The Nonviolent Eucharist

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Twelve
frightened men, who feel that death is hovering over, crowd around
the Son of Man whose hand is lifted over a piece of bread and
over a cup.

Of what
value is this gesture, of what use can it be?

How futile
it seems when already a mob is arming itself with clubs, when
in a few hours Jesus will be delivered to the courts, ranked among
transgressors, tortured, disfigured, laughed at by His enemies,
pitiable to those who love Him, and shown to be powerless before
all.

However,
this Man, condemned to death does not offer any defense; He does
nothing but bless the bread and wine and, with eyes raised, pronounces
a few words.

~
François Mauriac, The
Mystery of Holy Thursday

Outside of
Jesus Christ, the Eucharist has no Christian meaning. Everything
about it must ultimately be referenced to Him and then through Him
to Abba. The same is true of the Christian life. Jesus is the ultimate
norm of Christian existence; everything must be referenced to Him.
If He is not the final standard against which the Church and the
Christian must measure everything in order to determine if it is
the will of God or not, then who or what is?

The Ultimate
Norm of the Christian Life

What would
Christianity or the Church mean for the Christian if Jesus' Way
or teachings were made subject to, or were measured for correctness
by whether Plato, Hugh Hefner, or the local emperor happen to agree
with them? Since for the Christian Jesus is the Word of God, the
Son of God, the Son of Man, the Self-revelation of God: "The
one who sees me sees the Father" (Jn 14:9), since for the Christian
He is "the Way and the Truth and the Life" (Jn 14:6),
it is senseless to maintain that the Christian life can ultimately
be modeled on anyone or anything except Jesus. Even the saints must
be measured against Jesus and His teachings to determine what in
their lives is worthy of Christian honor and what is not.

New Commandment
Contains the Entire Law of the Gospel

Jesus, Himself,
unequivocally commands precisely this when He says, "I give
you a new commandment: Love one another. As I have loved you, so
you also should love one another" (Jn 13:34). As the one the
Church calls "the greatest saint of modern times," St.
Thérèse of Lisieux, the third woman Doctor of the
Church, writes in her autobiography, The
Story of a Soul
:

Among the
countless graces I have received this year, perhaps the greatest
has been that of being able to grasp in all its fullness the meaning
of love…I had striven above all to love God, and in loving Him
I discovered the secret of those other words "Not everyone
who says Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but
the one who does the will of my Father." Jesus made me understand
what the will was by the words he used at the Last Supper when
He gave His "new commandment" and told His apostles
"to love one another as He had loved them"…When God
under the old law told His people to love their neighbors as themselves,
He had not yet come down to earth. As God knows how much we love
ourselves, He could not ask us to do more. But when Jesus gave
His apostles a "new commandment, His own commandment,"
He did not ask only that we should love our neighbors as ourselves,
but that we should love them as He loves them and as He will love
them to the end of time. O Jesus, I know you command nothing that
is impossible…O Jesus ever since its gentle flame has consumed
my heart, I have run with delight along the way of your "new
commandment."

The Catechism
of the Catholic Church says, "The entire Law of the Gospel
is contained in the new commandment of Jesus, to love one
another as he has loved us," and that "This commandment
summarizes all the others and expresses His [the Father's] entire
will."

The internationally
esteemed Catholic Biblical scholar, Rev. John L. McKenzie, echoing
the understanding of modern Biblical scholarship, states that "
No reader of the New Testament, simple or sophisticated, can retain
any doubt of Jesus' position toward violence directed to persons,
individual or collective, organized or free enterprise: he rejected
it totally…If Jesus did not reject any type of violence for any
purpose, then we know nothing of him." Now since Jesus' rejection
of violence, as well as, His teaching of love of enemies are beyond
reasonable doubt and therefore morally certain, then that love that
is in the Spirit of Christ, that love that is imitative of Christ,
that love that is Christ-like, that love that is "as I have
loved," that love which "contains the entire Law of the
Gospel," that love "which expresses His entire will"
is a nonviolent love of friends and enemies.

Both Biblical
scholarship and a common sense reading of the Gospel tell us that
this new commandment of Jesus to "love one another as
I have loved you," is not a throwaway line or an arbitrary
insertion of a thought into the Gospel. On the contrary, the new
commandment is so placed in the Gospel as to be presented as
the supreme and solemn summary of all of Jesus' teachings and commands.
The importance of all this for Eucharistic understanding and Eucharistic
unity is this: Jesus' solemn new commandment is given and
proclaimed not on a mountain top nor in the Temple, but, as St.
Thérèse notes, at the Last Supper, the First Eucharist.

