Decline in belief in the Eucharist...last words (for now)

I want give my conclusions regarding my blog entries, the blog comments & my observations in the past couple of weeks. These observations don't necessarily explain the decline in the belief in the Real Presence. At the same time, the symptons mentioned in each of these observations aren't the primary reason in the decline either. My last two observations are as follows:

I came to the conclusion, and Rome is in agreement on this, that the return of the communion rail is not only impractical but also could have a negative consequence; mainly a reduction in the number of persons who receive communion or even attend Mass. To begin with, most parishes are not even designed to accomodate the addition of a communion rail. I know Prince of Peace is not. My home parish is not either. The re-education of nearly two generations of persons is also a major factor. We have seen the difficulty of properly educating people on changes in the practice of the faith by the aftermath of poor teaching on the changes of Vatican II. The return of the communion rail would also entail discontinuing the use of Eucharistic ministers. Lastly, no one has been able to explain to me a practical reason for the desire for the return of communion rails and I do not agree that it will increase reverence.

Whether it is because of the return of the communion rail or simply the return to only clergy distributing Communion, there are a number of problems with discontinuing the use of Eucharistic ministers. By discontinuing the use of Eucharistic ministers, the priests and deacons would be the only persons to distribute communion. This is highly impractical. Take Prince of Peace for example. We have 13,000 parishioners but in reality have 900 to 1,300 at each Mass for an average total of about 6,000 actively practicing parishioners. Using 1,000 as the average attendance at a Sunday Mass with a strict time of 3 seconds per person it would take Fr. Frank and I at least 25 minutes just to distribute Communion. In a perfect world, the time it takes to distribute Communion should not be a factor. In reality, however, today's people are not likely to accept this and the solution for them many of them is simply not to attend Mass period. While it is true that we should not put a time constraint on the Mass it is also true that we must be mindful of the lives of our parishioners and their other responsibilities. The Mass schedule itself is often dictated by the needs of the people. It may have been practical forty years ago when we had three times the priests we have but it isn't practical anymore. For example, in 1965 the Archdiocese of Kansas City in KS had 135,000 Catholics and 381 priests (130 diocesan and 251 religious) which comes out to 1 priest for every 354 Catholics. In 2007, the archdiocese had 199,246 Catholics and 167 priests (105 diocesan and 62 religious) which comes out to 1 priest for every 1,193 Catholics - over three times as many Catholics per priest than just forty-two years ago. And as far as active priests we only have 73 diocesan priests and 38 religious priests serving in parishes. So in truth we have 1 priest for every 1,795 Catholic. The reality is that there are not enough priests to properly minister to the Catholic people and this means we need laypersons to help.

While the issues are very complex, what is evident is that there are some very important decisions to be made that will have radical and potentially dangerous consequences. It is vital that before making a broad spectrum opinion or decision about something, every possible aspect as well as its benefits and especially its consequences must be considered. That is why it seems sometimes that Rome moves so slow in responding to issues. The truth is that they are making decisions that impact the souls of millions of people and that is not something to be done hurridly or taken lightly.

This will be my last post on this subject...for awhile at least. I want to encouage people to continue to add comments or insights however. I have a feeling we will be revisiting this topic again sometime soon. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:01 | link | comments (5) |
blog

Decline in belief in the Eucharist...conclusions

In the past couple of week, as we have been discussing the various aspects that may have contributed to the decline in belief in the Real Presence, I have been very observant of the atmosphere and actions at the Mass. This has especially been the case with the distribution of Communion. As I have observed Communion these past couple of weeks I have come to a couple of conclusions. I will present two of them today and two of them in my next post.

I stand firm in my belief that the way in which one receives Communion is not reflectant upon their reverence nor is it the major cause of decline in the belief in the Real Presence. I saw persons receiving in the hand that seemed to have a sense of awe on their faces at being able to cradle Jesus himself in their hands. I also saw persons receive in the hand that looked as if they were being given a piece of pie at the family picnic. I saw persons receive on the tongue that had their eyes closed and seemed to be in a prayerful state and I saw others receive on the tongue that looked like the only reason they were receiving on the tongue was because they wanted to seem pius to others. These are just my perceptions and observations. I am not judging anyone and I have no idea of the state of nor disposition of their souls. However, these actions are what many are basing as their proof that receiving in the hand is the primary cause of the unbelief in the Real Presence.

