Body v. Bread

So Brian's post below made me think about the idea of the Real Presence of Christ, or TRUE PRESENCE as it is rightly called. It is a topic that I have posted about before, and one that I think needs more focus in Catholic circles outside of the Blog-world.

If you confine your reading and learning about the faith to solely Catholic blogs, you will find most traditional or orthodox Catholics truly believe in the True Presence. Outside of such cirlces the story is quite different. You may encounter many that SAY they believe in it, but like most things in life actions speak louder than words.

Now before I go on I must state that this is not a post about the way in which one MUST act, or some sort of test to determine a persons belief, it is instead a series of observations to illustrate a point. The point is that many Catholics do not act in a manner consistent with the belief in the True Presence. [I cannot judge what they truly believe, I can only make statements in regards to their actions.]

Much of the problem comes from the little things. Things like Brian mentioned, that when viewed in isolation aren't that big of a "problem" but when taken as a whole, are all bricks in a wall placed between us the people and the True Presence and the true belief in that presence. Again, certain things taken on their own really can be equivocated, explained, or rationalized, but taken in combination with other things it is difficult to know exactly who believes what about the True Presence.

Now, like many other posts, this one can easily come off as a 'Holier than thou' post. It isn't meant to be, in fact much of what I now believe and do in relation to the Eucharist comes from others and teachings that caused me pause and contemplation on what and how I believed in relation to the Eucharist. So, in that same same light I hope to help others examine their idea of the True Presence. [Again, there aren't "right" answers to many of these questions... and if there are, there may be more than one; it is meant as an exercise in contemplation not and indictment.]

One problem is simply the words we use to explain and describe certain things. Do we call them Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, or for brevity, do we shorten it to the improper: "Euchrastic Minister?" Even Wikipedia gets this right (Eucharistic Minister) yet most church bulletins get it wrong.

Here is the teachings of the Church on this issue, taken from Redemptionis Sacramentum: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist:

The Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass. If, moreover, reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion. This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way. Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

[159.] It is never allowed for the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to delegate anyone else to administer the Eucharist, as for example a parent or spouse or child of the sick person who is the communicant.

[160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.

Now I know this is a lot of technical liturgical speak, but it is important. In fact, later in that same document, the gravity of importance placed on the Eucharist is explained as such:

Complaints Regarding Abuses in Liturgical Matters

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

So it would appear that it is our duty individually and collectively to ensure proper reverence of the Eucharist. Does this answer Brian's question below? I think it does, but why then do we pause? The answer might be charity, it might be fear, and it might be the worry of spirtual pride or liturgical legalsim of which so many of us fear that we descend into. Yet, if we aren't looking out for the reverence and integrity of the Eucharist, are we not looking out for the integrity and reverence of the same Christ, our Lord? [Think about the qualifier word there: SAME].

If we are unwilling to change the words we use and the actions we take concerning the Eucharist, are we not negating the the belief of the True Presence? If the Eucharist is truly Christ, in our hearts and in our minds, should we not do everything in our power to respectfully honor and worship our Lord? There is a protocol for queens, kings, Popes, and presidents that we all administer reverence to, why not the Christ?

***UPDATE***:
Dan over at Gun Lovin' Alaskan Catholic Club has linked back to this post and offers up some of his own thoughts that further drive this message home! Plus... he has a post title that perfectly addresses the problem:
"Sorry kids, it isn't candy!"


-Posted by: Joe