|
|
THE PURPOSE OF THE ENCYCLICAL
“In some places, the practice of eucharistic adoration
has been almost completely abandoned. In
various parts of the Church abuses have occurred,
leading to confusion with regard to
sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning
this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters
an extremely reductive understanding of the
eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial
meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a
fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of
the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic
succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental
nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its
mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation.
This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives
that, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in
eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by
which the Church expresses her faith. How can
we not express profound grief at all this? The
Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity
and depreciation.
“It is my hope that the present encyclical
letter will effectively help to banish the dark
clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so
that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in
all its radiant mystery” (10).
|
|
|
In April 2003, Pope John Paul II released the fourteenth
encyclical of his pontificate,
Ecclesia de Eucharistia.
It focuses “on the Eucharist in its relationship to the
Church.”
The importance of the topic for all Catholics, the
Pope explains, is that “the Church draws her life from the
Eucharist . . . The Second Vatican Council rightly proclaimed
that the Eucharistic sacrifice is ‘the source and
summit of the Christian life.’ ‘For the most holy Eucharist
contains the Church’s entire spiritual wealth:
Christ himself’” (EDE 1; cf. Lumen Gentium 11; Presbyterorum
Ordinis, 5). He emphasizes that “the Eucharist,
as Christ’s saving presence in the community of
the faithful and its spiritual food, is the most precious
possession that the Church can have in her journey
through history” (EDE 9).
Yet today correct doctrine and practice regarding the
Eucharist is threatened. While noting positive signs of
eucharistic faith and love in the Church, he acknowledges
that “unfortunately, alongside these lights, there
are also shadows” (10), which are his reason for writing.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
One Catholic doctrine that has been under threat is the
sacrificial nature of the Mass. Some have tried to portray
the Eucharist simply as a fellowship meal among Christians
in which we receive Jesus. But it is more. The
Pope stresses:
“The Eucharist is a sacrifice in the strict sense, and
not only in a general way, as if it were simply a matter
of Christ’s offering himself to the faithful as their spiritual
food. The gift of his love and obedience to the point
of giving his life is in the first place a gift to his Father.
Certainly it is a gift given for our sake, and indeed that
of all humanity, yet it is first and foremost a gift to the
Father” (13).
Against the horizontal or community-centered approach
taken in many parishes, the Pope reminds us that
the primary dimension of the Eucharist is vertical or
God-centered: The Eucharist makes present Christ’s sacrifice
in which he gives himself in love to the Father for
our sake.
Christ clearly intended the Eucharist to be understood
as a sacrifice, as the Pope points out: “In instituting
it, he did not merely say: ‘This is my body,’ ‘this is
my blood,’ but went on to add: ‘which is given for you,’
‘which is poured out for you.’ Jesus did not simply state
that what he was giving them to eat and drink was his
body and his blood; he also expressed its sacrificial
meaning and made sacramentally present his sacrifice
which would soon be offered on the Cross for the salvation
of all” (12).
THE REAL PRESENCE
Another doctrine that has been under threat is the Real
Presence of Christ and, in particular, the fact that the bread
and wine are transubstantiated. In some places the Real
Presence is affirmed while transubstantiation is ignored or
denied, leading the faithful to think that Jesus is merely
present “in the bread and the wine.” Other times the
uniqueness of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is subverted
by emphasis on Christ’s presence “in the community,”
as if this were equal to his presence in the Eucharist.
To counter these, the Pope emphasizes: “The sacramental
re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice . . . in the Mass
involves a most special presence that—in the words of
Paul VI—‘is called “real” not as a way of excluding all
other types of presence as if they were “not real,” but because
it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial
presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and
entirely present’” (15; cf. Mysterium Fidei, 39).
Further, at the consecration the bread and wine cease
to exist, leaving only their appearances cloaking the Real
Presence of Christ. John Paul II explains: “There remains
the boundary indicated by Paul VI: ‘Every theological
explanation that seeks some understanding of this
mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith,
must firmly maintain that, in objective reality, independently
of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to
exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and
blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really
before us under the sacramental species of bread and
wine’” (EDE 15; cf. Solemn Profession of Faith, 25).
ADORATION AND EXPOSTITION
At times the horizontal emphasis on “community” and
the subversion of the Real Presence have led to an emphasis
on the Mass as “an action of the community” to
the exclusion of traditional forms of eucharistic devotion
outside the Mass. In many places, eucharistic adoration
has been discouraged, whether in the form of praying
before the tabernacle or before the host in eucharistic
exposition.
Against these tendencies, the Pope reminds us that
“the worship of the Eucharist outside of the Mass is of
inestimable value for the life of the Church” (EDE 25).
He exclaims: “It is pleasant to spend time with him,
to lie close to his breast like the beloved disciple and to
feel the infinite love present in his heart. If in our time
Christians must be distinguished above all by the ‘art of
prayer,’ how can we not feel a renewed need to spend
time in spiritual converse, in silent adoration, in heartfelt
love before Christ present in the Most Holy Sacrament?
How often, dear brother and sisters, have I experienced
this, and drawn from it strength, consolation, and support!”
(25).
The Pope underscores that “this practice, repeatedly
praised and recommended by the Magisterium, is supported
by the example of many saints” and states that
pastors must encourage it, including by their own example:
“It is the responsibility of pastors to encourage, also
by their personal witness, the practice of Eucharistic
adoration, and exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in
particular, as well as prayer of adoration before Christ
present under the eucharistic species” (25).
THE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD
The Eucharist cannot be consecrated without a validly
ordained priest. Yet some have tried to blur the line in the
Catholic Church between the clergy and the laity. This
has been done by overemphasizing the role of the congregation
in the Mass, sometimes even encouraging lay
people to say the words of the Eucharistic Prayer. Other
times it has been done by trying to normalize having lay
people in pastoral roles in parishes that lack a priest.
Against these tendencies the Holy Father emphasizes
that the Eucharist “is a gift that radically transcends the
power of the assembly. . . . The assembly gathered together
for the celebration of the Eucharist, if it is to be a
truly eucharistic assembly, absolutely requires the presence
of an ordained priest as its president” (29).
“It is the ordained priest who, acting in the person of
Christ, brings about the eucharistic sacrifice and offers it
to God in the name of all the people. For this reason, the
Roman Missal prescribes that only the priest should recite
the Eucharistic Prayer, while the people participate
in faith and in silence” (28).
In the case of parishes that lack a priest and use laity to
lead Communion services, the Pope emphasizes: “When a
community lacks a priest, attempts are rightly made
somehow to remedy the situation so that it can continue its
Sunday celebrations. . . . But such solutions must be
considered merely temporary, while the community awaits
a priest.
“The sacramental incompleteness of these celebrations
should above all inspire the whole community to
pray with greater fervor that the Lord will send laborers
into his harvest. It should also be an incentive to mobilize
all the resources needed for an adequate pastoral promotion
of vocations, without yielding to the temptation to
seek solutions that lower the moral and formative standards
demanded of candidates for the priesthood” (32).
Those laity who do serve in such parishes “have a
responsibility, therefore, to keep alive in the community
a genuine hunger for the Eucharist, so that no opportunity
for the celebration of Mass will ever be missed,
also taking advantage of the occasional presence of a
priest who is not impeded by Church law from celebrating
Mass” (33).
PROTESTANT SERVICES
The blurring of the fact that a validly ordained priest is
needed to celebrate the Eucharist has led some, out of a
well-meaning but misguided sense of ecumenism, to
treat Eucharists as valid among Protestant groups, which
lack the sacrament of holy orders.
Against this the Pope argues: “The Catholic faithful,
therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of
these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the
communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to
condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist
and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness
to the truth. This would result in slowing the
progress being made toward full visible unity” (30).
“Catholics may not receive communion in those
communities that lack a valid sacrament of orders” (46).
In the same way, the Pope stresses, Catholics cannot
satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending Protestant
services: “It is unthinkable to substitute for Sunday
Mass ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of
common prayer with Christians from the aforementioned
ecclesial communities, or even participation in
their own liturgical services. Such celebrations and services,
however praiseworthy in certain situations, prepare
for the goal of full communion, including eucharistic
communion, but they cannot replace it” (30).
