The Thunder of the New Creation

 

Eucharistic Homily
at the
Solemn Paschal Vigil in the Holy Night

 In 1927, a Catholic priest who later became friends with Albert Einstein completely changed our understanding of the universe’s origins.  His name was Fr Georges Lemaître, and he was the first to propose what we now call the Big Bang Theory.

He suggested that, billions of years ago, the universe began as a kind of “cosmic egg” that burst forth in a primordial explosion of energy—energy so primordial and inaccessible that physics and mathematics cannot fully grasp it.  Scientists tell us the smallest measurable unit of physical action is the joule-second, the Planck constant—so minuscule it nearly defies comprehension. And yet, in that whisper of time, worlds were born, light began, and matter stirred.

The Word of God alludes to this mystery when Job is asked:
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth… when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?”

In the Resurrection of Christ, we encounter a kind of theological joule-second: a moment so still, so silent, so hidden, that the Gospels do not even try to describe it.  The stone is already rolled away.  The tomb is already empty.  But in that unfathomable instant—like the very first spark from the cosmic egg—everything changed.

The silence of the Resurrection is not absence.  It is pregnant fullness.  It is the divine hush before the thunder of the New Creation.

Scientists say it is only one ten-quadrillion-quadrillion-quadrillionth of a joule-second after the Big Bang that they can begin to detect the emergence of forces:  Gravity, radiation, nuclear energy, and so on.

In tonight’s Gospel, we witness something similar at the Empty Tomb—a burst of new energy that marks the second Big Bang, inaugurating a New Creation:
“Suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them… ‘Why do you look for the Living One among the dead? He is not here, but has risen!’”

It mirrors the beginning of our celebration tonight:
“Rejoice!  Let Mother Church also rejoice, arrayed with the lightning of his glory!”

But Easter is not merely a grand idea. It is cosmic transformation.
And so I ask you:
What New Creation is Christ beginning in you tonight?

Let us unpack this by reflecting on three bursts of energy that emanate from this Big Bang of the Resurrection, all of which are distilled in the flame of the Easter Candle.

First: “Let there be light.”
The first day of the old creation began with a burst of light—bringing warmth, visibility, and understanding.  Tonight, joined with the Paschal Fire below and the Full Moon above, we are reminded that light is the primal metaphor of the Risen Christ, who alone brings consolation, perception, and revelation.

Second: “He is not here… He is risen!”
When the old universe began, it already began to decay—what scientists call entropy.  St Paul speaks of this as creation “groaning” and the outer self “decaying.”  But the Resurrection reverses the curse.  The burst of Christ’s rising has somehow saved—salvaged—the universe itself.  Easter is the beginning of the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Third: “Receive the Light of Christ.”
Tonight, news outlets report record numbers of baptisms around the world.  These newly baptized—these neophytes—will burst forth in faith, bearing candles lit from the Paschal flame. They recapitulate all three bursts:  Light, resurrection, and new life.  And for us who were once baptized, we are invited once again to lay aside every encumbrance that hinders our perennial newness in Christ.

And so, beloved, as we now prepare to renew our baptismal promises, let us remember:  We do not merely recall the Resurrection as a past event. We stand within it.  The burst of the New Creation reaches us tonight—not just as memory, but as power.

As we are sprinkled with the waters of baptism, may we feel the freshness of the world reborn.  As we approach the Eucharistic Table, may we recognize the Risen One—the same Lord who appeared in dazzling glory, now humbly present under the appearance of bread and wine.

This is the energy of the New Creation:  Christ Himself, alive and active, speaking your name and calling you out of the tomb.

So bring to this altar your darkness, your decay, your entropy—
and receive instead His light, His life, His love.

Christ is risen.

The New Creation has begun.

Let it begin in us.

Between Two Gardens

Homily at the Celebration of the Lord’s Passion

On Ash Wednesday, we began our pilgrimage to the Triduum

by comparing the garden tools of trellis, pruning shears, and seeds
to prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. 

Today, St John’s Passion opens and closes in a garden—
Gethsemane and the garden of Joseph of Arimathea.

In Eden, Adam and Eve forfeited the garden:

by hiding from God, they did not pray;
by eating the forbidden fruit, they did not fast;
by mutual accusation, they did not give alms.

 But in the gardens of Jesus’ Passion, the New Creation began.

In Gethsemane,

He offered the High Priestly Prayer—
fasting from the option to flee,
and asking the Father to bestow the alms of unity and peace.

At the Cross, near Joseph's garden,

the seed of the New Eden was planted:
praying, He gave voice to Psalm 22;
fasting, He rejected Pilate’s amnesty;
almsgiving, He relinquished vengeance and gave us mercy.

On the sixth day of Creation, God formed human nature;
on that first Good Friday—another sixth day—God refashioned it.

Just as Eve came forth from Adam’s side in the old garden,
so now the Church is born from Christ’s pierced side in the new:
by the water and the blood,
by the indwelling Spirit and the Eucharist celebrated,
we are translated into the Eden of the New Creation.

Tonight, on the Seventh Day, we will rest.

And tomorrow night, on the new First Day,
we will hear again: “Let there be Light.”

And we shall rise—

co-gardeners with the Divine Gardener,
tending the soil of the world He loved unto death.

Where Have Your Feet Been?

Eucharistic Homily
at the
Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper

Before we celebrate the Rite of Footwashing, I want to ask you something.  A question that goes deeper than it seems:  Where have your feet been?

In years past we have focused on the “Table-ness” of the Eucharist, the connection between Eucharist and charity, and on Jesus’ role as a servant.  Tonight, I would like us to look at the Footwashing from a different angle, in addition to charity and service, namely:  Healing.

Where have your feet been?  I remember my first day in Rome in 2011, in a liturgical procession on the cobblestone streets of that ancient city. by the time I got back to my room, my feet were so sore I had to walk on their sides—muscles aching that I’d never used before.  When Jesus washed the feet of His disciples, He not only cleaned them, but used the strength of His hands to knead, massage, and rub tired feet that walked up and down the rugged terrain between the Galiliean countryside and the paved streets of Jerusalem.  Some feet were in the water, fishing, when Jesus offered the initial invitation to His first disciples.  Some were sitting, collecting taxes; others were hiding in the shadows, ready to strike a Roman officer.  And what about the feet whose paths we’ve forgotten?  The quiet ones.  The shame-filled ones. The unrecorded steps—Jesus washed those too.  These feet walked through the “joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties” that come with the pilgrimage of discipleship.

Eventually these feet would forsake Jesus, stand before Him Risen, and then travel to the ends of the world to tell forth the Good News.

But first, these feet had to be tended by the hands of the “Lover of Humankind,” kneading, massaging, rubbing their feet as a sign of the healing wholeness that Jesus came to give us.

But you—where have your feet been?  Some of you, fleeing the Soviet occupation of Hungary in 1956, and eventually finding your way here.  Others, in the Deaf boarding schools, separated from your parents and often mistreated by your teachers.  Some may have run away from home at a young age.  Still others, your feet—and your presence—were rejected by Church leaders who wanted to ignore your gifts and dismiss your service.  Many of you, I am sure, have walked in loneliness.  Think also of the gruelling migration of the Magyars to the Carpathian Basin, that we carry in our DNA., or the protracted migration of sign language from Spain to France to the Americas.  Whoever you are, your feet carry buried wounds and soreness that tells the story of your pilgrimage.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob instructed that the Passover shall be “eaten like those who are in flight,” as we heard in the First Reading.  The Gospel tells us that Jesus’ own Passover was to mark His “pass[age] from this world to the Father.”  The Eucharist and our feet on the ground in pilgrimage go hand-in-hand.  This is why we hear in one of the Eucharistic hymns of St Thomas Aquinas:  “Behold the Bread of Angels, made the food of wayfarers.”  St Thomas goes on to say:  “this sacrament does not [only] admit us to glory, but bestows on us the power of coming unto glory.  And therefore it is called Viaticum.”

The Rite of Footwashing, then, interprets for us the meaning of the Eucharist:  It is healing for the journey; everywhere in life we may be inclined to put our “best foot forward”; here, we are invited to put our “worst foot forward” for Jesus to heal and strengthen so we can go on.  This we must do.  Why--?  “Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance with Me.”

As your feet are being washed, think about where they have been, and think about where they are going.  Present them to Jesus—not the polished, presentable parts, but the wounded, weary places—so He can heal them, strengthen them, and guide them onward.

Let Him be both your traveling companion—and your final destination.

Dogmatics and Doxology

«Lex orandi [est] lex credendi» is the cry of many but the game of few (to misquote W. K. Clifford).  Byzantine dogmatic handbooks consistently quote the words and gestures of the liturgy to demonstrate the Church's profession of faith, whereas those composed from within a Roman theological milieu tend to cite juridical documents and with little reference, if any, to the Missal or Breviary.  How, then, can we dare to claim the axiom Lex orandi, lex credendi?

Is this not the very wedge driven between faith and worship, dogmatics and doxology?  Or worse, might this not exhibit a dislodging of the fides qua (the personal act of faith) from the fides quae (the ecclesial profession of faith)?  It is worth noting that 1 John 4:16, "we have come to know [ἐγνώκαμεν] and to believe [πεπιστεύκαμεν] the love that God has for us," places ginōskō prior to pisteuō, that is, an experiential knowledge before the profession of faith; in other words, St John the Theologian expresses the Christian community's gnoseological, experiential awareness of God's love as being ontologically anterior to "believing."

In contrast, contemporary Catholic 'systematic theology' tends to reduce the act and profession of faith to an epistemological exercise.  (The English translation of chapter 1 of Cardinal Müller's Dogmatica Cattolica has "theological epistemology" for «gnoseologica teologica»!)

What, then, is the kernel of this axiom Lex orandi, lex credendi?  I would propose that it is rooted in the Christian's experience of the Trinitarian structure of the graced soul.  Today's First Reading at Mass has, at Romans 8:14-16,

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.  For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of Sonship.  When we cry, "Abba!  Father!" it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

St Paul made a similar point in his earlier epistle (I say "earlier" on account of the 'South Galatian' theory of the dating of Galatians) to the Galatian church:

And because you are sons [and daughters], God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba!  Father!" (Gal 4:6).

This is why we 'tradition' the Lord's Prayer so late in the Catechumenate--during the Third Week of Lent--and why it is not 'returned' during the Preparation Rites of Holy Saturday as is the Creed:  God as "Our Father" is true only of those who have become partakers in Christ's Resurrection.  Hence, at one of His Easter appearances, the Risen Lord said to St Mary Magdalene--

"Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father [τὸν Πατέρα]; but go to My brethren and say to them, I am ascending to My Father [Πατέρα μου] and your Father [Πατέρα ὑμῶν], to My God and your God" (Jn 20:17).

It is for this reason, I would propose, that "Abba!  Father!" is in fact the primordial liturgical prayer, and Christians are endowed with new language to address God no longer merely as Creator but as Our Father.  As we saw earlier in St Paul's epistles to the Roman and Galatian churches, the indwelling Holy Spirit re-orientates the soul of the believer in such a way that a new relationship to God is forged--one from being merely a creature to participation in the very Sonship of Christ.

Moreover, the motif of the Christian believer of as a "temple" of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16 and 6:19) is not only about the Paraclete's indwelling but about the constitutively liturgical structure of the graced soul.  As a temple of the Holy Spirit, the Christian in fact shares in the overflow of the Anointed One's unction such that we are christs within the one Lord Jesus Christ.  In the primordial liturgical prayer of "Abba!  Father!", the Incarnate Son puts His prayer to His heavenly Father into our mouths.

The Lord's Prayer, the Paternoster, is the next step after a 'primordial' prayer; it is the crystallization of the shared, ecclesial experience of being the Body of Christ.  If "Abba!  Father!" is the primordial liturgical prayer, then the "Our Father..." is the original liturgical prayer, around which, ultimately, the whole Sacred Liturgy is built.