Having said that, my second conclusion is that I would support the reception of the Eucharist only on the tongue if Rome were to withdraw the dispensation the U.S. has for receiving in the hand. I would support it not just out of obedience to Rome but because I have witnessed a couple of things that have concerned me. I have noticed particles of the Eucharist that, although I try to remove them before presenting the consecrated host, sometimes get on people's hands and there is a grave danger of these falling to the floor. I see this as not a lack of reverence by the person rather because either the person did not realize there was a particle on his/her hand or the person did not realize that even that small particle is Jesus Christ himself. Another thing I noticed is that many people receive in the hand and yet have dirty, filthy hands. Again, this is not necessarily a sign of irreverence (although I think it is a sign of bad hygiene) but it is inappropriate. Lastly, there are always cases each week when a person almost or actually does drop the consecrated host. Sometimes this is because they don't seem to be paying attention and other times it is simply because they are clumsy or don't get a good grip on the host. These are all factors that I believe lend great support to receiving on the tongue. Citing a lack of reverence, however, is not the sole justification for withdrawing the dispensation.

I will continue next time with my final two reasons. As you can see, though, the general opinions as to the problems with this decline in belief and the actual practical 'solutions' to these problems are very much different. Just because something seems like a good idea or the appropriate solution when being thought out doesn't mean it will work practically. In fact, it might have the opposite effect. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:12 | link | comments (3) |
blog

Decline in belief in the Eucharist...more

We continue our discussion on the belief in the Real Presence and the factor that are contributing to this decline. I want to thank you for your continuing comments regarding this. It is an extremely important topic for our Church today and one that needs our continual attention.

Last time I spoke on the contraversy of receiving communion in the hand. I want to quote an article from the Catholic News Service that was published on Jan. 31 of this this year. This article said:

The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments said he thinks it is time for the Catholic Church to reconsider its decision to allow the faithful to receive Communion in the hand. Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, the Vatican official, made the suggestion in the preface to a book about the Eucharist by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan...In the newly released preface to the book, Archbishop Ranjith wrote, "The Eucharist, bread transubstantiated into the body of Christ and wine into the blood of Christ -- God in our midst -- must be received with awe and an attitude of humble adoration...I think the time has come to evaluate these practices (receiving Communion in the hand) and to review them and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice," Archbishop Ranjith said.

So this issue is something that is being considered by the Vatican. However, the article also says that, while the Vatican believes there is a correlation between receiving in the hand and a decline in reverence, it believes that this has been a "gradual and growing weakening of the attitude toward reverence" again emphasizing a lack of and need for better catechesis and not that the practice itself should have never been allowed in the first place.

Please continue commenting on this issue because I think we need to continue to understand the factors and implications involved here. I want to briefly shift to something I noticed in the differences in my reasons for the decline and those of the emailer. I noticed this because of your responses (again another reason to continue to comment on these issues).

One thing that stuck out in these responses was that they were focused on the actions and liturgical elements of the Mass and not on the decisions of the Vatican II Council. I think this is very important. I have attended a number of extraordinary Masses and I can see how it attracts many people who feel a special sort of grace and reverence in the celebration of this Mass. One thing that seems almost universal in these responses is not that the reasons given by the emailer are right or wrong but that the differences between the ordinary and extraordinary form of the Mass does have an impact on some of the people. The emailer, however, believed that the changes made by Vatican II with regards to the Mass were wrong and that the ordinary form of the Mass implimented after Vatican II is at fault. His belief, as I mentioned in the original blog, was that Vatican II and the bishops themselves were responsible for this decline because of their decision to change the Mass. My readers, however, have been pointing out various practices within the Mass are the factors and not the council itself.

For example, the practice of receiving in the hand is actually not something that even remotely came out of the Second Vatican Council and was not discussed until 1969 and even then only by request of some of the bishop conferences. I think you, my readers, are much more on target than the emailer. While the emailer brought these three elements up as reasons, he did so to prove that Vatican II is at fault for this decline in reverence.

Another example of the emailer's misrepresentation of Vatican II is the change of Mass from the Latin to the vernacular (English in our case). He felt that this was another fault of Vatican II. The council, however, approved limited use of the vernacular. Paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium states:

...since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants...

It wasn't until 1970 that general use of the vernacular for all parts of the Mass was granted in full. Again, Vatican II is not at fault for the use of English in the Mass nor do I believe that English is at fault period.

I find it inconceivable that Vatican II can be the source of all the faults of the Church today as some advocate. Some believe that no longer using Latin in the sacraments is the cause. Some believe that the changes to the Mass are destroying the Church. Other even believe that it is the hierarchy of the Church that is to blame. I think all these generalized opinions are broad excuses for particular problems of today. I also want to point out that the Church has faced these problems for centuries and that many of the issues of the Church today are not unique or new products of the modern world. That, however, is a topic of discussion for another blog. As long as I continue to get comments on the decline in the Real Presence, I will be happy to continue this discussion. It certainly makes my deciding what to write alot easier although it does require me to do some in-depth research. I enjoy doing that too so until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:02 | link | comments (3) |
blog

Decline in belief in the Eucharist...cont.

After reading the responses, both in the comments and in emails that were sent to me privately, this is obviously a hot topic. There are definitely strong emotions on either side of this as well as many who see that there is merit to both sets of reasons. After reading some of the comments I include myself in seeing merit to the emailer. Many of the responses to the emailer's comments reflected various personal viewpoints of both forms of the Mass and I think that is worth noting.

I want to respond to a couple of the emailer's particular reasons since I did not focus on each individually in my last post.

With regard to receiving communion in the hand, the Sacred Congregation For Divine Worship clarified Paul VI's permission given by saying:

The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving...it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament.

Again, catechesis is emphasized by the Holy Father and THAT is what is greatly lacking in our faith today.

I read a number of documents on communion in the hand and most focus on the belief that this practice has a negative impact on reverence toward the Eucharist. I absolutely agree that this practice can be a factor in the decline in the reverence of the Real Presence but I again submit that it is the internal disposition that is the ultimate focus. A person receiving in the hand is not going to be less reverent simply because he or she receives in the hand. The lack of catechesis promotes that lack of reverence because it lacks understanding about Who a person is receiving at Communion.

A couple of points I want to make about these documents I read. A number of documents stated that NEVER in history has it been condoned to receive communion in the hand. That is absoultely incorrect. I quote:

Communion in the hand should show, as much as communion on the tongue, due respect towards the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For this reason emphasis should be laid, as was done by the Fathers of the Church, upon the dignity of the gesture of the communicant. Thus, the newly baptized at the end of the fourth century were directed to stretch out both hands making "the left hand a throne for the right hand, which receives the King" (Fifth mystagogical catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem, n. 21: PG 33. col 1125, and Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 47: PG 63, col. 898.)

I also want to point out that what may have disturbed me the most in reading these documents is that some, although none by bishops or priests, claimed that receiving in the hand is sacrilege. This practice IS currently approved by Rome and therefore CANNOT be sacriligeous. Others even went as far as to say that those receiving in the hand would go to hell. Still others claimed that those who receive in the hand need to go to reconciliation and confess to desecration to the sacredness of the Eucharist. All of these things are grossly inaccurate and in some cases inflammatory. This again proves my point that it is a lack of catechesis, on both sides of the issue, that is primarily at fault.

Lastly, it should be made clear that we cannot judge others simply by what they do. I absouletly cannot, nor should anyone, judge whether a person believes that they are truly receiving the Body and Blood of Christ based on how they receive either on the tongue or in the hand.

I am certain we will continue to have dicussions on this topic and I really do encourage you to keep commenting. While I am not convinced that the reception of communion in the hand is the source of the lack of reverence in the Real Presence, you have convinced me that this is a contributing factor. Maybe this issue is like the blind man who approached Jesus:

Putting spittle on his eyes he laid his hands on him and asked, "Do you see anything?" Looking up he replied, "I see people looking like trees and walking." Then he laid hands on his eyes a second time and he saw clearly; his sight was restored and he could see everything distinctly. (Mark 8:23-25)

I will be away from the parish from June 15th to June 19th on a mini-vacation with my dad. I'll be back on June 20th so we most certainly will continue our discussion then. Keep commenting on this and until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:06 | link | comments (2) |
blog

Decline in belief in the Eucharist: Part 2

As I mentioned in my last blog, I gave a homily on the feast of Corpus Christi about the decline in the belief in the Real Presence. In that blog entry, I listed my three primary reasons that I feel have led to this decline. I received an email after that homily challenging my reasons and listing the 'real' reasons in the decline in the Eucharist. In my last entry, I stated the reasons I gave in my homily. In this entry, I want to state the reasons given in the email I received. I'd like your thoughts and opinions on both sets of reasons.

In the email I received, the primary focus was on how Vatican II is the cause of the decline in belief in the Real Presence. This person listed three things that, in their mind, are the reason for the decline. The emailer stated that I 'didn't have a clue what I was talking about' with regard to my reasons so it is fair to say that the emailer rejects any other opinions that don't relate to their reasons. So, here are the reasons for the decline as stated by the emailer:

1. The change to celebrating Mass in English: The emailer believes that celebrating Mass in English removes the mystery and reverence from the Mass. In their opinion, people have lost their sense of reverence and awe for Mass and subsequently the Eucharist.
2. Celebrating Mass with the priest facing the people: Again, the reasoning behind this was that is removed the mysterious and made the priest seem more like the parishioners rather than mediator between the people and Christ in the Eucharist. It also 'revealed' the Mass to the people and it lost its aweness.
3. Reception of Communion in the hand & Eucharistic ministers: These two go hand-in-hand because the reasoning was that now that people could touch the Body and Christ and receive the Blood of Christ they no longer had any reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and Precious Blood. Eucharistic ministers were the most guilty because they were actually allowed to distribute Communion - something ONLY the priest could do before Vatican II.

According to the emailer, it was the liturgical changes of Vatican II that are the true cause of the decline in the belief in the Real Presence. The emailer closed by stating that the bishops at Vatican II made a huge mistake and had no consideration for the consequences of their actions.

I find these reasons very weak. First, I'll deal with the false belief that Vatican II is the cause. A CARA study of those who attended Mass once a month or more showed that 86% of the Pre-Vatican II generation (those born before 1943) believed in the Real Presence. However, it also showed that 85% of the Millennial generation (those born after 1981) believed in the Real Presence. The Vatican II generation (those born between 1943 and 1960) actually had the lowest percentage of only 75% followed by the Post-Vatican II generation (those born after 1960 to 1981) of which 76% believed in the Real Presence. Based on these numbers, it seems that the persons who grew up attending the pre-Vatican Mass as young persons are the same people who are less likely to believe in the Real Presence. Even more convincing, however, is that those who have had NO experience of the pre-Vatican Mass are now the persons who have the highest belief in the Real Presence. How could Vatican II be the cause of the decline in the belief in the Real Presence if the highest number of people who believe were born 20 years AFTER Vatican II??? I think not.

My second quarrel with this reasoning is the mindset that the bishops 'screwed up' and had no clue what they were getting into when they approved the changes in liturgy at Vatican II. I find this silly for a couple of reasons. First, I highly doubt that so many bishops could be 'misled' that they went against the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the changes to the liturgy. Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) which was the document establishing the liturgical changes was approved by the bishops at Vatican II by a vote of 2,147 to 4. It doesn't seem possible that Satan could have influenced 2,147 bishops from all over the world and then influence Pope Paul VI to promulgate the document. Secondly, its not as if the bishops suddenly came up with these liturgical changes overnight. Popes from as early as Pius X recognized the need for liturgical reform. Pope Pius XII wrote on it as early as 1947 in Mediator Dei. Bishops throughout the world recognized the need to make changes to the liturgy for the benefit of the people.

I know that my objections to the emailer's reasons are generalized. I do think that they overwhelmingly disprove these statements, however, especially that they are all based on the 'errors' of the Second Vatican Council. I am not totally discounting the fact that the liturgical changes of Vatican II may have had some negative impact but I don't see this impact as being the source of decline in the belief of the Real Presence. I welcome any comments or opinions including those that might seem to support the reasons of the emailer. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:23 | link | comments (3) |
blog

Decline in belief in the Eucharist

Well, I am back from the priest retreat and except for the long lectures that reminded me of seminary I feel very refreshed and renewed.

On the feast of Corpus Christi, my homily focused on the decline in the belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I spoke of three reasons that I feel have led to this decline in the belief of Christ in the Eucharist. After the homily, I received an email from a parishioner who basically said that my reasons were completely bogus and then this person proceeded to list the real reasons in the decline in the Eucharist. Unfortunately, I had a computer crash last weekend and lost all my email so I cannot quote these reasons word-for-word but I can paraphrase them to you. I'd like to present my suppositions that I gave in my homily and then post the reasons given by this person who emailed me. I want to point out that I am being very vague regarding this email because 1) I lost the email, 2) I don't want to offend the person and 3) I did not reply to this person not because I lost the email but because I am quite sure that my response would have been ignored as this person obviously has made up his/her mind on this as you will see when I present his/her reasons.

I will state in this blog entry the reasons I gave in my homily. In my next blog I will state the reasons given in the email I received. I'd like your thoughts and opinions on both sets of reasons.

In my homily, I gave a statistic from a CARA survey (see previous posts on CARA) that 57% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. While one might say, "that is over 50% and nearly 6 out of 10," it is important to remember that the belief in the Real Presence is the core of our faith. It IS our faith. So, that means that 4 out of 10 Catholics do NOT believe in the core belief of our faith. That is sad and disturbing. In my homily, I gave these three reasons as to why I see this decline:

1. Lack of prayer: the drop in both personal prayer and praying together as a family certainly have an effect on our faith. Fewer and fewer people spend time in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. People don't spend time before Mass in prayer preparing themselves for receiving Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. A lack of prayer leads to a lack of faith.
2. Lack of teaching on the Eucharist: this falls primarily on the parents but also lands on the heads of us priests as well. Parents don't talk to their children about the Mass, about what they are doing each Sunday or about why they are doing it. It's not just a lack of words either. Children look at how parents act. If the parents approach the Eucharist at communion in the same way they walk through line at a concession stand the kids see this. If they don't bow or snatch the Eucharist from the hand of the minister then the kids see this too. If the parents walk out as soon as they've received communion then this impacts the kids too. We too (priests) have been dropping the ball here including myself. I keep a copy of the notes of all my homilies and I have given exactly 83 Sunday homilies since my ordination as a deacon. Out of those 83 homilies only 3 have been on the Eucharist. That is pretty poor on my part considering the Eucharist is the core of our faith. We (priests) have to be more outspoken about the Eucharist and in teaching it to our parishioners.
3. Lack of the spiritual in society: We live in a society today that is purely worldly. Society only believes in what it can touch, taste, see or smell. If it isn't something concrete and obvious then there is doubt or outright unbelief. An ideal example is abortion. So many doubt or do not believe that a new life is created at conception because they don't 'see' this life. A tiny group of cells is not a concrete example of a life to these people therefore it must not be a human being. The Real Presence in the Eucharist is not something you can see, taste, touch or smell. What we see, taste, touch and smell in the Eucharist is the accident (not a car wreck) or appearance. Websters defines an accidental as " a property, factor, or attribute that is not essential." This is a great definition because what the Eucharist looks like is NOT the essential factor. The substance is what is essential. In the consecrated Eucharist, the substance - what the material of the object truly is - becomes Jesus Christ himself. This is not something that can be seen or touched. It is beyond the natural...it is supernatural...it is spiritual. This is greatly lacking in the world today.

Wow, that took a little longer than I thought it would. Next time I will present the reasons given in the response email I received. I want to close by pointing out that I don't believe that the above reasons are the ONLY reasons for the decline in the belief of the Real Presence. I do believe that they are te primary factors and that any others reasons are somehow impacted by these three reasons. I welcome your comments and opinions. Until next time...God bless.

posted by: crossman at 09:00 | link | comments (5) |
blog