As a longtime reader of Catholic World Report, I was surprised to read the recent essay “Will there be a Eucharistic revival?”, by Fr. Robert McTeigue, S.J., published on November 4 on this site.
I believe strongly in media accountability for the Church and for ecclesial initiatives. The voice of the press in bringing transparency has been of immense importance to the Church and I believe the Eucharistic Revival and Congress specifically have benefited tremendously from the ongoing dialogue about this work and how it could be best accomplished.
Typically, as those involved in this work, we prefer not to respond to the ongoing debate around a Eucharistic Revival as we see it batted back and forth across the Internet. I think, candidly, the debate is healthy—it sharpens all of us—and would prefer to see it continue as we wrestle collectively as a Church with how to best respond to this clarion call to renew the Eucharistic life of our parishes. It is a big Church that the bishops are trying to collectively mobilize toward a common vision, and I am not surprised that criticism comes from all sides.
The tone of this particular article is what I found particularly concerning. Personal criticisms of the organizers and phrasing like “sins of omission” aside, I found Fr. McTeigue’s line of argumentation so confusing and ill-informed that it seemed prudent, and even just, to respond.
Father’s line of argumentation seems to be that the upcoming 10th National Eucharistic Congress and the Eucharistic Revival more broadly do not focus enough on the importance of the Sacrament of Confession and are not clear enough in their call to the renewal of the liturgy. I would like to respond to both and then provide a note on methodology for large ecclesial initiatives.
I’d first like to respond to the accusation of a lack of emphasis placed on the Sacrament of Confession in the Eucharistic Revival. It sounds like most of the factual basis for Father McTeigue’s article and understanding was a “CTRL-F” performed on the Eucharistic Congress website. However, if he had done more of a full analysis of the various resources on the website, or asked for a comment from the Congress staff, he may have found more to his liking.
As articulated in the second introductory video for the Parish Year, the Executive Team for the Eucharistic Revival is encouraging monthly Encounter Nights of Adoration with Confession during the Parish Year. These videos were intentionally short, to be shareable on social media or in a Flocknote by a parish, but the Leader’s Playbook, which is the main source of truth for helping parish leaders to understand the vision for the Parish Year of the Eucharistic Revival, goes into more detail under the “Reinvigorate Worship” pillar on encouraging offering confessions before Sunday Mass.
On the “big event” side, the 10th National Eucharistic Congress will have confessions offered almost the entire time. In fact, in addition to the dozens of other priests who will be making themselves available, the Missionaries of Mercy are attending for the duration, specifically to hear as many confessions as are needed. Furthermore, the plan is for evening programming in Lucas Oil Stadium to include opportunities for confession for those who want to avail themselves of this sacrament of healing, and emcees will be encouraging those opportunities throughout.
With respect to the renewal of liturgy during the Eucharistic Revival, again I would encourage Father to read the Leader’s Playbook on the topic. There, the Executive Team of the Revival calls for “fidelity to the texts and rubrics of the Church,” a phraseology that Father would likely find positive. Broadly, there is a reason that the Reinvigorate Worship pillar is articulated first—a deeper reflection on how the liturgy is celebrated, and in how it is participated, is the crux of the Eucharistic Revival. It is the Mass that the Second Vatican Council calls the “source and summit of the Christian life,” and how we approach this occasion of grace both in how we speak the mystery in the manner in which it is celebrated, and how we ourselves encounter it in the pews is at the heart of the Eucharistic Revival. At the Congress, in each day’s major liturgies, we will seek to model what that can and should look like for the whole Church.
Allow me to dig a little deeper to provide a broader reflection on methodology on large ecclesial initiatives. I have worked in two parishes, taught at a Catholic high school, run two apostolates, led strategy for a major archdiocese, consulted for many Catholic organizations, and, in those roles, have seen dozens of big Church projects come and go. If there is one thing I have learned in my time in ministry in those contexts, it is this: large ecclesial initiatives that are about checking the boxes don’t work.
Parish priests simply don’t want to be told the “Seven Things You Have Do to Bring About a Eucharistic Revival.” Typically, in my experience, this is because of the seriousness they take in their leadership roles as pastors of their parishes. Almost all parish priests want their parishioners to have a deeper relationship with Jesus in the Eucharist; it is why they became priests. They spent enough years in seminary learning and being formed in what that means that they don’t need to be given a checklist.
No one knows their own parish better than those entrusted to lead it and no one is more well-suited to discern what would best be done. Those closest to the ground know the weaknesses, deficiencies, strengths, opportunities. Anyone who has worked in a diocesan office or on a national initiative knows that the best ways to make parish leadership tune out would be to try to prescribe for them exactly what they have to do. What I find beautiful about this vision of a three-year time of Eucharistic Revival is instead its focus on providing a common mission and rallying cry to all aspects of the Church. Instead of a checklist, to have the bishops provide just enough clarity to empower, and not stultify, local evangelistic creativity is a much healthier, and more effective, approach, in my view.
