Eucharist Document Opinions

See the source imageSo the USCCB is still writing a document on the Eucharist? I thought that had been tabled. Fr Thomas Reese has some suggestions here.

I agree with a few, including deep-sixing Aristotelian philosophy.

I believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, but I do not believe in the Aristotelian metaphysics of prime matter, substantial forms, substance and accidents.

This is right. We believe the Body and Blood. It’s Real. We don’t need to describe how because really: we don’t know.

(T)he document should emphasize that the purpose of the Eucharist is not to bring Christ down on the altar so that we can worship him. If you want to worship Jesus, go to Benediction. The Eucharist is about worshipping the Father, not Jesus. Jesus never asked his disciples to worship him. His message was all about the Father, not himself.

Basic undergraduate theology here. We join in the Son’s adoration of the Father.

People learn about the Eucharist by being shown good worship, not by being told about it, who should come or not, receive or not, and what gets transformed and how. Some things are none of our business, and way beyond any human’s pay grade.

Bishops these days may not be the best teachers. Who shows us good worship? Good pastors. Parents and friends. Parishes that worship well, mindfully with quality and appropriate creativity in the arts.

Image above: Late 12th century mosaic, Monreale Cathedral, Sicily. Jesus feeding thousands, obviously.

About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in Minnesota, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in bishops, Commentary, Liturgy. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Eucharist Document Opinions

  1. Liam says:

    I would safely venture that any attempt to “deep-six” Aristotelian philosophical distinctions about substance are not only likely to be tilting at windmills (at best), but if anything are likely to end up with a tighter embrace of them.

    Trent baked that into the cake, and it can’t be unbaked. (Can’t go from “apt” to “inapt”.) The cake *can* be adorned (that said, attempts to do so in recent generations so far have not yielded fruit other than wars of words), but not discarded and remade – especially by a mere national episcopal conference.

    One might be surprised to learn that there are philosophical matters of much vaster import that go completely under the radar because they are so difficult that they break the conventions of every day discourse. Such as, for example, univocity of being (for the development of which Bl John Duns Scotus acted as the hinge; it is not part of Aquinas’ metaphysical foundation), which might be translated as the idea that God and his creatures all share the quality of being beings. That was a revolutionary idea in the late Middle Ages, and one that’s alien to the entire Christian tradition before its development. Before that development (peculiar to the Roman theological world – not entirely embrace by it, btw – and its Protestant heirs), one might have understood creatures to be beings, but God not as being but as I AM, or as pure verb TO BE.

    Winding THAT development back might be a much more profitable place to start, since it has not been dogmatically baked into the cake.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s