At this bitter-sweet
Last Passover Meal, poised between time and eternity and about to
be pressed like an olive by religiously endorsed, rationally justified
and state executed homicidal violence, to which He knows He must
respond with a love that is neither violent nor retaliatory, with
a love that forgives and that seeks to draw good out of evil, He
tells those He has chosen, "I will be with you only a little
while longer. You will look for me and as I told the Jews, where
I go you cannot come; now I say to you, I give you a new commandment:
Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one
another" (Jn 13:33-34).

Liturgical
and Operational Indifference

It is hard
to conceive of a more dramatically powerful context to communicate
the importance of a truth to people for an indefinite future. Imagine
how the world would be today if this new commandment as taught
on the first Holy Thursday and lived unto death on the first Good
Friday was continuously remembered in Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant
Eucharistic Prayers throughout the ages. For one thing, there would
be no Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant division of the Church because,
whatever the intellectual or political reasons were that promoted
each division and each division of a division, the one thing that
predates all of them and postdates most of them is a thoroughgoing
liturgical and operational indifference to the new commandment
that Jesus proclaims by word at the First Eucharist and by example
at the Sacrifice of Calvary.

All the major
modern divisions in the Church follow by centuries the Church's
justification of violence and homicide with all the distortion of
perspective and spirit that persistence in such activities brings
to individuals and communities. And, after each division all of
the Churches — minus a few of the u2018Peace Churches' — continue to
teach, to endorse and to employ violence and homicide as part of
their Christian way. This necessitated that in these Churches, or
any subdivision thereof, the Eucharistic liturgy be not too explicit
in remembering the details of the Gospel-given history of the Lord's
Supper, of the Lord's Passion and of the Lord's Death. Less still
could any Church that justifies and participates in violence and
homicide afford to be continually Eucharistically emphatic in remembering
Jesus' new commandment given at the Last Supper, and the
clear relationship between it and the Way He in fact historically
responds to violence and enmity. What one does not underline is
what one does not want to remember.

A Eucharistic
Prayer that Embodies Nonviolent Love

So until this
very day, in the Eucharistic Liturgies of such Churches, a word
or two, "suffered" and/or "death," has normally
been quite enough memory, commemoration, remembrance, or anamnesis
for fulfilling the Lord's Command, "Do this in memory (anamnesis)
of me." Of course, technically the words "suffered"
and/or "death" are theologically correct, but are they
pastorally sufficient for the sanctification of the Christian, the
institutional Church, and the world? What would the condition of
the Church and hence the world be like today if the Eucharistic
Prayers of the Churches of Christianity had read at their most sacred
point, "the institution narrative-anamnesis (remembrance),"
something like the following over the last 1700 years:

…On the
night before He went forth to His eternally memorable and life-giving
death, like a Lamb led to slaughter, rejecting violence, loving
His enemies, and praying for His persecutors, He bestowed upon
His disciples the gift of a New Commandment:

"Love
one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one
another."

Then
He took bread into His holy hands, and looking up to You, almighty
God, He gave thanks, blessed it, broke it, gave it to His disciples
and said:

"Take
this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be
given up for you."

Likewise,
when the Supper was ended, He took the cup. Again He gave You
thanks and praise, gave the cup to His disciples and said:

"Take
this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed
for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven."

"Do
this in memory of me."

Obedient,
therefore, to this precept of salvation, we call to mind and reverence
His passion where He lived to the fullest the precepts which He
taught for our sanctification. We remember His suffering at the
hands of a fallen humanity filled with the spirit of violence
and enmity. But, we remember also that He endured this humiliation
with a love free of retaliation, revenge, and retribution. We
recall His execution on the cross. But, we recall also that He
died loving enemies, praying for persecutors, forgiving, and being
superabundantly merciful to those for whom justice would have
demanded justice. Finally, we celebrate the memory of the fruits
of His trustful obedience to thy will, O God: the resurrection
on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement
at the right hand, the second and glorious coming. Therefore we
offer You your own, from what is your own, in all and for the
sake of all…

The explicit
inclusion of the memory of Jesus' new commandment, Jesus'
rejection of violence, Jesus' love of enemies, Jesus' prayer for
His persecutors, and Jesus' return of good for evil in the Eucharistic
Prayer of the Churches at the sacred point of "institution-anamnesis"
is not a whimsical or arbitrary insertion of haphazard events from
Jesus' life. This is what happens from the Cenacle to Calvary. This
is the memory given to us to revere by the ultimate historical,
theological and pastoral documents on the subject: the four Gospels.