It follows, then, that the Christian's experience of the Most Holy Trinity--as temples of the Holy Spirit, co-sons and daughters in the only-begotten Son, calling God "Father!"--is fundamentally doxological; subsequently and only subsequently does it become dogmatic, as in the three principal strophes in the Creed:  "I believe in God, the Father almighty...and in Jesus Christ...and in the Holy Spirit."  More precisely, since it is the Holy Spirit who reminds us of Jesus' words (Jn 14:26) and unites us to Christ (Rom 8:9b), who in turn is the Way back to the Father (Jn 14:6, 9), it follows that the very taxonomy of the Trinity in liturgical prayer (Holy Spirit-Son-Father) is the converse of the taxonomy of the Trinity in the profession of faith (Father-Son-Holy Spirit).  It is a diptych that behaves like a mirror:  Only in hindsight do we believe in God as Father of the Son and from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds (fides quae), because we have the experiential knowledge (γνῶσις) by the Holy Spirit of the Son who returns us to the Father's embrace (fides qua).  

The blasé approach to the Sacred Liturgy now very much in vogue--or, worse, liturgy as a self-celebration of a group--painfully indicates a spiritual malformation which, in turn, yields a formlessness in the act of faith.  Conversely, to teach a 'correct' systematic theology apart from a paradigmatic interiority rooted in the Trinitarian life can be nothing other than an 'imposition.'

Otherwise, how can we be a "synodal Church" if 'synodality with the Trinity' is excluded?

Being Pastoral,or Being "Pastoral"?

Once I was summoned to give "the Sacrament of the Sick" (yes, those are scare quotes) to a believer very much advanced in age and who was, clearly, moments away from eternity.  Seeing the obvious, I made the decision to give the Last Rites rather than simply "Anointing of the Sick" (which is the proper name of this sacrament).

As I began praying the Rite, I was interrupted by a member of the chaplaincy staff and indecorously yanked out of the patient's room and given a mild dressing-down for beginning the Last Rites instead of a mere anointing.  It was clear that, first, the patient's imminent death was a subject of denial and second, the chaplaincy staff was more interested in the transitory emotional state of the family than the care of the patient's immortal soul.

In my line of work, if I've heard it once I've heard it a thousand times:  Being "pastoral" is code for "assuaging someone's feelings."  Thanks be to God, the professor of pastoral theology at my seminary worked very hard to disabuse us seminarians of the idea that being "pastoral" and being "truthful" are somehow dichotomous.  Clinical Pastoral Education supervisors, on the other hand, are notorious for harbouring a "reductionist" pastoral outlook that is more interested in assuaging than authentically pastoring.  (I remember being in the office of one such CPE staff and observing that this person's bookshelf--it was only half-full but only with books on psychology and other titles that look like they were recommended by Oprah Winfrey.)

I bring up this story because it has crossed my mind many times as I read through Revd Dr Harold Senkbeil's The Care of Souls:  Cultivating a Pastoral Heart.  Written from a Lutheran perspective, it provides sound guidance on what it means to be a shepherd.  He thus quotes an American Lutheran theologian, Carl Walther:

Pastoral theology is the God-given practical disposition of the soul, acquired by certain means, by which a servant of the church is equipped to perform all the tasks that come to him in that capacity--validly, in a legitimate manner, to the glory of God, and for his own and his hearers' salvation.

That last clause is crucial--"to the glory of God, and for his own and his hearers' salvation.

Yet, looking around, one may be given the impression that "pastoral care" is about being the custodians and guardians of someone's feelings rather than her or his soul.  

But Jesus isn't a glorified Tony Robbins.  To assuage is not to save.

At the heart of this grave error is a fundamental ignorance of how the soul operates--and let me say right now that theological anthropology is sorely, sorely lacking in pastoral formation.  If a physician has a commanding knowledge of the various means of diagnosis and of various pharmaceuticals, it would be absolutely useless if she or he did not know human anatomy.  So how can pastors apply the medicine of grace and mercy if they do not know the "anatomy" of the soul?

When I bump into such "pastoral malpractice" as being fixated on one's feelings rather than the healing of one's soul, my "Thomistic sense" starts tingling.  Why is that?  Because St Thomas Aquinas--in line with the Biblical testimony--teaches that the human soul has three parts:  The "vegetative" part (devoted to nutrition, growth, and reproduction), the "sensitive" part (with eleven prime emotions in two categories, namely the "irascible appetite" and the "concupiscible" appetite), and the "intellectual" part (where the intellect and will operate).

It is the intellectual soul--the part of the soul where the intellect and will function)--that distinguishes human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom.  What makes us human beings is that we have intellectual/rational/cognitive souls.  But what makes us sinners is that original sin introduced a disorder in the soul:  The sensitive part is given to "overriding" the intellectual part.  When God created our first parents, he gave them the "gift of integrity" which, among other things, meant a correct ordering of the soul:  The intellectual part of the soul governs the sensitive part, which in turn governs the vegetative part.  St Thomas also uses synonyms for these various parts of the soul:  Sometimes "spirit" means the intellectual soul or mind (cf Eph 4:23) and "soul" as being the sensitive or animal soul (akin to the early Hebrew idea of soul as life).  Now we can understand what the sacred author meant when he said that

...the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit... (Heb 4:12).

This is how St Thomas Aquinas explains the passage:

The Word of God effects and distinguishes between all those divisions and species, namely, how the sensibility is distinguished from reason; also, the species of the same sensibility in itself; also, the species of the function of reason, and what arises in the rational soul from the consideration of spiritual and earthly things. (Super Hebraeos, C.4, L.2, §222).

In other words, the disordered, sinful mixing-up of the sensitive part of the soul ("sensibility") from the intellectual part of the soul ("reason") is corrected by the preached word of God so that the soul is so healed that each part is restored to its proper place.  Hence St Thomas goes on, citing a mediæval Biblical commentary called the Ordinary Gloss:

...it can be explained, according to a Gloss, in two ways: so that the soul refers to carnal sins which involve bodily pleasures, such as lust and gluttony; but the spirit refers to spiritual sins, which involve an act of the mind, such as pride, vainglory, and the like.  Or by soul is understood evil thoughts, and by spirit good thoughts.  Then the sense is this: reaching, i.e., discerning, unto the division of the soul and the spirit, i.e., between carnal and spiritual sins, or between good and evil thoughts (§223).

To reduce pastoral care to a fixation on someone's feelings or emotional state is to focus on the wrong part of the soul, namely the sensitive part.  This is not to say that feelings aren't important; they are.  But to assuage feelings before healing the soul's intellect is like giving first aid but skipping a hospital visit.  Emotional disorders (and I am not talking about people with emotional and psychological disabilities) are often the result of intellectual disorders.

The Orthodox lay theologian Fredericka Matthews-Green has famously said that "sin is infection, not infraction."  This is very much in accord with St Thomas' theology which refers to sin as "wound" and grace as "healing."  By applying the salve of grace and mercy to the human soul infected by sin, we begin to see a gradual healing of the person's emotions.  (See how "salve" and "salvation" are related?)

As pastors of souls, our calling is to bring people to Jesus the Divine Physician who wants nothing less than to give us abundant life (cf Jn 10:10), not just a pep talk or a fainting-couch.  Perhaps the shepherd's staff can drive the point home:  One purpose of the crook at the top of the shepherd's staff is so that he can hook a sheep by the neck or the hind legs and pull it away from eating something that looks delicious but is actually poisonous.  In other words, the shepherd knows better than what the sheep feels like eating.

Let's start putting an end to the "pastoral malpractice" of skipping the health of the soul that focuses on assuaging rather than saving, and begin to restore the habitus of pastoral care as "having a thousand eyes" (as St John Chrysostom put it) to diagnose the soul of the believer (and believers-to-be) in view of applying the salve of Christ's loving grace.

