Blessed is the Kingdom

Seeking The Kingdom In All Things

Our Life In Christ


Most of my posts since the Feast of Corpus Christi have centered around the Eucharist. It is a topic which I have enjoyed writing about for the last couple of weeks, but this post will be the last on the subject for a little while.

As many of you know, I have a great love for listening to Ancient Faith Radio. Though I am not an Orthodox Christian, I find much of what is taught there to be valuable to all Christians and especially to Catholics who share so much in common with our brothers and sisters in the Eastern Church. Today I am posting a link to an archived episode of Our Life In Christ. In this podcast, Steve Robinson and Bill Gould do an excellent job of explaining why Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I will attempt a brief summary of their thoughts in this post along with some of my own commentary, but I hope the readers of this blog will take the time to listen to the entire podcast by clicking here, and that you might offer your own thoughts concerning the Eucharist.

Steve and Bill begin their discussion on the Eucharist by looking first to the Scriptures. Steve presents the Orthodox belief simply by stating,Basically we believe what the Scriptures say. The two of them point their listeners first to accounts of the last supper in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke where Jesus tells his apostles, This is my body and This is my blood. But it seems to me that the heart of our belief surrounding the Eucharist can be found more fully in the Gospel of John, specifically chapter six, where we find the Bread of Life discourse. This is exactly where Bill and Steve center their discussion. They point out that John’s gospel has the Incarnation as its focus and as such it is an account of the inner life of the Church and the sacraments. The Gospel of John is best understood through the lens of worship and so the belief in Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist should not be seen in rational terms, but rather through the intimacy Christ calls each of us to in the sacraments. Steve and Bill note that many Western Christians have taken too much of a rational approach to the Eucharist and as a result have divided the physical from the spiritual. I too usually begin with the Gospels when speaking with Christians who have trouble with our Catholic belief in the real presence. It is always intriguing to me that many Evangelical Christians take a literal approach to almost everything found in the Bible, with the exception of the sixth chapter of John. I would like to comment too on the rational approach of Western Christians to the Eucharist, but will save the comments for later in this post.

Let’s turn back first to the Bread of Life discourse. The sixth chapter of John has Jesus stating in very strong language that He Himself is the Bread of Life. Here are His words:

I myself am the living bread come down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” Thereupon Jesus said to them:

Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in my and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and died nonetheless, the man who feeds on this bread shall live forever. (John 6:51-58)

The question present when Jesus spoke these words is the same one that so many people ask today, How can he give us his flesh to eat? The response of many of the disciples of Jesus was to reply, This is a hard saying. Who can endure it? and we know that many broke away and no longer followed Him. Ultimately, this is a matter of faith. If we trust Christ, then we can and should believe that his words are true. We might also look back to the book of Genesis and see how powerful God’s word actually is.

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. The God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

God’s words are perfectly accomplished simply by His speaking them. His words have the authority and the power to effect reality.

Bill and Steve point out that those disciples who left were most likely offended by Christ’s words as a result of the Jewish teaching from Leviticus forbidding anyone to drink blood. Life was seen to be present in the blood, and therefore one was not to drink it. The early Christians were forbidden from drinking blood as well. The only blood they were to partake of was the Blood of Christ, the blood that gives life to Christians.

The heart of Steve and Bill’s presentation, however, stems around the Incarnation. Perhaps the most striking thought presented in their presentation is that denial of the real presence in the Eucharist borders on denying the Incarnation. I had never thought of it that way, but it seems to me to be entirely true. Steve cites the Hymn of Justinian that says, without change you became man oh Christ our God. and points out that in the same way that Christ’s body contained two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation, so do the bread and wine of the Eucharist. When faced with the question of how one might explain all of this Steve answers,

If you can explain the Incarnation, if you can explain how eternal God, the second person of the Trinity, becomes a human being and is God and man, and dies and is raised from the dead and exists now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and is still God and man, then you can explain the Eucharist….

