National Catholic Register portal reports on a new book by Dominican “Father” Patrick Mary Briscoe, *O Sacred Banquet: Exploring the Eucharistic Mystery with Saint Thomas Aquinas* (Our Sunday Visitor, 2026), which promotes the post-conciliar “Eucharistic Revival” centered on St. Thomas Aquinas’ prayer *O Sacrum Convivium*. The article presents the Eucharist as a “banquet” of “fellowship and friendship,” emphasizing “communion,” “processions,” and “adoration” while systematically omitting the propitiatory sacrifice, the reality of transubstantiation as defined by the Council of Trent, and the necessity of the priestly offering for the remission of sins. This is not a revival of Catholic faith but a modernist reimagining of the Most Holy Sacrifice, stripping it of its sacrificial character and reducing it to a communal meal of emotional experience—precisely the error condemned by Pope St. Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici gregis* and the Council of Trent.
The Banquet Without Sacrifice: A Modernist Reinterpretation of the Eucharist
The article, through the words of “Father” Briscoe, consistently employs language that reduces the Eucharist to a “banquet” of “fellowship and friendship,” where “communion” is the central reality. He states: “St. Thomas’ rich Eucharistic theology understands the Eucharist as communion; and for him this means that fellowship and friendship are constitutive of the sacrament. The Eucharist is the sacrament of unity precisely because it draws together and unites the members of the Church.” While the Eucharist is indeed the sacrament of unity, this unity is not merely horizontal—a gathering of friends—but vertical, rooted in the propitiatory sacrifice offered to God for the remission of sins. The Council of Trent, in Session XXII, Chapter II, explicitly defines: “For, appeased by this sacrifice, the Lord grants the grace and gift of repentence, and forgives even the gravest crimes and sins.” The article’s silence on this essential dimension—the Eucharist as a sacrifice of propitiation—is not accidental; it is the hallmark of the modernist theology that has infected the conciliar sect since Vatican II. The “banquet” language, divorced from sacrifice, transforms the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into a Protestant communion service, precisely what the Council of Trent anathematized: “If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the Mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice… let him be anathema.” (Canon 3, Session XXII).
The Omission of Transubstantiation: A Dogma Conveniently Forgotten
The article recounts the Eucharistic miracle of Bolsena, where a German priest doubted “the doctrine of transubstantiation — the belief that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ during Mass.” Yet, remarkably, the article never once uses the word “transubstantiation” in its theological exposition of the Eucharist. Instead, it speaks of “communion,” “presence,” and “nearness.” This is not oversight; it is deliberate evasion. The Council of Trent, in Session XIII, Chapter IV, dogmatically defined: “By the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.” The conciliar sect has systematically avoided this term, preferring ambiguous language like “real presence” or “mystery,” precisely because transubstantiation implies an ontological change that contradicts the modernist notion of symbolic presence. The article’s failure to affirm this defined dogma is not merely a lacuna; it is a tacit denial, consistent with the modernist proposition condemned in *Lamentabili sane exitu*: “The dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are not truths of divine origin but are a certain interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind has worked out with great effort.” (Proposition 22).
The “Eucharistic Revival”: A Manufactured Movement of Emotionalism
“Father” Briscoe speaks enthusiastically about the “Eucharistic Revival” initiated by the U.S. “bishops,” claiming: “Undoubtedly. For me, the greatest surprise has been the enthusiasm for processions… Repeatedly, I witnessed Catholics weeping, celebrating, singing, kneeling, bowing and cheering with joy and fervor before the Eucharistic Lord. It wasn’t manufactured. We’re not nearly organized or well-resourced enough for that. It could only have been his grace.” This is the language of emotional revivalism, not Catholic theology. The fruits of grace are not measured by tears and cheering but by the fruits of the Spirit: charity, chastity, obedience to God’s commandments, and hatred of sin. The article offers no evidence of increased conversions, fewer sacrilegious Communions, or greater adherence to Catholic moral teaching. Instead, it celebrates “processions” and “adoration” as ends in themselves—external displays that, without the proper disposition of faith in the propitiatory sacrifice, are mere ritualism. Pope St. Pius X, in *Pascendi Dominici gregis*, warned that the modernists “propose to reform the Church by adapting her to the conditions of the times” and that their “reforms” are merely “the substitution of a new faith for the old.” The “Eucharistic Revival” is precisely such a substitution: a new “devotion” that avoids the hard truths of sacrifice, penance, and the necessity of the true Mass.
The Neo-Church’s False Reverence: Adoration Without Doctrine
The article encourages readers to “approach the Eucharist with greater reverence and intentionality,” advising: “The key is to be in his presence… Adoration isn’t choreographed or coded. Just go to be near him. Start with a quick visit: five minutes. But do it a few times a week. Speak with him, not only to him or at him. And let him speak to you.” This is the language of Protestant “quiet time” with Jesus, not Catholic Eucharistic adoration. True adoration requires faith in the Real Presence—not as a vague “nearness” but as the true Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, present on the altar by virtue of the valid consecration offered by a validly ordained priest. The conciliar sect’s “adoration” is built on a foundation of ambiguity: their “Mass” is a Protestantized assembly, their “priests” are often doubtfully ordained, and their “Eucharist” is received by the faithful without proper catechesis on the necessity of the state of grace. Pope Pius XI, in *Quas Primas*, taught that Christ’s kingship demands public recognition and obedience. The neo-church’s “adoration” is a private, sentimental experience that avoids the public, social reign of Christ the King—precisely the error condemned in the *Syllabus of Errors*: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” (Proposition 55).
The St. Thomas Aquinas of the Neo-Church: A Weapon Against Tradition
The article invokes St. Thomas Aquinas as the authority for its Eucharistic theology, yet it selectively quotes him to support a modernist agenda. St. Thomas, in the *Summa Theologiae* (III, Q. 73, A. 4), explicitly teaches that the Eucharist is a sacrifice: “This sacrament is simultaneously a sacrifice and a sacrament; but it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as it is offered up; and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as it is received.” The article’s silence on this teaching is deafening. Moreover, the conciliar sect has systematically undermined the authority of St. Thomas by promoting the “theology of the body,” “liberation theology,” and other modernist novelties that contradict his teaching. The neo-church’s use of St. Thomas is not reverence but exploitation—a veneer of tradition to mask a revolution. As the *Syllabus of Errors* condemns: “The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.” (Proposition 13).
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place
The “Eucharistic Revival” promoted by the conciliar sect is not a revival but a further descent into apostasy. It offers “processions” without sacrifice, “adoration” without transubstantiation, “communion” without propitiation, and “reverence” without doctrine. It is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Our Lord (Matthew 24:15): a desecration of the Most Holy Eucharist by those who occupy the Vatican but do not possess the faith. The faithful must reject this false revival and cling to the immutable teaching of the Church: the Mass is the propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary, offered by a validly ordained priest, in which the bread and wine are truly, really, and substantially changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. As Pope St. Pius X declared: “The Church is not a human structure or convention. She was born on the cross from the very side of Christ.” The neo-church, born of Vatican II, is a human structure, a convention of modernists, and its “Eucharist” is a lie. Let us pray for the restoration of the true Mass and the true Church, and let us reject the false banquet of the conciliar sect.
Source:
‘O Sacred Banquet’: A New Book Inspired by St. Thomas Aquinas’ Eucharistic Prayer (ncregister.com)
Date: 16.06.2026