 

Theology and Charity

Clearly, one can readily admit that a distance often does exist between the daily exercise of theology and its ideal mode of realization.  Furthermore, separations can even occur that contradict the practices of a holy way of life, those which should inform the exercise of theology.  One can practice theology with a dead faith.  I ought to remark, however, that this objection does not touch on theology as such, but only on the theologian.  We thus pass from the de jure realm to what is de facto.  The latter might justify all kinds of reservations, but it remains that, de jure, “theology is a pious science” [cf M-D Chenu OP].  Although the loss of charity does not bring about the dissolution of the theological habitus, nevertheless it constitutes a state as violent as that of a dead faith.  The diminished habitus that we designate by this name still allows a person to adhere to supernatural truths, but the absence of charity radically deprives the theologian of his or her ability to cling to these truths in a life-giving manner. The same is true of theology itself: it is literally drained from the inside by the loss of charity. Without charity, theology cannot bring its task to completion, because charity alone gives it the dynamism to reach its end. Accordingly, it is not simply under the title of finis operantis that the love of charity has its place in theology; indeed, charity has this place in virtue of the finis operis.

J-P Torrell, Christ and Spirituality in Thomas Aquinas,
(Washington, D.C.:  Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 28-29.

The Epiklesis of our Lives

"Eucharistic Dove"--a tabernacle or artophorion
in the form of a dove representing the Holy Spirit,
common during the early and high Middle Ages.

What is the Epiklesis?

One of the happier revisions to the Sacred Liturgy by the Consilium was the inclusion of an explicit epiklesis in the Anaphora (= Eucharistic Prayer, after the Preface).  From the Greek noun ἐπίκλησις, 'invocation,' the epiklesis (sometimes spelled epiclesis) is the invocation of the Holy Spirit to transform the Holy Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ.

In Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV, they are easy to spot.  In the first place, when the priest-celebrant extends his hands over the chalice and paten, it is there that he will call on the Holy Spirit, and this is specifically called the Consecratory epiklesis.  For example, the Church prays in Eucharistic Prayer II:

Make holy, therefore, these Gifts, we pray, by sending down Your Holy Spirit upon them like the dewfall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is a second, Communion epiklesis, whereby we ask the Holy Spirit to unite the Church by this Eucharistic Celebration (since growth in charity and ecclesial unity is the res tantum--the "thing itself" or the goal--of the Sacrament).  It takes place after the Institution Narrative and immediately after the Anamnesis (whereby we articulate the sequence of the Paschal Mystery).  An example from Eucharistic Prayer IV goes like this: 

Look, O Lord, upon the Sacrifice You Yourself have provided for Your Church, and grant in Your loving kindness to all who partake of this one Bread and one Chalice that, gathered into one body by the Holy Spirit, they may truly become a living sacrifice in Christ to the praise of Your glory.

In Eucharistic Prayer I--the Roman Canon--the epiklesis is a little less apparent, but by no means absent.  In the first place, all prayer is an invocation.  In the Older Rite, there is a kind of epiklesis during the Offertory (whose removal by the Consilium was ill-conceived):

Come, O Sanctifier, almighty eternal God:  Bless this oblation prepared for Your holy Name.

This "Sanctifier," obviously, is the Holy Spirit.  But, near the beginning of the Roman Canon, the priest-celebrant will make the sign(s) of the cross over the Holy Gifts, saying:

...that you accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices...

There is a continuation of the epiklesis in the Roman Canon just prior to the Institution Narrative where the priest extends his hands over the Holy Gifts at the Quam oblationem tu (though, in the Older Rite, the hands are extended at the Hanc igitur):

Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of Your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

In any case, the importance of the epiklesis lies in the fact that, like Christ "who was conceived by the Holy Spirit" (Apostles' and Nicæne-Constantinopolitan Creed), the same Holy Spirit brings about the Presence of Christ upon the altar.  It is no less true that the Institution Narrative is the "form" of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but it would be careless theology to isolate it from the whole Anaphora.