This is one reason why apostolate partners have been so vital to this effort and why major ones like the Augustine Institute, Our Sunday Visitor, Relevant Radio, the Knights of Columbus, EWTN, Word on Fire, FOCUS, Catholic universities and more have found something worthwhile in this initiative to support. Instead of a top-down work of the hierarchy, the vision of the Eucharistic Revival has provided space for each to bring their own gifts, perspectives, and methodologies to this work. Perhaps it is worth wondering what they are seeing. Are they inspired by the bishops choosing to work in college, and with lay apostolates, on a nationwide work of evangelization? Do they see the same need? Have they themselves encountered too many Catholics who do not know the gift of Jesus in the Eucharist? Or, perhaps, even, have they discerned in the Eucharistic Revival more than mere human enterprise but something God is doing in His Church today? These partners have been critical in actually reaching the grassroots level of the Church and almost 5,000 parish point people have been mobilized as a result of their efforts.
Here is the thing that I am perhaps uniquely privileged in my role to get to see: this way of operating is actually working. While, a year and a half into the Eucharistic Revival, some choose to continue to just criticize, others have gotten to work. It is early spring, but the buds of renewal are starting to be seen in parishes and dioceses across the country. I had a day recently that I called “Perpetual Adoration Chapel Day”—during calls with benefactors, sponsors, and diocesan leaders, I heard about eight separate perpetual adoration chapel efforts that had been birthed as a result of the Eucharistic Revival. Parishes are responding in a host of other ways: missionary efforts, tabernacles brought back to the center of parishes, thousands of small group initiatives, beautification efforts, lecture series, dozens of parish-based events, and more. Four thousand Catholics processed with Jesus in the Eucharist through Manhattan just a month ago, in prayerful witness to where our hope comes from.
I understand the hurt and frustration found in many parts of the Church today. I’d be lying if I tried to tell you I have not been there many times myself. But for lay people, apostolates, clergy, prelates—everyone—to say, together, “In a time of craziness in the world, we are going to hold up Jesus in the Eucharist as the solution and invite everyone to a relationship with Him,” feels authentic and sincere to me. If we are to respond to such a vision with cynicism, or to condemn it outright, perhaps we have to ask ourselves if we have lost the plot.
A healthy and even vigorous debate on how to go about a Eucharistic Revival seems to me among the more worthwhile topics of conversation during these three years. The idea, though, that the bishops were somehow wrong for inviting the Church to this moment seems misguided to me. Many Catholics I talk to express a desire for the bishops to be spiritual guides and leaders. If they are responding by calling for a renewal of the Eucharistic heart of the Church, then, how are we not going to support them in that?
It is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize. It is harder to try to do something that makes a difference. To adapt a quote from C.S. Lewis, to try is to become vulnerable. To work in the midst of often challenging circumstances to create the kind of incremental change in the Church that will help more Catholics to discover a life-giving relationship with Jesus in the Eucharist is not an easy task. It is a vulnerable one, requiring courage and boldness. In choosing that path, I am proud of the bishops, the Eucharistic Revival’s Executive Team and of the National Eucharistic Congress staff.
Most especially, as I consider all of this, my heart goes out in particular to parish priests. These men choose, in the midst of bloggers telling them to be cynical and not to participate in another “marketing gimmick,” to pick up their staff and lead their flocks “further up and further in” toward the banquet where life itself is found. As they face pressure and chances for discouragement from all sides, as well as the near constant reminder that doing anything will make someone upset, we should pray for our parish priests, who are the real champions of Eucharistic Revival nationally. For them, I think of Teddy Roosevelt’s famous “man in the arena” quote.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
With respect to the conversation and criticism surrounding the Eucharistic Revival since it was announced in June 2021, I can say honestly, as I said above, that as a leader in this work, I have found tremendous value therein to inform and sharpen the effort. In the level of vitriol this initiative has aroused at times, and in the nastiness and division that has grown around it, however, as I pray about it, I must say that rather than show the unimportance of the work, it instead serves to highlight for me how desperately our Church is in need of something like a Eucharistic Revival. It seems an initiative to “heal, form, convert, unify, and send” the Church through a “rekindled relationship with Jesus in the Eucharist” is, to put it plainly, timely.
In that regard, if a Eucharistic Revival is what the Church needs, let it start in me. I’d like to begin by sweeping my own side of the room, looking at my own heart, and asking: “How have I let the Eucharist transform my own life? Have I let Jesus in the Eucharist, and in the sacrament of Confession as a time of preparation for that encounter, wipe out sin from my own life? In that encounter, have I handed over my own hurts, frustrations, difficulties, and anxieties to the heart that can transform my own? The kind of self-gift modeled by Jesus in the Eucharist, is that how I am living for my family and for the mission of the Church? Have I let my own life be broken open, like Jesus, for the life of the world?”
Until I have fully done those things, you’ll find me trying to work on that. Perhaps that is what we can all commit to, instead of spending our time criticizing others on the Internet.
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.
Since the Eucharistic Revival is a three year event, perhaps Father’s criticism is an opportunity for the lay marketers (presumably paid professionals?) of the Revival to better communicate the message that Confession will be readily available at the Congress and that being in the state of grace is necessary for worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist, Anytime during a Revival year or non Revival year.
I cannot speak for Father but perhaps if that message was clearly being communicated, Father would have not seen a reason to offer constructive criticism in the 1st place? That the criticism is “on the Internet”, as is the response is irrelevant. Being personally blessed for over ten years of having the weekly opportunity in a local parish to attend a Holy Hour in His Presence while 2 priests are hearing confessions – promotion of a Revival does not require expensive promotional marketing campaigns from marketing firms. If the laity know confession is readily available and that we all need to avail ourselves of the Sacrament, sinners will go to confession. For that to happen, Bishops and priests have to preach on confession and then be available to hear them.
Wasn’t that the point of Father’s article?
Regretfully..
This kind of “nonsense” that you are rightly pointing out is occurring on Catholic culture …Catholic world report…etc as, I believe there is pushback from the F1 regime trying to turn our faith into a social club for lmnop+ chattle ….
So, no $$$ to support their “campaigns”
Fr j, shamefully said, non-sense….do a prayerful examination of the 8th Commandment…and please de-garment the ‘infallibility’….blessings
Just connecting the dots . . . it sure seems to me that any effort to revive the Eucharist necessarily follows from the mandates by rather questionable “shepherds”, following the admonitions of Godless secular leaders, to close our churches during Covid . . . while allowing pot outlets, liquor stores, Home Depot and Walmart to remain open. Any real revival must follow a public plea for forgiveness signed and read aloud, in unison, by every member of the USCCB. To that end, a promise NEVER to shut us out of our churches and deprive us of the sacraments again is also completely reasonable. I’ll bet under those conditions, any hope for a real revival will be magnified.
I quite agree. The closed churches during the lockdowns showed a gross lack of moral leadership, which should not be swept under the rug. The cascade effect of couch potato Christians has reached critical mass, and we are now seeking to rectify the situation by throwing a huge party. To solve this problem by referring to a page from the tattered play book is predictable. I would like to see the metrics on where this will lead ten years out, if anyone is keeping track.
One thing that the Church does very well, however, is keep records. Every lapsed Catholic over the past 50 years should be tracked down and contacted – emails, snail mail, door knocks, telephone, telegrams, smoke signal, whatever – and personally invited back to their Church, their home. Impress upon them the true meaning and importance of the actual presence of the Eucharist which resides in every tabernacle of every Church. Once they are actually in the pews, the Holy Spirit can do the rest. I believe that this approach would be enormously effective, albeit not quite as glamorous.
TF
In my experience, daily mass implants in us an increasing desire to receive Our Lords Precious Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. It is something we cannot live without. We are blessed with a priest, who is old and ill, but never quits and who celebrates in a way that we know the bread and wine has become Our Lord and Savior, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. I have no doubt that this Eucharistic Revival will be successful.
There’s a phrase by Fr. Toups that is very true : When the Shepherd is on fire, the sheep feel the heat.
From my vantage point, it is the priests and bishops that must first have a Eucharistic Revival.
AMEN❤️
Whether there are reasons to believe that there may be small results in our efforts, having labored in the missions taught that it’s the effort that matters. First to please God. Then to disseminate what has the potential to become alive.
The faithful, now realistically the weak of faith, and the apostate need to hear, at least as a reminder where we should be regarding the Holy Eucharist. Personally I agree with Fr McTeigue, because of the dearth of faith that darkens the intellect. Our example in this is Christ, when rejected by the majority, abandoned by his closest friends, continued knowing in his heart that his efforts, the contradiction of the cross would have great effect. Glemkowski’s efforts, the difficulties he will suffer are assured its success because of who we serve.
Yes, yes, yes!
And, yet, what would small-scale St. John Vianney say about the USCCB’s starting premise of delegated management and a “methodology for [this] large ecclesial initiative”? And, then the inevitable terminology: “mobilization, projects, creativity, empower, banquet [only?], contexts, CEO and playbook”…
What’s the radical and lasting difference between this Revival and the 18th and 19th-century “Great Awakenings” of the Protestant sects? As yours truly humbly proposed in response to the Tiegue article…Cut to the chase:
“WHAT’S STOPPING BISHOPS AND HOMILISTS around the country from simply proclaimed directly for five minutes [not in three years], that each Mass is both a banquet AND the ‘continuation and extension [!]’ in an unbloody manner, of the once-only [!!!] self-donation of the Incarnate Jesus Christ on Calvary? . . . In the same way that the whole Jesus Christ–“body, blood, AND soul and divinity [!]”—is found in each numerically distinct host?”
What is needed is a cultural and personal brain transplant that once again recognizes (!) the sacral nature of all of creation (a Creator?), and therefore of the personal interior life (what’s that?), and the whole sacramental life (yes, penitential confession)—all centered on the concrete fact (!) of the singular Real Presence.
My comment on the Teigue article (the 11th in the thread) includes and recommends, as an addition to the “playbook,” broad distribution now of St. John Paul II’s “Prayer Before Mass.”
The Banquet is the Reality, Presence, Prolongation of the Sacrificial-Bridegroom’s Feasting on the Father’s Saving, Redeeming, and Sanctifying Will and our enjoying this as His Bridal-Members in Sacramental and Holy Communion now, and hopefully, blessedly in the Life to Come by Feasting, even now, daily, on the Banquet of Our Daily Holy Body and Blood eating and drinking the Father’s Will as ‘the Food and Drink’, then, Eternally!
If priests were to preach on the sanctity of the Eucharist, they might wind up mentioning that you canot receive if you are in a state (or lifestyle) of mortal sin.
If they were to mention that, to be effective, they might need to discuss what some common mortal sins in our society are.
If they were to do that, many poorly catechized laity who’ve been doing one or more of those things for years or decades would be offended. And might contact the bishop to get the priest removed for his lack of charity. Or, better yet, poor administration.
In order for this to work, either an awful lot of priests, many selected in seminary for docility and obedience, will have to risk making people mad and getting their bishop annoyed or angry, or bishop are going to have to back priests up instead of appeasing catholics who are poorly catechized or knowing heretics by punishing the priest.
The option to simply talk about love for God’s gift of Himself in the Eucharist no longer exists. Priests can either be superficial and ineffective or they can risk and sacrifice themselves to provide what is actually needed.
Agree. Give parishioners the Truths of Christ, whether feelings are hurt or not. From the ambow discuss mortal sin and how the wages of sin are death, eternity in hell. Let fallen away parishioners know that missing one Sunday Mass without a valid reason is a grave sin. The eternal destination of souls are in jeopardy, please, no more “feel good” homilies. Give Catholics what they NEED to hear, not what they WANT to hear!
Hmm. Fr. McTeigue didn’t say organizers weren’t working hard. He said talking about the Eucharist won’t work. We need to change how we treat and approach the Eucharist in general.
I would appreciate the author’s explanation as to why I never received even the courtesy of a response — twice — to my communication with the episcopal chairman of the project in which I shared my CWR article, “Gutting the Mystery Out of the Mystery.” My only conclusion was that I identified issues that the ecclesiastical bureaucracy is afraid to touch — the third rail, as it were!
He should have given you a response—even out of courtesy and to let you know he heard you…..
Father Stravinskas – I just re-read your article, “Gutting the Mystery…” and agree with all your comments on signs and symbols. I have written on this issue of signs and symbols previously in the comments section on CWR so I will not repeat them.
I don’t believe that TG’s comment on confession being available at the grand finale in Indianapolis Addresses Father Mcteigue’s point which I believe had to do with an emphasis on confession at the parish level.
I have to look up your article..
Dear Father, If a sincere “Eucharistic Revival” Is to occur then those who seem to rule over our liturgies might consider the massive decline of the Faith post 1970 after the implementation of the Novus Ordo and all its unregulated variations. (95% drop in EVERY religious order.) No one wants to consider that maybe the liturgical changes we implemented post Vat II may have caused a lack of the sense of the sacred at Mass. (We can’t have that thought process moving around!) So how sincere are our bishops??? In Europe the only expansion of Christianity is at the Traditional EF Mass communities and Religious Orders which are being systematically shut down by the bishops. And that’s a fact! So how sincere are we about the Eucharist??? We are talking about the representation of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the worship of the Trinity, yet we won’t reconsider the Mass of St Gregory the Great and beyond. Go figure.. Without any liturgical reform their efforts will be insincere and weak at best.
Merely going back to using the beautiful high altars and saying Mass “Ad Orientem” would cause an epic change in the perception of the Mass as well as 1)dumping the “Ordinary-Extraordinary” lay Eucharistic ministers, 2) giving the Eucharist in the hand as Luther and Calvin implemented to DECREASE the belief in transubstantiation. As the now sidelined Cardinal Robert Sarah has said: “You may have read my article of June 2015 in L’Osservatore Romano, and my recent interview in May this year, with the French journal Famille Chrétienne.
“On both occasions, I stated that I believe it is very important that we return as soon as possible to ad orientem worship; priests and congregation facing same direction, eastwards, or at least towards the apse, towards the Lord who comes, at those points when we address God in the liturgical rite.”
Ad orientem worship involves the priest and congregation facing the same direction, the liturgical “east,” rather than priest and congregation facing each other (versus populum) during Mass. The east has significance as the place where the sun rises, symbolizing the resurrection of Christ and his second coming.
Advocates say it better focuses the priest and congregation on worshipping God together, rather than creating an inward-looking community feel. They also cite the antiquity of the practice, which goes back to the first centuries of the Church and is still practiced in traditional Catholic parishes and religious orders.
The cardinal continued: “This practice is permitted by current liturgical legislation. It is perfectly legitimate. Indeed, I think that it is a very important step, to make sure God is truly at the center of our celebration.
“And so, dear fathers, I ask you to implement this practice whenever possible, with prudence and the necessary catechesis and pastoral competence, knowing that this is something good for the Church and the people of God.”
Unfortunately, the post VII liturgical reform has been dogmatized and is quite untouchable, a position not uncommonly taken by writers and commenters here at CWR. Interesting, since no liturgical reform would have been possible if things in the early ’60’s had been as they are now – we would have been required to regard the liturgy as it stood then as beyond perfect, as a gift straight from Heaven, etc. etc. It’s particularly trying to make any points about the current rite of Mass with certain types of “conservatives,” who seem to feel that they must defend absolutely ANY of the disastrous VII reforms, no matter how inane or unproductive, simply because they have been mandated by Church authorities. Thus, since Paul VI promulgated the new rite of the Mass, case closed, we believe, it’s good, it’s good it’s good.
Tim,
Criticism of criticism and criticizing is still criticism. I actually think this interchange is the dialogue that God wills at this moment. I appreciate your criticism of lists of action items to initiate a true Eucharistic revival. I think that priests and bishops rarely to never receive such things. The laity have a canonical duty to seek clarification in the sight of confusion.
So let’s get to some more uncomfortable dialogue that Fr. McTeigue initiated:
What is the Eucharistic Congress doing to promote the Lex Orandi of your average Catholic parish? Will the TLM be offered at the Congress for the masses to see?
Lastly, if you have been placed in a position of leadership in the church, should you not be prepared for and welcoming of criticism and admonition?
If our shepherds and leaders want belief in the most blessed of all Sacraments to be revived, they ought to listen to those who hold fast to the Faith of our Fathers.
I will pray that your efforts bear much fruit and you listen to those who desire what you desire: a return to true devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.
Ave Maria!!
“No one knows their own parish better than those entrusted to lead it and no one is more well-suited to discern what would best be done. Those closest to the ground know the weaknesses, deficiencies, strengths, opportunities. Anyone who has worked in a diocesan office or on a national initiative knows that the best ways to make parish leadership tune out would be to try to prescribe for them exactly what they have to do.“
Well the former Pastor at one of the parishes where I live would perform marriages for the divorced who had not gotten an anullment. I guess he had discerned that that was best, while the priest who replaced him at every Mass states if you are divorced and remarried without an anullment you cannot received Holy Communion. Half the parish left when the new priest came because half had irregular marriages and were shocked to learn this was a sin. You don’t know how bad it is out there!
We need confession at all masses not just during special occasions.
Aren’t the authors of both these pieces simply dancing around the fact that in many people’s minds the “Eucharistic Revival” could best be achieved by simply returning to the traditional practice of Communion being received on the tongue, kneeling at the rail, and being distributed only by priests? That, together with things like more frequent Confession and regular Adoration, is what most of us want to come out of this whole business, and it seems that basic message is not being spelled out because it’s a hot-button topic and people are trying hard to be diplomatic.
The Eucharist has no meaning when considered apart from Sacramental Confession. Holy Thursday has no meaning apart from Good Friday and the Resurrection.
As for the Eucharistic Congress and its creditable attempt to restore belief in the Real Presence, we will know its success when we see just as many people lining up for Sacramental Confession as we see lining up to receive the Eucharist. Promises, programs, congresses, synods, meetings, talks, etc. mean little if there’s no metanoia and change in praxis.
It strikes me that this is one of those rare initiatives that has an actual metric. One of the motivations for this effort, as I understand it, is the low percentage of Catholics who believe in the real presence. If the effort is doing the right things, that percentage should be going up. If it is going up, that is a sufficient defense of the project. If it is not going up, that is sufficient criticism of its current activities. So, is the current effort moving the needle, or isn’t it? Effort is laudable, but effort without measurement is wasteful. If the needle is moving in the right direction, keep doing what you are doing. If it’s not, stop doing that and try something else.
Great response! No good deed goes unpunished there will always be naysayers. It was very obvious on the blog and video series that frequent confession is encouraged.
Wonderful! send the particulars to Father MeTeigue and he will print and put them on air!
“can contact me at the Station of the Cross Media Network [https://thestationofthecross.com/ask-father/]. I’ll gladly present their explanation in print and on air”
Ashely, only encouragement that leads to changed behavior means anything. Without change, all we have are words.
Having just looked through the titles of the blog posts for the last year, and a few articles that looked penitential, nothing I saw mentioned Confession, or even how to do an examination of conscience. Perhaps a link for those of us who are bad at looking for things?
Although, one would think that obvious things would be at least findable, even for that sort.
https://www.eucharisticrevival.org/blog
Right from the start there is dilemma:
“sounds like most of the factual basis for Father McTeigue’s article and understanding was a “CTRL-F” performed on the Eucharistic Congress website. However, if he had done more of a full analysis of the various resources on the website, or asked for a comment from the Congress staff, he may have found more to his liking”.
Really, the fundamental premise for the article is that:
1. “CTRL-F should not find the information sought – it ought be everywhere;
2. That the information should not be in the substance of the website;
3. that the substance should for the greatest part be found in web links or staff conversations.
Just put it in the overall upfront. Blessings.
I would like to know how many parish priests the author thinks has scoured the Eucharistic revival website to find mentions of Confession in a few videos and a single sentence in the “Playbook” suggesting offering Confession before Mass. Not that there was any discussion of WHY. Or HOW.
My FFSP parish always offers Confession before every Mass, Sunday and weekday, in addition to regularly scheduled hours. We can do this because we have more than one priest. Perhaps this is unknown to the Eucharistic Revival Committee, but priests are supposed to pray before Mass, to prepare themselves to celebrate the Eucharist well. If they are good and conscientous priests, they will not want to rush this, and will probably also want to pray with the alter servers so they are also prepared. Very few parishes have multiple priests, and I expect even fewer have priests who can routinely bilocate.
There are a handful of things that only priests can do. They are called Mass, Confession, and Last Rites. How about suggesting that priests replace some of the things in their busy schedules that are not Sacraments, with Sacraments? Or better, some could rearrange their offices so that a person could show up whenever the priest is there and Confess without losing anonymity.
One bad, buried suggestion and a few mentions of Confession really aren’t sufficient answer to Fr. McTeigue’s criticisms. Taking the criticism and mending your revival efforts would be.
Yes, yes, yes!!!
The Eucharistic Fruit of the Mother of the Priest Womb’s IS the Eucharistic-Bridal-Paschal Lamb of Sacrifice! Until we have a revival in our soul’s love for the reality of Why He came, Passioned Death, Resurrected, Ascended, and with the Father Sent the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit will never be able to revive us with His Breath, renewing the Face of the Eucharist Bride!
He is the Eucharist born of the Ever-Virgin so to be the Sacrifice for our sins….until we rejoice to take them to Him in His Eucharistic Mercy we will never have a revival in the Bridal-Member or Body… the Eucharist Triune Lamb, Jesus, Christ, wants our gift to Him to be our sins, until we love and delight in this Confession of love that is a solace and solicitude for Him, there is no renewal or revival – we will not become ever-virgin, that is white, spotless, without blemish, like and then as the Bridal-Eucharistic-Sacrifice! Why do we eat and drink Him, except being ‘freed of sin to go from one grace to another until we are Christ at the RightHand of the Father with the Glory of the stature and maturity of His Viriginal Holiness, His Virginal Sinlessness’!
Jesus told Saint Jerome when Jerome had been begging him for some time, ‘Jesus, what do you want for Christmas’…when Jerome was finally but begged out the Beloved Eucharist-Lamb Sacrifice (Bethlehem) said, ‘Jerome, give Me your sins! This is why I came into the world’.
Punto. Basta. Tutto!
Eucharistic Renewal, Revival!??????????!
Yes, yes, yes!!!
The Eucharistic Fruit of the Mother of the Priest Womb’s IS the Eucharistic-Bridal-Paschal Lamb of Sacrifice! Until we have a revival in our soul’s love for the reality of Why He came, Passioned Death, Resurrected, Ascended, and with the Father Sent the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit will never be able to revive us with His Breath, renewing the Face of the Eucharist Bride!
He is the Eucharist born of the Ever-Virgin so to be the Sacrifice for our sins, the Beloved….until we rejoice to take them to Him in His Eucharistic-Confessional Mercy we will never have a revival in the Bridal-Member or Body… the Eucharist Triune Lamb, Jesus Christ, wants our gift to Him to be our sins, until we love and delight in this Confession of love that is a solace and solicitude for Him, there is no renewal or revival – we will not become ever-virgin, that ‘is white, spotless, without blemish’, like and then as the Bridal-Eucharistic-Sacrifice! Why do we eat and drink Him, except being ‘freed of sin to go from one grace to another until we are Christ at the RightHand of the Father with the Glory of the stature and maturity of His Virginal Holiness, His Virginal Sinlessness’!
Jesus told Saint Jerome when Jerome had been begging him for some time, ‘Jesus, what do you want for Christmas’…when Jerome was finally but begged out the Beloved Eucharist-Lamb Sacrifice (Bethlehem) said, ‘Jerome, give Me your sins! This is why I came into the world’.
Punto. Basta. Tutto! Revival.
Nothing different has happened in my parish to encourage recognition of the Eucharist, except one procession around the block where the church is located. Adoration hours are limited to two hours once a week and no effort has been made to expand them. Confession is a very limited, short time period, sometimes only half an hour at a session. I understand that fewer people go to confession now. The flip side is that those who do, know a half an hour is a very short time, and feel a need to rush as they know there are people behind them. It does not allow for a prayerful experience at all. Nor do I EVER hear our priests remind the congregation that “confessions are available after Mass”, or whatever. It is listed in the bulletin and our clergy seem to feel that is sufficient. I do not find there is ANY effort to make it clear to the congregation what constitutes being in a proper state to receive communion might be. You may assume that Catholics would know. But many are badly educated in this area and the information bears repeating.Some encouragement would be nice. If necessary, keep them for 3 minutes after Mass to say something, even if it means they have to wait a few moments to rush off to sports play.
I applaud and endorse every effort that is being made in the National Eucharistic Revival. The above article and comments are all good and necessary to lead us to a place where we even THINK and CONSIDER WHO and what it is that we receive in Holy Communion. But, more than that, it is absolutely necessary for each and every priest in each and every parish in this country to speak convincingly, lovingly and OFTEN on this Holy Mystery. When people are not told what their faith teaches and what holy Mother Church believes, they do not understand nor do they believe. When ‘Eucharistic Adoration is on Tuesday for one hour’ is stated in the same tone and breath as “Bingo on Monday nights’ and “Boy Scouts outside today for their annual fundraiser’, then we are not hard-pressed to understand why they are not eager to rearrange their schedules to come and adore Him, who waits patiently for the people He lived and died for. Our Catholics are lost sheep looking and not finding teaching, courageous shepherds. Yes, there are some, and may God bless them richly, but, by and large, our Sunday homilies are rich in sameness and lack even a modicum of Eucharistic fervor.
Brain: The command center of our existence, where thoughts and emotions find their persistence. Neuron: Nature’s information highway, these intricate cells pave the way, transmitting signals without delay.
A little history. (And I say this as one who has already reserved a room in Indianapolis and think the effort described is absolutely worthwhile.) Back when the bishops weren’t too bashful to allow fuller television coverage of their meetings, the Eucharistic Congress proposal was used by some, not all or even the majority of its supporters, as a way to divert attention from the rather strong disagreement about what to do about Catholic politicians who aid and abet the murder of pre-born children. Then Bishop, now absurdly Cardinal, Robert McElroy, even asserted that abortion wasn’t really very important to the Church (you can see why television coverage of the debates has been greatly scaled back). Strong advocates for discipling the likes of Biden and Pelosi pushed back, there was no agreement in sight, and they settled on something they could all actually agree on, the Eucharistic Congress and revival. Its a good enterprise in itself, which I have no doubt the Holy Spirit backs 100%, but the motives of some at its origin were in some cases cowardly, in other cases a vile method of avoiding, i.e. protecting, the likes of, well, Biden and Pelosi. So there is some lingering suspicion on the part of some which is unfair to the overall effort and gets in the way of the good that God can bring out of even impure or divided motives among His fallen servants.
The lingering suspicion will remain, for those bishops who continue to ignore the obligation of a Eucharistic minister to deny a person in manifest grave sin. Even if they talk up the Eucharistic revival, they are knowingly turning a blind eye to Eucharistic sacrilage.
Certainly the organizers are not the same people. But the same principle applies, and the same temptation applies. Enthusiasm without discipline will result in a revival that dies shortly after birth, rather than changing hearts and giving life to souls, and leaves us with a might-have-been. I don’t want that.
The Eucharistic revival is being used by some to bring into our belief of transignification and transfinalization.. Bishop Barron is pushing adopting those words in his new book The Eucharist – which is being circulated in parishes and seminars throughout the country.. God be with us.
Are these terms not condemned as heretical?
Do you have an actual quote from the book where Bp. Barton advocates the use of these terms?
Yes read chapter 3 he also quotes teilhard and Rahner, as Great church father’s; and he quotes N.T.Wright throughout his book.. A protestant. I am surprised at father Peter for backing this insidious book of gradualism.
Yes read chapter 3, Barron quotes Teilhard, Rahner, and N.T.Wright a protestant throughout his book.. He uses those words many times in chapter 3, Why quote a protestant in a book if Catholic revival?
Bishop Barron has not said that in his book. Kindly read what he wrote before accusing him of heterodoxy. He says transubstantiation goes BEYOND the other two. In other words, those two explanations are inadequate and are completed by the Catholic teaching.
I wish that was true, but I don’t read it that way, Barron quotes N.T Wright over a dozen times(a protestant) along with Teilhard and Rahner.
Quoting someone doesn’t endorse everything that person has said or written. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all wrote favorably on the Trinity. Does that mean we shouldn’t believe that doctrine because they endorsed it?
I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know how Bishop Barron handled this and I’m not qualified to criticize it.
But if you quote someone, many readers follow up in order to discover new authors to read. While it would be fairly obvious that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, as Protestant leaders, are not recommended for casual Catholic consumption, it’s a bit less obvious when the quoted person happens to call themselves Catholic, as Teillard and Rahner do. In such cases, especially in books written for the general lay reader, at least a caveat should be included for the sake of prudence. If the author would rather avoid putting a finger on the sore of heterodox/questionable theologians by identifying them as such (perfectly reasonable), he shouldn’t include them.
Feast of Dedication of the Lateran Papal Arch Basilica of St.John The Baptist and St.John the Evangelist on this 11/9 …- like a reversal of 9/11 , in its significance too, in the efforts for the renewal ..
The True temple -as The Church, The Bride…The New heavenly Jerusalem- The Mother as Bride of The Spirit and we as children … our times that need more clarity and caution in attitudes that could bring even a bit of leaven into the identity and role in the ‘bridal ‘ theme , that even St.Paul could have meant the local church, not its members as The Bride ..
Such a truth more important in our times of instant communication , where in persons of other cultures and faith backgrounds also might be taking in the themes to an extent atleast , to serve as antidote to any ‘new age’ leaven related to depiction of pagan gods who take on transgeneder confusion as means of seduction ..
The ‘lie’ – the spirit of the antichrist , that doing away with effects of sinful choices are going to be easy … or rather demanding / insisting even if only in a hidden manner from the hardness of hearts that is unaware of the extent of that hardness – that returning to the House of The Father has to be as fast and quick and easy as it was to leave the house and the seeming ease with which the father seemed to have handed over the inheritance …not having discerned the efforts the father was making to have a true loving relationship, which was ignored for vainglorious / carnal relationships ..and after returning ‘home’, resuming the same old habits of not wanting to take the patient , painful slow steps to build up what was thrown away , to build up the trust with the father , the older brother, family , neighbors ..
‘Jesus , I trust in You ‘ – the needed prayer given for our times, to be given the mercy to persevere , to take in more deeply with greater love and gratitude the extent of the sorrow and suffering that sin brings to The Lord , ourselves and others , even generations, to thus make efforts requite that love with His Love …
to see sin as a massive reversal of the power and grace given at the words of Consecration and Absolution done in Persona Christi , in His Holy Divine Will …
sin, instead as the massive jets that crash down the dead stones of rebellion in self will, like that of the Twin Towers ..to be rebuilt in patience into the Living Stone of Light and Love and holiness in The Divine Will … to help restore in us and the creation, the ‘original splendor ‘, blessed with trust and patience, to persevere … FIAT !
