Let’s take a little detour away from that dense, yet strangely nebulous cloud of Synodality that looms ahead and set our sights, for just a moment on the other current attempt to diagnose and fix Catholic spiritual ills: the Eucharistic Revival.
It’s not a complete break from Synodizing, of course. Both efforts claim to be centered on examining the miserable, ever-declining numbers and desultory spirit of North American and European Catholicism. What’s going on? Why are people drifting away or outright running? Why doesn’t anyone believe anything anymore? What should we do?
Who can we blame?
The American bishops’ current Eucharistic Revival will culminate in the summer of 2024 with a National Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis, cost at least $299 per adult attending for a five-day pass.
So there’s that.
This isn’t the first Eucharistic Congress, of course. International Eucharistic Congresses have been held regularly since the first in Lille, France in 1881. The last was in 2021 in Hungary, and the next will be in September 2024 in Quito, Ecuador.
The most well-known Eucharistic Congress in the United States was held in 1926 in Chicago, an event that is widely credited with raising the profile and, one might suggest, legitimacy of the Church in the United States. Tens of thousands participated, and if you want, you can even listen to recordings of the MIssa de Angelis from the Congress sung by, yes, a 30,000-strong children’s choir.
There were others, though, including the Third National Eucharistic Congress held in New York City in 1904.
The published proceedings, including introductory and invitational letters, sermons, the schedule, the music for the Masses and the conclusions can be found here.
(Other proceedings found on archive.org are those from the first national congress in the US, in 1895 – which features a talk by a Maronite priest, offering a survey of Eastern liturgies, ironic and even a little tragic considering the hostility most Latin prelates would have to the Eastern Catholic churches for many following decades.)
So, why was there a Eucharistic Congress held in 1904? Wasn’t everything great in those good old days?
Apparently not.
The stated reasons for the Congress might sound familiar: declining Mass attendance, concerns about Catholic engagement with the Church and its practices, the need to assist Catholics connect more deeply with Christ through the gift of the Eucharist so that they might be strengthened, not only on their journey of personal holiness, but to be leaven and light in a suffering world that needs Christ.
A good doorway to peak at what was going on and the dominant concerns might be the resolutions adopted by the bishops and other clergy at the Congress:
The Bishops and priests of these United States in the Third Eucharistic Congress, held in the Archiepiscopal City of New York, resolve:
1. That the pastors encourage the people not only to attend the Holy Mass on Sundays and holy-days, and to be on time, but to attend Mass on week days, by explaining to them the spiritual advantage thereof frequently.
2. Resolved, That the pastors keep their churches open as often and long as possible during the day and night, and encourage their people to come and visit our Blessed Lord daily in the Sacrament of His Love.
3. Resolved, That, according to the spirit of the Eucharistic League, frequent communions be recommended ; that even daily communions (one day in the week perhaps to be omitted) be permitted and encouraged in case of souls of marked piety ; that annual communicants be urged by confessors to be monthly communicants ; that monthly communicants be encouraged to receive more frequently.
4. Resolved, That the priests of the United States join the Eucharistic League, the duties of which, simple and efficacious, are most conducive to the true sacerdotal spirit. It will lead them to personal piety and most effective zeal for the salvation of souls.
5. Resolved, That to correct the apparent irreverence to, or at least the neglect of, the Blessed Sacrament which may be observed in some instances in our churches, the sense of the Eucharistic League is that, all devotions should be centered in the Real Presence, and that all priests are advised to reiterate their instructions to the people, that, however right and useful it may be and is to honor the images of Christ and His saints, as they relate to Him and to them, such honor should never be paid to them to the neglect of the worship due to God in the Sacrament of the Altar, where He is really present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
6. Resolved, That the clergy be faithful in giving frequent instructions on Eucharistic subjects, explanations of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of the ceremonies and vestments relating to it.
7. Resolved, That the pastors establish in their churches the Eucharistic League of the People, or other Eucharistic society approved by the Holy See, in order to bring the people to realize better the divine fact of the Real Presence of Our Lord in our churches.
8. Resolved, That the Congress recommend the practice of nocturnal adoration on the occasion of the Forty Hours’ devotion and on Holy Thursday night.
9. Whereas, It is unfortunately too true that many Catholics neglect to make due preparation for Holy Communion and proper thanksgiving after its reception. Resolved, That the Congress earnestly request all pastors to urge their people to carefully prepare themselves for the worthy reception of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.
There are many differences between 1904 and the present day, of course, but it’s illuminating to glance back and see, once again, so much that is strikingly familiar and to reflect on those differences, as well.
