McBrien to Eucharistic Adoration: Step Backward

YouTube Preview Image

Father Richard McBrien, Professor of Theology at Notre Dame, boy that comes as a shock doesn’t it, doesn’t think much of eucharistic adoration.  McBrien of course has been a fierce defender of the secular zeitgeist for decades, and has done his very best to wean generations of Catholics from anything in the Faith that would not pass muster at fashionable parties in academia. 

For myself I love eucharistic adoration.  I never have done it without feeling much closer to God.  Since John Paul II also approved of it in his letter DOMINICAE CENAE, I guess I will just have to bear up under the strain of being thought backward by Professor McBrien.  Father Z gives McBrien his patented fisking here

You know, tenured dissenters like McBrien have a real problem on their hands in the age of the internet.  It is very easy now for ordinary Catholics to have access to church teaching by a few clicks and read what John Paul II wrote:

“Adoration of Christ in this sacrament of love must also find expression in various forms of eucharistic devotion: personal prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, Hours of Adoration, periods of exposition-short, prolonged and annual (Forty Hours)-eucharistic benediction, eucharistic processions, eucharistic congresses.”

Of course Pope Benedict’s views are well known and are set forth here.  When we have such easy access to the words of Peter, it is much harder for Catholics to be bamboozled by flim-flam artists like McBrien seeking to distort the teaching of the Church in service of their personal agendas.  The modern world provides many challenges to the Church, but I think in the long run the internet may become a great advantage to the magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

47 Responses to McBrien to Eucharistic Adoration: Step Backward

  • From the McBrien article:

    Notwithstanding Pope Benedict XVI’s personal endorsement of eucharistic adoration and the sporadic restoration of the practice in the archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere, it is difficult to speak favorably about the devotion today.

    Now that most Catholics are literate and even well-educated, the Mass is in the language of the people (i.e, the vernacular), and its rituals are relatively easy to understand and follow, there is little or no need for extraneous eucharistic devotions. The Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally and spiritually.

    Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward.

    “Could you not stay awake with me one hour?”

    Apparently that would be entirely extraneous. I guess I’ll just have to remain an ignorant layman encrusted with medieval devotions.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    “It is difficult to speak favorably about the devotion today.”

    Well, I suppose all the members of parishes that have grown and thrived after instituting Eucharistic adoration, all the priests and religious whose vocations have been discerned after taking up “the devotion”, and all the laity whose prayers have been answered and who have grown closer to God as a result of this “step backward,” would beg to differ.

  • Imprimatur says:

    McBrien and fashionable parties in academia in the same sentence? Amusing.

    But seriously, can you not even take Fr. McBrien’s arguments seriously, at face value, without ridiculing them? All this post says is, “Well, I like it, and the Pope likes it, therefore McBrien is wrong.”

    Interesting, too, that I have seen many of you criticize others on the web for not using proper titles, like “Father” and “Bishop.” I have never seen a right-wing Catholic blog refer to McBrien as “Father McBrien.” Donatism dies hard.

  • Jay Anderson says:

    “I have never seen a right-wing Catholic blog refer to McBrien as “Father McBrien.” Donatism dies hard.”

    Then you haven’t been looking very hard.

    “But seriously, can you not even take Fr. McBrien’s arguments seriously, at face value, without ridiculing them?”

    Fr. McBrien made a serious argument? His inane commentary is nothing but dissident chic. He is basically saying “Never mind what that quaint little old man in Rome says, adoration of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is for suckers.”

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    McBrien doesn’t make an argument. He makes a sneer. His sneer is set forth in verbiage, but a sneer it remains. His comment about well-educated Catholics was especially risible since recent polls indicate how large a portion of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence. His sneer is, in essence, that really bright Catholics like him are ashamed of eucharistic devotion and that only simpletons, like John Paul II and Saint Thomas Aquinas I assume, would have any use for it.

    As to Donatism, the Donatists defied the Popes and persisted in their schism. One can observe throughout McBrien’s career a careful determination not to follow Papal teaching when it deviated from his.

  • But seriously, can you not even take Fr. McBrien’s arguments seriously, at face value, without ridiculing them?

    I guess I’m having trouble seeing what exactly is an “argument” to be taken seriously. I don’t see how the point that the mass is in our own language and we’re well educated means that the mass itself provides the only sacramental and spiritual sustenance that any Catholic should possibly need. It’s not an argument, in that the one statement in no way follows from the other, and even as an assertion it seems a bit nonsensical. Why should the fact that the mass is well understood (to an extent) mean that no other devotions have any place in the Catholic life — particularly one with such a long and rich tradition, and so consistently followed and encouraged by the Church and her leaders.

    Do you see any actual argument to even engage with there?

    Interesting, too, that I have seen many of you criticize others on the web for not using proper titles, like “Father” and “Bishop.” I have never seen a right-wing Catholic blog refer to McBrien as “Father McBrien.” Donatism dies hard.

    Actually, I’m not aware of any of us having criticized others for this, and I’m sure that I’ve referred to Fr. Neuhaus simply as Neuhaus when I’m talking about him as a writer, despite the fact I have great respect for the late father. But no, I have no particular objection to calling Fr. McBrien by his honorific, and indeed, if you’ll look at the text of the post the very first words of it are “Father Richard McBrien”.

  • Imprimatur says:

    Look, I like Eucharistic adoration. I don’t agree with Fr. McBrien all the time. But he is right to point out the disproportionate interest in adoration in our history, as well as the centrality of the Mass. You need to be willing to read for insights and to appreciate the truth of what he says even if you don’t go as far as he does.

    Fr. McBrien is right to “sneer” at certain tendencies in the Church.

    He does sneer at us with his comments and it smacks nothing more than treating us as less than smart.

    Some of you are “less than smart.”

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    I can’t believe such offensive and patronizing drivel was written by a Catholic priest.

    Of course it is “difficult” to say anything good about a practice that is ridiculed as the province of illiterate bumpkins. This equivocation of a serious faith with academic learning may be convenient for the smug hypocrites of academia, but I for one am glad that the practice is still alive and well.

    Some people wouldn’t understand spirituality if it smashed them repeatedly in the face. This Catholic, with three university degrees, is more than happy to participate in Eucharistic adoration.

    Long live the Latin Mass, and long live Eucharistic adoration. And good riddance to the spoiled, self-important boomer generation that tried its best to destroy authentic spirituality within the Church.

  • Imprimatur says:

    No one has said one iota about not attending Mass and replacing it with the Eucharist.

    Well here you go. That whole “less than smart” thing. Good example.

    It doesn’t surprise me that you think I sound like a Catholic anarchist considering the way you paint everyone you think is a “dissenter” with the same brush. I haven’t met too many anarchists who pray the rosary and the divine office or who, as I said, like Eucharistic adoration.

    My point is that you need to be able to actually hear what a person is saying. A better response to his article would have been, “Here is here he is right, pointing out incorrect emphases, etc.” and “Here is where he is wrong, and here is why Eucharistic adoration is a valuable practice and WHY IT FITS WITH THE “NEW” MASS and does not oppose it.” All we have here is “McBrien is a fool,” followed by Joe’s comment of “long live the old way, the ‘true’ spirituality, and good riddance to the new, the inauthentic.”

    The result is that you all look very imbalanced, purely dismissive, unable to appreciate catholicity (small ‘c,’ referring to unity in diversity), and very very foolish.

  • Imprimatur says:

    That said, I think McBrien also displays a lack of catholicity in the sense that I described it above. He goes to far. But the core critique that he presents has some validity.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Oh please.

    In whose eyes, exactly, do we look “foolish”? Those already inclined to look upon those who actually do take tradition seriously as foolish. Who are these fence-sitters that would love everything we have to say, if only we would smile politely when a McBrien ridicules us? They don’t exist.

    I would gladly remain a fool for tradition before I would take seriously these hollow and meaningless attacks upon it.

    We heard exactly what he said – that Eucharistic adoration is a “step backward”. What are we supposed to say to that, exactly? Who is this man to declare what Catholics “need”? Who is he to declare what we don’t “need”? That level of arrogance and presumption is highly offensive, not to mention “foolish”.

  • Imprimatur says:

    Joe >>>

    In whose eyes, exactly, do we look “foolish”?

    Catholics who attempt to be moderate, you know, to be catholic.

    Those already inclined to look upon those who actually do take tradition seriously as foolish.

    There is not one single “tradition.” Our church is catholic. You are not the only one who takes “tradition” seriously. You take one set of Catholic traditions seriously. McBrien takes another set of traditions seriously. This “we’re the only ones who take tradition seriously” crap is silly. You’re a thoughtful guy. I read your stuff. I expect better from you, unlike some of your co-bloggers.

    We heard exactly what he said – that Eucharistic adoration is a “step backward”. What are we supposed to say to that, exactly?

    Try to understand WHY he is saying that, think about it, and then critique it while trying to appreciate what might be true about it.

    Who is this man to declare what Catholics “need”?

    Who are YOU to do the same? Who are YOU to declare that he is “attacking” tradition, that the traditions that he values are not authentic, that the ones YOU value are the only ones that are authentic?

    That level of arrogance and presumption is highly offensive, not to mention “foolish”.

    You are the one who sounds arrogant when you say: “Some people wouldn’t understand spirituality if it smashed them repeatedly in the face” and “And good riddance to the spoiled, self-important boomer generation that tried its best to destroy authentic spirituality within the Church.”

    If McBrien is being arrogant, then so are you.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Imp,

    First of all, what is this set of traditions that McBrien takes seriously? He is clearly a ‘progressive’ who believes that the march of technological progress (which in the final instance is what enables widespread literacy and education) necessitates the transformation of the liturgy and spiritual practices. How is that adherence to a tradition? How is that not a crude historicism that reduces spiritual and liturgical practices to products of their historical-material circumstances as opposed to inspired by God?

    I know exactly “why” his kind argues as they do; they believe in progress at the expense of tradition. They don’t wish to look foolish in the eyes of the secular world, which has never properly or accurately understood spiritual practice to begin with. The holy sacrifice of the Mass must be reduced to a ‘community meal’ and Scripture reading, while practices such as Eucharistic adoration are dismissed are holdovers of a medieval past. They find Catholic spirituality embarrassing in the modern world.

    I don’t tell Catholics what they need – there are certain things I believe are poisonous to the soul, but that argument could never be made about Eucharistic adoration. McBrien doesn’t reject it because it is objectively bad for Catholics, but because it makes him and his friends feel foolish. It is a shameful argument.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    A stopped clock is right twice a day, and there is one nugget of truth in what Fr. McBrien said: “The Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally and spiritually.”

    It is true that actually RECIEVING the Eucharist is a sacrament, while adoring the Eucharist (wonderful though it is) is not, and that the actual Mass is obligatory for Catholics while Eucharistic adoration is not. A parish must offer Mass regularly but does not have to have perpetual or regular Eucharistic adoration. One could attend Mass faithfully, but never attend adoration, and still be a good Catholic.

    That being said, the fact that Eucharistic adoration doesn’t replace the Mass and that an observant Catholic can get by without it doesn’t mean it’s bad, or backward, or wrong. Devotion to particular saints, the rosary, novenas, etc. also aren’t strictly “necessary” for Catholics but that doesn’t make them bad.

    The fact that Fr. McBrien would say something like this doesn’t surprise me at all because he’s always been a “usual suspect” among the progressive/liberal wing of the Church.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    The McBrien column recalls the story of a newly minted priest who was walking through a cathedral with his Bishop. The Bishop had decided to send the priest to Rome to study towards a doctorate because the young man was very bright and showed great promise. He was also afraid the young man suffered from intellectual vanity. He pointed out to the priest a Mrs. McGinnis who earned her daily bread by scrubbing floors and who was kneeling, saying a rosary silently as she gazed at the eucharist. Out of earshot of the woman he told the priest, “Do you know that she couldn’t tell you precisely who the Doctors of the Church are to save her soul?” The priest responded that such ignorance was terrible if not surprising. “Yet Father,” the Bishop continued, “since each morning she is here before she commences her daily toil to adore our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, I have no doubt she understands in her heart what each of the Doctors of the Church meant.”

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Imprimatur if you are the Catholic Anarchist, Michael Iafrate, you will kindly stop posting in this thread since, as you know, I have banned you forever from posting on my threads. If you are not Iafrate, my apologies for raising the issue.

  • jonathanjones02 says:

    And good riddance to the spoiled, self-important boomer generation that tried its best to destroy authentic spirituality within the Church.

    Large segments of the Baby Boomer generation have done a lot of harm. I’ve always thought of that generation as having endured a civil war with itself….let’s hope those determined to bend the country to their infantile will continue to discredit themselves in the eyes of their children – the “sexual revolution” and divorce in particular have been terribly destructive.

  • Dale Price says:

    No, there is nothing to engage here: McBrien doesn’t discuss anything anymore, he simply issues declarations larded with ipse dixits.

    Preconciliar BAD! Pope Benedict BAD! are the two arrows in his quiver, and both the tattered missiles are launched here.

    Where in this tossed-off essay is the slightest hint that he has seriously engaged with the topic? Instead, we have the following:

    1. A selective and deliberately incomplete reading of history;

    2. Well-poisoning (pointing to ridiculous excesses to discredit the entire practice);

    3. Universalizing certain contemporary progressive American Catholic experiences as normative for the entire Church;

    4. Preening self-regard (the “most educated laity” trope);

    5. Pitting pre-conciliar Church experience against certain post-conciliar practices (always to the detriment of the former);

    6. A gratuitous dig at the Pope (quelle suprise);

    and

    7. A gratuitous shot at the sacrament of reconciliation, another McBrien bete noire (“the Mass itself provides all that a Catholic needs sacramentally”–a titanic lie).

    “You’re hopelessly backward” is not an invitation to discussion. He deserves each and every brickbat tossed at him.

  • Dale Price says:

    BTW, Elaine: please note that the “titanic lie” line wasn’t directed at you–I hadn’t even read your comment before posting. Fr. McBrien’s consistent dismissal of the sacrament of reconciliation sets my teeth on edge.

    But I do suggest that the Mass does not provide all that we need, and is not intended to, by design.

  • Imprimatur says:

    First of all, what is this set of traditions that McBrien takes seriously?

    He takes Vatican II and that initial set of reforms of the liturgy seriously.

    He is clearly a ‘progressive’ who believes that the march of technological progress (which in the final instance is what enables widespread literacy and education) necessitates the transformation of the liturgy and spiritual practices.

    There is nothing in his writing that suggests a belief in “technological progress” in relation to liturgy.

    How is that adherence to a tradition?

    There is no traditionless thinking of belief.

    How is that not a crude historicism that reduces spiritual and liturgical practices to products of their historical-material circumstances as opposed to inspired by God?

    Again, nothing suggests that a belief in change and/or reform entails a belief in “crude historicism” or a reduction of liturgy to “products.” Vatican II itself talked about continual reform as part of the nature of the church.

    I know exactly “why” his kind argues as they do; they believe in progress at the expense of tradition.

    Again, “tradition” is not one thing. Tradition is a process not specific content. Vatican II reforms, as you know, entailed a going back to the sources. The reforms that came out of VII are precisely all about tradition. With reference to Eucharistic adoration, the Church wanted to place a renewed emphasis on the centrality of the Mass to curb the way in which some devotional practices can distort the meaning of the Eucharist. Whether you agree with it or not, that is still a problem in the Church today. I have worked in parishes and saw it day in and day out. McBrien is right to remind us of the possibility of sacramental distortion.

    YOU on the other hand want to preserve, in cold cement, ONE PARTICULAR tradition which is ITSELF a product of history and not simply “given by God.” Liturgy, in its various forms and in the very process of its reform, is indeed inspired by God but not apart from history and not apart from persons and the community of the Church discerning the action of the Spirit. The tradition you prefer is NOT eternal, but a snapshot of a particular point in time. It’s fine for you to prefer that, but you need to know that your preferences tend to amount to a radical denial of the activity of God in within the Church. And God does not stand still. Hang on to your preferences — the one, true, authentic Tradition — but do not complain when the rest of the Church is moved somewhere else.

  • Imprimatur says:

    And it goes without saying that whether you like it or not, the Church did change its liturgy at Vatican II and it changed its very liturgical mindset at VII.

  • Michael/Imprimatur,

    With reference to Eucharistic adoration, the Church wanted to place a renewed emphasis on the centrality of the Mass to curb the way in which some devotional practices can distort the meaning of the Eucharist. Whether you agree with it or not, that is still a problem in the Church today. I have worked in parishes and saw it day in and day out. McBrien is right to remind us of the possibility of sacramental distortion.

    I’m not aware of any sense in which the Church actually expressed a desire to curb Eucharistic adoration as a devotional practice because of a fear that it distorted the meaning of the Eucharist.

    The Church did seek to institute liturgical reforms that would make the mass more easily understandable and to introduce elements of catechesis into the mass — and certain devotional practices which amounted to doing something else during mass (say, saying the rosary during mass rather than following the mass itself) have certainly been discouraged, but it is by no means apparent how Eucharistic adoration is in conflict with a proper understanding of the mass.

    If Fr. McBrien is aware of some way in which this is a problem, he certainly goes to no effort to mention it in his piece, which instead is primarily just a sneer of “we’ve moved beyond these embarrassing practices” combined with vague hints that the urge to participate in adoration is rooted in an overly physical understanding of the nature of transubstantiation.

  • Imbeciliatur says:

    You people are so narrow minded. Don’t you realize that you’re ***c***atholics? There is no single tradition. Me myself, I just yesterday participated in a solemn caterwauling liturgy of the vegan transgendered Ethiopian rite. They’ve been around since way before Trent, you unwashed fools. They don’t do Eucharistic adoration, by the way. They know *better*. Plus they make me look cool when I take them to meet my dissertation chair at the faculty club.

  • Imprimatur says:

    Darwin, how did you know my name is Michael? That’s a little creepy…

    I’m not aware of any sense in which the Church actually expressed a desire to curb Eucharistic adoration as a devotional practice because of a fear that it distorted the meaning of the Eucharist.

    What I actually said was that the church was trying to curb the distortions, not the practice of adoration.

    but it is by no means apparent how Eucharistic adoration is in conflict with a proper understanding of the mass.

    You’re right. And I said above that I like Eucharistic adoration and that I don’t think it conflicts with the Mass. What conflicts with the Mass is the distortion that can occur in some ways of understanding Eucharistic adoration.

    If Fr. McBrien is aware of some way in which this is a problem, he certainly goes to no effort to mention it in his piece, which instead is primarily just a sneer of “we’ve moved beyond these embarrassing practices”

    I also said above that I have some problems with McBrien’s article. I think he goes too far. He lacks catholicity. But so do you when you read him (and me, apparently) with no desire to understand him or to be challenged by what IS true in his thinking. You commit the same sin, sneering at McBrien instead of hearing him out.

    …combined with vague hints that the urge to participate in adoration is rooted in an overly physical understanding of the nature of transubstantiation.

    Catholics don’t believe Christ is physically present in the Eucharist, but that he is really, sacramentally present. If McBrien does imply that in his article (I’d have to read it again to see, and I don’t want to), then is is accurately reflecting Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.

  • Darwin, how did you know my name is Michael? That’s a little creepy…

    Because I’d previously put you on moderation for bad behavior both by email address and by IP address. Since you’re using the same computer as before, even though using a different email and handle, WordPress tells me who you are. (And surely you can see how it’s a bit dishonest to blog under several different names, while denying the connection between them, in the same venue.)

    On the topic — I guess the basic breakdown here is that it seems to me that what little of value might be taken of McBrien’s article is stuff which is at best implied or hinted at. I can’t really see that there’s anything of what’s actually there that’s of value. And so, while I can see the value of reading things charitably, I just can’t see that there’s any worth to what he wrote. Maybe if one is deeply familiar with the McBrien oeuvre there’s some background insight that shines through, but just reading this piece in isolation the few things he says that are true are so obviously so that one hardly needs to put up with the other flaws in the piece to recognize such truths.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Imprimatur\Catholic Anarchist, I assume you are Iafrate and thus any further comments by you will be deleted from this thread and any other threads in any of my other posts.

  • e. says:

    Imprimatur writes: “Catholics don’t believe Christ is physically present in the Eucharist.”

    Do Catholics not believe that the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Christ is actually present in the Holy Eucharist?

  • Mike Petrik says:

    e.
    Actual or Real Presence transcends carnal or physical presence. They are not the same. Impramatur is right on that. He is wrong on most everything else, as is McBrien.

  • As an Eastern Catholic, we do not do adoration; nor do the Orthodox. I have no problems with people doing so, and think it is a good devotion, but many people forget other devotions because of it (like icons) and also forget the primary purpose of the eucharist (communion). It’s a complicated issue, but the Orthodox world do have questions about the practice and find it strange — all without being liberal. On the other hand, I don’t think McBrien’s reasons are based upon the Orthodox response, since I think he would probably question iconographic devotion, too.

  • c matt says:

    The way it has been explained to me AFAIK is the substance of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity (hence, transubstantiation) is truly present under the accidents of bread and wine. Can’t really explain more beyond that.

  • c matt says:

    Its a weak comparison, but imagine that by some processing method they could make tofu look, feel, taste and smell like and in all other respects act like certified angus beef. The substance would be tofu, but it would have the accidents of real beef.

  • Matt McDonald says:

    HK,

    many people forget other devotions because of it (like icons) and also forget the primary purpose of the eucharist (communion).

    that’s absurd. You’re suggesting that one can over do the WORSHIP OUR BLESSED LORD before HIS REAL PRESENCE as opposed to worshiping Him before a likeness???

    If the Lord came to your parish in his entire Glorified Body and sat in the adoration chapel for you to go and Worship and speak with Him, would you caution against overdoing it???? Excuse me Lord, I must go and pray before a picture of you, I don’t want to “over do” this face to face stuff.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    What I find hilarious in all of this is that Pope Benedict, in his wisdom (God bless and keep him), is now proposing a “reform of the reform” designed to increase reverence for God and the Mass.

    It is now absolutely undeniable that some of the changes, if not most of the changes, made at “VII” have had a harmful effect – whether we look at what the average Catholic now believes theologically or even worse, morally or politically, or the child molestation scandals, the declining membership, the declining priesthood, etc, etc.

    Tradition can absolutely be added to, but there is a difference between adding to tradition and subtracting from it, distorting it, and throwing it away for some new innovation based upon what is popular in the secular world. Motivation here counts for a great deal – why were the changes made? In what spirit?

    Looking back now, the Papacy has come to realize that the essence of tradition, the reverence and devotion that Catholics once had for Christ through the Mass, has been slipping away – and is taking steps to do something about it. The Catholic ‘Anarchists’ and Father McBriens are on the way out, and not a moment too soon (and hopefully not too late).

  • Matt

    Icons present to us the real presence of Christ as well. The image is always related to and bring to us the presence of the prototype, and it is real. Read St John of Damascus and St Theodore the Studite on Icons. Then read Orthodox commentary about worship — they point out that communion was not reserved or meant to be reserved, but is for the sake of participation, eating — that is what it is for.

    “If the Lord came to your parish in his entire Glorified Body” would you grab a knife? Your second point is therefore inappropriate. The whole point is you have his presence, his glorified presence, in the icon. That’s why St Thomas Aquinas said,

    “Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ’s image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of ‘latria,’ it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of ‘latria.’”

    ST III-XXV.3

  • Matt McDonald says:

    HK,

    what your missing the point here entirely. Christ is present everywhere, even in us, but not in the same sense as he is present in the Eucharist… Body, Soul, and Divinity – in substance. It IS Him. Not a “prototype”, not in the same way as He is present whenever 2 or more are gathered, but really, truly and physically present, as He would be sitting in the Chapel.

    Yes of course, the body is to be consumed and that is the principle purpose of the Eucharistic Miracle, however, it is not a question of quantity. You would not see greater graces from receiving every hour of every day. There are graces from spending time in His presence for every additional second.

    This really is fairly basic, I’m not sure why you’re having so much difficulty.

    Finally, you completely neglected to address the point that you have created a straw man. Nobody does what you suggest, excessive adoration at the expense of worshiping at the Sacrifice and receiving Him in Holy Communion. Nobody.

  • e. says:

    Matt says: “[Christ] is present in the Eucharist… Body, Soul and Divinity…[He] is really, truly an physically present [in the Eucharist].”

    I thought likewise (i.e., Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity; and, therefore, really & *physically* present); however, didn’t Mike Petrik suggest this is not actually the case?

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    Dale — thanks. Likewise, I hadn’t read the full McBrien article, so I didn’t realize his comment about the Mass being “all that a Catholic needs sacramentally” implied that the sacrament of penance isn’t necessary.

    Now I have heard SOME interpretations of canon law which claim that the obligation to go to confession once a year strictly applies only if you have mortal sins that need confessing. So according to this interpretation (which I would imagine McBrien subscribes to), if one manages to avoid mortal sin, the sacrament of penance is never “necessary.”

    However, in practice, I doubt very much that many Catholics who don’t bother going to confession even once a year successfully avoid serious sin for the duration. Even liberals admit that “once a year only in case of mortal sin” is merely a bare minimum legal requirement, not a recipe for a fruitful spiritual life.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .