I wrote a PhD dissertation on transubstantiation and I think it's clear that even very bright people who study original texts carefully and write about them "may not fully understand..." (in fact they typically have grave misunderstandings). Aristotle said something about bats, you may recall. We human beings are fitted out with intellects that can't help but be blinded by too much light. On the decline in belief in or respect for the Real Presence, it seems standard to point to communion in the hand. I think that practice should be repudiated, but what about other sociologically banalizing aspects of the reception of communion, namely, the "line 'em up pew by pew, everybody let's go" approach, and closely connected with that, the presumption in favor of 'frequent' (i.e., weekly, or every time you go to mass) communion? Did the loss of faith and reverence perhaps really start more with the reforms of Pius X, and communion in the hand is just the (or one) culmination of that movement towards banalization?
Personally, I rather like seeing people in line to go to Communion, as it makes me think how the Lord cares for so many, but only this line if it ends with kneeling together at the altar rail, because then others are mostly out of sight, and it’s just the lay altar and the high altar, the tabernacle and the Lord.
You are absolutely correct. People always trot out the old bogey 'Communion in the hand' as the cause of all evil in the world (hyperbole to make a point), but there is WAY more to it than just that. Communion in the hand was simply, as you point out, the last in a long series of disasters. And you're right as well the usher brigade standing at the end of every pew essentially forcing (again hyperbole, but not much) people to go to Communion at every Mass does not help either.
I personally have benefited greatly from the opportunity to receive Communion daily at various points in my life but now I can also see it as a sort of trap. Witness the whole Covid shutdown. Trads who had been complaining for decades by that point about how offended God must have been at all of the sacrilegious Communions taking place at the Novus Ordo since the 1970s should have been falling on their face in thanksgiving that all of that had been stopped for a time and if they had to sacrifice a bit then so be it - yet they didn't. Instead they whined about how they couldn't get their Communion fix.
This whole question of frequent communion is of course one that roiled whole continents of Catholics back when people truly believed the Holy Eucharist was almighty God and that you could kill or harm yourself spiritually by receiving badly. I would agree that the emphasis on frequent communion since Pius X's time has ironically resulted in a lessening of appreciation for this immense gift. There is nevertheless a balance here, because the Jansenists too were wrong to present God as an angry judge and believers as such wretched sinners that they should not dare to receive regularly. As in everything, there is some kind of balance that needs to be maintained, or better, a middle section of the range between extremes.
"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." I'm personally rather attached to the notion of "Dies irae, dies illa..." and the loss of that particular theological gem in the liturgical life of the Church seems to me a grave one. Jansenists were wrong, but certainly not entirely (no one is). Were they wrong to think that God is an angry judge? People now be like, "Jesus is my/your/everybody's best friend!" Jesus be like, "On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord...' And I will say to them, 'I never knew you, depart from me...'"
Thanks for the link. The quote from Gemma Galgani sounds a bit 'Jansenist' (or 'Calvinist') to me (although I don't much like such theologically loose and lazy accusations/attributions). She says: "It [Communion] is a question of uniting two extremes: God Who is everything and the creature who is nothing; God Who is light and the creature who is darkness; God Who is holiness and the creature who is sin." That's obviously not exactly a theologically careful treatment of the matter. For one, the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, not of the dead (i.e., of the sinner qua sinner). Anyway, I'm not interested in condemning a little devotional hyperbole, but is there not a risk/possibility that such a constant longing to receive communion all the time is grounded in superstition and merely human willfulness, not true devotion to the will of God? I just run up against the question, "Why?" Apart from some special (and inherently dubious) appeal to the supposed will of God, it seems a hard question to answer.
Of course. I know this well. And so did the Church, because, as you remind us, she combined the hard sayings with the comforting ones. They were always BOTH there. The new rite keeps *some* hard sayings from the Scriptures, but (a) the bloated lectionary means most of what's read won't stick, since it's not repeated often enough, and (b) the rest of the liturgy has largely been purged of the "dies irae"-type elements. One need only contrast a traditional Requiem with the modern funeral "celebration of life." So, yes, we could use a pendulum swing in the opposite direction.
