1. THE CONTINUING NEGLECT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST
A few months ago, during a Marian conference in
California, a lady gave a photograph of a Eucharistic miracle in Naju to a
priest who was one of the speakers. The priest thanked her and walked
away. A few minutes later, someone else saw the same priest tearing the
photograph into pieces and throwing them away.
A few years ago, a Catholic publisher told me on the
phone: "A bleeding Eucharist is the most superstitious phenomenon
in Catholic history." A few days later, when we were talking
again on the phone, he said that he was a former priest and asked for
prayers.
Almost fifty years ago, in late June 1950, when North
Korea invaded the South, some of the Communist soldiers entered Myoungdong
Cathedral in Seoul and desecrated the Holy Eucharist by trampling the
Sacred Hosts which they took out of the tabernacle.
Our Lord, Who comes to us in the form of bread and wine
because He loves us so much, continues to be neglected and humiliated even
by many Catholics. On July 2, 1995, Julia Kim of Naju, Korea, wrote down
what she saw in a vision:
Many priests were celebrating the Mass in the state
of sin. Many of the religious and lay people were eating up the
Eucharist without any reverence, not even being conscious of the sinful
state of their souls!
Surveys in Korea and elsewhere show that fewer than 30%
of the Catholics go to Sunday Mass and even fewer believe in the true,
substantial presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. That there is a serious
lack of knowledge of the catechism among Catholics nowadays is a
well-known fact, but this problem seems to be particularly acute regarding
the Holy Eucharist. Numerous people are approaching the Blessed Sacrament
in a careless manner, out of habit, because they do not clearly understand
the most important Sacrament in the Catholic Church.
The confusion about the Holy Eucharist actually began
two thousand years ago when Our Lord explained it to the Jews for the
first time. The Scripture tells us that many of His disciples, after
hearing His announcement about the Eucharist, murmured among themselves, "This
is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" (John 6:60) and they
returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him (John
6:66). This is also mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(#1336):
The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the
disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them. . .
The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery
and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. "Will you also
go away?" (John 6:67): the Lord’s question echoes through the
ages. . .
Disagreements about the Holy Eucharist have surfaced
again and again in Church history and still are a major cause of division
among Christians. Much of the debate on Naju is also about the Holy
Eucharist. The Declaration in the Kwangju Archdiocese rejected the
Eucharistic miracles in Naju, because, according to the doctrinal
presentation in the Declaration, the eucharistic species must remain
unchanged even after the consecration. The leading theologian of the Naju
Investigating Committee revealed that the real reason for rejecting the
Eucharistic miracles in Naju was to promote unity between Catholics and
Protestants. His remark seems to be an admission that the theologians in
Kwangju were more eager to be accommodating to the Protestants than to
determine the genuineness of the Eucharistic miracles in Naju. The debates
on the Holy Eucharist are of vital importance to individual Catholics as
well as the entire Church. The scope of deviation among many Catholics
from the traditional Church teaching on the Eucharist is alarming.
However, Our Lord guaranteed that the gates of hell would not prevail
against His Church (Matthew 16:18). Therefore, we need not doubt that the
truth will be preserved and triumph.
2. CHURCH TEACHINGS ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST
Do the widespread disagreements regarding the Holy
Eucharist mean that the Church has not clearly defined and explained her
teaching on the Holy Eucharist yet? We can see that such is not the case
by reviewing the Church documents. The following are the key doctrines on
the Eucharist declared by the Council of Trent (1551) with the authority
of infallibility, which all Catholics are to accept with the obedience of
faith.
a. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most
holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the
body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it
as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema (DS 1651).
b. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy
sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine
together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies
that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the
bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the
blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which
the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be
anathema (DS 1652).
By this doctrine, the contention by Luther that bread
and wine coexist with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was
rejected. Also, the opinion adopted by several theologians in the 17 th
and 18th Centuries (Emmanuel
Maignan, John Saguens and others), which denied the physical reality of
the species of bread and wine in the Eucharist and claimed that they
were mere illusions, could be rejected based on this doctrine.
c. If anyone denies that the whole Christ is
contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species
and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made:
let him be anathema (DS 1653).
By this doctrine, the views of the Hussites as well
as the Protestant reformers, who demanded Communion under both species,
were rejected. This doctrine also means that we must treat every little
piece of the Sacred Host and every drop of the Sacred Blood with utmost
reverence and care. If one lacks faith in the true, substantial presence
of Our Lord in the Eucharist and in every part of the eucharistic
species, he is likely to treat the Eucharist carelessly.
d. If anyone says that after the completion of the
consecration that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in
the marvelous sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is
taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated
particles, which are reserved or remain after communion, the true body
of the Lord does not remain: let him be anathema (DS 1654).
e. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the
Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even
outwardly with the worship of latria (the act of adoration), and
therefore not to be venerated with a special festive celebration, nor to
be borne about in procession according to the praiseworthy and universal
rite and custom of the holy Church, or is not to be set before the
people publicly to be adored, and that the adorers of it are idolators:
let him be anathema (DS 1656).
The traditional teachings of the Church on the
Eucharist were reconfirmed in Pope Paul VI’s encylical, Mysterium
Fidei (1965), in which Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist is
referred to as "a new reality" in which "Christ,
whole and entire, in His physical ‘reality’ is bodily present".
Paul VI also warned against the modernist view which was silent about the Transubstantiation
and tried to explain the changes in the bread and wine as changes in
significance and goals only. According to this view, the changes in bread
and wine are not real but symbolic, like a kitchen knife becoming a tool
of crime if used by a robber and a white towel becoming a sign of
surrender or truce, if waved during a war. This modernist view is
basically the same as the Calvinists’.
3. THE REALITY OF GOD THE SON’S INCARNATION CONTINUES
THROUGH THE BLESSED SACRAMENT
The essence of the Church teaching on the Holy
Eucharist is that, even though the Eucharist has the external properties
of bread and wine, it is not bread or wine at all but truly the whole,
living Jesus Christ with His divinity, soul, body and blood. This teaching
lies at the heart of the Catholic Faith.
This doctrine also means that we need not envy the
Lord’s disciples who were with Him two thousand years ago, because we
can also be with Him in a true, physical, and intimate way. Of course,
there is a difference in the ways Our Lord was physically present then and
is now. Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist does not conduct any external
physical activity, as it is not the purpose of this sacrament to extend
His external activity on earth. He already completed His mission on earth
two thousand years ago, revealing all the supernatural truth that is
necessary for our salvation, sanctifying human life by living it Himself,
suffering and dying in reparation for human sins, and overcoming death by
resurrection. However, these historical works of Christ did not fade away
into the past but are made present to every human being in all ages (cf. Catechism
of the Catholic Church, #1085). Through the Holy Eucharist, Our
Lord’s substantial presence continues for an intrinsic union with us;
through the Mass, His Sacrifice on the Cross becomes present for us, with
the graces from it flowing into our souls; in the Sacrament of Confession,
our sins are truly forgiven by the merit and authority of Christ; and, His
teachings with divine authority and purity are available to us through the
Church. In this perpetual reality of God the Son’s Incarnation and
Redemptive Work through His Church, the Holy Eucharist occupies the
central position.
4. THE REASONS WHY OUR LORD IN THE EUCHARIST HAS THE
APPEARANCES OF BREAD AND WINE
Why does Our Lord conceal His true appearance behind
the species of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist? There may be two
reasons.
First, the Eucharist is God the Son Who became
incarnate in our world. The infinite dignity proper to His divinity
demands that we approach Him with the deepest possible respect and
faithfulness. In the Blessed Sacrament, however, Christ is concealing His
glory and dignity behind the humble appearances of bread and wine, because
He does not want to appeal to our vanity and selfishness but to our
genuine faith and love. He is presenting Himself to us in a simple way,
because He seeks a childlike response which is not motivated by
self-interest but by total trust and love. When we really trust and love
the Lord, we can easily overcome the lowliness of the appearances of bread
and wine and recognize the most beautiful, holy, and loving Lord with our
spiritual eyes. Also, if we have failed to love Him by violating any of
His Commandments, it will be our courtesy worthy of Him to make up for it
through sincere repentance and Confession before receiving Him in
Communion.
Second, Our Lord has the appearances of bread and wine
to make it easier for us to receive Him. As bread and wine are foods for
our bodies, it seems appropriate that our spiritual food is represented by
the signs of bread and wine.
