Mass, Interrupted

When the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was pronounced a pandemic in March 2020, bishops around the world began to suspend the public celebration of Mass. Soon after, secular media mistakenly reported that “Mass is suspended” and even that “Easter is canceled.” Equally unfortunate is that many dioceses have announced that Masses will be “private” or “without a congregation.” While many parishes have been broadcasting their liturgies on television and the internet — and have kept their doors open for private devotion — it is not at all clear that the faithful have been tuning in to the respective media. Perhaps The Most Reverend Mario Delpini, Archbishop of Milan, has correctly described the situation when he preached recently a Mass that was broadcasted:

The difference between participating in the Mass in the church and watching it on TV is like the difference between sitting next to a bonfire that warms up, illuminates, brings joy, and watching a picture of the fire.¹

Clearly, the Archbishop’s perspective applies to those who express a deep love for and understanding of the Mass.

On the other hand, it could be a case similar to observations from late author Father Gerry Weber, who identified a large sample of people who are ambivalent or even resentful about attending Mass. “In effect, we will be brushing aside the gift [of a place in the heavenly banquet] being set before us before it is offered. The ritual and the poetry of the language will have no impact on us. We will seldom, if ever, participate in any way, shape or form.”² It might appear obvious that those “on the fence” toward the liturgy would benefit from a wake-up call to realize the gift of the Eucharist and ignite their hunger for it. Jesus sternly warned against apathy about such apathy: “because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you from my mouth” (Rev 3:16). Perhaps less apparent, though, is the effect this Eucharistic deprivation exerts on those who already love Mass. In a world of telecommuting and live streaming, they might forget that they are not at the banquet, neither warmed nor illuminated by the bonfire, as Archbishop Delpini puts it. In either case, Catholics globally face a sobering reality during this pandemic, that God has permitted an imposed Lenten sacrifice of the highest order.³ We as a community must temporarily forfeit our reception of the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood at Mass.

With these diverging views in mind, I hope to spark or sustain an impatient anticipation of the faithful’s return to the Eucharist by offering two vital theological ideas about the Mass.

The first traces the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on the Eucharist as the “source and summit” of the Christian life back to its biblical root. The second reminds the Catholic faithful of the normative necessity for their active participation in the liturgical celebration. Taken together, these teachings could provide a template for fruitful preaching during this time of social and spiritual distancing that will bring about both a deep longing to receive our Lord at Communion once again and a rejuvenated desire to enter into relationship with the Trinity.

To begin, as Archbishop Delpini and Fr. Weber both note, we ground our expectations from the liturgy in the way that we approach the Mass. Their insightful commentaries call to mind the words of St. Irenaeus: “Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church demonstrates that the Eucharist’s “inexhaustible richness” cannot be contained in just one name for it. Thus, Catholics rightly call it a memorial, a sacrifice, a communion, and a Mass, among other; no single name exhausts its abundance of meaning.⁴

For these reasons, Vatican II teaches in Lumen Gentium that the Eucharist is “the source and summit of the whole Christian life” as well as the sign of our unity. Whence comes this idea about the sacrament as “fount and apex,” as it is sometimes translated? I find two clues in the document regarding this teaching. First, we should note that the Dogmatic Constitution’s discussion of the sacraments occurs in Chapter II under the heading, “The People of God.” That section briefly summarizes salvation history, starting with the people of Israel and culminating in the Body of Christ. The Council Fathers recapitulate this rich history with repeated references to body, flesh, and spirit, of both Christ and of His people.⁵ At the same time, they contrast the role of the ministerial priesthood with that of the priesthood of the faithful, all the while insisting that both participate in the one priesthood of Christ. The lay faithful also join in the offering of the Eucharist. The laity, with the proper spiritual disposition and sufficient virtuous striving, can “consecrate the world itself to God.”⁶

The second clue is found in the footnote that accompanies the “source and summit” teaching. Here, the Council Fathers draw from Pope Venerable Pius XII’s encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei, particularly his understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist:

Along with the Church, her Divine Founder is present at every liturgical function. Christ is present at the august sacrifice of the altar both in the person of His minister and above all under the Eucharistic species. He is present in the sacraments, infusing into them the power which makes them ready instruments of sanctification. He is present, finally, in the prayer of praise and petition we direct to God, as it is written: “Where there are two or three gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt 18:20, Douay).⁷

This oft-cited teaching about the Eucharist, which appears today in the Catechism, comes from an Ecumenical Council’s 1964 Dogmatic Constitution regarding the Church, which adopts the perspective of a 1947 encyclical on the Liturgy by Pius XII, who cites directly from the Gospel of Matthew. Not only can we discern the biblical root of this vital understanding of the Eucharist, but we can also trace the line of Sacred Tradition from Christ’s teachings to the Church’s practices.

Even more interesting, Pius XII goes on to declare that the liturgy is both the “public worship” which Christ our Head renders to the Father and “communal worship” that the faithful renders to its Founder. The Mass, then, is “the worship rendered by the Mystical Body of Christ in the entirety of its Head and members.⁸ The venerable Pontiff’s insight here serves as an appropriate segue to the second part of this essay.

Turning now to the necessary participation of the Eucharistic assembly, I should begin with a few notes of caution to avoid any misunderstanding about the scope of this discussion. As the late Avery Cardinal Dulles wisely points out, the ritual offerings become the body and blood of the risen Christ for us. The sacrifice of the Mass consists neither in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine nor with the consumption of the consecrated Host or precious Blood. Instead, he writes: “What counts in God’s eyes is the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which . . . is present in the Eucharist. There is no need to look beyond the Cross for some additional sacrifice.”⁹ The priest, then, acts not on his own authority but by Jesus Christ’s call and the Holy Spirit’s anointing. Moreover, the congregation offers its own sacrifice of prayer and action, with each one bringing his or her needs and sufferings to offer to God, along with the priest’s sacred oblation. Further still, the consecration of the Host includes the universal Church on earth and in heaven, and “united with the offering and intercession of Christ” at the foot of the cross.¹⁰

Therefore, we can now offer a rejoinder to the late Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani’s complaints about Eucharistic Prayer III, where the priest prays: “ . . . and You never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to Your Name (emphasis added). He objected to the phrase “so that” because it appears that the people, rather than the priest, are the “indispensable element” in the celebration.¹¹ Cardinal Ottaviani is correct in his complaint about the phrase “so that” insofar as it indeed implies that the people have somehow usurped the clergy’s privileged role in offering the Mass. Obviously, this view is incorrect, and I am grateful for his welcomed insight to that effect. Nevertheless, he wrongly asserts that the priest alone supplies this crucial role. The Church teaches that Christ alone is the indispensable Element, Who is present when we gather in worship.¹²

Similarly, the Council’s documents speak of the faithful’s “active participation” in the liturgy. As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI recognizes, the term holds an unfortunate connotation of “participation” as general activity, sometimes taken to mean that each one plays an isolated part. By contrast, the whole of liturgical action, Benedict argues, is that God draws humanity into cooperation with Himself through what Christ has already done from the Incarnation to the Resurrection, and what He will continue to do until the Parousia.

In this real “action,” in this prayerful approach to participation, there is no difference between priests and laity . . . But participation in that which no human being does, that which the Lord himself and only he can do — that is equally for everyone. In the words of St. Paul, it is a question of being “united to the Lord” and thus becoming “one spirit with him.”¹³, The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 174 (citing 1 Cor 6:17).]

As St. Paul mentions elsewhere, we are all different parts of the same Body, and need one another to flourish (1 Cor 12:12–30).

Furthermore, because we are both one body and one spirit in Christ, we worship as a united community. Once more, the Council reminds us that liturgy is not a private function, but a celebration by and for the whole Church. Today’s urgent realities necessitate “individual or quasi-private” worship, but we must remember that this situation is not the norm, nor should it come to replace our local Eucharistic assembly.¹⁴ The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Christian life, but it would be a low peak if all of the living stones were permanently scattered.

Finally, let us return to Matt 18 and its context in order draw out further meaning. The entire chapter focuses on sin and forgiveness, but verse 20 concludes Jesus’ teaching about the community’s authority to police itself and His call to forgive one another abundantly. On the surface, it would seem out of place to use this verse as the foundation for so prominent a lesson about the Eucharist. Yet, we realize that forgiveness and reconciliation remain essential themes throughout the Mass.

Catholics are transformed as a community through the liturgy. In the Introductory Rites, for instance, we call to mind our sin and offer praise to God. In hearing the Word, God visits us, too.¹⁵ In fact, the Liturgy of the Word prepares us to recognize Christ in the “breaking of the bread” (Lk 24:30–32). Seen in this light, perhaps we might recognize that we have not been deprived of the Word. Could hearing the Scriptures proclaimed continue to stoke the “burning” within our hearts as we await the Communion with our Lord in the Eucharist?

In the Offertory, we bring to the altar simple gifts: bread, water, wine, and contrite hearts. In the Communion, we share a sign of Christ’s peace, and only then, take within ourselves the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. At last, nourished in Word and Sacrament, we are sent forth to love and serve the Lord in thanksgiving for all the He has done for us. In short, we are called to transform the world, for we have been transformed by the Eucharist’s “massive infusion of grace,” which is required to enter into the life of the Trinity.¹⁶ As we continue to contain the spread of COVID-19 by distancing ourselves from one another, we also long for that blessed moment when, once again, we will be called to the Supper of the Lamb.