But if you read devotional literature across the centuries it seems to accentuate intimacy with God. Yes, at the price of prayer and penance and following His law, but still, He *is* the one nearest to us at every moment, and the one to whom we should confidently go, as we see sinners in the Gospels confidently going to Christ.
Devotional literature, including devotional hyperbole, is fine, as I noted above, but I'm interested in a properly theological (faith seeking understanding) treatment of the problem. I would also suggest that devotional literature is more for the personal inspiration of devout people and may not serve well as a sound basis for general policy (as Bonaventure has it, as Pius X apparently understood, but maybe not fully, and as (some of) his successors seem certainly not to understand or be the least bit concerned about).
I would balance the pious rhetoric of Gemma Galgani and Josemaria Escriva (and the general emotive-theological Zeitgeist) with some sober consideration of the facts. From the comments in PK's article at NLM, "Tensions...":
"Two local priests told me that for decades they have been giving the Eucharist to daily communicants and they have not seen any increase in virtue. That should give us pause."
Right. I have observed the same thing. That does give me pause. "I'm no saint, but at least I'm stagnant -- and I could be worse!" doesn't seem like a great rationale for frequent reception.
Thank you for this wonderful article! Our "enlightened" age is taught to restrict understanding to the realm of the intellect, neglecting the role of the heart/spirit in apprehending the mysteries of life and of life's Creator. Rather than cultivating awe and wonder, we are trained to be uncomfortable with "things unknown."
It has always seemed to me that the emphasis on "active participation," understood as having to do/speak almost everything oneself, deprived many people of the ability to exercise "active listening," not only to what is said or sung, but to the actions done in conjunction with the texts (or in silence). This seems to mimic the radical Protestant Reformers, who barraged people with a multitude of words from the preacher (who, in effect becomes the mediator between the Word and man), while depriving them of any significant ceremonial because this was the surest way to change the beliefs of their congregants especially in regards to the "Lord's Supper": stay seated, pass a tray around, and the minister gets the left-overs for lunch. The bread and wine (juice?) are special because they are eaten together while thinking of Jesus -- the exact opposite of the fundamental truth that the people are special because they receive the Body and Blood of Christ in order to be transformed into his likeness.
What you wrote about the devolution of "the Body of Christ," into a reference to the congregation (a.k.a. the gathered community that MAKES Christ present) is true even among many who still retain a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. I have heard this preached and taught many times. Churches should be stripped bare of imagery or even architectural beauty, so that the bodies of those present, who constitute the People of God, becomes the visual focus. This leads straight to the inadequate, if not outright heretical, understanding that the Eucharistic Body of Christ is primarily an affirmation of the individual's belonging: a right to which we are entitled simply by our presence, rather than an affirmation of our undeserved, active participation in the life of the Crucified and Risen Lord, which should be approached "with faith and in the fear of God." From that follow so many of the current disfigurations of theology, ecclesiology, and spirituality that can be seen in our time, even among hierarchy and clergy.
I agree with you 100% (and would say 1000% if that made any mathematical sense).
I will be going into some of these topics more in the next two installments, so stay tuned!
As for heresy: yes, I would say that a lot of Protestantism has crept into the Catholic Church (just as a fair amount of Catholicism remained in the Protestants, at least the more conservative among them). The bifurcation of the West into Catholic and Protesant has been harmful for BOTH sides, not in the same way, of course.
Seems to me that understanding (Latin intellectus) is inherently and necessarily restricted to the realm of the intellect. IIRC, 'the heart,' according to St Thomas, just is another term -- the typical term in the OT (Hebrew lev) -- for the intellect. Even things that are unknown are unknown precisely to the intellect. It is precisely the intellect that is the power of the soul necessary for grasping its own unknowing, and for experiencing and cultivating awe and wonder. "Philosophy begins in wonder" and wonder takes place where? how? -- in and through the intellect.