The volume includes a number of sermons and papers – all directed to clergy – on various topics, including “The Holy Eucharist in the Twentieth Century:”
The twentieth century, upon whose threshold we are standing, opens up before us with signs and features which plainly foretell that it will be an eventful one in the history of the race. As the heir of the past, it comes to us laden with seeming riches indeed, but whose value the future alone can reveal.
The material world as a whole is almost within its grasp, and in its confident and at times boastful assurance it flatters itself that Nature’s inmost secrets are presently to be disclosed to its eager vision. It is along that line of material triumph that it has planted its footsteps, has set its face, has marshalled its activities and hopes for its glories. With head erect and every sense alert, and the blood of its young life surging through its every vein and artery, like a young giant it is running to what it believes is cer- tain victory. Will it succeed ? Or will it fail ? No man can tell. But one thing he can tell and that is, that even if it does succeed it will not be happy.
Prescient.
Then this, on Mass attendance. It’s fascinating to me, to read these words acknowledging the difficulties people have in approaching the Church for Mass – and in general – and being willing to place some blame on clergy:
The observance of Sunday, the attendance at Mass on the Lord’s own day is the connecting link between the toilers of the workaday world and the Church which represents God on earth. And it is for us ministers of God’s Church to show the faithful whom we can reach all that the religion of Christ means for the solution of the great questions which vex the world to-day, and which loom up full of portent and of menace for the future of Christian civilization; to teach them to have no part in the un-Christian strife and ill-will between classes, the fraud, oppression and arrogance on the one side, the envy, misery and turbulence on the other ; to point out the true remedy for the ills of the world — at the foot of the cross whereon Christ died, at the altar whereon He continues to immolate Himself for all alike, rich and poor.
Since, then, so much depends on it, how can we bring about a more general observance of the Lord’s day, how can we bring men to worship before God’s altar Sunday after Sunday?
We may, perhaps, accomplish something towards this end if we do all in our power to attract people to the house of God, and nothing in the world that might repel them. Of course Catholics ought to know their duty and should all come to Mass, if possible, as a matter of conscience. But we know how much men are liable to be influenced by other and lower motives which come in to re-enforce the sense of duty. And these motives sometimes have much to do with the fulfilment or neglect of the Sunday duty. The material beauty of the house of God, good preaching and good singing, are attractions which bring people to church.
But above all, the personal character and work of the priest, his kindness to the poor, the sick and the bereaved ; his earnest, zealous, patient solicitation on the house-to-house visitation; his avoidance in his intercourse with the people and in his preaching and announcements of everything which might give just cause of fault-finding, of anything which might repel men from the house of God. Woe to us if, like the wicked sons of Heli, we draw the people from the Sacrifice of the Lord!
Both the Synod and Synodality and the Eucharistic Revival attempt to raise questions about evangelization, adherence, and attrition. Many reasons are raised, many solutions are offered. Much is said about the culture, about society, about the difficulties some have with Church teaching, about that “inclusion” and “welcome.”
I wonder how much of the rectory, chancery and dicastery dithering on these matters could be differently framed and more honestly confronted if anyone – anyone – was courageous enough to frame the matter and take responsibility in the way that that Father “R. Neagle” of Malden, Massachusetts does. He’s writing specifically about financial appeals here, but how interesting that this priest could offer such a bold critique to his fellow clergymen and challenge them to consider honestly how attuned they are, really, to the spiritual needs of those they serve:
What a pity if, when the good, self-sacrificing, faithful people come to the church once a week to lay their worldly cares and troubles before the altar of God, looking for solace and peace for one brief hour, after the long days of toil and weariness, of temptation and maybe sin and discouragement, what a pity, if, when they come for bread — the bread of life — we give them a stone!
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
By happy coincidence, the United States’ third national Eucharistic Congress was held in 1904, and only one year later (December 20, 1905) came Pope Pius X’s decree encouraging frequent Communion. But, today, why not go overboard and by consensus re-define the sacramental Mystical Body of Christ as simply congregational, with open-bar access to the Eucharist?
In step, we also notice that the singular and concrete fact of the Incarnation itself (Himself) was long-ago dismissed by another consensus, the consensus of SCIENTISM, precisely because this event cannot be replicated under the laboratory protocols: the “scientific method.” Which brings us to the Eucharistic Revival, and the concreteness of the Real Presence—alongside the protocols of SYNODISM featuring the self-replicating (!) novelties of Batzing, Martin & Co. But, mysteriously, not the solidity of Courage International.
Does what Pope Benedict had to say about the consensus of one-legged “dialogue” (as with Islam), also apply to Synods?
“I am urging people to realize that a war has indeed been declared on the West. I am not pushing for a rejection of dialogue, which we need more than ever with those Islamic countries that wish to live in peaceful coexistence with the West, to our mutual benefit. I AM ASKING FOR SOMETHING MORE FUNDAMENTAL: I AM ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO REALIZE THAT DIALOGUE WILL BE A WASTE OF TIME IF ONE OF THE TWO PARTIES TO THE DIALOGUE STATES BEFOREHAND THAT ONE IDEA IS AS GOOD AS THE OTHER” (“Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam,” 2006, CAPS added).
So, as with the leveling “pluralism” of parallel religions, likewise the leveling pluralism of parallel moralities? Instead, how might the Synod remain open to BOTH the gifting Holy Spirit and our already gifted and inborn Natural Law? That is, with philosophy and the non-demonstrable first principle of non-contradiction?
As if the coherence Faith & Reason actually matters? And, Eucharistic “coherence”?
One thing is for certain, a Mass that seems to more reflect the natural, i.e. the world, than the supernatural has ZERO appeal. If the Mass doesn’t edify, it can hardly be said to sanctify. There should be some semblance and comportment, some definite overlap. Everyone with the slightest inkling of spiritual common sense understands that perfectly. That said, in every age, just as soon as the clergy get some inkling that Mass attendance might be slipping or that those attending Mass are somehow “missing the point” (as in the Protestant Reformation), out come the programs, reforms, innovations, entertainment, etc. Yet, we clearly see in scripture that following Jesus was fundamentally a matter of the will of the individual. I own and operate a manufacturing business. I can tell you that from season to season, even month to month, sales surge and wane. It’s a naturally occurring reality in my 23 years owning and operating this business. How much more so for a church with a 2,000 year history, with a “product” (forgive me, Lord) that is other-worldly and whose real benefits are mostly deferred? It’s a hard sale in any age. That’s why the faith of those that remain are merited to them in grace. I think that the Church seems to suffer a “panic attack” whenever it goes through a low attendance ebb. Perhaps, the next time a “pandemic” comes to town, the Bishops in defiance of the Godless secular tyrants masquerading as our duly elected officials, can KEEP our Churches OPEN! Perhaps that will send a clear and unmistakable message to all Catholics that what goes on within the confines of our sanctuaries IS essential AND matters. During the plague of the Medieval Age, the church elicited the help of 14 special saints. It was clear this time around, that marijuana, alcohol, strip clubs and home improvement projects were the “saints” meant to console us. SMH I can’t help but think that the Covid missteps are really the reason behind the current attempt of the hierarchy to “revive” the Eucharist.
“We may, perhaps, accomplish something towards this end if we do all in our power to attract people to the house of God, and nothing in the world that might repel them. Of course Catholics ought to know their duty and should all come to Mass, if possible, as a matter of conscience. But we know how much men are liable to be influenced by other and lower motives which come in to re-enforce the sense of duty. And these motives sometimes have much to do with the fulfilment or neglect of the Sunday duty. The material beauty of the house of God, good preaching and good singing, are attractions which bring people to church. But above all, the personal character and work of the priest, his kindness to the poor, the sick and the bereaved…” Well, amen to that. I try to go to Mass weekly and observe days of obligation, but the complete aesthetic mess of virtually every mass in my urban area makes that hard. The music is horrible. The priest and a crowd of lay attendants muddle about the altar. It seems more like an elementary school assembly than Mass. Almost no one seems to care genuinely about what they are doing. The preaching is mediocre at best. And unfortunately it seems that too many of traditionalist priests are failing to display love, charity, and kindness. I have been repeatedly ripped for saying the above and insulted because I can’t seem to be transported with delight at the miracle that goes on at every mass and ignore everything else. But I truly believe that the state of Mass in the Church today must change if she wants people to return.
As usual, another modern mass gathering for anyone but the mass of Catholics who could never dream of attenting such a thing.
And generated in a profligate knee jerk huge spending spree of the USCCB in media blitz, posters, videos, handouts culminating in renting an incredibly expensive venue triggered by sensationalistic news coverage of a poorly understood reading of what earlier surveys actually said as for belief in the Real Presence, where the belief in such included all the former Catholics.
Where even that lumping is incorrect in latest surveys showing much higher belief rates, as truly someone who does not believe in the Real Presence is not Catholic at all, and a great misappropriation of the word to something only cultural and ethnic.