Sacraments | Blogger Priest

Our Pro-Life Commitment

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Father Joe

The Cemetery of the Innocents

Here is a picture of me and the Knights of Columbus who set up 721 crosses that represent the children lost to abortion in one hour of one work day. This MEMORIAL OF THE INNOCENTS was set up at Holy Family Church in Mitchellville in 2009 and every year since then. We often have it up until the annual March for Life in Washington, DC. We received a lot of support although there were a few complaints. One lady argued against putting such a thing up at Christmas time. I explained that Advent and Christmas was the perfect time. During Advent we recall the Christ-child in the womb and on Christmas he is born. We are reminded that every child is a reflection of the Christ-child. Another person argued that it was insensitive as she was a pro-choice Catholic. I told her that she was deceived. There is no such thing as a pro-abortion Christian; abortion attacks the central mystery of the Incarnation. Abortion is murder and as such it is a repudiation of Christ’s Gospel of Life.

One of my favorite memories is working with the American Life League back in 2005 and the CRUSADERS FOR LIFE. Here is a reposting of the news around that event at my old parish, Holy Spirit Church:

A.L.L. Crusaders Come to Washington 2005

A dozen young people from colleges across the country walked from Augusta, Maine to Washington, DC in “Defense of the Catholic Church” and to spread the message that you cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion. Nevertheless, while many have applauded young people for taking up the “right to life” cause, this group of remarkable crusaders was purportedly banned from speaking in churches by several dioceses like Philadelphia and Baltimore.

Myself, Dr. Grier & a Crusader

The American Life League ran a series of stinging ads challenging the American bishops to enforce canon law and to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege when pro-abortion politicians and others (who have made such “public” stands) take it upon themselves to receive Holy Communion. The young people have shown no spite or anger, only sadness that some of the nation’s shepherds have chosen to remain on the sidelines. One priest remarked that the ads in protest were so severe that the American Life League owed the leaders of the Church an apology. However, others thought that these good men should at least have shown the same respect and hospitality to the young marchers for life as they have in the past to the high profile anti-life politicians. While they were able to find lodging in the city, they attended 9:00 AM Mass at Holy Spirit Church on Friday, July 30 and were invited to say a few words afterwards. I contacted the archdiocese’s Pro-Life Office several weeks earlier about the matter to insure a level of approbation and to insure proper discretion. (Although the ads pained him, to his credit, Cardinal McCarrick did not formally forbid the young people to speak in his churches. Throughout, nothing the young people said violated the archdiocese’s rules against participation in partisan politics– they did not name politicians by name, did not tell people for whom they should vote, and spoke with respect in regard to the Church’s shepherds.) Following the celebration, a reception was held in the Parish House were the young people had a hearty breakfast and got to meet parishioners. Also in attendance was SK Reginald Grier, a parishioner, a fourth degree Knight of Columbus and volunteer member of the archdiocesan Office for Black Catholics. John Stakem, a Knight of Columbus from St. Pius X Council, and past parishioner was present, too. John Stakem and Joseph Markauskas were long-time pro-life volunteers and were involved with the local pregnancy center. Joe and Betty Markauskas had even offered to give the young people housing while in town. We were very pleased that the director for the Forestville Pregnancy Center was present, Chyllene McLaughlin, along with her assistant. We wanted to communicate to these young people that they were not alone. Holy Spirit Parish, the Knights of Columbus, and the Pregnancy Center in the larger pro-life community, was very much behind them.

ALL Crusaders at Holy Spirit Parish

May God bless them for their sacrifices and may their witness bear fruit.

DISCUSSION

FRANK: News releases indicate that the Church after Vatican II had converted the Kennedys and other Catholic politicians into believing that the liberal backing of the culture of death is acceptable.

FATHER JOE: What news releases were these? Cite them; I would like to read further. As far as I recall, John Kennedy was chastised by churchmen for his liberal response about how little his faith would inform his work as president. As for the other Kennedys and the issue of abortion, I fail to see how Vatican II can be blamed for their pro-abortion stances. I have read and studied all the Vatican II documents and post-conciliar documents. Nothing comes to mind that would condone such thinking against the Gospel of Life. Are we throwing mud again? Give me specifics, please.

FRANK: Having attended the seminaries after Vatican II where the divinity of Christ was challenged, as well as the papacy, and all that was to be infallible before the “Catholic reformation” of 1962-1965; what is your take on recent developments and the continued blasphemies to this day condoned by the Church where the USCCB still can’t come to a consensus to deny our Lord to baby-killing Catholic politicians?

FATHER JOE:

Certainly there was a heightened stress upon the humanity of Christ in many theological schools after Vatican II. However, I do not recall ever being taught that Jesus was not a divine Person.

Fr. Patrick Granfield taught my class on the papacy at Catholic University and his lectures defended the Holy Father’s authority with a great deal of explanation.

Those things that were changed were not deemed infallible but rather mutable accidentals. This thinking was even shared by Pope Pius XII prior to Vatican II on matters like the prehistoric generation of human beings and the liturgy.

A revision of the liturgy was in the working stages going back to the 1930′s and 40′s. The reformed liturgy we have now has lasted a few decades and will probably remain for many more, although with the old liturgy alongside and with continuing adaptations by the Holy See. We have had to suffer the experimental phase, but Pope Benedict XVI said that such has come to an end.

As for the passivity of churchmen in reference to Holy Communion and the standing of pro-abortion politicians, such is also not attributable to Vatican II. The Church has gone through periods in the past where it was the lackey for parliaments, kings and queens. The Popes made clear statements from the 1600′s onward that slavery was detestable and should be abandoned. However, Catholics owned slaves in the colonies and later in the United States of America. The Jesuit landowners of Maryland had slaves. Bishops were often mute on the subject, except for admonishing their baptism in the faith. Dissent is not something new but something very old.

PADRE XYZ:

Father Joe, Your welcome to the pro-life young people did not go unnoticed. I know it cost you personally. I think you can be rude and you definitely lack tact, but it did take some nerve to stand virtually alone and make the challenge against silence or business as usual. You honestly shared your heart to the bishops and your brother priests.

You asked…

Would you give communion to Nazis who promoted the murder of Jews?

Would you give communion to White Supremacists who incited the lynching of Blacks?

Why should we prize the life in the womb any less or their murders as somehow less grievous?

Silence befell all the big guns. You lost a lot of friends that day. If you had career hopes in the church, they were suddenly shattered. Hushed and whispered voices were the only response, “How do we shut this priest up?”

You became an embarrassment. I could not do what you did. You angered a lot of people. You took a promise of obedience and you were reprimanded for your slight as an act of betrayal. Some of us witnessed it, although you were left unnamed.

You changed after that, became quiet, even sullen. It was as if something died in you. You gained weight.

I know you were disappointed in me. But to be frank, I was afraid. Who are we to question the shepherds over us? What happens if we tell the majority of Catholic politicians they are no longer welcome at the altar?

Take care of yourself.

FATHER JOE: I was going to erase this comment. I still might. If you are who I think you are, email me. Peace!

(I am not really brave. I speak my mind and I love the Church. When all is said and done, I do as I am told. I am the Church’s man. Some would contend that I am too conservative or right wing. But how can we be too committed to the Gospel of Life? Every day I work to control my temper. As long as I can remember, I have been very passionate about our faith and its values. Am I ambitious? Like most priests, it is nice to know that one is appreciated and that one’s talents are acknowledged. However, by comparison to most priests that I know, my rating would be very low. It is not false humility but the truth when I say that I count myself as the least of my brothers. As for the bishops, it must be a frightful responsibility they carry. Who would want it? They are criticized from every side. It is easy for us to judge, but we do not walk in their shoes. Pray for priests and pray, especially for our bishops. They are Christ’s apostles in the world today.)

DR: I nominated you for a pro-life blog award (FATHER JOE Blog).

JOHN: Fr. Joe, abortion is murder. These babies can’t speak for themselves. Other bishops have stood up and said priests should not give communion to pro-choice politicians as they have the power to stop the murder (Bishop Burke-former bishop of St. Louis archdiocese and Bishop Finn of Kansas City diocese, for instance.) I’m glad priests like you and Fr. Frank Pavone speak out on this issue. It’s a serious matter and it should be treated as such. Thanks for all you do.

LENBER:

“President Bush has had a very cozy relationship with the Vatican, and set a presidential record by meeting with the Pope six times.”

Very cozy indeed, sometimes for the good, and at other times for utterly and criminally contra-productive [things], such as siding with Bush in Criminal Wars (for the Vatican just Abortion is a Crime) or siding with Israel on their Criminal Occupation of Palestine.

All Thanks to Vatican II Double Crossers.

FATHER JOE: I am not sure I would coin the Bush Doctrine or International efforts in such negative terms. However, as for the Pope, you seem to be terribly deceived. The Vatican opposed the invasion of Iraq. Tarek Aziz (the former president) was a Catholic. He made a retreat in Rome and saw the Pope (John Paul II) the week prior to the invasion. The state of Israel is also not entirely happy that the Vatican, again and again, sides with Palestinians (who are largely Islamic but include an ancient Christian community). Formal recognition and diplomatic ties were held up because of Vatican concerns for the Palestinian people. The late Arafat, at the end of his life, remarked that he saw the Vatican as his ally in the conflict for Palestinian rights. Zionism was condemned by both the UN and by the Church. Arafat used to attend the Christmas Mass in Bethlehem with his wife (who is a Christian). The Catholic Church is no one’s stooge, not for Bush and not for Israel. The Holy Father (both JPII and BXVI) has spoken to President Bush, (he meets a lot of people) and they share much in regard to the unborn, however on matters like the Middle East and capital punishment, there is a great divide.

MICHAEL:

Tomorrow marks the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Think of the millions of lives that were snuffed out in this “free” country.

May God have mercy on us!

GENUS LILIUM:

I am completely against abortions. I have children and I have learned that some vaccinations are grown off of human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue, not to mention all the other chemicals, heavy metals, and animal products. That seems like it might be a problem to me. Now that I know this, would it be wrong for me to continue to vaccinate my children? Is it just a money scheme? I really don’t want that stuff in my kids.

Filed under: Bishops, Catholic, Church, Conscience, Discipleship, Eucharist, Morality, Politics, Priests, Pro-Life, Right to Life, Sacraments, Sexuality, Sin, Social Justice, Youth | Leave a comment »

Divorce & Remarriage, a Witness from the Other Side

Posted on August 28, 2010 by Father Joe

I want to share a response to my remarks about Catholic teaching from a man hurt and angry about his wife’s divorce and subsequent remarriage. While we only know his side of the case, I found myself very sympathetic toward his concerns. No annulment was granted and yet it appears that her pastor permitted her to return to the sacraments. This is problematical and, not privy to the situation, I am at a loss as to what the extenuating circumstances might be. The reader should be warned that while I censored a couple of words, the language is sometimes harsh and crude. Further, we have many good people who have suffered divorce, received proper annulments and have started to rebuild a life wounded by an earlier bad and invalid marriage. I praise the Lord for how the Church and divine grace has brought healing and hope to their lives. But this post is about someone who is still hurting and who feels left out or abandoned. We do not know the grounds for the divorce or why the annulment was denied. What we see is a man angry that his wife divorced him; angry that she has married again and will not be coming home; and angry that a seemingly passive Church will not excommunicate and punish her.

Here is what Karl wrote, please note that my response immediately follows:

As a victim of a destroyed marriage due to the Catholic Church’s acceptance and encouragement of divorce, adultery and remarriage without an annulment (which is exactly the situation I faced), your question of divorce is invalid and shows that you really do not know what is going on in the Catholic Church.

I speak from experience.

I have seen tremendous evil and have begged for intervention at every level in the Catholic Church and only am ignored in spite of the FACTS!

Father Joe, the Church is a whore and the clergy are her pimps and none of them care to really understand the evil they are about.

With a broken heart, I say this is absolutely true and if the Pope had the COURAGE to give me a private audience, along with my adulterous wife, her lover and all of our children, he would be heartbroken if he opened his mind, which I think is beyond him. He would see what I have seen and see how my pleas for justice and for healing a Sacramental marriage have been ridiculed and ignored, while the adultery of my wife and her lover, in the face of two Roman Rotal decisions in favor of OUR SACRAMENT have been encouraged and supported for now over sixteen years!

Show some guts and get me a Papal audience, at the Church’s expense and the Pope will never be the same about these issues if he could but open his mind and LISTEN.

For the record, such as this commentary, it is a scandal and should not be said, unless it IS true; before Jesus Christ I have stated herein what is the TRUTH and am very willing to be held accountable for it, but only by those capable of objective, truthful analysis and free from assailing by any legal entity or ecclesial entity. I know their blood thirst for vengeance.

You may be a nobody among priests, Father Joe, but what you have read here is the TRUTH. Ignore it or say it is the rant of a madman and your Savior will know what is in your heart.

You can also be assured that there are many others who have experienced what I have and know this but who are ignored by the Catholic Church.

We DO NOT NEED OR WANT kind words. We DO NOT WANT spiritual direction.

We want accountability among the priests and bishops for what has been done to us. And we want it done publicly since publicly our marriage has been violated.

We want JUSTICE, not VENGEANCE.

We want our SACRAMENTS RESPECTED AND SUPPORTED BY ACTIONS NOT WORDS AND FALSELY PIOUS WORDS!

We want our marriages healed, which in cases like this can only be accomplished with Canonical sanctions – EXCOMMUNICATION.

Excommunication is supposed to be used to restore a person to the state of grace but instead nothing is done while our spouses are completely accepted by the Church as a couple, albeit not married in the Church, but nevertheless functioning as a married couple, while usually deceiving all by saying the arrangements are “brother and sister.” All this is with Rotal decisions stating just the opposite.

When was the last time brothers and sisters dated or took a romantic vacation together?

I dare you to have the [deleted] to preach about this scandal from your pulpit. I would come to hear you and answer questions if you had the guts and were willing to openly challenge the Bishops and the Pope.

I would like to hear what you think, but do not waste my time with piety if you are moved to believe that there is some truth in what I have told you. (I have heard so much [deleted] empty words from priests!) But I am passed being patient/understanding unless the person is willing to go to the wall with me on this issue.

You have no idea of the rage that this injustice breeds or the guilt we feel for our rage and our desperate desire to get rid of all the anger, to heal our marriages to forgive and to be forgiven. But not a single Bishop, at least in the US, cares enough to make this a prominent issue for the press, since the rest of the Church will do NOTHING.

Karl

RESPONSE FROM FATHER JOE

Dear Karl,

I am sorry about what happened to you in your marriage. Even the Holy See has offered subtle warnings and guidance about the large number of annulments in the United States. The response is usually that we have the largest number of canon lawyers in the world or that Americans are generally immature and have difficulty making true commitments. Along with you, I think there is rampant abuse in the system. However, just because divorce and remarriage seems easy in this nation, and I have only had two annulment cases out of countless ones submitted that were turned down, still the truth remains that Jesus hates divorce and it is labeled “sin.” Admittedly, there are priests who would disagree with me, at least as to how this teaching is expressed. Certainly the Separated and Divorced Catholics groups might find such a verdict painful; however, I find disturbing that a number of sanctioned support groups often function as dating services for men and women who are not free to marry or even to have romantic relationships (adultery) . I must quickly add that this is NOT the case with all groups which focus on healing after these losses.

I know it is anger and frustration speaking when you label the Church “a whore” and all her clergy “pimps.” But remember, that no matter how sinful the membership (including the clergy), the Church is holy because Christ is holy. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. As for clergy, yes we have more than our share of rascals; but I would contend, from my own associations, that most of them are good men who love the Lord and sacrifice much in the service of his people. Good priests keep their promises, just as we want married couples to keep theirs.

It would seem that if the Roman Rota ruled in favor of the sacrament of marriage between you and your wife, then the Pope is actually already on your side. Unfortunately, it is a big Church and even papal universal jurisdiction has a hard time breeching the mechanizations of the local churches and the various bishops. One of the reasons that Rome insists that a second tribunal affirm or cancel the decision of the primary tribunal is to help insure justice.

I know a good man, and a devout Catholic, who suffers daily because his wife left him for another man. He fought the divorce and later he tried to stop the annulment. However, he failed. He still goes to Mass and often he weeps at prayer in loss for her and in distress about the Church. He is absolutely convinced, despite the verdict of the marriage tribunal, that she is still his wife. He spurns suggestions that he should date and marry again. That would be adultery, he tells everyone, and knowing him I would be inclined to agree with him. I never met his wife and cannot say what kind of person she is, but knowing her husband (or ex-husband) my impression of her is not good. I am not blind that such things are going on. But neither can I water down what has always been the official teaching of the Church, and a prohibition (against divorce) that comes from the very mouth of Jesus.