Psychology says intermittent reinforcement is the most effective. I can't receive daily as I would like, but for me, when I can, I'm just so incredibly grateful. One thing about body language - strolling past the tabernacle like nothing was there says it all.
Beautiful and incredibly important post Peter, thank you. You used words to show how inconsequential words are. The Word means everything. Our words next to nothing. Mysterium Fidei. What an incomprehensibly beautiful and true phrase! Those are words that actually mean something, but what that something is words cannot express. Yes, a contradiction. Deo gratias!
As someone on the journey from Protestant to Catholic I read this with great interest. For me the attraction to the RC church is the tradition (amongst many others). The fact that so many facets of the church have been stripped away or changed saddens me. The over simplification of the church in general reminds me very much of the Protestant church I am in the process of leaving. Latin mass is almost nonexistent where I live and I would love to see a revival of it.
About the frequent (daily communion) issue and criticisms of superficial understanding, I don't quite understand the concept of a "Communion fix," nor do I quite understand how anyone - priests included- could really judge what daily Communion does to someone if they don't see "results" or an increase of virtue. Only God Himself can really know. It could be by this very dedication and doggedness that they touch His heart. For one thing, it's a true sacrifice to get up early to get to morning Mass every day. Over the years, you have to think that that counts for something. It's got to be more than a superficial impulse. Honestly, I can't live well without frequent Communion, though if deprived for some reason, I don't fall apart, but look forward longingly to meet my God next time. We have so much hard and difficult things to confront in this world, including our very own delusional selves. I like this quote from the Abbot of Fontgombault who said recently: "Receiving holy communion means going to the inexhaustible spring that will transform our being. “Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like Thine.” Such is the the fruit of the Eucharist. Communion after communion, our hearts resemble more and more Christ’s heart. They live of His life, and learn to love as Jesus Himself loves, namely by giving His life for His friends." A blessed Corpus Christi!
I wrote a PhD dissertation on transubstantiation and I think it's clear that even very bright people who study original texts carefully and write about them "may not fully understand..." (in fact they typically have grave misunderstandings). Aristotle said something about bats, you may recall. We human beings are fitted out with intellects that can't help but be blinded by too much light. On the decline in belief in or respect for the Real Presence, it seems standard to point to communion in the hand. I think that practice should be repudiated, but what about other sociologically banalizing aspects of the reception of communion, namely, the "line 'em up pew by pew, everybody let's go" approach, and closely connected with that, the presumption in favor of 'frequent' (i.e., weekly, or every time you go to mass) communion? Did the loss of faith and reverence perhaps really start more with the reforms of Pius X, and communion in the hand is just the (or one) culmination of that movement towards banalization?
Personally, I rather like seeing people in line to go to Communion, as it makes me think how the Lord cares for so many, but only this line if it ends with kneeling together at the altar rail, because then others are mostly out of sight, and it’s just the lay altar and the high altar, the tabernacle and the Lord.
You are absolutely correct. People always trot out the old bogey 'Communion in the hand' as the cause of all evil in the world (hyperbole to make a point), but there is WAY more to it than just that. Communion in the hand was simply, as you point out, the last in a long series of disasters. And you're right as well the usher brigade standing at the end of every pew essentially forcing (again hyperbole, but not much) people to go to Communion at every Mass does not help either.
I personally have benefited greatly from the opportunity to receive Communion daily at various points in my life but now I can also see it as a sort of trap. Witness the whole Covid shutdown. Trads who had been complaining for decades by that point about how offended God must have been at all of the sacrilegious Communions taking place at the Novus Ordo since the 1970s should have been falling on their face in thanksgiving that all of that had been stopped for a time and if they had to sacrifice a bit then so be it - yet they didn't. Instead they whined about how they couldn't get their Communion fix.
