USCCB Refused AUSCP Participation in Eucharistic Congress Due to its Rejection of Transubstantiation

On July 2, the Association of US Catholic Priests (AUSCP) issued a press release indicating that the National Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis rejected the AUSCP’s application for a vendor table and active participation in the event earlier this summer. The release states:

…We regret, with sadness, that the National Association of U.S. Catholic Priests will have no formal presence among the many thousands of the faithful, lay and ordained, gathering in this public and profound proclamation of the central reality of our faith. After a year-long effort to be included among the many groups and institutions in public witness of our shared faith we have been denied a place at the table.

Fr. Steve Newton, executive director of the Association of US Catholic Priests, also published a letter titled “Why Were US Catholic Priests Excluded from the Eucharistic Congress?” In it, he theorizes that the US Bishops’ “narrow theologies and pieties” concerning the  Real Presence in the Eucharist played a role in the AUSCP’s exclusion. Fr. Newton states:

I am not a conspiracy theorist. But I can read between the lines. So can you, I bet. They looked at our website, saw who we are, and intuited that our understanding of the Eucharist goes beyond monstrances and processions. We don’t disparage adoration and worship, but narrow theologies and pieties do not limit our understanding of the Eucharist. [emphasis added]

For once, we agree with Fr. Newton. The AUSCP’s understanding of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is wildly divergent from Catholic teaching and Tradition. According to Fr. Newton, the AUSCP began planning counter-programming to the USCCB’s Eucharistic Congress as soon as it got wind of the emphasis on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Consecrated host. He stated:

As it became clear that the USCCB’s revival would focus on the Real Presence in the consecrated host, AUSCP planned its program to focus on the Real Presence throughout the rest of creation.

This counter-programming by the AUSCP began as early as last year.

On March 13, 2023, the AUSCP posted an event notice on its website for a “Eucharistic Revival” featuring “AUSCP member and former Assembly presenter” Fr. Jim Bacik. We monitored the event and posted a report on it the following week.

The most alarming aspect of Fr. Bacik’s presentation was the downplaying and outright denial of the Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation.

Beginning around 13-minutes into the talk, Fr. Bacik presents the story of a woman named Sarah who is challenged by her presbyterian husband concerning her belief in Transubstantiation. Fr Bacik first downplays Transubstantiation by claiming that Catholics aren’t “tied” to that as a teaching.  Fr Bacik then tells Sarah that she can explain Christ’s presence in the eucharist to her husband as “transignification,” by saying:

“Trent said that [Transubstantiation] was a ‘suitable way’ of describing the Eucharist.  Most theologians don’t think we’re tied to that.  The Vatican did repeat it in the 1950s …  but, um, I think most theologians would say we’re not tied to that.  So, you can tell your husband, ‘okay you don’t like it. I don’t have to hold it as a Catholic.’

Here’s another.  Try this.  How about thinking of what happens in the Eucharist as ‘transignification.’  So, that bread and wine, because of the Eucharistic prayer, is no longer merely Bread and Wine.  They don’t just throw it away when the Mass is over.   It took on, through the Mass, a ‘new significance.’  So, you could tell your husband, ‘No, I don’t hold [transubstantiation], I hold transignification.  When I go to communion, that’s Jesus – for me.  That’s Him nourishing me, that’s Him strengthening me, that’s helping me get through my day – tough day – and the dog-eat-dog world that I live in.’  Transignification.  Try that on your husband; see how that works.”

The problem here is that Fr. Bacik is instructing his audience to hold a condemned view of Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist.

Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei expressly condemned the concept of transignification as a “false and disturbing opinion”:

For We can see that some of those who are dealing with this Most Holy Mystery in speech and writing are disseminating opinions on … the dogma of transubstantiation that are disturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure of confusion about matters of faith, just as if it were all right for someone to take doctrine that has already been defined by the Church and consign it to oblivion or else interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved.

To give an example of what We are talking about, … to concentrate on the notion of sacramental sign as if the symbolism—which no one will deny is certainly present in the Most Blessed Eucharist—fully expressed and exhausted the manner of Christ’s presence in this Sacrament; or to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, as if they involve nothing more than “transignification,” or “transfinalization” as they call it; or, finally, to propose and act upon the opinion that Christ Our Lord is no longer present in the consecrated Hosts that remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass has been completed.

Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to belief in and devotion to the Eucharist. [emphasis added]

The AUSCP held its Annual Assembly in Lexington, KY this year, just three weeks before the National Eucharistic Conference took place in Indianapolis.   The theme of the Assembly was the Eucharist, and headlining the event was Fr. Tom Reese, SJ.  In a report issued by the Lepanto Institute just prior to the Assembly, we noted that Fr. Reese was already well-known for his heterodox theology concerning the Real Presence. In Fr. Reese’s own words, he simply does not believe in transubstantiation.

In a January 2023 article for the National Catholic Reporter “The Eucharist is About More than the Real Presence”, Reese wrote:

“Since my critics often accuse me of heresy, before I go further, let me affirm that I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I just don’t believe in transubstantiation because I don’t believe in prime matter, substantial forms and accidents that are part of Aristotelian metaphysics.

Thomas Aquinas used Aristotelianism, the avant-garde philosophy of his time, to explain the Eucharist to his generation. What worked in the 13th century will not work today. If he were alive today, he would not use Aristotelianism because nobody grasps it in the 21st century.

So, first, forget transubstantiation. Better to admit that Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is an unexplainable mystery that our little minds cannot comprehend.” [emphasis added]

Fr. Reese’s statement is a denial of the substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and flies in the face of the canons of the Council of Trent which states:

If any one [denies], that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue [i.e., power];^[2] let him be anathema (can. 1).

If any one [says], that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [denies] that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood…which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema (can. 2).

Given all of this, it is no surprise that, during his keynote presentation at this year’s AUSCP Annual Assembly, Fr. Reese not only doubled down on his obstinate denial of transubstantiation, but he also heaped more coals on the fire.

Even the AUSCP’s emcee recognized Fr. Reese’ heterodox positions during his introduction.  He said:

Tom [Fr. Reese] has written books on the power structure of the American Church, on Inside the Vatican. I looked him up, I googled him and the first thing, honest to God, Tom, that came up… Look him up and you may find him described as having a reputation for liberal speak and theological confusion. The confusion is brought about because Tom said he did not believe in transubstantiation, but in the real presence. Not in — [he] doesn’t believe in Aristotelian metaphysics and substance and accidents and prime matter. I just want to say I’m happy that Tom is here and I’m sure that you will find his presentation substantial. [emphasis added]

The overarching point of Fr. Reese’s presentation was a comparison between the concept of synodality and the Eucharist, with both being complimentary to one another due to each having a focus on communion, participation and mission. He then went on to complain about the National Eucharistic Congress and its focus on the Real Presence and transubstantiation. He stated:

The Eucharistic Revival, however, was started because the bishops were terrified by a Pew Research Center survey that found that 45% of Catholics did not know what the church taught about the Eucharist and. Almost 70% of them thought that the bread and wine were symbols of the body and blood of Christ.

So, the Eucharistic Revival has been focused on the real presence and transubstantiation, which is what got me into trouble. It’s really more about benediction than about the Eucharist. The focus is on worshipping Jesus rather than the Father. And as you know, the Eucharistic prayer is addressed to the Father with Jesus. You know, it’s not about worshipping … Jesus doesn’t come down on the altar so that we can worship him. I’m not saying benediction is wrong, benediction is fine as an individual devotion, but it’s not what the Eucharist is about [applause].

The focus of the of the Eucharistic Revival has been on the individual rather than the community. On me and Jesus, rather than communion. On what happens to the bread and wine rather than what happens to the community in the Eucharist. So that it’s much more on the personal experience of the individual rather than getting them prepared to go on mission as a result of the Eucharist.

On one hand, Fr. Reese is correct that our participation in the Eucharist profoundly deepens our union with the Catholic community and prepares us for mission. However, it is precisely due to the real and SUBSTANTIAL presence of Jesus that we can be united in the offering of His once-for-all sacrifice offered to the Father in an unbloody manner at every Mass. So, belief in the real and substantial presence of Jesus is essential, and the US bishops are rightly concerned in the unbelief of the Catholic faithful.

