Newspaper Page Text
(All Articles This P?ge Copyrighted 1971 By NC News Service)
PAGE 5 — January 21, 1971
KNOW YOUR FAITH
THE INSTANT a person receives Christ in the Eucharist is a focal point of the Mass. (NC PHOTO )
Sacraments And
Religious Education
ss^sss&ssisssmmmt
Eucharist: Sacrament
of Love
By Fr. Carl J.
Pfeifer, S.J.
“How do I love thee? Let
me count the ways.” With
these words begins the
famous love sonnet by
Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
No one expression of love
was able to capture the
“depth and breadth and
heights” of her love.
The mystery of love
escapes neat, all-inclusive
definition. Men and women
of every age have been
inspired to invent new words,
new symbols, to describe
their experience,
inadequately at best. Love is
a reality with so many
dimensions that it can be
expressed only by a rich
variety of words, symbols,
gestures, and actions. “How
do I love thee? Let me count
the ways!”
It is not surprising then
that Christians down through
the centuries have found
surprisingly different ways of
describing and celebrating the
Eucharist, which Vatican
Council II names “a
sacrament of love” (Liturgy,
47). It is true that for several
recent centuries the manner
of celebrating the Eucharist
was frozen into a uniform
mold, and the theological
explanation of this sacrament
became rigidly limited.
Catholics who are adults
today grew up during the final
years of this period of uniform
ity of valid celebration and
acceptame aetinition.
Wherever one went in this
country or throughout the
world, the Mass was offered
in the same manner, in the
same language, and the
catechism explanations of the
Eucharist were everywhere
almost verbally identical.
Such constraint is not
typical of the Church’s
experience of the Eucharist.
The variety we are today
experiencing - a variety that
for many of us may well be
disconcerting - is much more
characteristic of the
celebration of the “sacrament
of love” in the long history of
the Church.
For centuries there were
no fixed prayers or rituals.
The local Bishop or priest
adapted the words and
gestures of the Mass to the
occasion. The language was
that of the people
participating; the symbols
and gestures were taken from
the local culture. We do not
even have a uniform account
of the words and actions of
Jesus at the Last Supper, the
First Mass. The New
Testament records four
differing expressions of the
“words of consecration” at
the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:
23-25, Mk 14: 22-25, Mt. 26:
26-29, Lk. 22: 15-20), none
of which is exactly the same
as that used in the Mass
today.
At different periods of the
Church’s history, certain
dimensions of the mystery of
the Eucharist took on more
significance. Small, intimate
celebrations in private homes
were normal according to the
Acts of the Apostles. In later
times and cultures large,
solemn ceremonies were
cherished. Full active
participation of all the
faithful was taken for granted
in earlier days of Christianity,
whereas silent, awe-filled,
distance marked the
Eucharist in later centuries.
While early groups of
Christians enjoyed the
presence of Jesus as a friend
at their table, other equally
devout Christians knelt in
solitary wonder before the
Lord whom they dared not
receive but once a year.
As the celebration differed
from place to place and
century to century, so did the
Church’s understanding and
interpretation of her
experience. This, too, is
already evident in the New
Testament. The Gospels and
epistles at one time describe
the “breaking of bread” in
terms of the presence of the
risen Christ with His friends
at another time they view the
Eucharist as a sacrificial
offering. Sometimes the stress
is on the meal, through which
those who share the body and
blood of Christ become
intimately united with Him
and with each other.
As Christians discovered
more and more of the riches
of the Eucharist, they drew
on many themes from the
Scriptures, all of which
express one or more of the
dimensions of the mystery of
love which is the Eucharist.
Our present liturgy still
records many of these. The
Eucharist is the sign of the
New Covenant, the new and
final marriage bond between
God and His people, between
Christ and His Church. It is
the “marriage feast”
celebrating this unbreakable
bond of love. The Mass is also
clearly seen as sacrifice,
replacing for all time other
religious sacrifices. The
Paschal Lamb, slain and
raised from the dead for our
salvation, is the victim. Here
one eats not of manna as did
the Hebrews in the desert,
but of the very Bread of Life.
Almost every major theme
of the Scriptures is drawn
upon in the New Testament
in an attempt to say what the
Eucharist really is. Later ages
drew upon the art, poetry
and philosophy of every
culture where Christians were
to be found to try anew to
communicate the meaning of
the “sacrament of love.”
Even when variety was
limited during recent
centuries, the faithful created
many non-liturgical,
unofficial forms of
Eucharistic celebration.