This whole question of frequent communion is of course one that roiled whole continents of Catholics back when people truly believed the Holy Eucharist was almighty God and that you could kill or harm yourself spiritually by receiving badly. I would agree that the emphasis on frequent communion since Pius X's time has ironically resulted in a lessening of appreciation for this immense gift. There is nevertheless a balance here, because the Jansenists too were wrong to present God as an angry judge and believers as such wretched sinners that they should not dare to receive regularly. As in everything, there is some kind of balance that needs to be maintained, or better, a middle section of the range between extremes.
I wrote about this more here:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2022/09/tensions-in-catholic-tradition-on.html
"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." I'm personally rather attached to the notion of "Dies irae, dies illa..." and the loss of that particular theological gem in the liturgical life of the Church seems to me a grave one. Jansenists were wrong, but certainly not entirely (no one is). Were they wrong to think that God is an angry judge? People now be like, "Jesus is my/your/everybody's best friend!" Jesus be like, "On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord...' And I will say to them, 'I never knew you, depart from me...'"
Thanks for the link. The quote from Gemma Galgani sounds a bit 'Jansenist' (or 'Calvinist') to me (although I don't much like such theologically loose and lazy accusations/attributions). She says: "It [Communion] is a question of uniting two extremes: God Who is everything and the creature who is nothing; God Who is light and the creature who is darkness; God Who is holiness and the creature who is sin." That's obviously not exactly a theologically careful treatment of the matter. For one, the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, not of the dead (i.e., of the sinner qua sinner). Anyway, I'm not interested in condemning a little devotional hyperbole, but is there not a risk/possibility that such a constant longing to receive communion all the time is grounded in superstition and merely human willfulness, not true devotion to the will of God? I just run up against the question, "Why?" Apart from some special (and inherently dubious) appeal to the supposed will of God, it seems a hard question to answer.
Of course. I know this well. And so did the Church, because, as you remind us, she combined the hard sayings with the comforting ones. They were always BOTH there. The new rite keeps *some* hard sayings from the Scriptures, but (a) the bloated lectionary means most of what's read won't stick, since it's not repeated often enough, and (b) the rest of the liturgy has largely been purged of the "dies irae"-type elements. One need only contrast a traditional Requiem with the modern funeral "celebration of life." So, yes, we could use a pendulum swing in the opposite direction.
But if you read devotional literature across the centuries it seems to accentuate intimacy with God. Yes, at the price of prayer and penance and following His law, but still, He *is* the one nearest to us at every moment, and the one to whom we should confidently go, as we see sinners in the Gospels confidently going to Christ.
Devotional literature, including devotional hyperbole, is fine, as I noted above, but I'm interested in a properly theological (faith seeking understanding) treatment of the problem. I would also suggest that devotional literature is more for the personal inspiration of devout people and may not serve well as a sound basis for general policy (as Bonaventure has it, as Pius X apparently understood, but maybe not fully, and as (some of) his successors seem certainly not to understand or be the least bit concerned about).
I would balance the pious rhetoric of Gemma Galgani and Josemaria Escriva (and the general emotive-theological Zeitgeist) with some sober consideration of the facts. From the comments in PK's article at NLM, "Tensions...":
"Two local priests told me that for decades they have been giving the Eucharist to daily communicants and they have not seen any increase in virtue. That should give us pause."
Right. I have observed the same thing. That does give me pause. "I'm no saint, but at least I'm stagnant -- and I could be worse!" doesn't seem like a great rationale for frequent reception.
Fascinating.
Thank you for this wonderful article! Our "enlightened" age is taught to restrict understanding to the realm of the intellect, neglecting the role of the heart/spirit in apprehending the mysteries of life and of life's Creator. Rather than cultivating awe and wonder, we are trained to be uncomfortable with "things unknown."
It has always seemed to me that the emphasis on "active participation," understood as having to do/speak almost everything oneself, deprived many people of the ability to exercise "active listening," not only to what is said or sung, but to the actions done in conjunction with the texts (or in silence). This seems to mimic the radical Protestant Reformers, who barraged people with a multitude of words from the preacher (who, in effect becomes the mediator between the Word and man), while depriving them of any significant ceremonial because this was the surest way to change the beliefs of their congregants especially in regards to the "Lord's Supper": stay seated, pass a tray around, and the minister gets the left-overs for lunch. The bread and wine (juice?) are special because they are eaten together while thinking of Jesus -- the exact opposite of the fundamental truth that the people are special because they receive the Body and Blood of Christ in order to be transformed into his likeness.