Here is where I will come back to the subject of the Western rational approach to the Eucharist. Bill and Steve seem to throw quite a bit of criticism at Western Christianity’s need to explain the Eucharist, going so far to say at one point, This is where the West has derailed itself.While I can see to some degree where they are coming from, I would argue that we Catholics today don’t spend so much time explaining the Eucharist as we do celebrating it with faith. It is true that we tend to take a scholastic approach to the faith and have for many centuries, but I don’t necessarily see that engaging the intellect is a bad thing. Beginning with faith that seeks understanding has always kept things in perspective for me. Probably the most well known Catholic doctrine with regards to the Eucharist is transubstantiation. It is a concept based on a scientific world view that no longer exists and if one really looks at it closely he will soon discover it doesn’t really help explain the Eucharist at all. It simply presents once again that somehow Christ is present fully to us in bread and wine on the altar each week.

As I was considering whether to write this post, I checked in with Steve Robinson to see how he would feel about my using his podcast as a starting point for dialogue. It made me happy to hear that he would be in favor of my doing so. He also promised to be nice in his comments, which I always look forward to. One of the blessings of this blog is that it has opened a small space for connections between East and West. It is truly my hope that the wounds that have kept us apart for centuries are beginning to heal. One of the things I hope that Steve will comment upon further is the notion that too much emphasis on rational philosophy in the West led to the Reformation and the consequences of that event for the last 500 years. As always, I welcome the comments of all those who are reading this.

Related Posts:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,


This entry was posted by on Friday, June 26th, 2009 at 3:00 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About The Author

Fr. Christian is the pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Lenoir City, TN.

Comments

  • s-p

    Dear Father Christian and all his blog readers, Thank you for opening the door for what I hope will be a helpful and irenic dialogue about one of the primary aspects of the unity of our respective Churches. Regardless of how our theologians have written about it, we indeed mutually regard it in a way that separates us from the post-Reformational understanding of Christ’s presence in it. (When I said quot;I’ll be nicequot;, I hope that when you listen to the podcast you’ll understand that this is my normal state of being, not something I will have to bite my tongue and work at here. :) Thanks, Father, for our friendship and mutual respect. I wish we could all do this around a table over coffee and danish.)

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Thanks Steve,

    Perhaps one day in the near future we will.

  • Mark

    Thanks for a fascinating post. I like to see the attempts by writers such as Thomas Aquinas to explain the real presence more as a form of contemplation than as a form of rationalization.

    I tend to think that, in the case of the best mediaeval writers, scholasticism genuinely was a form of contemplation, but, with the passage of time, it degenerated into the kind of rationalism of which Orthodox theologians are rightly critical.

  • Elizabeth Mahlou

    Dear Fr. Christian,

    I am glad that I stumbled across your blog (although I am not sure that all stumblings are accidental). You have addressed a number of things that are quite important, sometimes troubling, and frequently confusing.

    It is interesting that many rational Western adults have some difficulty (at least at first) with the concept of transubstantiation. I know I did. Easterners I know and work with do not have the same difficulty because their view of life is more mystic (and mine is certainly getting there — which now makes it difficult for me to fit easily with Westerners).

    But that is not what prompted me to reply to this particular posting. I wanted to share something curious. My adult retarded son (severely retarded — IQ two points above “moron” — what a horrible nomenclature psychologists have chosen) is a strong believer to the extent that many people sense God’s presence in his life. An interim priest at our mission church asked to give him first communion if my son could understand transubstantiation. Surprisingly, when questioned, he understood implicitly, as if there were nothing really unusual about it. Well, maybe it was not all that surprising or curious. I suspect that it is the simplest among us who are often the closest to God.

    May God bless you and your work always.

    Beth

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Mark,

    Thank you for your thoughts.

    I agree with you about much of scholasticism in its day being more about the contempation of the mysteries. Aquinas took the terms substance and accident and used them in a way that no one who knew Aristotle would have done. Perhaps he was also attempting to draw in those whose thoughts were more in line with the culture of the time.

    I would also agree with your assessment that over time the use of these scholastic explanations has degenerated and many times have been less than helpful for those attempting to simply worship.

    Beth,

    Thank you for sharing you story about your son. Sometimes we can over analyze things to the point where our faith begins to be damaged. Simplicity is certainly a gift to be cherished.