Now, with the
encouragement of Vatican
Council II, Catholics around
the world are experiencing
once again a greater freedom
to adapt their celebration to
particular situations and to
describe the Eucharist in
richer and more varied
formulations. Religious
education has the task of
opening up the Church’s
eucharistic riches to young
and old alike, so that the new
variety is experienced as an
expression of love.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Why is the Eucharist
called the sacrament of love?
2. How has the way
Christians celebrate flie
Eucharist changed through
the centuries?
Future Articles
Jan. 30
Fr. Walter M. Abbott, S.J. - SCRIPTURES IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH TODAY
(Second Corinthians)
Fr. Joseph Champlin - WORSHIP AND TOE WORLD (Preparing Parents for Baptism)
Fr. Peter J. Riga - THE SACRAMENTS (Penance)
Fr. Carl J. Pfeifer, S.J. - SACRAMENTS AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Feb. 4
Fr. Walter M. Abbott, S.J. - SCRIPTURES IN TOE LIFE OF THE CHURCH TODAY
(Second Corinthians)
Fr. Joseph Champlin - WORSHIP AND THE WORLD (Parish Marriage Preparation
Classes)
Fr. Peter J. Riga — THE SACRAMENTS (Matrimony)
Fr. Carl J. Pfeifer, S.J. - SACRAMENTS AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
The
Sacraments
ssm
By Fr. Peter
J. Riga
Holy Eucharist
The sacrament of the
Eucharist was seen by the
first Christians as the very
heart of the Church. Indeed,
the Church itself is actualized
in the breaking of the bread.
The early writers of the
Church claimed that
“Eucharistia facit ecclesiam,”
(the Eucharist creates the
Church). The reason is
simple: this sacrament
contains the very source of
salvation, Christ, the crucified
and risen Lord by whom
alone the Church comes into
existence.
The word “Eucharist”
comes from the Greek,
“eucharistein,” which means
to give thanks. In the
Eucharist, we give thanks for
the most precious of all
possible gifts, Jesus. It is
Christ Himself who is made
present in the action and
words of the sacrificial meal
called the Eucharist.
The celebration of this
sacrament goes back to the
earliest days of the Church.
We see this in the witness of
St. Paul’s epistle; he related
to the Christians a tradition
which he himself had received
from the Church. The gospels
record the institution of the
Eucharist at the Last Supper,
except St. John, who gives us
his Eucharist teaching in
chapter six of his gospel.
Each evangelist emphasizes
various theological themes,
but the basic meaning of the
Eucharist as meal, offering,
sacrifice and expiation
(making amends) remains the
same in all four gospels.
The mission of Jesus was
to save men; he made amends
for the sins of all men by his
death so as to become the
principle of salvation when
this sacrifice was accepted by
the Father (resurrection). He
died and endured the death
which all men must endure -
as sign of sin itself. He
suffered the loneliness,
abandonment by God and the
sufferings of death itself so
that by dying and rising he
was able to change the sign of
death in sin to a sign of death
to sin. It was by his death and
rising that Jesus attained the
fulfillment of his supreme
role of Saviour of all men.
The Last Supper offered
by Jesus was the new
testament or covenant of all
of this. At Mass, as at the
Last Supper, the words, “This
is my body; this is my
On Facing Death and
What Comes After It
By Fr. Walter M.
Abbott, S.J.
There is a section of Paul’s
Second Letter to the
Corinthians where the style
really soars, 4:16-5:10. Here
Paul compares the troubles of
this life and the life we can
have in heaven.
It is one of the most
important sections of Paul’s
letter. It gives us pieces of the
Christian doctrine about what
will happen to the souls of
the just between the time of
their deaths and the Lord’s
second coming at the end of
the world. It also gives us
pieces of the best Christian
spirituality concerning how
we should face death.
Notice how positive Paul is
in this section. In 4:14 he
wrote, “For we know that
God, who raised the Lord
Jesus to life, will also raise us
up with Jesus and bring us,
together with you, into his
presence.” Now he writes, in
5:1, “God will have a house
in heaven for us to live in, a
home he himself made, which
will last forever.”
If you took these sentences
by themselves you might
conclude that Paul is saying
he and the Corinthian
Christians to whom he wrote
will all be saved and will
enjov eternal happiness with
God."
For sound interpretation
of the Bible, however, there is
a principle that says you must
take into consideration what
the sacred author worte in
other sections, and also what
other biblical authors wrote
about the particular topic.