Maundy Thursday
— A Mandate to Love as Christ Loves

The very name
for Holy Thursday, Maundy Thursday, comes from the Latin mandatum,
which means a command, commission, charge, order, injunction. It
is a direct and exclusive reference to the new commandment
given at the Lord's Supper. The inclusion of the new commandment
in the Eucharistic Prayer is not riding one's own theological or
liturgical hobbyhorse into the Church's public prayer life. The
new commandment is there from Day One of the Eucharist and
it is there in maximal solemnity and seriousness.

So also, the
rejection of violence, love of enemies, and prayer for persecutors
is an irrevocable part of the history, Scripture, and authentic
memory of the Sacrifice of Love on Calvary. Refusing the protection
of the sword (Mt 26:52), healing the ear of the armed man who is
to take Him to His death (Lk 22:51) and crying out for God's forgiveness
for those who are destroying Him (Lk 23:34) is the memory the Gospels
give to humanity of the victimization of Christ. To side-step these
authentic Apostolic memories in order to get to a more profound
or holy or "deep" spirituality is sheer folly. One has
to have the humility to accept revelation as God offers it. If one
does not want to prayerfully enter into revelation as presented
by God, then one has no access to revelation; for who but God can
author authentic revelation?

Emaciated
Revelatory Remembrance Subverts Divine Love

Jesus does
not die of a heart attack. He dies when His heart is attacked by
human beings inebriated with the diabolical spirit of justified,
religiously endorsed homicide — and He dies giving a definite, discernible,
and consistent response to that satanic spirit. This reality cannot
be insignificant in discerning the Truth of the revelation God is
trying to communicate to humanity for the good of humanity in Jesus,
for the Truth that Jesus is trying to communicate to His disciples
regarding the nature of that love that is "as He loves."
The Sacrifice of the Cross is not about mere animal pain that is
meant to assuage the lust of a sadistic, bloodthirsty, parochial,
violent god. It is about the revelation of the nature and meaning
and way and power of a Divine Love that saves from an Enemy and
a menace that the darkest phenomena of history can only but hint
at. To consistently dismiss and to structurally ignore major facts
in the God-given revelatory memory is to assure that little of what
God intended to be communicated by this costly revelation will be
communicated by it. So, while use of an isolated word, "suffered"
or "died," in the Eucharistic Prayer is theologically
passable, pastorally speaking it is emaciated revelatory anamnesis
(remembrance). For as Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M.Cap., the Preacher
to the Papal Household under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, makes
clear in his book on the Eucharist: The Eucharist is not only
a mystery to consecrate, to receive, to contemplate and adore. It
is also a mystery to imitate. Imitate what? Imitate suffering
and dying? All must suffer and die, there is no choice whether to
follow this road or not. It is a road of necessity not imitation.
Imitate what? Jesus' Way of suffering and dying and living and loving
is what eternally resides in the Eucharist for imitation. But, if
His Way of suffering and dying, living and loving in the face of
even the most formidable of evils — the lethal enemy — is not presented
in the Eucharistic Liturgy, how can it be imitated? Should not the
Christian desire with his or her whole heart to imitate unreservedly
the One whom he or she adores and consumes — the Nonviolent Eucharistic
Jesus?

However, it
does not take much reflection to perceive how detail-devoid Eucharistic
Prayers — that do not mention Jesus' new commandment given
at the Last Supper, that do not mention His rejection of violence,
that do not mention His love of even lethal enemies, that do not
mention His prayer for persecutors, and His struggle to overcome
evil with good — serve a critical function in amalgamating Christianity
into the local national or ethnic violence-ennobling myths, as a
religious legitimist of them. Intentional forgetfulness, structured
inattentiveness, and a cavalier disparaging of Jesus' teachings
of nonviolent love of friends and enemies have always been part
of Christendom's process of religious validation of what He never
taught by evasion of what He explicitly taught. Without this cultivated,
liturgical, Eucharistic blind spot as to the Way He suffered and
died, Jesus could not be drafted as a Divine support person for
the home team's homicide and enmity yesterday, today — or tomorrow.

Amnesia
About Truths in Suffering and Death of Christ

It is possible
today, as it has been possible for 1700 years, for a normal person
to spend a lifetime listening to the Eucharistic Prayers of all
of the mainline Christian Churches and never apprehend that what
is being remembered is a Person — who at the moments being remembered
in the Prayers — rejects violence, forgives enemies, prays for persecutors,
returns good for evil. In other words, in most Christian Churches,
the anamnesis has become an agency for amnesia about truths in the
suffering and death of Christ that if consistently brought to consciousness
at the sacred time of the community's Eucharist would stand in judgment
on a multitude of community activities, past and present.