  • s-p

    Mark and Fr. Christian,

    One of the “straw men” Orthodox newbies erect about the West is a hard caricature of the Scholastics, as if they had no “devotion”. I like the notion that Aquinas perhaps was using the prevailing scholarly language in a way to perhaps draw people into a “devotional” regard for the mystery. The East is not without its “smart people” who write about the simplicity in a way few can grasp without a dictionary and philosophy primer at hand (Vladimir Lossky, for instance). On the other hand, it seems undeniable that the fruit of the culture (if you will) of scholasticism is the Reformation. I’m not smart enough to unpack all the causes, precedents and philosophical trends, but it seems “spirits of the age” end up manifesting themselves in concrete ways in the spiritual life of people (including our current “spirit”, locally and globally).

    Beth, May you be blessed in your care for your son. The experience you had with the interim priest is a practical example of the difference between the East and West: in the Orthodox Church your son would be communed every Sunday from the moment after his baptism. We do not believe that a rational apprehension or ability to minimally understand the theology of the eucharist is a “qualification” of participating in it. Like baptism, it is a gift of God. We would say that ultimately, God comes to us in a mystery and like an infant who nurses at its mother’s breast we are in need of the “Bread of Life” immediately after our “new Birth”. If I may connect a couple dots by way of this example, I think this is why the Protestants eventually went the path of “believer’s baptism”, and then questions like (when I was a protstant this was a common discussion), how do we determine whether or not a “retarded” person can or should be baptized, and how will God save them? It puts one in the position of having to seat of the pants set a minimum IQ level at which God will be merciful because a person isn’t smart enough to “get” the Bible. If the effectiveness or the meaning of the sacraments are dependent on rational understanding it leads to all manner of issues that are played out in the Protestant churches today. As Fr. Christian points out rightly, simplicity is a gift to be cherished, it is also the original gift of our baptism and in our view the Eucharist nourishes that gift from infancy. We may understand its meaning more as we mature in faith and intellect, but ultimately faith leads us back to the beginning: to quot;eat and drinkquot; with faith and love, and to bow before the unfathomable, incomprehensible mystery we are taking: to be united to the very Body and Blood of Christ. (Forgive me, Beth, if I have said anything that may have offended.)

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Hello again Steve,

    Thanks for the comment. I agree that the “spirits of the age” end up showing up in our Churches and spiritual life. That seems to be unavoidable. What is unfortunate is when they become the central values rather than being values that are guided by our core Christian values.

    Perhaps neither you nor I are smart enough to unpack all the causes, but I sure would like to understand it better in order to see what can be done to counteract it. In my mind, the changes in culture had a great deal to do with the Reformation and the “Enlightenment” did even more to push many in the West to compartmentalize our practice of religion and those things have hurt us more than they have helped. Fr. Stephen Freeman describes this well with his analogy of the two story universe.

    It is an odd thing that we Catholics see the need for children to wait until reaching the “age of reason” in order to receive the Eucharist while allowing Baptism at any age. Then there is also the issue in this country the widespread practice of receiving the Eucharist before Confirmation (which is another subject altogether- don’t get me started!).

    Anyway, I appreciate the continued commentary and hope folks will keep up the discussion.

  • Mark G.

    I’m afraid I’m going to have to sit this one out. I feel it may be a near occassion of sin.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    I should probably clarify that the purpose behind children waiting until the quot;age of reasonquot; to receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is in order for the person to be adequately formed and have a clear understanding of what it is they are to receive. We believe that sacraments are to be freely received and never forced upon a person. It is interesting to note however that John Paul II allowed the Eastern Catholic Churches the option of returning to the more ancient tradition of receiving first communion at an earlier age and we have never questioned the validity of Eucharist in the Orthodox Church because of this issue.

    This would seem to say this is a question of different practice. But I am intrigued still by the fact, and have been for some time, that one could see in the same way that we Catholics do with regards to Baptism, an opportunity for the bestowing of grace at an earlier age. God’s grace is certainly not limited by our age or intellect. And with the proper formation given (especially by parents0 the same growth in faith and devotion to the Eucharist could be accomplished.

  • Mark G.

    OK, I can’t resist.

    While God’s ability to operate on us has no limitation, our ability to receive it amp; cultivate varies massively with disposition, the operantis. The Catholic Church doesn’t allow children to be baptized when there is no apparent hope that the child will be raised or taught the Catholic Faith. There is a requirement for education and formation in the faith – either before or after receiving the sacraments of initiation. Otherwise, what is spoken of borders on magic.

