Secondly, Eucharistic adoration is simply the natural consequence of Eucharistic celebration. The act of adoration outside Mass prolongs and intensifies all that takes place during the liturgical celebration itself. Spending time before the Blessed Sacrament in adoration is to follow the example of the Beloved Disciple who lay close to the Heart of Jesus, feeling the presence of His infinite love.
I concluded by saying that the more we desire to be truly the Body of Christ, the more we want to be like Jesus, the more we desire conversion... then the more should we commune with Jesus through Holy Communion and Adoration. The fact is, we are all good at Mass attendance but we may all want to improve on spending time before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.
Today, the topic covers the apostolicity of the Eucharist. There is such a profound relationship between the Church and the Eucharist so much so that what is described of the Church can also be described of the Eucharist. According to the Nicene Creed, the Church is professed to be “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”. The Eucharist too can be described as one and universal. It is also holy since we know it as the Most Holy Sacrament. Our focus today is to uncover its apostolic character.
According to the CCC, when the Church is described as Apostolic, there are three meanings to the term. Firstly, the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph 2:20). Thus, the Eucharist also has its foundation in the Apostles but not in the sense that it did not originate from Christ. It is Apostolic in the sense that it was entrusted by Jesus to the Apostles and has been handed down by them and their successors.
Secondly, the Church is Apostolic because she, with the help of the Holy Spirit, keeps and hands on the teaching, the “good deposit”, the salutary words she has heard from the Apostles. Likewise, the Eucharist is Apostolic because the Church has, throughout her history, defined her teaching on the Eucharist but always in order to safeguard this Apostolic faith with regard to this sublime mystery.
Thirdly, the Church is apostolic in the sense that she “continues to be taught, sanctified and guided  by the Apostles until Christ’s return, meaning through the college of Bishops assisted by priests, in union with the Successor of Peter. Apostolic succession is guaranteed through the sequence of uninterrupted and valid ordination of Bishops and is necessary for the Church to exist in a proper and full sense.
Likewise the Eucharist is apostolic in the sense that it requires a valid priesthood to consecrate the Eucharist. We often hear the phrase “in persona Christi”. It simply means that only those “who have received the sacrament of Holy Orders” are conferred with the power to act in the person of Christ in order to consecrate the Eucharist. Holy Orders which comes through “apostolic succession” is necessary for linking the Eucharistic consecration to the sacrifice of the Cross and to the Last Supper. As such, the Eucharist is apostolic because without an ordained priest, the Eucharistic mystery cannot be celebrated. 
The Eucharist as apostolic thus has implications for us. First of all, this means that the Eucharist celebrated is a gift which transcends the power of the assembly. In short, it is not up to the “assembly, community or gathering” to make for itself. No community is capable of providing the priest but instead the priest is a gift which the community receives through apostolic succession, through the laying on of hands. 
Secondly, in the area of ecumenism, we have made much progress in dialogue with our separated brothers and sisters especially with the Lutherans and Anglicans.  Yet, a concern we have is with the status or reality of “communion” in the Protestant traditions who have lost the sacrament of Holy Orders. Catholics, even though they are encouraged to work for unity, are asked to refrain from receiving communion in Protestant worship because the action would not hasten unity but may actually slow the progress towards visible unity. 
Thirdly, some confusion needs to be clarified. Ecumenical services cannot substitute for Sunday Mass. Even lay services cannot be considered adequate but only a temporary measure.  And this raises a very pertinent question for everyone. It is the question of vocation. JPII mentions that the Eucharist being the centre and summit of the Church’s life, should also be the centre and summit of priestly ministry. This becomes the basis for the promotion of priestly vocation. The fact that there are parishes with no priest should spur the whole community to pray with greater fervour for more vocations.
In conclusion, this parish is served by Jesuit priests—fortunately or unfortunately. Say, if the entire Jesuit community were to perish in an unfortunate accident, then what would become of this entire community? This hypothetical situation shows how “Apostolic” the Eucharist is because nobody from the congregation would dare to come up and say, “I’ll celebrate Mass for you”. Why? This is because there is something about the bread and the wine being transformed into the body and blood of Christ which everyone here knows is a power that does not come from oneself. I cannot give that power to myself. Remember Jesus before Pilate. Jesus says to Pilate simply: You would have no power over me unless it was given above. The power to make the Eucharist comes from above and it is given. That is why we have “apostolic succession”.
Christ promises to be with us. He does so through the Eucharist. As such, it cannot be that He wants to be with us without providing that means of being with us. The shortage of “means”, the shortage of priests, is not because Christ has stopped calling. We have stopped responding.
 If we want to build communities, we need to be God-centred. On the other hand, what we have done so far is to try to build communities, forge communities to proof that we are God-centred. That may explain why the Eucharist is often regarded as a fellowship meal. It is used (or abused) as a means to unity.
 These three functions correspond to the triple callings that comes with our baptism: prophet/teacher, priest and king/shepherd
 Apostolic succession is commonly understood as a tracing back to the times of the apostles. It’s almost like a genealogical process that looks back at one’s ancestry. Where did this Bishop come from and after that where did his predecessor Bishop come from, and so forth? But, it is more dynamic than looking backward. It is dynamic because it is looking forward. We deal not with mundane things. We deal with Holy Things and therefore, apostolic succession is our guarantee of an objective action that produces objective result. We want to know that the bread and wine becomes truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Apostolic succession provides that guarantee. Therefore, it is not as much looking backward as it is a forward projection to guarantee that every Catholic present now who receives Holy Communion receives truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Now, perhaps you understand why the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) does not allow the priest to simply adlib the Eucharistic Prayer.
 In times past, there were priests who celebrated the Eucharist for a small congregation who would leave the ciborium and the chalice for the congregation to take Communion for themselves or to drink from the chalice. This practice is not supported by the GIRM. A possible explanation for this prohibition could be that this practice of “self-communicating” does not correspond to the nature of the Eucharist as “received”.
 With the Anglicans, the problem is within the Anglican Communion. So, dialogue is problematic because amongst themselves, they are having doctrinal disagreements.
 The Eucharist is both a means and sign of unity. It may be a means to unity and yet, it is also a sign that we are united in being taught, sanctified and guided. Thus, to “simply” receive communion because we want to “feel” as one, is to “witness to a lie”. There is, in fact, no unity to witness to. If we accept that “fellowship” is the fruit of our making, then our stress is to ensure that people feel good about the interactions amongst themselves. We should then use “communion” to try to forge communion. But, if we accept that unity is the work of the Holy Spirit, then, it requires that we face up to the disunity that still exists and be ready to dialogue in truth. Truth does not always make us feel good. Instead, truth beckons us to serve it whether we feel good or not.
 We are blessed with many so-called “extra-ordinary” ministers of Holy Communion. Extra-ordinary for us has the connotation that it is something out of this world. For example, the meal was extra-ordinary means that the meal was excellent. Canon Law’s use of the term extra-ordinary just means that it is a temporary situation, a situation out of the ordinary. In fact, it says that the “ordinary” ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the priest and the deacon... everything else is extra-ordinary and therefore only a stop-gap measure. What we have done is to take the “stop-gap” measures to be the norm. I feel we have applied a “sociological” solution to a theological problem. It means we have looked at society and try to find a solution for our shortage of priest through such measures as “lay celebration” or having more “married deacons”. These solutions are not bad but the solution to the shortage of priestly vocation is theological. If we seriously believe that we are truly receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, then we should equally be serious in promoting vocation in order to ensure that we may never be in short supply of the Bread of Life.