Since the promulgation of Traditionis Custodes, various bishops and certain cardinals have made it clear that they view the liturgical controversy not merely as a question of unification–that all the Church (at least the Latin Rite of the Church) should be using the same liturgical forms–but more so as a question of stamping out everything and anything that smacks of "the old ways." I won't bother to go hunt down citations because proving this isn't my point, here, but I have specific memories of reading on-the-record quotes by bishops (or letters to the priests in their diocese) that express that intention explicitly. In one case, it was almost word for word.

This had puzzled me. Even an extreme view in liturgical unification doesn't explain animosity toward the forms and symbols of the ancient rite. After all, the Novus Ordo Missae was not (according to Sacrosanctum Concilium in Vatican II) supposed to be a scrap of the old forms and replacement with completely new ones: It was supposed to be a renovation. In a renovation, some visible features of the thing being renovated are replaced, and others touched up, but the basic structure of the thing is kept intact. To be sure, this isn't quite what happened to the Mass, but my point is that the intentions expressed by Vatican II regarding the Mass did not include removing all vestiges of the ancient forms. Yet, some bishops and cardinals today seem so vehement in their opposition to the traditional Mass that they even want to make sure priests don't sneak "traditional-seeming" practices into their manner of saying the Mass according to the new rite. As I said, this had me puzzled. The attitude is incomprehensible when attempting to analyze it from the point of view of either a desire to see Vatican II fully implemented (something the current pontificate is making a lot of noise about) or of liturgical unification.

The other day, I was musing within my own mind about why I don't have any interest in attending the Eucharistic Congress that's to take place here in Indianapolis this July. It's part of the so-called "Eucharistic Revival" launched by the US Bishops. The problem is, I don't think very much will be revived, which is to say, I think the whole thing will be lukewarm. By "lukewarm," I don't mean to suggest that there will be any lack of fervor in those attending the conference or participating in the revival. Lukewarmness means something else when it comes to faith. In its treatment of the Laodicean Church, Revelation says "because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." The thing about being hot or cold is that it means having an effect on other things. Hot things make other things hot and cold things make other things cold.

After all the Eucharistic processing and congressing, everybody who is already in love with the Eucharist will (hopefully) be moreso. There will be a big celebration with serious talk about the Love of Jesus, proven to us in His Real Presence, and with great interior feelings of "Yay, Eucharist!" Then everybody who participated will go away with their own love and devotion strengthened and (hopefully) inflamed.

But what of those who don't love the Eucharist already? What about those who don't think too much about the Real Presence one way or the other, even though they attend Mass every week? What about those who don't even believe in the Real Presence of Jesus? They feel perfectly comfortable joining the line and going up for their "wafer." They see it as a wonderful symbol of communion with those around them, or whatever, and the form of the Mass does nothing to discourage that. These people aren't going to participate in the revival. Other than maybe a few being pulled into a more intentional relationship with Jesus in the Eucharist through a parish mission or maybe the start of an annual 40-hours devotion, those people are, for the most part, not going to be changed by the so-called revival. The revival will be lukewarm.

So what would a "real" Eucharistic revival look like? Things would change. In the parishes, and in the behaviors of Catholics who didn't participate in the processions or attend the congress. For example, a true Eucharistic revival would get rid of the practice of receiving Communion in the hand and return to the ancient and long-standing practice of receiving on the tongue. A true revival would encourage the use of Communion rails for those churches that have them. The bishops could even really show their commitment to revival by establishing a nation-wide fund (funded by special donations) to help defray the costs of installing Communion rails in those churches without them, and even re-architecting some, as needed, to make the Communion rail concept "work." A real Eucharistic revival would encourage the offering of Mass ad orientem.

These three things alone (no more Communion in the hand, use of Communion rails, and Mass offered ad orientem) would do more to revive Eucharistic awareness out of its current lukewarm state in the Church than any amount of processing and congressing.

For one thing, it would probably push a lot of the "non true believers" away, and they would stop attending Mass altogether. One might initially think this is a bad thing, but in fact it would be better for such people if they did stop attending Mass, for at least they would then stop receiving Communion. Saint Paul warns that those who receive Communion without discerning (with the eyes of Faith) the Body (of Christ in the Eucharist) are "eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves." It's better for a non-believer to stay away from Mass than to receive Holy Communion repeatedly.

This thought, though, got me to thinking more specifically about that idea of non-believers dropping out if the old practices were revived. To someone who doesn't actually believe in the Eucharistic Real Presence, the old practices–Communion on the tongue while kneeling at the Communion rail in a Mass offered ad orientem–would not only seem pointless: They would be offensive. Keep in mind, we're talking about people who believe in God and believe in worshiping God, even if they don't believe everything the Church has taught about God or about how to worship Him. To such people, the idea of showing this deep, specific reverence for what is really just a piece of bred would be as offensive as the whole Pachamama incident was for the rest of us.

And it should be. As a Catholic Church, we should be hot or cold, affecting those who are near us or who observe us. We should be offensive (in our practices–not in our personal interactions) to those who are non-believers and sweet and attractive to those who are full believers (or inclined to believe). This belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence, this discernment of the Body through the eyes of Faith, should make all the difference in how one reacts to the Catholic manner of treating the Eucharist. For that to happen, we should be treating the Eucharist the way Jesus deserves to be treated.

While reflecting on this, I recalled my confusion and dismay over the modern antipathy of some bishops and cardinals (and, it would seem, even of the current pontiff and some of those in his curia) towards the Traditional Latin Mass–and, indeed, towards all things traditional-looking regarding the Mass: It's as if the Traditional Latin Mass is offensive to them.

Perhaps it is.