The least one can do here, of
course, is to read the whole
context of this section, and
one therefore comes quickly
to 5:10 where Paul reminds
us, “For all of us must appear
before Christ, to be judged by
him, so that each one may
receive what he deserves,
according to what he has
done, good or bad, in his
bodily life.
You see now why I said at
the beginning that Paul
compares the troubles of this
life and the life we “can”
have in heaven. Yes, Paul
blood,” bring about
effectively what is
symbolized by this meal of
eating and drinking. As the
food is totally consumed and
goes for the sustenance of
life, so too is Christ given for
each one of us for our
sustenance into eternal life. It
is for this reason that we can
call the Eucharist the
sacrament of sacraments.
Sacred Scripture clearly
points out that the
Eucharistic meal is an
efficacious sign of what Jesus
did at his passion, death and
resurrection. The Eucharist is
a sacrifice given for the sins
of all men, not for a chosen
few or for “the elect.” The
text (“given for many,” Mk.
14:24) pointing this out, is a
clear allusion to the suffering
servant Yahweh in Isaiah 53:12
where the innocent servant
suffers for the sins of the
people.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Why did the early
Christians see the Eucharist as
the heart of the Church?
2. How is the Eucharist a
meal? An offering? A
sacrifice? An expiation?
ife
actually talks about the life
we “will” have in heaven.
But, in view of that sentence
in 5:10,1 think you will agree
that we should say Paul was
speaking optimistically when
he used “will” instead of
“can.”
In 5:8 Paul writes, with the
editorial plural, that he would
prefer to be in heaven right
then and there instead of
having to deal with the
trouble of this life, “(we)
would much prefer to leave
our home in this body and be
at home with the Lord.” It is
this sentence especially which
through the centuries has
been cited by theologians
when they tried to explain
what happens to the souls of
the just after death.
St. Thomas Aquinas
summed up the traditional
interpretation when he wrote
in the 13th century that this
sentence makes it impossible
to hold the idea that the souls
of the just are not
immediately brought after
death into the vision and
presence of God. There had
been some who held that the
souls of all the dead were
kept in the dark, as it were,
until the day of judgment,
and only then would the just,
or saved, see God and enjoy
the blessings of heaven, or life
with the Lord.
It has been my experience
that many people are
consoled by the correct
interpretation of 5:8, but
many others feel such
thoughts are far beyond them
and they prefer to remain
content with what Paul writes
in 5:7, “For our life is a
matter of faith, not of sight,”
and in 5:9, “More than
anything else, however, we
want to please him (i.e., the
Lord), whether in our home
here or there.”
In 5:8, when Paul writes he
would prefer to be in heaven
rather than in this life, he
makes the comment with the
introductory phrase, “We are
full of courage, and would
much prefer...” another
way of translating it brings
out what he means perhaps
more emphatically. “We even
have the courage to prefer to
leave our home in this body
and be at home with the
Lord.” Death, therefore, is
not to be a dreadful thing for
the Christian but a tiling of
joy.
All well and good for a
Question
And Answer
BY FR. RICHARD McBRIEN
saint, you may say, but it is
not so simple for the
Christian who has a record of
failures. There remains that
sentence about the judgment
(5:10), and for many people
it is bound to dilute the ideal
of joy with a great deal of
fear. Paul was well aware of
the problem. Notice 5:11,
“we know what it means to
fear the Lord.”
Yes, the judgment lies
ahead. Even so, it is courage
that should dominate in the
Christian soul. Look back
through this section
4:16-5:10 and see how many
times Paul stresses desire for
the next life. Again, as always
with Paul, it comes down to
this, whether you really love
the Lord or not. If you do,
you can look forward with
courage to meeting him, even
if you have sinned.
Incidentally, if you are
consistent with the
traditional interpretation of
5:8, which we discussed
above, you will have to hold
that in 5:10 Paul is talking
not about the Last Judgment
but about a meeting with
Christ immediately after
death. How else could the
souls of the just enter right
away into the vision and
presence of God?
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. What does Paul say in
Second Corinthians about
Christ’s judgment of the
dead?
2. When, according to St.
Paul and St. Thomas Aquinas,
are the souls of the just
brought into God’s presence?
Q. If it is as difficult as
modern theologians say to
commit mortal sin, what is
the necessity for Confession?
A. Confession is necessary
for the forgiveness of those
mortal sins which, however
difficult they might be to
commit, have in fact been
committed.