The Rev. Frederick
R. McManus, Emeritus Professor at The Catholic University of America
and one of the most influential and learned Catholic liturgists
in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century, writing on this issue
says:

The Nonviolent
Eucharist is a valuable and viable proposal to augment Eucharistic
anaphoras with some direct reference to the ministry and teaching
of Jesus concerning peace and love, with concrete mention of the
nonviolence of the Gospel message. The tradition of variety in
the Eucharistic prayer, longstanding in the East and happily introduced
into the Roman liturgy in the light of Vatican II's mandate to
reform the Order of Mass, is ample reason to study this proposal.
The centrality of the mission of peace and nonviolence in the
Gospels needs to be acknowledged in the confession of the great
deeds of God in the Lord Jesus, and the Christian people need
to see this essential dimension of Eucharistic peace in the prayer
which they confirm and ratify with their Amen.

The most renowned
moral theologian of the Catholic Church in the 20th Century, Rev.
Bernard Häring, states emphatically that, "It is not possible
to speak of Christ's sacrifice while ignoring the role of nonviolence."
Yet, this is precisely what most Christian Churches have been doing
in their Eucharistic Prayers since Constantine first employed the
cross as an ensign to lead people into the enmity and homicide called
war.

FACT: Catholics,
Orthodox, and Protestants all believe they have authentic Eucharistic
communion within their own Churches and often the same belief holds
for communion among different Churches. This, however, has not prevented
them from sojourning into slaying their own and other Christians
on a grand scale and then exonerating themselves by some fantastic
contortion of the Gospel.

The Key
to Eucharistic Unity and Christian Unity

Now what I
am about to suggest I am sure could sound more than farfetched,
but I believe it is the pivotal decision for Christic Truth on which
a future of Christian unity and Eucharistic unity wait. At this
time in history, the key to Eucharistic unity and Christian unity
is for Churches — each by whatever process of authority is internal
to it — to compose new Eucharistic Prayers or add a passage to a
present Eucharistic Prayer which vividly, but exactly, calls to
mind the new commandment, and the specifics of the historic
confrontation between evil as manifest in homicidal violence and
enmity, and Jesus' response of Nonviolent Love that took place at
the moment being remembered.

This is not
one among many things the Churches can do for peace and unity —
it is what they must do. The present meagerness of Scriptural and
historical memory, while it does not render the Eucharistic Prayers
invalid, does make them pastorally deceptive by omission. Psychologically
harnessed from the cradle by the myths of nationalisms and ethnocentrisms,
most Christians cannot hear the broad terms "suffered"
and "died" with the content from AD 33, which they are
meant to communicate. Pastoral responsibility before God and pastoral
integrity before the community insist that the fitting and right
textual adjustments be instituted because there is a radical spiritual
danger, based on a long historical record, that the paucis verbis
of the present remembrance in the Eucharistic Prayers of all the
mainline Churches is unwittingly serving those forces which the
Eucharistic Jesus comes to conquer.

It is Archimedes
who states that there is a point outside the world that if he could
locate it, he could move the world from it. The "institution
narrative-anamnesis" of the Eucharistic Prayers of the Churches
is that spiritual Archimedean point — if the truth of Christ's Sacrifice
is allowed the fullness of its historical revelatory reality in
them. It is not magic I speak of here. It is the hidden power of
the Cross that is released when those who are in Christ respond
to the offer of grace through Christ — an offer made through a unique
and unequaled "salvation device" when He says, "Do
this in remembrance of me."

For the leadership
of each Church to authorize text clarifications in its Eucharistic
Prayer would not be magic. For said leadership to explain the changes
to the community would not be magic. For each community to consciously
stand or kneel daily, weekly, or monthly in the presence of such
a Nonviolent Eucharistic Lord would not be magic. All would necessitate
human choice, but choice aimed at cooperating more faithfully with
the incalculably powerful and mysterious reality of the Divine Design
for salvation in Jesus — choice on behalf of a more authentic expression,
experience and encounter with the Saving Presence of Divine Love
as revealed through, with and in the Nonviolent Eucharistic Christ.