RECEIVING COMMUNION
Eucharistic Communion is both an expression and an
intensifier of communion with the Church. As a result,
there are limits to who can receive Communion. In
Ecclesia de Eucharistia, John Paul II points out that
communion with the Church is both visible and invisible,
and both are needed to receive the Eucharist.
Visible communion with the Church “entails communion
in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments,
and in the Church’s hierarchical order” (35)—in
other words, accepting Catholic doctrine, receiving the
Church’s sacraments, and being subject to its governance.
In short, being a faithful Catholic.
Invisible communion with the Church, “in Christ
and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to
the Father and among ourselves.” Union with God is
achieved through the state of grace, which is thus
indispensable to receiving eucharistic Communion.
Though some have tried to deny this or to water down
the fact that every mortal sin destroys the state of grace,
it remains true.
Thus the pontiff states that “along these same lines,
the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates
that ‘anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the
sacrament of reconciliation before coming to communion.
’ I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church
there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by
which the Council of Trent . . . affirmed that, in order to
receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, ‘one must first
confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin’”
(36; cf. CCC 1385).
This means that some Catholics are not allowed to
receive Communion. This is a particularly sensitive
issue when it comes to those who live in objectively
immoral situations, such as invalid marriages. These can
arise when a Catholic marries outside the Church without
a dispensation or remarries after divorce without an
annulment.
In regard to such cases, the Pope stresses: “The judgment
of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only
to the person involved, since it is a question of examining
one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward
conduct that is seriously, clearly, and steadfastly contrary
to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral
concern for the good order of the community and out of
respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly
involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation
of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when
it states that those who ‘obstinately persist in manifest
grave sin’ are not to be admitted to eucharistic communion”
(EDE 37; cf. CIC 915).
NON-CATHOLICS AND COMMUNION
Because non-Catholics lack visible communion with the
Church, it is not normally possible for them to receive
Communion at Mass. However, there are certain situations
in which they can. The pontiff explains that “in this
case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual
need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer,
not to bring about an intercommunion that remains impossible
until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion
are fully re-established” (EDE 45).
The required conditions are set forth in the Code of
Canon Law. In the case of Eastern Christians, who have
valid Eucharists, the Code provides that they may receive
reconciliation, Communion, or the anointing of the
sick “if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are
properly disposed” (CIC 844 §3).
In the case of Protestant Christians, however, the requirements
are more extensive. Due to the absence of
valid holy orders in their communities, Protestants do
not have valid Eucharists. They also frequently do not
share the Church’s beliefs concerning the Eucharist.
As a result, the Code provides that “if the danger of
death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment
of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops,
Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments
to other Christians who do not have full communion
with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a
minister of their own community and on their own ask
for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these
sacraments and are properly disposed” (§4).
In his encyclical, the Pontiff stresses that “these conditions,
from which no dispensation can be given, must
be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific
individual cases. . . . The faithful observance of the
body of norms established in this area is a manifestation
and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus
Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and
sisters of different Christian confessions—who have a
right to our witness to the truth—and for the cause itself
of the promotion of unity” (46).
LITURGICAL ABUSE
The Pope is very concerned with the problem of liturgical
abuse: “It must be lamented that, especially in the
years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a
result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation
there have been a number of abuses that have been a
source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against
‘formalism’ has led some, especially in certain regions,
to consider the ‘forms’ chosen by the Church’s great
liturgical tradition and her magisterium as non-binding
and to introduce unauthorized innovations that are often
completely inappropriate.
“I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently
that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the
Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms
are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial
nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning.
Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the
celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries
are celebrated” (52).
The Pope goes on to note that “priests who faithfully
celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and
communities that conform to those norms, quietly but
eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church” (52).
He also warns that consequences are forthcoming
for those who refuse to celebrate the liturgy properly,
stating: “Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper
meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent
offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more
specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical
nature, on this very important subject. No one is
permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our
hands: It is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it
lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its
universality” (52).
The document to which he refers is expected out in
late 2003. In an interview with Inside the Vatican,
Francis Cardinal Arinze, head of the Congregation
for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,
summarized its message as “the do-it-yourself
Mass is ended. Go in peace.” Ecclesia de Eucharistia’s
emphasis on traditional Catholic faith and practice
regarding the Eucharist offers a preview of what is
to come.