Fr. Reese’s claims that Jesus does not come down to be worshipped in the Eucharist also betrays his anemic and short-sighted view of the Eucharist. To Fr. Reese, it is all about our experience of the Eucharist as a community, a transformation in a vague spirit filled manner, and then going out into the world powered up to do whatever liberation theology projects Jesuits are into these days.

In fact, to modernists like Fr. Reese, Bishop Stowe (who led the retreat at the AUSCP assembly), and the priests of the AUSCP, the word monstrance is often used as an epithet. Take, for instance, the letter from Fr. Newton quoted above where he says, “our understanding of the Eucharist goes beyond monstrances and processions.” And Bishop Stowe, during his retreat, continued this theme stating:

At a time when the church in the United States is focusing on parading monstrances across the country, allowing the real presence to be an object of devotion. I would invite us today to focus on Eucharistic action.

Clearly, it is Christ in the Eucharist who is being processed in a monstrance, so by complaining about “parading monstrances” Bp. Stowe possibly let slip an underlying confusion about the real presence.  It is not the monstrance on parade, and it is not the monstrance to which we give our adoration, but the One contained within it.  And he didn’t stop there.  Bp. Stowe continued to disparage the Eucharistic Congress, attacking the very act of Adoration as if that wasn’t a legitimate or virtuous “Eucharistic act”:

But those who designed this have one thing in mind, and that is adoration of the Eucharist. A gift from God, to be sure. But in a static way that calls attention to itself.

The modernist frustration with monstrances and adoration runs counter to Catholic teaching and Tradition. This can be seen clearly in the documents of the Council of Trent. In the 13^th session, we get Canon 6 which states:

If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of <latria>,[47] also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.

During the questions and answers period after Fr. Reese’s speech, he continued to spread confusion about the Eucharist. When asked about why he denied transubstantiation, Fr. Reese rehashed his explanation that he thinks traditional metaphysics is outdated, and it’s time for modern explanations, like from [the heretic] Teilhard de Chardin, to take center stage:

“So, as a church; are we called to simply quote Augustine and Aquinas like they’re this treasure chest of jewels that we go to and pull out and share with the people? Or are we called to imitate them? In other words, to do the same thing that Augustine did in his time, and Aquinas did in his time – to take the best thinking of their age and use it to explain Christianity to the people of their time.  I understand you’re going to see this documentary … on Teilhard de Chardin. This is obviously what he tried to do, taking the best thinking of his time of science and evolution, et cetera and using it to explain Christ to the people of his generation. In other words, he was more like Aquinas and Augustine than his critics because he was imitating them rather than simply quoting them. And I think that’s what we have to do.

Fr. Reese fails to mention that a long-standing warning against de Chardin’s works is still in effect after last being renewed in 1981. The original 1962 notice states:

“Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.

“Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.

“For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.

“Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.”

Fr. Reese ended his Q&A session with an immature jab against faithful Catholics and God Himself when he was asked if he was optimistic about the Church. Note the heretical “misgendering” of God at the end of his statement:

The difficulty is I think we’re so afraid of schism. That we’re not looking at the younger people who have already said goodbye and are have already left the church, you know. And  we’re so worried about upsetting the more conservative groups in the church than we are about the millions of people that are simply walking out because they think the church is homophobic, it’s  patriarchal. It’s all those other things. It’s anti women. Well then, you know it’s going to be just us gray haired folks and I don’t know who comes after us because the bench is pretty empty and so I my hope, well, my hope has to be in the spirit. But I don’t know where the hell God is leading us and whether she knows what she’s doing.

We must applaud Fr. Newton’s lament about being dis-invited form the Eucharistic Congress for his correct insight that the AUSCP was denied participation in the Congress because the USCCB knows precisely what the AUSCP believes. And while the AUSCP complains about the USCCB’s belief being too pious and too narrow a theology, the AUSCP’s beliefs are so divergent and dissident that one can properly question if they are even Catholic at all.

The AUSCP was rightly excluded, and based on the quality of the AUSCP’s counter-programming on the Eucharist, the US Bishops would do even better if they formally condemned the AUSCP and forbade their priests from having anything to do with it at all.