    As for Transubstatiation, I propose that it is not possible to be “beyond terminology” any more than it is possible for heterodox women’s religious communities to be “beyond ecclesial structure” or “beyond Jesus”. It is the best statement possible in human words as to what Christ Jesus in the Eucharist is. The fact that it is not absolutely comprehensive in every aspect of spirituality and practice does not diminish or make obsolete it’s importance. It a forever-fixed reference marker from which we can faithfully explore this great gift more without getting lost, as so many have. That’s the real reason for defining anything – it has to be when attacked or misused.

    From Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Mysterium Fidei (I love the papal “We”):

    False and Disturbing Opinions

    10. For We can see that some of those who are dealing with this Most Holy Mystery in speech and writing are disseminating opinions… on the dogma of transubstantiation that are disturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure of confusion about matters of faith, just as if it were all right for someone to take doctrine that has already been defined by the Church and consign it to oblivion or else interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved.

    11. To give an example of what We are talking about, it is not permissible… to concentrate on the notion of sacramental sign as if the symbolism—which no one will deny is certainly present in the Most Blessed Eucharist—fully expressed and exhausted the manner of Christ’s presence in this Sacrament; or to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, as if they involve nothing more than “transignification”, or “transfinalization” as they call it; or, finally, to propose and act upon the opinion that Christ Our Lord is no longer present in the consecrated Hosts that remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass has been completed.

    12. Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to belief in and devotion to the Eucharist.

    I think the argument about rationalism, the Protestant rebellion, and recent loss of belief in the Real Presence being a direct result of Thomism is pretty far-fetched and nearly impossible to substantiate. I couple this with have first learned about St. Thomas through his incredibly beautiful hymns, Ave Verum Corpus, Panis Angelicus, amp; Adoro Te Devote. This man had no problem with fostering a healthy and transcendant spirituality. Look elsewhere.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Mark,

    I am glad that you couldn’t resist and very happy that you are being “nice” in your comments. It was my hope in beginning this discussion to bring about some real discussion and your thoughts certainly help to do so.

    It is late (or should I say early), but I will attempt to respond to some of your comments. I may need to clarify later, but I suppose that is the good thing of this medium.

    My point in asking the question about children and the Eucharist stems around the point you have already made. I realize that it is not our current practice to allow infants to receive the Eucharist, but if we do allow infants to be baptized when there is a founded hope that the child will be raised and taught the Catholic faith, why would we exclude the child from the other two sacraments of initiation? Would not the same principles apply? If not, why not wait to baptize until the age of reason?

    As for transubstantiation, I am not sure that it is the best statement possible in human words about the Eucharist as the Eucharist is so seemingly beyond our human understanding, but let’s say it is. What does it really tell us? Aquinas used Aristotilean Science to describe the Eucharist and it is brilliant I must say. The substance, the thing that undergirds the thing (in this case what makes bread and wine, bread and wine) is removed and is replaced with the substance of God, while the accidents…the changeable things remain the same….so it still has the properties of bread and wine.

    Does this really sum up the Eucharist? It seems much more to me.

    With regards to the St. Thomas and scholasticism, I agree with you that there is a much deeper person to be dealt with than what seems to be being presented in our discussion so far. He was a saint not due to his intellect, but because of his holiness of life. Here is a subject that I hope we can discuss more here as I agree with Steve that many times a straw man has been presented to discount the scholastics.

    And if I have offended anyone in this comment, I ask forgiveness. The risk is always present when discussing such intimate matters.

  • Mark G.

    Father, as my old English boss used to say we’re “violently agreeing with each other” (he used to say a lot of things, many of which probably should not be repeated). I’m a firm believer that we would all understand each other so much better if all these words didn’t get in the way (a good argument for the silent canon?).

    Regarding the appropriate age for administering 1st Communion, right after Confirmation seems good to me. The Churches (East and West) have always provided the means to bring all people – infant, child, or adult – into the fold through the sacraments of initiation – all of them.

    I believe that the desire to reserve Confirmation to the bishop in the Latin Church (though it’s really not, is it?) introduced the hiccup in the order of the sacraments. I’d like to see the practice restored of Baptism-Confirmation-Eucharist for infants or anyone entering the Church, but there are many practical matters. However, as long as post-sacramental catechesis is provided, it really shouldn’t matter. God isn’t limited by our understanding, but nevertheless, we should understand as best we can, as knowing more about someone we love brings us into deeper relationship with them. Paul longed to know as he was known. So should we all.

