By: Unknown Centurion
The American shepherds met last week to draft a document to make the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus and His sacrifice on the Cross more coherent. Really? Well, there is nothing incoherent about the Holy Eucharist.
Let me say at the outset that I commend the U.S. body of bishops for finally focusing on the Holy Eucharist as the greatest remedy for our personal and societal ills and the greatest weapon in the battle for souls. I cannot applaud, however, their decision to punt on a potentially “divisive” issue in a desire to be collegial and conciliatory with the minority of left-wing bishops.
Our bishops have failed to teach about the Eucharist for a few generations. What we have is not Eucharistic incoherence but episcopal incoherence, and cowardice in applying the established teaching, coupled with their collective failure to make the Eucharist widely available at Mass and at Eucharistic Adoration.
Episcopal Incoherence
Last week, the incoherence of an entire association of bishops was on full display; the reception of Christ by the same public supporter of abortion will be celebrated and sanctioned as worthy in Washington D.C. but disallowed as a sacrilege in Springfield, Illinois.
It is the bishops, not our Eucharistic theology, who have made a mockery out of what is perfect, with their policy instituted by an enemy within, Ted McCarrick. McCarrick wrote the decree of Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and misled the U.S. Bishops. It is this same falsified McCarrick policy which has been ratified since 2004 and remains the policy of the U.S. Bishops today.
True there are many good and holy bishops, a handful of whom are also courageous and outspoken but the bureaucratic behemoth seems all too often to pursue a captivating, capitulating path of least resistance. This mutiny of the Barque of Peter has been largely unopposed. Many unwitting bishops who favor a false unity are almost completely unaware of the impending doom or are too concerned with their image and want to avoid conflict.
Clerical Cowardice
Those on the side of Eucharistic integrity within the USCCB had unstoppable momentum a few short months ago, in June 2021, when they voted 168 to 55 to draft a document on Eucharistic coherence, over the vehement objections of the minority (about 25%) of the left-wing of the Church.
Those in favor of a Eucharistic document designed to correct the Bishops’ incoherent policy on the Eucharist and finally replace the fraudulent McCarrick policy with one based upon faith and reason had the high ground, the votes, the support of faithful Catholics, and the wind of the Holy Spirit at their back.
Yet the document presented for a vote at the USCCB annual meaning elected instead to ignore the will of God. During this Passion of the Church, the Body of Christ had again been sold out, not for pieces of silver, but for modernist virtues of total tolerance of an irrational desire for inclusion, and capitulating to a vocal minority of enemies within, and presenting a false face of unity. Remember the first time bishops made a near-unanimous decision; it was to betray, reject, and abandon Jesus as He was led away from the Garden of Gethsemane.
However, unanimity is not fidelity, and compromise, especially of one’s core beliefs, is the opposite of courage. The problem is that many of those in the small but vocal minority of bishops not only know there is a war raging for the soul of the Church but they are actively waging it, while, with few notable exceptions, those in the majority are either clueless, preferring to paper over the growing cracks undermining the integrity of the Church, rather than reinforcing them. The majority of bishops merely had to include the established teaching of the Church, and Canon Law (#915) but they ceded ground and with it their religious and moral authority which has been in near-constant retreat against the secular culture for years.
St. Paul, whose Eucharistic Theology consists of a scant few verses, makes sure to admonish the Corinthians and all Catholics about the worthiness required to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, and the disastrous ramifications of such unworthy reception both in this world and the next. On the contrary, the bishop’s lengthy document on the Eucharist is entirely devoid of language on the worthiness to receive Holy Communion and the potentially damnable consequences of receiving unworthily.
Thus, assuming the bishops’ latest program to get more non-practicing and former Catholics to return to the Eucharist is successful, without setting forth clear guidelines on who should and who shouldn’t present themselves for communion, aren’t they potentially causing greater profanation of the Eucharist, and causing many to be sick, die or bring judgment upon themselves, (1 Corinthians 11:28-30) as well as those who are ultimately responsible for this profanation, the bishop’s themselves? It’s not just the Catholic pro-abortion politicians who need to be admonished, but also the divorced and remarried, those in a state of mortal sin, those who have missed Sunday Mass for no good reason (in dioceses which have not lifted the Sunday obligation) those who don’t believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus, and those who aren’t in full communion with the Church.
