Okay, now that I’ve got my computer situation squared away, back to the propositions from the Synod on the Eucharist.
HERE ARE THE NEXT SIX PROPOSITIONS FROM THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS.
Proposition 5 is another theological review proposition. It discusses the relationship of the Eucharist to the Church. One thing it says is rather interesting:
The ecclesial character of the Eucharist might also be a privileged
point in the dialogue with the communities born with the Reformation.
I’m not sure which communities they’re thinking of (probably Lutherans first and foremost) or what hay they think they may be able to make in this direction, but it stood out.
With prop 6 things get more interesting. #6 is devoted to Eucharistic adoration and forcefully recommends it (even using the word "forcefully"). This is in reaction to an erroneous theology that took hold in some quarters after the Council that dissed Eucharistic adoration, arguing that the celebration of the Mass is what’s important, so all our attention needed to be on the celebration of the Mass, not on Jesus himself as the Eucharist after Mass.
JP2 had been dinging away at that mindset for a while, and this is a continuation of same.
Of note in this section is a recommendation that churches be kept open as much as possible to allow people to come for Eucharistic adoration and that this practice be part of preparation for first Communion.
One thing that it’s important to note here: As encouraging as all this is, the document doesn’t call for any changes in the rules regarding Eucharistic EXPOSITION. People often talk as if exposition and adoration are the same thing, and they’re not. The law imposes VERY SIGNIFICANT restrictions on when exposition can be done, so the call for greater Eucharistic adoration does not translate directly into a call for greater Eucharistic exposition. What they’re envisioning is having churches open so that people can go adore Jesus in the tabernacle, not having Eucharistic exposition available in every parish. That being said, the faithful in different parishes can certainly appeal to the Synod’s recommendation for greater adoration and argue that this would be facilitated if they had exposition available in their parish.
Prop 7 deals with the Eucharist and the sacrament of reconciliation. Noting that the state of grace is necessary for reception of the Eucharist and encouraging frequent confession, the document calls for bishops to do a number of things: (1) start educating people more about the need for conversion and confession, (2) eliminate general absolutions (I’ve never seen one of those, but they appear to be a problem in some countries; Austrailia, for example, from what I understand), (3) make sure there are suitable places for confession in parishes, and (4)–oddly–for the bishop to "appoint the confessor." I’m not sure if the latter is a translation problem or what, for it makes it sound as if each parish would have only one confessor even if it had multiple priests, and I don’t think that’s what they mean.
The prop also says "it would also be necessary to further the dimension of reconciliation
already present in the Eucharistic celebration (cf. CCC 1436),
specifically in the penitential rite," which might be interpreted as a call for beefing up the penitential rite at Mass in some way.
And it calls for a renewed catechesis of the faithful on indulgences and encourages bishops and priests to request more indulgences from the apostolic penitentiary.
Proposition 8 is an attempt to relate the Eucharist the the sacrament of matrimony, but like many of these theological-reflection type propositions, it seems rather thin–like butter spread across too much bread.
The problem is that, because the Eucharist is Jesus and Jesus is God and God is related to everything in the universe (as its Creator) there is a tendency to try to relate the Eucharist to everything in the universe. Anything that one values may get related to the Eucharist in some theological documents, even though there may not be a direct connection between them and so there may not be that much to say about them that is relevant to the Eucharist.
Things that one does not value don’t get this treatment. Thus one never finds attempts to relate the Eucharist to cockroaches or to Smurf dolls or to pebbles on the surface of Mars. The things that the Eucharist gets related to in a document thus often tell one more about the values of the person or people who wrote the document than tells you about the Eucharist itself.
In this proposition the fathers of the Synod are expressing the value of marriage and thus trying to relate it to the Eucharist, but there is not much of a direct connection as the two sacraments (while they are both sacraments).
Some of the interesting stuff in this proposition thus isn’t really about the Eucharist but about marriage. For example, it states: "The Synod recognizes the singular mission of woman in the family and in the society."
That’s interesting. It acknowledges that women have a unique (singular) mission in the family–a proposition that is currently under heavy attack in western culture, where many wish to see husbands and wives as having fully interchangeable roles, with no uniqueness to the mission and role of either. Unfortunately, they don’t go into any detail about what that unique mission in the family may be.
They also allude to women having a unique mission in society. This is probably a clause put in to avoid the charge of wanting to view women as if they only have a contribution to make to the family and no role outside the home. They don’t really go into any detail here either about what the mission of women in society is, though if I had to guess I’d say that one of the things they may have in mind is that "Women: Teachers of Peace" theme that found a place in John Paul II’s writings.
Proposition 9 is TOTALLY BIZARRO if you don’t recognize the style of relating the Eucharist to everything that I mentioned in the previous point. I mean, why on Earth would one want a section titled "Eucharist and Polygamy"? I mean, the Eucharist has NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO POLYGAMY WHATSOEVER.
The reason for this proposition being here is that the fathers of the Synod have just raised the subject of matrimony in the previous point and, having done that (more to show us the value of marriage than to tell us anything about the Eucharist), they then want to address a pastoral problem connected with matrimony.
You see, a polygamy is still a social reality in many parts of Africa, which is also rapidly becoming Catholic in many areas. As a result, the Church is having to tell a bunch of African guys, "Listen, we want you to become Catholic, too, but you’re going to have to give up a bunch of your wives, while also making equitable provision for them and for the children you’ve had by them."
This is an important and delicate subject, but it really doesn’t have a place in a document about the Eucharist because it doesn’t have a direct connection with the Eucharist. One can pick up any social problem one wants and relate it to the Eucharist in this fashion (e.g., "Eucharist and Abortion," "Eucharist and Gay Marriage," "Eucharist and Pornography," "Eucharist and Tax Evasion," "Eucharist and Copyright Violation").
And so we see, once again, this proposition in the document revealing more about the values of the authors (what they consider an important subject that needs to be addressed) than it reveals about the Eucharist.
Proposition 10 actually gets us back to talking about something that has to do with the Eucharist: Communion services celebrated on Sunday becaues there is no priest to say Mass.
The Holy See has recognized a need for these in many places but it also has been quite nervous about them, not wanting people to see them as a replacement equivalent to Mass or a way of promoting the laity who often lead them into a quasi-priestly status.
There is thus a general endorsement of them but a stress on the need to differentiate them from Mass in the imnds of the faithful and a mandate for bishops’ conferences to come up with norms regulating them in their own territory–including when Communion can be distributed at them (it is envisioned that some Sunday assemblies might just be celebrations of the Word).
There’s also something new here that is not obvious unless you’ve read the background documents: There’s a new language introduced for talking about these services. They’ve taken to calling them "Sunday assemblies awaiting a priest." This is meant as a replacement for descriptors like "Sunday assemblies without a priest."
The shift in language–borrowed from France if I recall correctly–is meant to underscore the fact that the norm we have to work toward is having a priest saying Sunday Mass and that we can’t treat a Sunday service without a priest as equivalent to Mass.
Hokay.