    Regarding the Eucharist, I think I meant to say it was the best expression we have “at this time” to describe what the Eucharist is: it is, simply, Christ Jesus, and all other descriptors are inadequate. however, the language should progress as the Bride comes to “know” the Bridegroom more and more. Paul VI was concerned with the Protestant notion of the Eucharist as only symbolic. The Eucharist is not a symbol, not a membership ritual, and not some shadowy spiritual presence in my heart. It is really him physically present as if he were standing there in front of me. The Mystery is how this physical presence through the act of eating amp; drinking then becomes a presence in grace that works on my sould to unite me to God and with others.

    As far as how we experience Christ in the Eucharist, how we participate, how grace operates, how he abides with us, I suppose that’s the inexhaustible spring of the Church’s contemplation that seems to defy definition.

    I’m sure that all the post-conciliar popes would agree with me (rather, I agree with them) when I say that the various crises in the Church find their origin in a lack of faith and devotion to Christ Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

    To bring St. Thomas into this, the more we sing silly Communion songs about “eat the bread, drink the wine”, the more we can expect people to fall away. No one eats any bread or drinks any wine at a valid Mass. But saying it over and over again just reinforces this heretical notion that’s already all-too rampant. St. Thomas’ Eucharistic hymns are about the struggle of man to come to grips with the Mystery of Christ present in the Eucharist. I will know that the promised Springtime has begun when St. Thomas’ hymns resound through parishes again.

    Forgive me, Father, for I may have sinned…

  • Jill

    Wow! I’m exhausted just quot;eavesdroppingquot; on all of this dialogue! What a great round table discussion this would be! You’re all out of my league but I’m happy to be the passive recepient of all this provacative thought.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    As I have been thinking more about our discussion about the age of receiving the Eucharist, I have begun to wonder what Pius X’s action might have been if the actual physical practice of receiving the Eucharist had been in his day as is fairly typical today.

    In his time receiving from the chalice was reserved to the priest alone. Today it is fairly normal to have reception under both species.

    His rationale for allowing Catholics to begin receiving the Eucharist at around 8 years old, rather than the typical time after confirmation (usually as a teen) was to give Catholics access to the Eucharist at an earlier age.

    Had we then had the practice of all the laity receiving both species, might he have restored the practice of receiving all three sacraments of initiation as infants?

    Something to ponder.

  • Mark G.

    Well, it was certainly within the power of St. Pius X to change it.

    I’m sure there must have been some discussion amp; debate amongst the bishops of the day about the order of the sacraments amp; the age of their reception, but frankly, I don’t know much about it.

    I’m not sure I see the connection to Communion under both species.

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    What I mean is that infants usually receive the Eucharist by receiving the precious blood. Seeing that reception of the precious blood was reserved to clergy at the time of Saint Pius X (thank you for the reminder Mark) it might not have been practical and likely would have led to confusion on the part of many of the laity. But I too have not spent any time learning about the arguments at the time, though maybe I should look into it now. Still just speculation on my part for now.

  • Mark G.

    Being wholy ignorant of the Divine Liturgy of Orthodox amp; Eastern Catholic Churches, my saintly professor Fr. Giles, O.P. said that when administering Communion for infants, a tiny piece of the Body is immersed in the Blood.

    As a side note, it was/is possible in the older Roman liturgy that a small chalice would be consecrated at the altar for administering to people who are wheat intolerant.

    As another side note, I’ve received Communion by intinction, which seems to solve a multitude of problems of respect to Christ in the Eucharist amp; with accidents. I would love to see this practice become more common, if not the norm.

  • Mark G.

    Thank you for the information on the Eastern practice, Father.

    As you may suspect, the age of 1st Communion amp; how he is distributed to the faithful is a mater of discipline, not doctrine. However, as you may also suspect, how these traditions are handled may bump up against Tradition, then that’s where the Church must excercise its power to teach, i.e., the Magisterium. Benedict is certainly free to institute a new practice for age of 1st Communion, but there is a tension between letting the local Churches govern their own practices amp; steering the Barque of Peter from Rome.

    Maybe I’m listening to EWTN too much these days, but I just heard an excellent interview with Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. about his take on a book from Ignatius Press, A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist by Abbot Vonier. Sounds like a must read.