New Time
of Christian Agapé

A more truthful
Eucharistic Prayer is the starting point of "the fair beginning
of a nobler time." For certain this is the point from which
to move the world into a New Era of Christic Agapé because,
from this point on, the Christian and the Church will derive their
Life from the Bread of Life of an Agapé Meal that is reverently
respectful of the "last wish" of Jesus — that the love
(agapé) which He showed His disciples be remembered and lived
in the community as the un-breachable standard of all Christian
interaction with the other sons and daughters of the "Father
of all." This is the spiritual Archimedean point because there
is infinitely more Power in that Mysterious Meal in the Upper Room
than meets the eye — if the choice is but made to embrace it by
those means which God bestows on us to embrace it.

What is equally
true is this: there is infinitely more to the new commandment
than meets the mind. As each Church Eucharistically remembers more
lucidly the truth of Jesus' life of Nonviolent Love, His death in
Nonviolent Love, and His resurrection through Nonviolent Love, Jesus'
new commandment will disclose its depth of meaning, purpose,
and power to the Churches of Christianity in a manner that will
gift them with an experience of new reality. Out of this new reality
will come new insight and new spirit — and from this new reality
and new insight and new spirit will come new words, new phraseology,
new language, new thoughts and new acts that will resolve aged and
serious problems of truth. Rising from this new level of Eucharistic
fidelity will come a new convergence of Christic Love and Truth
that will engender an existential unity beyond present imagination.
It is not magic I speak of here. Prayer changes people, and people
change things, but pastors must first give the "Yes" for
a more specific and more pastorally accurate remembrance narrative
in the Eucharistic Prayer. As at Nazareth of old, God, who desires
to renew the face of the earth, holds His breath and awaits His
chosen servant's fiat.

Betrayal
of Baptismal and Eucharistic Unity

In a 1969 article
for the Notre Dame Alumnus, I wrote: "To paraphrase
a student slogan, u2018Suppose someone gave a war and the Christians
refused to kill or harm one another'…It would be a giant step forward
for humanity if the Church would preach as a minimum standard of
morality, the absolute immorality of one follower of Christ killing
another follower of Christ."

In 1969 I lost
on all fronts with this. For the conservatives it was "just
ridiculous"; for the liberals, it was too absolutist; and for
the radicals, it was Christianist and anti-humanist. But, I know
more surely today than I did thirty-six years ago that this is the
truth of the matter. Homicide-justifying Christianity cannot dialogue
itself out of the snare into which it has fallen. It must first
unreservedly desire to be obedient to Jesus' new commandment;
then from this wholehearted desire will issue the grace, insight
and power to do the other tasks committed to the Christian and the
Church. Now, this desire to be faithful to the new commandment
would at least seem to mean that as a dimension of Baptism and Eucharist,
the Christian would always say "No!" if called upon by
anyone, even an "angel of light," to kill other Christians.
He or she would do this in order not to be reduced to a "Judas-Christian"
— a betrayer of one's gift of Baptismal unity in Christ and a betrayer
of one's task of Eucharistic unity in His new commandment.

How could this
not be what the Nonviolent Jesus intended for His disciples by His
new commandment at the Last Supper? How could this not be
what the Nonviolent Jesus intended His followers to teach, nurture,
encourage, foster, energize, and command when bringing people into
Baptismal and Eucharistic unity with Him and through Him with each
other and God? The Church will be the servant it is meant to be
to God and to humanity only to the extent that it is faithful to
what it has been commanded to do internally, namely to "Love
one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another."
Absent an unswerving commitment to the new commandment of
the Nonviolent Jesus, the Church will become a body tearing itself
limb from limb — and an anti-sacrament of disunity, the world-wide
public incarnational denial of its own truth, the truth committed
to it by God to proclaim to a violence drenched world by word and
deed.

Disunity
Emanates from Separation of Divine Mandates

A commandment
that is consigned century after century to the doorsteps of oblivion
is a non-thought in a community. Obedience to a non-thought is a
patent impossibility. Yet, it is at the very same Supper that the
Lord commands for all time "Do this in memory of me" that
He pronounces for all time His new commandment. How can these
Divine Mandates be honestly separated? How can one be obeyed religiously
while the other is religiously ignored?

It is this
separation between the two great Eucharistic Commands that is the
source of and the sustaining power for separation within Christianity
— ecclesiastically and Eucharistically. It is this separation in
Christianity between the two great Eucharistic Commands, whose mutually
complementary purpose is to unite, that has reduced the Church in
confrontation with the horrid reality of evil to a coping dinosaur
rather than a conquering Spirit. Disunity dis-empowers to the detriment
of all — except the Fiend.

For mercy's
sake, the pastors of Christianity must relinquish their stance of
calculated inattentiveness to the unbreakable unity of Word and
Sacrament. They must simply stop managing the Eucharistic Prayers
in a manner that spiritually short-circuits the process of repentance
— and hence unification — by perpetually camouflaging the unwanted
truth of Jesus' nonviolent love of friends and enemies and His command
to follow His example of love. There are not two Jesus Christs:
the Eucharistic Christ of faith on one hand, and the historical
Jesus on the other. John Paul II states in his Encyclical, Redemptoris
Missio (1990), "One cannot separate Jesus from the Christ
or speak of a u2018Jesus of history' who would differ from the u2018Christ
of faith'…Christ is none other than Jesus of Nazareth." The
only Jesus Christ present at the Eucharist, the only Jesus Christ
to remember, receive and adore in the Eucharist is the Jesus Christ
who taught and lived unto death a Way of nonviolent love of friends
and enemies and who commanded His disciples to do the same: "Love
one another as I have loved you;" "Do this in memory of
me."

A Pastorally
Truth-Filled Eucharist

Having recently
concluded a Century in which more people have been killed by rationally-justified,
religiously-legitimized war, revolution, abortion, and capital punishment
than all the centuries of humanity combined; having recently concluded
a Century that has by the billions mercilessly murdered "the
least" (Mt 25:14-46) by squandering on the technology of violence
and homicide the most lavish gifts of intelligence and learning
ever granted a century of humanity; having recently concluded a
Century that has brought a planet of humanity to the lip of a cauldron
bubbling with the brew of nuclear plagues and war-generated diseases;
having recently concluded a Century where Christianity has been
a major player in all these evil — it is an urgent moral imperative
for Christian pastors to begin with vigor to lead their Churches
away from evasively ambiguous Eucharistic Prayers and into repeatedly
remembering with clarity of mind and spirit the Way God committed
to them for remembrance on Holy Thursday-Good Friday, 33 A.D.

A pastorally
truth-filled Eucharistic institution narrative, as enunciated above,
initiated in the beginning by the authority of each of the Churches
for its own community, is the key not only to the resolution of
Church divisions and Eucharistic disunity, but also the key to so
much talked about New Pentecost which is the only Power that can
transfigure the agonia that humanity has made of history.
From a New Holy Thursday shall shine a New Pentecost because Eucharistic
prayer is the most powerful prayer to which humanity will ever have
access. This means that, entered into with an honest, humble and
contrite heart, Eucharistic prayer in all its forms — adoration,
contrition, thanksgiving, and supplication — is the supreme instrumentality
available to the human being and to the human community for their
sanctification — which can only express itself in time and space
as deeds of Christ-like love of God, friends, and enemies.

To love the
Eucharist is to live the Eucharist. To live the Eucharist is to
imitate the love of the Eucharistic Jesus. A Nonviolent Eucharistic
Prayer is a mandatum of Christic Truth, a mandatum
of Christic Peace, a mandatum of Christic Love, and hence
a pastoral mandatum.

December
15, 2006

Fr.
Emmanuel Charles McCarthy [send
him mail
] is a priest of the Eastern Rite (Byzantine-Melkite)
of the Catholic Church. Formerly a lawyer and a university educator,
he is the founder and the original director of The Program for the
Study and Practice of Nonviolent Conflict Resolution at the University
of Notre Dame. He is also co-founder, along with Dorothy Day and
others of Pax Christi-USA. He has conducted retreats and spoken
at conferences throughout the world on the issue of the relationship
of faith and violence and the nonviolence of the Jesus. He was the
keynote speaker at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee for
the 25th anniversary memorial of the assassination of Rev. Martin
Luther King, Jr. there. He is author of several books, including
these: All Things Flee Thee because Thou Fleest Me: A Cry to
the Churches and their Leaders to Return to the Nonviolent Jesus
and His Nonviolent Way; Christian Just War Theory: The logic of
Deceit; August 9: The Stations of the Cross of Nonviolent Love.
He has also authored innumerable articles on the subject of violence,
religion and the nonviolent love of friends and enemies taught by
Jesus by word and deed. His audio/video series, BEHOLD THE LAMB,
is almost universally considered to be the most spiritually profound
presentation on the matter of Gospel Nonviolent Love available in
this format. Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy was nominated for the
Nobel Peace Prize for his life’s work on behalf of peace within
people and among people. He may be reached and his work my be accessed
at the Center
for Christian Non-Violence
.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts