HERE ARE THE NEXT FIVE PROPOSITIONS FROM THE SYNOD ON THE EUCHARIST.
(Just five more to go after these!)
Proposition 41 deals with the reception of Commuion by non-Catholic Christians. It stresses that this generally isn’t possible but is in some cases. The Fathers of the Council stress that the conditions mentioned in the Catechism and the Compendium must be observed, which is odd since neither of these is a legal document. The place where the conditions are set forth in a legally binding way is canon 844 of the Code of Canon LawI suppose they cite the other two works because they are more generally accessible to the laity.
I suspect that there’s a translation error where Zenit represents the proposition as saying that "It must be clarified that the Eucharist does not only signify our
personal communion with Jesus Christ, but above all the full communion
of the Church." That’s not true. It makes it sounds as if communion with the Church is more important than communion with Christ, which is manifestly not the case. I suspect that the original Latin would have a construciton meaning something more like "but also" or "but in addition" or "but in particular" or something like that.
His proposition also rejects ecumenical concelebration of the Eucharist (despite the fact that JP2 himself ecumenically concelebrated with the Patriarch of Constantinople).
Proposition 42 is another proposition linking the Eucharist to a facet of the Christian life. This time the thing being linked to is evangelization (i.e., the Eucharist brings us into an encounter with Christ, which motivates us to go out and evangelize others). At the same time as thanking missionaries, the synod fathers also stress some themes from Cardinal Ratzinger’s document Dominus Iesus–the fact that Christ is the only Savior and his "unicity" (uniqueness).
It makes the helpful point that stressing Christ’s uniqueness "will prevent the decisive work of human promotion implicit in evangelization being reduced to a mere sociological note." In other words: It’s not enough to just feed people. You have to tell them about Jesus and the fact that he is the only Savior.
Proposition 43 emphasizes Eucharistic spirituality for the sanctification of the world.
Proposition 44 starts out as just another linking the Eucharist to a facet of the Christian life proposition but quickly turns much more direct and practical. This time the topic is sick people and the proposition recommends several things of practical importance to sick people and their access to the Eucharist: (1) greater insistence on the Eucharist as viaticum, (2) greater distribution of the Eucharist to mentally disabled people, (3) equipping churches architecturally so that the disabled can have access to them.
Point 2 is elaborated by noting that the mere fact we can’t tell how much awareness a mentally disabled person has is NO REASON TO BAR THEM FROM THE EUCHARIST.
YEE-HAW! This is not a change in Church law, but it is a message many people need to receive.
No more, "Uncle Bob is never given the Eucharist because he’s retarded" or "We can’t give Gramma the Precious Blood because she’s in a coma" stuff.
Proposition 45 is a pretty standard affirmation of the need for pastoral care for migrants. Something that makes it a little unusual is that it lays stress on the need for one particular group of migrants: those belonging to the Eastern rites. This is no doubt a reflection of the Christian exodus occurring from the Middle East right now, as well as possibly migration of Eastern rite Christians from the former Soviet bloc into the West.
The proposition stresses that they need to be have access to pastors of their own rites as much as possible, and it says that "Oriental Day" needs to be established in seminaries so that Eastern liturgies will become better known to Latin priests.
“”Oriental Day” needs to be established in seminaries so that Eastern liturgies will become better known to Latin priests”
Perhaps a little of the East’s orthodoxy (small o) might rub off on them as well 🙂 I would hope they eventually replace “Oriental Day” with “Oriental Month,” or maybe “Oriental Semester.”
I would hope they eventually replace “Oriental Day” with “Oriental Month,” or maybe “Oriental Semester.”
No joke. There also needs to be a lot more catechesis among lay members of the Latin Church regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Amen.
For what it’s worth, here’s the Italian version of that sentence from #41: “Si deve chiarire che l’Eucaristia non designa e opera solo la nostra personale comunione con Gesù Cristo, ma soprattutto la piena communio della Chiesa.”
The word corresponding to the English “above all” would, I gather, be “sopratutto,” which my Ital.-Engl. dictionary renders as “above all,” or “especially” or “particularly.”
Babel Fish thinks “sopratutto” means “above all,” and from the little Italian I know, I think it’s a very literal translation.
Could prop 41 be saying that the Eucharist signifies above all the communion of the whole Church with Jesus, rather than the individual’s communion with Jesus? It seems true to say that the union of the Church as a whole with Jesus is more important than my individual union, even though those two cannot be opposed.
Jeremy: Yes, I think that’s right. Or, put differently, what’s most important is one’s communion as a member of the Church with Jesus as the head of the Church – and therefore with the whole Body of Christ (totus Christus).
“Sopratutto” literally means ‘above everything’. That that Eucharist signifies “above all” the full communion of the Church is a common (at least widespread) interpretation of St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians :”The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one Body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” (1 Cor 10:16-17)