'Eucharistic Doves'

This is why, in the early and high Middle Ages, the early form of the 'tabernacle' was the so-called Eucharistic dove, a pyx containing the reserved Sacrament, hanging from the ceiling above or near the altar.  We are blessed in the Archdiocese of Edmonton to have such a Eucharistic dove in the lady chapel of St Joseph Seminary.  This dove-motif, taken obviously from the gospel narrative of Jesus' baptism (cf Lk 3:22), is intended to highlight the Pneumatological reality of the Eucharist.  It should be remembered, too, that it was in the Upper Room where the Lord Jesus celebrated the Last Supper that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church on that first Pentecost Sunday morning (Acts 2:2).  More to the point, St Thomas Aquinas teaches that the Lord Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Confirmation "not by bestowing, but by promising it" (S.th., 3a, q. 72, art. 1, ad 1), and goes on to cite John 16:7, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth:  It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counsellor will not come to you."

But this was the second time during the whole Farewell Discourse (Jn 14-17) that Jesus promised Pentecost; the first time was in the Upper Room (Jn 14:15-31), before leaving for Gethsemane (Jn 14:31).  In other words, Jesus promised that 'baptism in the Holy Spirit'  foretold by John the Baptist (cf Mt 3:11-12) shortly after the first Mass and in the Upper Room where he would be outpoured.  (This is why, in the Dominican Rite, the Sermo Domini is chanted after the repose of the Blessed Sacrament, bridging the gospel of Maundy Thursday to that of Good Friday--to remind us, among other things, that even if the Resurrection is 'right around the corner,' we have still got Pentecost to look towards.)

The Offertory of Ourselves

The Eucharist is not simply an 'amulet' to be hoarded, but the very paradigm of the Christian life.  When the Holy Gifts of bread and wine are placed upon the altar, the Church invites us to offer, alongside them, our own lives.  Hence, in the Older Rite, when the priest is preparing the chalice, he prays:

O God, who, in creating human nature, did wonderfully dignify it, and still more wonderfully restore it, grant that, by the Mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His divine nature, who vouchsafed to be made partaker of our human nature, even Jesus Christ our Lord...

The purpose of the Eucharist is be "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pt 1:4) or, in a word coined by St Gregory the Theologian, "divinized" (cf θέωσις), just as the bread and wine are "divinized" to become the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, just as the Church prays that the Holy Spirit would effect the transformation of the Holy Gifts into Christ's Presence, so too does she pray that the Holy Spirit continue to transform Christians more and more into Christ Himself.  It is easy to partake of Eucharistic Communion; the challenge is to make way for that grace whereby we "become what we eat" (St Augustine).

We can draw a further lesson from the bread and wine used for the Eucharist:  As inanimate objects, bread and wine have no will of their own; its existence is passive and has no choice but to receive the transformation effected by the Holy Spirit to become really, truly, and substantially Christ present.

You and I, on the other hand, possess a will:  We can either resist the Holy Spirit's transformation or we can yield to it.  St Thomas Aquinas teaches that infused virtue has a twofold defect--one on the part of the virtue itself (and this is remedied by the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit), and one on the part of the agent's consent to being virtuous.  By repeated acts of conscious, intentional, and deliberate self-offering, the Holy Spirit is able to mold us more and more into Christ.

Speaking of the Holy Spirit, the entire purpose of his Seven Gifts is to effect, in our wills, docility and amenability to his promptings and movements.  St Thomas thus makes a special connexion between the Eucharist and the Seven Gifts:

But the priest greets the people seven times, namely, five times, by turning round to the people, and twice without turning round, namely, when he says, "The Lord be with you" before the "Preface," and again when he says, "May the peace of the Lord be ever with you": and this is to denote the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost (S.th., 3a, q. 83, art. 5, ad 6).

Making our Lives an Epiklesis

The Church is experiencing a difficult moment in her history.  If I had to pinpoint the source of her ills, it would be simply this:  Refusal to surrender to the Holy Spirit.  Since the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church, then seeking any other source of empowerment is a betrayal of "being Church."  What is needed for reform is not another meeting, another programme, another bureaucratic process.  What is needed, rather, is a lifelong epiklesis of daily surrender to the Holy Spirit, of "eucharistizing" our lives.

The Eucharist is the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary.  But, as the sacred author of Hebrews tells us, Christ's self-sacrifice was not a matter of gumption and gall, but of an offering empowered by the Holy Spirit:

...how much more shall the Blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God (Heb 9:14).

May it be for us, too.