My personal feeling about the Eucharistic Revival is that most people in the pews are not even aware that it is happening. The bishops have chosen a noble and worthy goal, but are going about it the wrong way. One huge expensive shebang in Washington, that a handful of Catholics attend (relatively speaking), will never change the minds and hearts of most Catholics. We will pat ourselves on the back, return home and find things exactly as they were before. There will never be Eucharistic Revival until we all start acting like it is really and truly Jesus Christ , God Himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity whom we are receiving- in our own parishes. That means kneeling, receiving on the tongue, and not rushing out of mass as quickly as we possibly can, but spending time in adoration and thanksgiving after Mass. Our bodies show what we believe, not out of pridefulness, but out of true reverence for the amazing miracle that takes place on our altars. Eucharistic Revival will only come at the parish level with holy, reverent masses, and homilies focused on growth in holiness, prayer and repentance.
Hear, hear!
If I recall history right, when the Protestants had a revival, that involved regular tent meetings across the country in nearly every locality, not a single meeting for those with the money and leisure to travel to it and a nominal effort at pamphlets for the less wealthy, less important, or less dedicated folks.
Don’t make it unique to show it’s special. Put it everywhere, and everywhere treat it like it’s special.
Have you read about the Pilgrimage aspect? They’re processing with the Eucharist on foot over 2,000 miles from all four corners of the US! I know the event is getting a lot of attention but the Pilgrimage might be the most impactful part for most people in the pews.
Survey’s show a strong belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist among Catholics attending Mass on a regular basis. Thus, disbelief is strong among those who do not attend Mass on regular basis. This makes sense because how could you not attend Mass if you were a true believer in the Eucharist? Thus, the focus needs to be on lax Catholics.
No sarcasm intended at all, James, but how exactly do you propose to “focus on lax Catholics?”
Lacking a polite way to say, “they both are all wet”, the problem with the Church, its members, its pastors, the adherence to divinely revealed truth and commandments, is, tahdah, lack of even attempting to follow the first and greatest commandment, and that commandment treated as only hyperbole, or some other guy’s job, maybe some saint, somewhere.
Without that love of God, real love, it is all lip service and phariseeism, and through that love and only that returned love, can we know and properly serve God. Without that union of love, which union the sacraments and Church were made to foster, not even the sacraments are fully effective.
We have seen no added value from the money and words expended on th e so-called revival. I challenge you to explain it to just about any Catholic I know. Why is a layman leading it? Because it is just another program that will fade after the $ disappears and fewer are at Mass each week. Show me results.
For those who may be still following this discussion – Fr. Robert McTeigue wrote a response to Tim’s critique.
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/still-concerned-about-the-eucharistic-revival-a-response-to-tim-glemkowski
“CEO of the National Eucharistic Congress, Inc.”
Well, there’s the problem…
“Church, Inc.” was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek
Until our church leaders publicly acknowledge the mistakes made during Covid and explain why leaving the faithful without access to the Eucharist for an extended period of time was necessary, the belief in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist will not recover. I try to be a faithful, thoughtful and contemplative disciple well-read in the teachings of the Church, but even I came out of the pandemic with my faith weakened – with nibbling thoughts of “is transubstatiation real? Does Confession actually matter? Does G-d care about ME?” As we are learning with education and health care, trust has been so badly damaged in all of our cultural institutions and the Church – because of the decisions made by her leaders – did not escape it. We now have to do the slow, methodical rebuilding of faith. I, for one, am thankful for Fr. McTeigue’s relentless voice to pursue sainthood through prayer (especially the Rosary), fasting, attending Mass and going to Confession.
I find it fascinating that Fr. McTeigue’s primary concern is basically “process” and Tim Glemkowski’s rejoinder is basically “process.” Fr. McTeigue uses Latin, but “lex orandi lex credendi” is a reminder that the process of praying and the fact of believing are linked. Belief in the sacramental presence of Jesus Christ in the consecrated host is strengthened by the process of regular confession. He is surprised others do not see that connection. Mr. G’s hurt that the priest doesn’t understand the methodologies (“processes”) of these sorts of large church events.
They are talking about the same thing (“process”). I fall squarely in Fr. McTiegue’s camp: a full and healthy parish is marked by long confession lines and frequent confession times. We may be what we eat, but really we are what we do. I eat apple pie, but I’m not one. I pray every day, and I’m a prayerful person. Or don’t and am not. That’s the “process” of lex orandi lex credendi. We are what we pray: parishes that hear EP II all the time on Sundays (contra GIRM #365) never hear the word “sacrifice.” (I used my eyeballs, not Control-F.) How can those communities be expected to believe in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in which Christ crucified is made really and substantially present on the altar at St. Typical? Lex Orandi lex credendi. Process.
When the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church looks more and more like for a profit based enterprise selling a product led by a CEO who speaks as much in modern organizational development jargon as words of The Goespel, you may have already failed. You seem like a good man, Mr. Glemkowski. I am praying for you and this Revival. I would suggest that the face(s) of such a massive undertaking not be a boring bureaucrat, but a charismatic leader of fire with many spiritual gifts. ..
One speaking of the Noble Majesty our Our Lord in language of Timeless Beauty Itself, language that inspires awe..not in current, trendy, “relevant” words. Jesus Christ transcends this time and is Infinitely beyond the spirit of this age. Deus misereatur nobis.