This Weeks Readings at Mass
It was likely providential that the readings at Mass from the Book of Maccabees during the Bishops’ meeting seemed directed toward them and ultimately served as a stark contrast to their capitulation. On Monday, we heard how many of the faith leaders conformed to the kingdom of the world. On Tuesday we read about the righteous Eleazar who refused to partake of what was unworthy for him to eat, even refusing to take the easy way out, opting to die instead as “a model of courage” for the people.
Similarly, on Wednesday we heard of the saintly mother who encouraged and exhorted her seven sons not to consume what was unlawful for them to eat even when the result of their refusal was certain death. On Thursday was the story of Mattathias who refused to forsake the teaching of his faith and refused to sacrifice to the idols of his day as many others had done, even being so moved by zeal for the Lord that he slew a fellow Jew at the altar of false sacrifice.
Compare the faith and zeal of these Jewish martyrs to the cowardice of today’s bishops. Did not the bishops act completely contrary to the righteous ones from the Book of Maccabees, by compromising with the world, taking the easy way out and forsaking the teaching on unworthily consuming what is forbidden, where those faithful ones in ancient Israel chose to die rather than violate it?
The sad part is that our bishops easily abandoned the law on the reception of the Eucharist, the closest equivalent to the Jewish prohibition on eating pork, not under threat of death but under a misplaced desire to appease and unite with internal enemies of the Church.
Counterfeit Consensus
Why do many of our bishops feel it is necessary to try to portray the Church, in a fallen world as spotless? Why do they insist on painting a false picture of unity, that our bishops who are deeply divided, need to speak with one voice? Is it better to speak with one voice if that voice only speaks words of confusion? Such a dishonest strategy is not avoiding schism, it’s just concealing the hidden schism that already exists – between those who believe in everything the Church has always taught, and those who don’t and want the Church to get in line with the world.
When did collegiality become the highest ideals of Catholic bishops? What if Paul chose to agree with Peter instead of publicly rebuking him for his hypocrisy in the handling of the Gentile question? Would the Church have emerged from the First Century or beyond the borders of Judea? Or if the bishops in the Early Church just sought consensus with brother bishops who promulgated heresies, working out joint statements that would be acceptable to the Gnostics, the Montanists, and Arians, and orthodox Catholics alike? How different would the Church and the world look today had they handled the Lutheran heresy more like they handled the earlier heresies? Would our Nicene Creed be any longer than “I believe in God” had the American bishops been the ones gathered in Nicea in 325 A.D?
Many faithful Catholics have come to know quite well who some of the enemies within the episcopacy are, and feel betrayed by a bishops’ conference which prefers counterfeit collegiality over truth. We have also come to know the names of the holy, outspoken, and orthodox bishops who oppose them.
We all know we are a divided Church – we always have been and always will be until the Bridegroom returns. Any attempt to force a false consensus is sheer folly, especially with such deep theological divides, between good bishops and bishops who live despicable, double lives, who don’t believe in the supernatural or the sacraments, and who wish to remake the Church according, not to the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit of the Age.
Any such statement with consensus as its goal will be reduced to the least common denominator, devoid of clarity. Any document on Eucharistic coherence born from such a desire to compromise would be worthless. Instead of their overarching concern for consensus among the deep state of the Church and the ruling elites, they should do the one job for which they were ordained, and teach, sanctify and govern their flock.
Based on every objective standard and metric, the U.S. bishops as a whole have failed miserably in their God-given duties. How many hundreds of thousands of souls are being lost on their watch because Catholics in the United States live secular lives without any reference whatsoever to God. Because most of our bishops don’t say a word about it, they consider themselves to be “good Catholics” because of the tacit approval of their religious superiors.