Confession also should
remain available for others as
an occasion of acknowledging
their generally sinful
condition, of repenting of
those personal infidelities
against the Gospel of which
we are all guilty, and of
encountering in the
sacrament of penance the
forgiving and merciful Lord.'
Auricular confession (i.e.,
private confession to a priest)
is not necessary when the
penitent is not guilty of
mortal sin. But there is every
reason to believe that it will
remain an option even for
those who are not obliged in
conscience to avail themselves
of it.
Q. If it is impossible or
nearly so for one act to turn a
person against God (at least
that is how 1 read some
contemporary theologians),
does that mean that a little
adultery is a good thing, or a
little murder? Can one
commit adultery only
occasionally and not interfere
with his relationship to God
since it is only an isolated act
and one does not have a
mistress? Or is it possible to
commit murder only when
one has exhausted all other
possible ways in which one
tries to get rid of competition
(whether for business or a
woman) as long as one
doesn't make a habit of it? Is
there no room in modern
theology for the isolated act
(and not just at the beginning
of a series of acts) which
turns man away from God
completely?
A. Yes, there is. I do not
know of a Catholic
theologian today who would
deny this possibility. I refer
you to the discussion on the
“Know Your Faith” for the
week of Nov. 30, 1970,
where there are articles on
the subject by Fathers Kevin
O’Rourke and Carl Pfeifer.
The temptation now is to
throw up our hands and say,
“What’s the difference? Do
what you want. God’s hands
are tied anyway.”
Catholic theologians are
not saying anything so
patently absurd as this;
namely, that Christians are
free to do whatever they
please, without regard for
God or their fellow man, just
so long as they can
adequately rationalize their
action, whether it be adultery
or even murder.
On the contrary, the real,
inherent difficulty of the
Christian life has not subsided
one degree: Christians still
have to forgive the injuries
committed against
themselves, not just once or
twice but “seventy times
seven” times; Christians still
have to be generous and
considerate even when the
beneficiaries of their kindness
are belligerent and ungrateful;
Christians still have to give of
their resources (time, talent,
money), even to the point of
inconvenience and pain, when
their brother or sister is in
need; Christians still have to
put their bodies on the line in
the cause of peace and justice
at every level (in the family,
the neighborhood, the larger
community, or the world
itself); Christians still have to
be signs of joy and hope in a
world that seems to proclaim
the onrushing victory of
decay, despair, disruption,
and death.
What is being said
nowadays is that, in the light
of modern psychology
especially, it is unlikely that
we can completely reject this
vocation in a single act, unless
this act is the culmination of
a life-style that has gradually
been building up over a
period of time. However,
what is unlikely is not
impossible.
Father O’Rourke has
already recommended one of
the best discussions of this
problem: Louis Monden, S.J.,
“Sin, Liberty and Law”
(Sheed & Ward, 1965).
Q. Has the Catholic Church
really changed so much? All
this talk about involving the
laity in the life of the Church
reminds me of something that
I heard about twenty-five
years ago: Catholic Action.
Didn’t Pope Pius XII insist
upon the importance of the
lay apostolate? Why do we
act as if this is something
new?
A. The teaching of Vatican
II on the lay apostolate is not
simply a paraphrase or new
edition of the earlier notion
of Catholic Action. On the
contrary, I should judge that
the council’s teaching is really
an implicit rejection of the
theology underlying Catholic
Action.
Catholic Action was
defined as “the participation
of the laity in the apostolate
of the hierarchy of the
Church” (see Baltimore
Catechism, no. 3, and other
similar sources). The
assumption, clearly stated in
many cases, was that the
hierarchy alone was given the
responsibility for the mission
of the Church. The hierarchy,
in turn, would decide
whether or not to share that
responsibility with the laity,
and under what conditions.
Vatican II’s Dogmatic
Constitution on the Church,
on the other hand, teaches
that the lay apostolate is “a
participation in the saving
mission of the Church itself’
and that the laity are
commissioned to this
apostolate, not by canonical
deputation, but “by the Lord
Himself,” through the
sacraments, especially
Baptism, Confirmation, and
the Eucharist (see n. 33).
This is a significant and
substantial shift in theological
thinking. It is not merely a
new way of speaking about
an old truth.
THE GLOOM OF THE GRAVEYARD reminds us of the solemnity surrounding death, but hope
in the Resurrection brings hope through the sadness. (NC PHOTO by Bill Gage)
.!
i