5. THE EUCHARIST AS A PERPETUAL MIRACLE
When Archbishop Giovanni Bulaitis, the former Apostolic
Pro-Nuncio in Korea, came to Naju on November 24, 1994, the Blessed Mother
gave us the following message:
Today I called you, whom I love most dearly, in a
special way to this place where you will experience the Lord’s
presence and mine as heroic and faithful witnesses so that the Mystery
of the Holy Eucharist may be made known all over the world. So, help me
hurriedly to save the sheep that have been lost.
I have repeatedly said that the Mystery of the Holy
Eucharist, which is the Bread of Life from Heaven, is a spring that
never dries and a medicine that gives you salvation. But only very few
are making preparation before receiving Him. If my numerous children
only knew that the Eucharist is truly the Life, the everlasting spring,
the Manna and a perpetual miracle that is no less than the miracles of
the Creation of the Universe and of the Redemption, they would not be
walking toward hell. . . .
The Holy Eucharist is the center of all the
supernatural events, but is being trampled by so many children through
sacrilege, insult and humiliation. Therefore, my messages of love must
be spread all over the world more vigorously so that the time of the
Lord, Who is present in the Eucharist, and of the New Pentecost may be
advanced.
A concept in the above message that is considered here
is that the Eucharist is "a perpetual miracle" or "a
continuing miracle." How is the Eucharist a perpetual miracle? A
miracle is a phenomenon in the physical world that occurs by the power of
God in a manner that surpasses the natural laws of the physical world.
During every Mass, a great miracle occurs at the time of the priest’s
consecration of bread and wine, when the substances of bread and wine turn
into the substances of Our Lord’s Body and Blood. This phenomenon is not
visible to our eyes, but is a true physical reality that occurs by the
power of God, which is totally beyond natural laws or human capabilities.
These miraculous conversions of bread and wine into Our Lord’s Body and
Blood are phenomena of changes that occur instantaneously, resulting in a
new physical reality. Then, what is meant by "a perpetual
miracle"?
Normally, the appearance (by the appearance or the
species is understood everything that is perceived by the senses, such as
size, extent, weight, shape, color, taste, and smell) of bread is
inseparable from the substance of bread; and the appearance of wine is
inseparable from the substance of wine. In easier words, bread looks like
bread and wine looks like wine. In the Blessed Sacrament, however, the
appearances of bread and wine continue, while the substances of bread and
wine are absent, because the substances of bread and wine have been
replaced by the substances of Our Lord’s Body and Blood. The appearances
of bread and wine cannot be said to inhere in and be sustained by the
substances of Our Lord’s Body and Blood, because the appearances of
bread and wine are not proper to the substances of Our Lord’s Body and
Blood. Therefore, the appearances of bread and wine in the Eucharist
continue without a subject (The Roman Catechism II 4, 13), which is
naturally impossible. This amazing condition is made possible only because
it is being sustained by a special intervention by God, not just for one
moment or a short period of time but as long as the appearances of bread
and wine in the Eucharist continue. In other words, the external signs of
bread and wine in the Blessed Sacrament are not sustained naturally but by
a special and continuing intervention by God. It seems to be in this sense
that the Blessed Mother in Naju referred to the Eucharist as "a
perpetual miracle". Therefore, when we are before the Blessed
Sacrament, we should have a profound sense of awe and gratitude, because
we are facing an ongoing miracle of God Who calls us to overcome the
external appearances of bread and wine with faith and recognize and accept
the incarnate God the Son with love and adoration.
So, when a Eucharistic miracle occurs, it may be
thought of as "a suspension of the perpetual miracle in the
Eucharist." In other words, during a Eucharistic miracle, God
discontinues to sustain the appearances of bread and wine in the Eucharist
in order to expose the inner reality of the Sacrament, which is the Body
and Blood of Our Lord. Thus, a Eucharistic miracle is a sign from God as
His own testimony to the awesome true reality of the Eucharist. St. Thomas
Aquinas wrote on this subject as follows:
This is not deception, because it is done to
represent the truth, namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that
Christ’s body and blood are truly in this sacrament. (Summa
Theologica, Part III, Question 76: Of the Way in Which Christ is in
This Sacrament, Article 8)
6. DO THE MIRACULOUS CHANGES IN THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES
CONTRADICT THE CHURCH TEACHING?
The Declaration on Naju by the Kwangju Archdiocese
included the following statement regarding the Eucharistic miracles in
Naju:
The alleged phenomenon, that as soon as Mrs. Julia
Youn received the Eucharist, it was changed into a lump of bloody flesh
in her mouth is also contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church
that says that even after the bread and wine are transubstantiated
into the body and blood of Christ with the formula of priests’
consecration, the species of bread and wine remain (cf. Pope
Paul VI’s Mysterium Fidei; DS. 782, 802, 1321, 1640-1642, 1652). (Underline
added)
Among the Church documents mentioned above as the
grounds for rejecting the Eucharistic miracles in Naju, the most relevant
one is the doctrine declared by the Council of Trent (DS 1652):
If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament
of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together
with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that
wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread
into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the
species of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the
Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be
anathema. (Underline added)
The validity of the negative judgment on the
Eucharistic miracles in Naju by the Kwangju Archdiocese crucially depends
on whether the above-quoted doctrinal presentation in the Kwangju
Declaration conforms to the above-quoted doctrine by the Council of Trent.
The following is a discussion of the probable problems.
(1) The Kwangju Declaration says that the species of
bread and wine remain even after the transubstantiation of bread and
wine into the body and blood of Christ by the priest’s consecration.
The doctrine issued by the Council of Trent says that the entire
substances of bread and wine change into the body and blood of Christ,
the species of the bread and wine only remaining. Are these two
statements essentially the same? They can be, if no other connotations
are added that alter the original meaning of the doctrine.
In the Kwangju Declaration, the connotation that the
species of bread and wine must remain after the consecration is
present. In the Korean text of the Declaration, the Korean equivalent of
"must" is in the sentence itself, while it exists only in the
context in the English text. In both texts, the meaning that the species
of bread and wine must continue to be unchanged even after the
consecration is clear, because the miraculous changes in the eucharistic
species in Naju were rejected on the basis of this doctrinal
presentation in Kwangju.
Then, is this meaning of "must" present in
the doctrine issued by the Council of Trent? The correct answer has to
be "No". This doctrine was intended to explain the effects of
the priest’s consecration, which are the changes in the substances
only without any changes in the species. The doctrine means that the
appearances of bread and wine remain unchanged despite the consecration.
In other words, the consecration does not have the power to alter the
species of bread and wine. Obviously, this is different from saying that
the species of bread and wine must continue even after the consecration.
If this latter statement were correct, even the natural changes in the
Eucharist inside our bodies after Communion may also have to be denied.
(2) In the 8 th
Century, a priest was celebrating Mass in Lanciano, Italy, while
strongly doubting the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. As soon as
he said the words of consecration, the appearances of the Eucharist
changed into those of flesh and blood. This miracle has been officially
approved by the Church. It would, however, be in conflict with the
Church teaching as presented in the Kwangju Declaration, because the
species of bread and wine did not remain after the consecration in that
miracle in Lanciano. If the changes in the eucharistic species occurred
by the power of the priest’s consecration, that would violate the
Church doctrine. However, if such changes occurred by a special
intervention by God, they cannot be in conflict with the Church
teaching.
Likewise in Naju, the Eucharistic miracles cannot be
said to have violated the Church doctrine, because it has never been
claimed or perceived that these miracles involving changes in the
eucharistic species occurred by the power of the priest’s
consecration. It is not right to reject the possibility of God’s
special work on the basis of a Church doctrine that explains what
normally happens in a Sacrament. Or is it a reluctance to recognize that
God sometimes does use miracles as special ways of communicating with
His people? Such a reluctance is not mentioned in the Kwangju
Declaration, but there seems to be an inclination to deny even the
possibility of Eucharistic miracles, because, according to the doctrinal
presentation in the Kwangju Declaration, all of the Eucharistic miracles
in Church history would violate the Church teaching. A reluctance to be
open to the possibility of miracles would be a reluctance to accept the
following Church doctrine issued by Vatican Council I:
If anyone shall have said that miracles are not
possible, and hence that all accounts of them, even those contained in
Sacred Scripture, are to be banished among the fables and myths; or,
that miracles can never be known with certitude, and that the divine
origin of the Christian religion cannot be correctly proved by them,
let him be anathema (DS 3034).