Yet where is the sense of urgency? Where are the calls for prayer and fasting, rosary campaigns and processions, reconciliation and adoration marathons? If the bishops really believed in the immeasurable graces which they safeguard and distribute, would they have kept them locked up, and with them our Eucharistic Lord, who wishes to heal them? How many dioceses chained up their churches during Covid and ceased the public celebration of Holy Mass, which is the source of the Church’s power?
Whatever the watered-down document on the Eucharist destined to collect dust, it will be worthless unless it not only addresses but fully marshals all of their efforts, by word and action, with all its resources and bureaucratic committees, toward a Spirit-led, organic, top-down, bottom-up reclamation of a belief in the Real Presence and restoration of Mass participation among all whom they have driven away or allowed to fall away. Anything less is not only incoherent but futile.
18 thoughts on “Eucharistic Coherence vs. Episcopal Incoherence”
Pingback: Christ, Revelation 12, and the Enemy at Advent - Catholic Stand
Unknown Centurion raises critical points above and beyond the Eucharistic document at hand – the problem of “counterfeit consensus”.
“Why do many of our bishops feel it is necessary to try to portray the Church, in a fallen world as spotless?…When did collegiality become the highest ideals of Catholic bishops?…We all know we are a divided Church – we always have been and always will be until the Bridegroom returns…Any such statement with consensus as its goal will be reduced to the least common denominator, devoid of clarity”
If the USCCB is attempting to create a teaching document, why not include competing views, rather than a counterfeit consensus? The USCCB need only look three short miles to the south at the US Supreme Court, for a model where dissenting opinions serve a critical role in the pursuit of truth and justice. Albeit, the context is different, the end result would be the same – inclusion of differing opinions allows a party or parties to voice concerns as well as express hope for the future.
Instead of Bishop Strickland groveling to get the word “scandal” into the final Eucharistic document, he and other fellow Bishops would be free to publish their concerns for the record either in the body of the teaching document or otherwise . A teaching document that includes alternative views would be more useful to the laity than a document of counterfeit consensus. It would also serve to chronicle the competing views of the day for historical purposes. Lastly, it would promote a spirit of transparency – which is necessary in re-building and fortifying the trust in our shepherds.
I completely agree with you. The fake consensus is laughable at this point. The problem is that without consensus, the claim to 100% truth is shattered. If they show that various topics are up for debate, that opens a pandora’s box they’d prefer to keep closed. The German bishops opened it already, and they have shown there are disagreements within their conference. The Americans are trying to stay behind the curtain like the Wizard of Oz.
Pingback: THVRSDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Who’d a thunk that these wolves and hirelings would reach a point where they have less than zero moral authority to teach us anything? The height of hypocrisy is when they pay our money (billion$s and billion$s) to the victims, and yes even to some of the blackmailing clerical predators, and then smile and tell us, e.g. we have to have a “campaign” to raise money to care for our retired priests. We must pray for them, daily, because, if they don’t repent, Jesus will tell them in His love He made them free and if they choose “my will, not Thine,” be done, He will allow them to enjoy that choice for all eternity in hell. I wonder if they think that by their word alone they can change reality? and make sin virtue? or that they will have a chance before they die to repent and do penance? or have they simply chosen evil and do not want to go to heaven? As the shepherds and watchmen of our souls, they have failed miserably. Guy, Texas
I believe the author of this piece is confusing the terms majority and minority. The vast majority of bishops – including the Bishop of Rome – do not feel that the Eucharist should be politicized or weaponized. They believe the state of one’s soul and the worthiness to receive Jesus should be left up to the individual to judge. JPII also believed this as he gave communion to pro-choice politicians numerous times. It is a very small minority of the bishops that believe communion should be withheld from politicians who do not uphold every tenet of church teaching in their public lives. The vast majority of this minority happens to be based in the United States.
I think it’s important to remember that the church changes over time. The other article posted just today on this site lays that out nicely. Trying to lock the church into the version that existed approximately 150 years ago is not prudent, and it is not Catholic. The Catholic church has a very long, vibrant, and sometimes dark history that spans the last two millennia. Cherry-picking one period of that history is simply not Catholic in the fullest sense of the word.
Actually this version goes back 2000 years, not 150.
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” 1 Corinthians 11:27-30
Peace
This has nothing to do with the Eucharist being “politicized or weaponized.”
Neither then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion” (https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153) nor Canon 915 has been abrogated. Being reminded that pro abortion politicians should not approach Holy Communion may only strike some as odd, because there has been a failure to remind Catholics that NO ONE should be approaching Holy Communion unless she or he is in the State of Grace.
There is a tremendous need for all of us to utilize the Sacrament of Reconciliation!
Unknown Centurion: Note how Corinthians says “Let a man examine himself”. To me, it seems like the word “himself” makes this pretty clear it’s a personal determination. If the bishops banned people from communion, they would be going against this citation.
Joe: How can you claim it’s not politicizing/weaponizing the Eucharist when we’re choosing one issue to determine whether individuals are worthy of communion? If we’re going to ban people from communion for supporting abortion, we also need to ban anyone who supports the death penalty, or supports policies that harm the environment/God’s creation, or supports economic policies that will directly lead to more abortion. We can either take a very hard draconian line on communion, or we can let people make their own decisions based on their relationship with God. Picking and choosing which issues to punish people for is political, and it is using the Eucharist as a weapon.
Also, Canon 915 says nothing about when to ban people from communion outside of those that have been excommunicated/interdicted. Manifest grave sin is not defined. “Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
And Benedict was a special case who seems to have taken up both sides of this issue. He may have written that 2004 letter, but that was a letter from one cardinal to another. It was not church policy. As Catholics, I think we should look at actions. As I said, JPII gave communion to pro-choice individuals on numerous occasions. As pope in 2008, Benedict himself presided over mass in the US where pro-choice politicians received communion. And finally, Pope Francis has also made his views clear. The number of bishops who have banned pro-choice politicians from communion in incredibly, incredibly small. They are extreme outliers. Banning people from communion for pro-choice stances would be a change in the Catholic position rather than an enforcement of anything that already exists.
And again, my main question: How is it not political to exclude people from the Eucharist based on support for a single cherry-picked issue?
Kyle,
Rather than cherry 🍒 picking, I specifically stated: “NO ONE should be approaching Holy Communion unless she or he is in the State of Grace.” We should also abstain from Holy Communion when we have not observed the fast.
I am absolutely NOT holding myself up as an example, but I have many times been at Mass & NOT received Holy Communion. Culturally, the practice seems to have largely become to get on line, if you have shown up. I think that there are many poor understandings of what can be seriously sinful, as well as how we may be culpable in the sins of others.
Though Canon 915 seems to be infrequently enforced, promoting the destruction of pre born children and the redefinition of marriage/family sure strike me as examples of “manifest grave sin.” Those examples do not exhaust all the areas of grave matter in which we could sin mortally, but they are prominent areas in which Catholic public officials give scandal to other Catholics.
Joe
Joe, I believe you are also advocating that the bishops decide who is in a state of grace and
is worthy to receive communion. And if so, you didn’t answer my question. How is it not political to be picking which issues disqualify someone from communion and which do not?
Kyle,
Though your question is loaded, it does not mean that I have not repeatedly responded. And because some have failed to say what is absolutely obvious doesn’t mean that the answer is not clear. Anyone who chooses to go to Holy Communion needs to make sure that she or he is in a State of Grace. Please see the Catechism or the Compendium of the Catechism if this is not clear.
Though it is not the only grave matter of potential horrible sin, anyone can know by the natural law that promoting the destruction of pre born children is an abominable crime against God. Canon 915 indicates that leaders MUST NOT blissfully go along with public officials who entangle such sins with scandal by getting in line for Holy Communion.
Joe
But again, who is deciding what is a grave sin for any specific individual? I see support for policies that harm the environment (climate denying) to be a grave sin. It will lead to countless deaths. Climate change is already killing many people in less developed parts of the world. The pope agrees. Should we decide that any politicians who deny climate change should be banned from communion? It’s political.
I can agree that people should be in a state of grace to receive communion, but I disagree that a person’s grace status should be determined by a bishop. I agree with you that abortion is horrible, but I think we likely have completely different views on how to fix it. I don’t see any way that either of us should be working to ban the other from communion. If we believe the Eucharist is Jesus, we should be hopeful that it is bread for our journey that helps each of us decipher and follow His will.
Kyle,
First Happy Thanksgiving. In our back and forth within the comments, it seems as though you are throwing things at the wall in the hope of something sticking. If you really want to continue the exchange with me, please contact me at atptptjt@live.com.
Joe
I don’t understand what the trad’s fuss is all about. It can’t be the < 20 % of Catholics still considered ‘faithful’, as this is the remaining core. They are not profaning the Eucharist. The few public figures who do are not worth a USCCB censure. Many of the missing are like the centurion, feel unworthy yet recognize Jesus as God. Of course the bishops kicked the can down the road, they’re still trying to figure out the matrix of the CC’s new normal; or better still, which barns and why, all those horses fled to.
Thanks Joe and Steve. I do remember the Unknown Comic, though my chosen moniker is less of an homage to the comedian beneath the size xl lunchbag (Murray Langston) and more of an aspirational, archetypal, association with St. Longinus, whom I’d like to think also had a good, joyful sense of humor, with less baggage. Sophia Institute Press actually will be publishing a book tentatively titled: Rise of the Centurion: Reclamation of a Mystical, Masculine, Spirituality, written anonymously under this pseudonym, Unknown Centurion, so please keep an eye out for that.
Now to the USCCB. When are we going to learn that instead of getting our hopes up, we should take the posture of the apostle Nathaniel, positing “can anything good come out of the USCCB”? Weren’t we far better off before the recent emergence of national bishops’ conferences? Do we have to look any farther back than the recent synods of the South American or German bishops? Is there any better example of the episcopal incoherence of the USCCB than the innumerable special interest statements and purely political press releases on issues of prudential judgement written by those at the outer fringes of cultural Catholicism who remain deeply embedded within its many committees, many of which have nothing to do with the salvation of souls? This amalgamated episcopal incoherence rises to hypocritical levels, when these unaccountable USCCB committees issue incessant, conflicting, condescending, criticisms of secular policies on matters tangential to the faith, but remain shamefully silent and utterly un-transparent of the Church’s own sins, scandals, and self-induced schisms.
What did we expect – that the USCCB could magically be transformed into a holy institution when its voting members are the body of U.S. bishops? True, there are many good and holy bishops, but with all their actual and ceremonial duties, they don’t have anywhere near the impact that the “unknown” unaccountable, bureaucratic, functionaries do who draft, shape and finalize USCCB statements, documents and policies. And looking at the landscape, at all the naval-gazing, cowardice, misplaced priorities and general dysfunction at the diocesan level then add it all together into an even larger unaccountable, national bureaucracy, give it a multibillion-dollar budget and locate it the swamp, and this is the inevitable result. Why are we surprised that the USCCB looks, sounds, and acts like a secular NGO, when it has been infiltrated by enemies and receives in excess of $57 Million (more than 30%) in annual funds from an increasingly hostile government, much of it for the relocation of illegal aliens throughout the country.
Thank you Centurion – all of your points are spot on (I also appreciate the comments by Mr. Tevington). The USCCB, in the ordinary course of things, is broken beyond repair. Pray for God to limit the damage they do (and don’t give them one dime).
I imagine that “Unknown Centurion” is at least as old as myself and able to recall TV’s “The Gong Show.” That show featured the “Unknown Comic” who performed with a paperbag on his head. If that association was intended, I thank the centurion for the laughs!
So long after Vatican II, it is sad that any Catholic would feel the need for anonymity in discussing anything non-heretical. As I understand things, Canon 212 certainly seems to not only support – but require -lay people to speak up on matters within our competences. Yet, there is a “clericalism” (as best explained by Russell Shaw) – often coming from lay people (!) who don’t understand the magnificence of our own apostolates (!) – that quietly but fiercely urges our silence.
As I understand it, nothing in the new document will abrogate Canon 915. We must continue to remind ALL our fellow Catholics of this.