus Christ is reserved under the appearance of bread.

Now, the Book of Daniel states about the Antichrist during the end times that “Armed forces shall move at his command and defile the sanctuary stronghold, abolishing the daily sacrifice and setting up the horrible abomination” (Dan. 11:31).  The reason why the reader knows that Daniel is speaking about the end times and the Antichrist is because Jesus Himself refers to this passage when He states:  “When you see the abominable and destructive thing which the prophet Daniel foretold standing on holy ground (let the reader  take note!), those in Judea must flee to the mountains” (Mt. 26:15-16).   And also St. Paul states:

On the question of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . Let no one seduce you . . . Since the mass apostasy has not yet occurred nor the man of lawlessness been revealed—that son of perdition and adversary who exalts himself above every so-called god proposed for worship, he who seats himself in God’s temple and even declares himself to be God. . . “ (2 Thes. 2:3-4).

Consequently, it was thought that during the end times, the Antichrist will take over the Jewish temple and replace the Ark of the Covenant with an image of himself to be adored.

While this may occur in the end times, it is probably not the primary and proper meaning of the abomination of the “holy of holies.”   When the Author of Hebrews speaks about the inner and “outer tabernacle” and the Jewish high priest who used to enter the inner tabernacle called the “holy of holies” (Heb. 9: 3-6), he states:  “but only the high priest went into the inner one, and that but once a year, with the blood which he offered for himself and for the sins of the people” (Heb. 9:7).  The Jews, therefore, only sacrificed for sins in the “holy of holies” on a yearly basis at the temple—not on a daily basis.  Once more,  the Jewish yearly temple sacrifice ended with the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD shortly after the death of Jesus.[176]  So, because the Scriptures state that the Antichrist will abolish the “daily sacrifice” on “holy ground,” this Scriptural passage is more likely a reference to the Antichrist abolishing the daily sacrifice of the Mass in what will appear to be the Catholic Church and to his replacing the Real Presence of  Christ in the tabernacles of the Church with his own image.  One can see this more clearly if one examines the writings of St. John the apostle in relation to the Eucharist and the end times.

The Antichrist and Jn 6:66

The doctrine of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist in the writings of St. John the apostle is related to St. John’s teaching on the antichrists and the coming of the Antichrist.  First of all one must realize that the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is the extremity of the “substantial” presence of Jesus Christ in the world. It is the extremity of the Incarnation, or  Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.

Consequently, to deliberately exclude all acts of latria from the Eucharist, would be to refuse to acknowledge the Incarnation or Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.  And, St. John says about “men who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” that “such is the antichrist” (2 Jn. 1:7) and his “spirit” is “already in the world” (1 Jn. 4:3).  These are the “weeds” which the enemy has sown among the “wheat” (Mt 13:25).  They make a “pretense” of being Christian by pretending to “belong to us,” but soon they will leave and we will see that “none of them was ours” (1 Jn 2:18-19).[177]   But, we have already pointed out that the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the basis for remaining with Christ or leaving Him.  For, after Our Lord “solemnly” taught that “my flesh is real food, my blood real drink” (Jn. 6:53-55), St. John’s Gospel relates: “From this time on, many of his disciples broke away and would not remain in his company any longer”  (Jn 6:66).   The antichrists, then, are those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

This information, however, is also related to the coming of a single man, the Antichrist.  For St. John gives us a clue in his Book of Revelations how we may recognize the “beast” or the Antichrist when he comes:  “A certain wisdom is needed here; with a little ingenuity anyone can calculate the number of the beast, for it is a number that stands for a certain man.  The man’s number is six hundred sixty-six” (Rev. 13:18).[178]  It is no mere coincidence, therefore, that the number of the verse in John’s Gospel, which reports the disciples breaking away from the Lord over the doctrine of His Real Presence in the Eucharist, comes out to be 666, the very number which symbolizes the “beast”  or the Antichrist.

Perhaps, then, part of this “certain wisdom needed here” for knowing who is the Antichrist, as mentioned in the Book of Revelations, is connected to John 6:66.   In other words the antichrists will be those who spearhead the “mass apostasy” from the Church during the end times by denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,  and the Antichrist will be that “man of lawlessness,” who then “seats himself in God’s temple, and even declares himself to be God” (2 Thess. 2:3).  So, this is how the “man” will “defile the sanctuary stronghold, abolishing the daily sacrifice and setting up the horrible abomination” (Dan. 11:31).

This information about the Antichrist and the rejection of the dogma of the Real Presence is most important for us today.  For both Paul VI and John Paul II suggest in their non official writings that we are in the last period of history when the  Antichrist comes.  Paul VI has stated:

There is a great uneasiness, at this time, in the world and in the church, and that which is in question is the faith.  It so happens now that I repeat to myself the obscure phrase of Jesus in the Gospel of St. Luke:  “When the Son of Man returns, will He still find faith on the earth?”  It so happens that there are books coming out in which the faith is in retreat on some important points, that the episcopates are remaining silent and these books are not looked upon as strange.  This, to me, is strange.  I sometimes read the Gospel passage of the end times and I attest that, at this time, some signs of this end are emerging.[179]

So, does this mean that we have arrived at the end of the world?  Paul VI continues:

We must always hold ourselves in readiness, but everything could last a very long time yet.  What strikes me, when I think of the Catholic world, is that within Catholicism, there seems sometimes to predominate a non-Catholic way of thinking, and it can happen that this non-Catholic thought within Catholicism, will tomorrow become the stronger. But it will never represent the thought of the Church.  It is necessary that a small flock subsist, no matter how small it might be.[180]

Again, Paul VI stated about the sign of the sun spinning and falling to the earth  in the 1917 apparition at Fatima that “It was eschatological in the sense that it was like a repetition or an annunciation of a scene at the end of time for all humanity assembled together.” [181]  And,  John Paul II, as Karol Cardinal Wojtyla,  stated:

We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully.  We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.[182]

So, are we at the point of the “great apostasy” which St. Paul speaks about in Second Thesalonians?  It all depends on whether or not we can turn this lack of faith in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist into belief in this Presence.   If we do turn it around, then perhaps it will be some time yet before the final battle.  If we do not, then we probably have arrived at the final battle of the end time.

But, whatever the case, there is no reason to fear, for the Scriptures state: “They (Gog and Magog) invaded the whole country and surrounded the beloved city where God’s people were encamped; but fire came down from heaven and devoured them” (Rev. 20:8-9).  So, even if most  so-called Catholics apostatize and set up a “harlot” church larger than the true Church, this little Church made up of the Pope and a remnant will be victorious in the end (Rev. 17:16)!

So, there is even reason to rejoice if we have arrived at the end times.  For that time will be the time when God will raise up the strongest and most courageous of  Christians.  These will be the “seed” of the “woman” (Mary and the Church) and they will defeat the “seed” of Satan in the triumph of the “woman” over the “dragon” (Gen. 3:15; Rev. 12:1-3).   St. Louis de Montfort expressed the spirit of longing that each Christian should have in expectation of the end times when he said about the valiant soldiers that God will raise up in the last days: 

Such are the great men who are to come.  By the will of God Mary is to prepare them to extend His rule over the impious and unbelievers.  But when and how will this come about?  Only God knows.  For our part we must yearn and wait for it in silence and in prayer: “I have waited and waited.” [183]

Until this time arrives, however, everyone ought to prepare for this “waited” moment by heeding the words of John Paul II when he said:  “every genuflection that you make before the Blessed Sacrament is important because it is an act of faith in Christ, an act of love for Christ.”  [184] 

---