(3) The Kwangju Declaration does not contradict the
Church teaching that Our Lord is truly, substantially present in the
Eucharist, as the doctrine of transubstantiation is mentioned in the
Declaration. However, the Declaration seems to represent a weakening of
the faith in the traditional Catholic teaching on Christ’s substantial
presence in the Eucharist, because it rejects the miracles that reveal
the true inner reality of the Blessed Sacrament and also says: Such
phenomena do not enhance the faith of people in the Eucharist existing
under the species of bread and wine. On the contrary, they seem to act
as an element which causes a great confusion and embarrasses the
peoples’ faith in the Eucharist. Besides, the leading theologian
in the Naju Investigating Committee said in an article in Pastoral
Care, a monthly Catholic magazine in Korea that the real reason for
the rejection of the Eucharistic miracles in the Kwangju Declaration was
to promote unity between Catholics and Protestants. Therefore, it seems
that the Kwangju Declaration had been influenced by a thinking that does
not correctly defend the traditional Catholic Faith in the Eucharist.
7. CAN THE SACRED HOSTS THAT DESCENDED TO THE CHAPEL IN
NAJU BE UNCONSECRATED HOSTS?
There has been another kind of Eucharistic miracle in
Naju, involving descents of the Sacred Hosts. On November 24, 1994, during
the visit to Naju by Archbishop Giovanni Bulaitis, the Apostolic
Pro-Nuncio in Korea at that time, the Eucharist descended twice in the
Chapel. Most of the first Eucharist was consumed by the people present in
the Chapel. A small remaining part and the whole second Eucharist are
being preserved in the chapel at Fr. Raymond Spies’ residence near
Seoul. On July 1, 1995, during the overnight prayer meeting, seven Sacred
Hosts descended together. On July 1, 1996, several Sacred Hosts descended
and entered Julia’s mouth. During Bishop Paul Kim’s visit on June 12,
1997, a large Eucharist descended and later on the same day was taken to
the Kwangju Archdiocesan office. On July 13, 1997, a large Eucharist
descended again, this time while a monsignor from Rome was visiting. This
Eucharist was consumed by the monsignor. On August 27, 1997, a large
Eucharist descended during Fr. Spies’ visit and was later taken to the
Kwangju Archdiocesan office. This last descent of the Eucharist was
videotaped with two cameras on the ceiling in the Chapel, which are turned
on when there are important events like overnight prayer meetings and
visits by bishops. All together, the Eucharist descended seven times in
Naju between July 1, 1995 and August 27, 1997.
A question has been raised regarding whether what came
down in the Chapel in Naju were unconsecrated hosts. First, if the
descents of the hosts were fabricated by humans, they can be unconsecrated
hosts. However, according to hundreds of witnesses and the video
recordings and still photos taken during the miracles, there is no
indication whatsoever that these descents of the hosts were human works.
Second, could it be the devil’s work? It is unthinkable that the devil
brings the real Eucharist. Then, can he bring unconsecrated hosts? It
seems improbable that God will allow such confusing events to happen, but
the possibility cannot be rejected entirely. Has there been any evidence
for believing that the descents of the hosts in Naju were not caused by
the devil?
The seven hosts that descended on July 1, 1995, were
consumed the next day in obedience to the Kwangju Archbishop’s
instruction. The host that was received by Julia turned into visible flesh
and blood in her mouth a few seconds after she received it. When a priest
dipped his finger in the blood on Julia’s tongue and blessed a dying
baby girl in her mother’s arms, she was cured. Some of the blood stains
collected on a piece of white cloth was later subjected to a DNA test in a
medical laboratory at Seoul National University and was found to be human
blood.
Also, usually immediately prior to a descent of the
Eucharist, Julia saw Our Lord suffering and bleeding on the Cross and His
Blood turning into white Sacred Hosts, which then descended to the Chapel.
The descent of the Sacred Hosts was witnessed by many in the Chapel.
In the Kwangju Declaration, it is stated that the hosts
that descended in Naju cannot be recognized as the real Eucharist, because
there is no evidence that they were consecrated by priests. However,
according to the above-mentioned vision seen by Julia, Our Lord’s Blood
turned into the Eucharist, which was a change in the species only without
any change in the substance. This change in species was not a
transubstantiation. Therefore, it did not require consecration by a
priest. It is also possible that the Eucharist was brought from a
tabernacle by angels as happened in other similar miracles in Church
history.
Lastly, if the miracles in Naju occurred by the power
of God, is it possible that He sent unconsecrated hosts? This would be
impossible in view of God’s truthfulness. If unconsecrated hosts were
sent when people would perceive them as the real Eucharist, confusion
would have resulted. This would contradict the dogma that God is
infinitely truthful and is the truth itself.
Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion regarding
these miracles is that true Eucharist came down to the Chapel in Naju.
8. WERE THE EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES IN NAJU
"INTENTIONAL"?
Some say that the alleged Eucharistic miracles in Naju
are suspected of being intentional, because some of them occurred in the
presence of the Pope and Bishops. Then, do they mean that miracles can be
genuine only when they occur accidentally and randomly to anybody? We are
not talking about just "strange phenomena" but the signs which
occur by the Providence of God Who is leading the history of human
salvation. Then, in order for the signs and miracles to be genuine, they
must occur by God’s Will, namely, His Intention. Apart from God’s Will
and Plan, there cannot be genuine miracles. The Incarnation of God the
Son, the miracle in Cana, the coming back to life of Lazarus, Our Lord’s
Resurrection and Ascension, the Blessed Mother’s Assumption, the Blessed
Mother’s apparitions in Paris, Lourdes and Fatima, . . . none of these
were accidental or apart from God’s intention. It should not be
difficult for anyone to understand why God has been showing special signs
to the Pope, Bishops and priests who are pastors of His people. Through
Moses, God showed miracles repeatedly to Pharaoh, the King of Egypt.
Through Juan Diego in Guadalupe, God gave the Miraculous Image of Our Lady
to Bishop Zumarraga. We need not suspect the special signs that God sent
to His ministers because they seemed to be "intentional."
9. THE CHURCH ALLOWS FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO THE FAITHFUL
REGARDING HOW THEY RECEIVE COMMUNION
It was about 1,200 years ago, the 9 th
Century, when Catholics began receiving Communion on the tongue only,
receiving Communion in the species of bread only, and using unleavened
bread out of their deep respect for the Blessed Sacrament and the
priesthood. Only a few decades ago, the Apostolic See gave permission to
the bishops’ conferences in several countries allowing Communion in the
hand. The intention was not to discourage the traditional way of Communion
on the tongue but only to allow Communion in the hand as another way of
receiving Communion. In some countries like Korea, however, Communion in
the hand has practically become the rule. Those who try to receive
Communion on the tongue, even including visitors from abroad, are asked to
receive Communion in the hand instead. Pope John Paul II remarked about
this practice in his encylical: Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980,
addressed to all the Bishops in the world:
In some countries the practice of receiving Communion
in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by
individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the
Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards
the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable
not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the
pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the
attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on
occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the
practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into
account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand
has been authorized. . . To touch the sacred species and to distribute
them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which
indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It
is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are
neither priests nor deacons. . .
10. CONCLUSION
The greatest task facing us in the Church now is to
expel the modernist errors and tendencies from the Church and restore the
splendor of the authentic Catholic Faith. The first requirement in
achieving this goal would be to re-establish a firm trust in the revealed
truth—namely, the authentic Church teachings. The totality of these
teachings must be recognized as gifts from God Himself rather than human
works. Especially the widespread confusion about the Holy Eucharist must
be overcome. At the same time, a profound trust in and love for the
Blessed Mother, who is the essential companion to the Lord in His Work of
Human Salvation, must be restored. God willingly chose Mary as the
(secondary and, yet, essential) principle of God’s the Son’s
Incarnation. Then, we must accept God’s will and follow His way by also
relying on Mary in following Christ and His teachings and in pursuing an
intimate union with Him in our daily lives. A lady belonging to a
Protestant denomination told her Catholic friend: "When I get
sick, I go to a doctor, not to his mother." However, we go to a
doctor in this world for a limited purpose of receiving treatment of our
physical illness. Our relationship with doctors, lawyers, technicians,
businessmen, and so on is a limited, businesslike one. Our relationship
with the Lord, on the other hand, involves total dedication, love and
trust. God is our Father, our Lord and our everything. Also, God’s world
is a kingdom and a family. In a kingdom, there are a king and a queen as
well as subjects. In a family, there are a father and a mother as well as
children. If we can imagine the emptiness and lack of warmth in a family
without the mother, we should also be able to understand how necessary the
Blessed Mother is to each one of us in the Church, which is truly God’s
family. Besides, God has so filled the Blessed Mother with His Love and
Holiness that she has become the surest help and guide for us to come
closer to God. If we truly believe that the Eucharist is Our Lord, it
should not be difficult for us to realize that Our Lady is the Mother of
the Eucharist.
—Sang M. Lee
(from Mary's Touch, October 1999 newsletter) |