  • s-p

    Hi Mark,

    In the Eastern tradition (for the most part, there are rare exceptions), people are communed with both the wine and bread. The bread is put in the chalice at the altar and then given to the communicants with a spoon. Prior to this people were given the bread in their hands and sipped from the chalice. The spoon as a quot;delivery devicequot; was begun or became common practice I think in the 9th century to keep people from taking the bread home and using it superstitiously, irreverently or worshipping it (the East does not have the practice of Adoration or monstrances). Intincture accomplishes much the same thing. (We have no “dogma” regarding HOW the Eucharist is distributed, this has just become the common tradition.) Infants are given a very small bit of the bread and wine on the spoon also. The amount of bread and wine are not important, so ciliacs can commune and recieve a very small bit of the bread to avoid a reaction. Regarding lowering the age of communion, if Pope Pious could lower it from teenager to age 7, is this then just a pious practice with no “infallibility issues” surrounding it that can be changed? What would happen if Pope Benedict issued a decree that allowed paedo communion for infants with faithful communing parents?

  • s-p

    I would agree with Mark that (as an outsider looking in and being raised pre-Vatican II Catholic) I would have an issue with parish priests or even local Bishops unilaterally changing the quot;tquot;raditions. I perceive a crisis of authority in the ranks of the American Catholic Church that grieves me.

    I also agree with Fr. Christian that quot;infallibilityquot; is grossly misunderstood and caricaturized by Protestants, but also misunderstood by most Catholics, regarding what teachings and practices actually fall under that rubric. Much of this discussion brings up a lot of points and issues that (again, as an outsider looking in), I am very interested to see what happens under Pope Benedict’s watch. I believe he is one of the most formidable Christian intellects and dedicated Church leaders on the planet trying to steer a ship with a (hopefully small) mutinous crew and passengers. (But then what Church leader isn’t these days….) Lord have mercy on us all.
    (just plain) steve :)

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    No problem at all were he to change the age and that would certainly fall under the small “t” tradition versus the big “T” Tradition issues.

    Interesting that you bring up infallibility Steve as it might be an interesting future topic for a blogpost. I find it to be one of the most misunderstood teachings of the Church, even among Catholics. The vast majority of what we would call infallible teachings come out of the ecumenical councils of the Church, with only two items being defined in such a way by the pope—and even these were things already widely accepted by the faithful, he wouldn’t have the power to define them if this were not the case.

    Anyway, this continues to be an excellent discussion and has gone places I would not have imagined.

  • s-p

    Father, There is an old saying of the Desert Fathers: quot;There is safety in obedience.quot; And yes, there is safety in sacrificing one’s self for the sake of the gospel. I recently commented on an Orthodox blog where controversies are flaring: quot;The altar is not the place to quot;make statementsquot; other than what the Church is telling us in the Liturgy. If you have a personal opinion that is at variance with the Church, take it to the parking lot, not into the altar.quot; It is a quot;humanquot; issue to vaunt one’s own will and judgment over against what has been ordained by God through the ordained authority of the Church to be the good order of His house. The good order can be changed as the needs of the house changes, HOW that is done determines if we (both Orthodox and Catholic) are a heirarchical Church or just protestants in robes in my opinion. But I think we’ve moved far from the topic of the Real Presence. :)

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Thanks for the continued comments Steve. Yes, it does seem there is a crisis in authority in our church right now that has been playing itself out over the span of decades now.

    I am attempting to simply turn to the Gospel for help.

    Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee approached him with her sons and did him homage, wishing to ask him for something. He said to her, “What do you wish?” She answered him, “Command that these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus said in reply, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?” They said to him, “We can.” He replied, “My cup you will indeed drink, but to sit at my right and at my left, this is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” When the ten heard this, they became indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus summoned them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
    (Matthew 20:20-28)

  • Mark G.

    Father Christian, thank you for the Great Silence after Communion today. It was beautiful.

  • http://www.observantromancatholic.blogspot.com/ Ruth Ann

    Thank you for posting this essay about Holy Communion. I do believe my main reason for staying Catholic is this sacrament, which I have cherished since my childhood. I found your blog at the Saturday Night Blog Post, and I’m glad I did!

  • Fr. Christian Mathis

    Glad you found the blog Ruth Ann and hope you will return often!

«     »