What you wrote about the devolution of "the Body of Christ," into a reference to the congregation (a.k.a. the gathered community that MAKES Christ present) is true even among many who still retain a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. I have heard this preached and taught many times. Churches should be stripped bare of imagery or even architectural beauty, so that the bodies of those present, who constitute the People of God, becomes the visual focus. This leads straight to the inadequate, if not outright heretical, understanding that the Eucharistic Body of Christ is primarily an affirmation of the individual's belonging: a right to which we are entitled simply by our presence, rather than an affirmation of our undeserved, active participation in the life of the Crucified and Risen Lord, which should be approached "with faith and in the fear of God." From that follow so many of the current disfigurations of theology, ecclesiology, and spirituality that can be seen in our time, even among hierarchy and clergy.
God forgive and correct me if I have mis-spoken.
I agree with you 100% (and would say 1000% if that made any mathematical sense).
I will be going into some of these topics more in the next two installments, so stay tuned!
As for heresy: yes, I would say that a lot of Protestantism has crept into the Catholic Church (just as a fair amount of Catholicism remained in the Protestants, at least the more conservative among them). The bifurcation of the West into Catholic and Protesant has been harmful for BOTH sides, not in the same way, of course.
Seems to me that understanding (Latin intellectus) is inherently and necessarily restricted to the realm of the intellect. IIRC, 'the heart,' according to St Thomas, just is another term -- the typical term in the OT (Hebrew lev) -- for the intellect. Even things that are unknown are unknown precisely to the intellect. It is precisely the intellect that is the power of the soul necessary for grasping its own unknowing, and for experiencing and cultivating awe and wonder. "Philosophy begins in wonder" and wonder takes place where? how? -- in and through the intellect.
Psychology says intermittent reinforcement is the most effective. I can't receive daily as I would like, but for me, when I can, I'm just so incredibly grateful. One thing about body language - strolling past the tabernacle like nothing was there says it all.
Beautiful and incredibly important post Peter, thank you. You used words to show how inconsequential words are. The Word means everything. Our words next to nothing. Mysterium Fidei. What an incomprehensibly beautiful and true phrase! Those are words that actually mean something, but what that something is words cannot express. Yes, a contradiction. Deo gratias!
As someone on the journey from Protestant to Catholic I read this with great interest. For me the attraction to the RC church is the tradition (amongst many others). The fact that so many facets of the church have been stripped away or changed saddens me. The over simplification of the church in general reminds me very much of the Protestant church I am in the process of leaving. Latin mass is almost nonexistent where I live and I would love to see a revival of it.
Saint John Chrysostom, pray for us! ☦️🌐🧭🌊⚓🌴🌙
About the frequent (daily communion) issue and criticisms of superficial understanding, I don't quite understand the concept of a "Communion fix," nor do I quite understand how anyone - priests included- could really judge what daily Communion does to someone if they don't see "results" or an increase of virtue. Only God Himself can really know. It could be by this very dedication and doggedness that they touch His heart. For one thing, it's a true sacrifice to get up early to get to morning Mass every day. Over the years, you have to think that that counts for something. It's got to be more than a superficial impulse. Honestly, I can't live well without frequent Communion, though if deprived for some reason, I don't fall apart, but look forward longingly to meet my God next time. We have so much hard and difficult things to confront in this world, including our very own delusional selves. I like this quote from the Abbot of Fontgombault who said recently: "Receiving holy communion means going to the inexhaustible spring that will transform our being. “Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make our hearts like Thine.” Such is the the fruit of the Eucharist. Communion after communion, our hearts resemble more and more Christ’s heart. They live of His life, and learn to love as Jesus Himself loves, namely by giving His life for His friends." A blessed Corpus Christi!
I agree with you!