The difficulty is that there are some invalid and unlawful marriages.

If the groom sleeps with the maid of honor the night before the wedding, I would say there is something seriously wrong already with the necessary intention.

If the man is partially paralyzed and impotent, he cannot lawfully consummate the marriage.

If there is an absolute opposition to children and intercourse is always contraceptive, the marriage is negated by the rejection of its principal object or good.

If the girl’s “pappy” forced the boy to marry his daughter at the end of a shotgun, then coercion negates the authenticity of the bond.

I have even turned down weddings that other priests eventually witnessed, as when one or both of the parties is mentally deranged. I recall one lady who was a heavily medicated paranoid schizophrenic. The drugs that drowned out the invisible voices would deform any child conceived. I recommended that she keep a platonic friendship, but that God was not calling her to marriage. They went to another priest and he did the deed. She got pregnant and had to go off medication. As a screaming insane person, necessity required that she be tied to a bed for months. Her husband walked off, like I suspected he would. The child had all sorts of defects and was eventually taken away from her. It was a real mess. She was incapable of the responsibilities of marriage. And her spouse was a lazy bum.

Prenuptial agreements are the big topic these days. They imply a level of doubt that invalidates the vows. Such contracts are forbidden to Catholics, but couples sometimes lie to priests.

These are real if extreme cases, but they represent some of the genuine areas where tribunals are “supposed” to judicate.

I have even had guys who were married before who tried to hide their previous bonds! One girl had gotten married by a bogus priest!

Another fellow had a vasectomy and failed to tell the bride. She wanted a big family and found out afterwards that all he wanted was to violate her virginity.

I have seen it all. I am not the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand. And yet, I sympathize with you and share your concern about laxity in the annulment system.

I have never met the current Pope myself and so I am the last one to ask in getting you an audience with him. However, he is no fool, and I think he is aware of the abuses that are happening. Much is going on behind the scenes to improve things, but I suspect it will move too slowly to assist you. I am sorry for the pain you feel. I do not know about any “blood thirst for vengeance” and do not know the particulars in the case your wife brought against you. However, I can promise you my prayers and personal good will.

Yes, I suppose you could say that I am a “nobody among priests,” but every priest can forgive sins and confect the Eucharist, and so in this light I always feel especially privileged and blessed.

I beg you not to reject the compassion, spiritual direction and formation that the Church and good priests have to offer. You may not want kind words, but I suspect that Jesus would want me to extend them to you, all the same. As for direction, I must encourage you to stay close to the Church and to Jesus. Our Lord’s sacred heart knew what it meant to be betrayed and abandoned. Find solidarity with him in prayer and hope to enrich and live your life. We really have little or no control over what other people do. We do have some say about what we, individually, do. We all have crosses of some sort or another. Join yours to Christ’s. Life is not fair. People we want to respect disappoint us. The “happy ever after” ending of fairytales often does not materialize…at least not in this world.

It is right to want “accountability” among our priests and bishops, but as the Scriptures tell us, “vengeance” belongs to the Lord. God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that great Tribunal before which we will all one day stand.

People argue for the censure of excommunication these days as if its imposition would cure everything. It does not restore a person to a state of grace. Indeed, it often hardens hearts and people walk away from the faith entirely. It does the opposite from what we might expect. The person is cut off from the Church, the sacrament of salvation. What we should not forget is that which is most basic in regard to rebellion, and that is plain old mortal sin. It does not have to be imposed; the person incurs it immediately and directly by enmity with God and the violation of his commandments. Clergy and other Church officials who do not take their responsibilities seriously, or who are hypocritical, will be punished by God. People who “knowingly” commit adultery will be punished as well. St. Paul says that adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals will have no part in the kingdom of God. It does not get more serious than that. Please do not forget, that while righteous indignation is permissible, violent anger and seeking revenge are also serious sins. Jesus gave us a response pattern; he forgave his murderers from the Cross.

Catholics not married in the Church are not truly married. You write, Karl, that your wife and her “new husband” are “…functioning as a married couple, while usually deceiving all by saying the arrangements are ‘brother and sister.’” There is a peculiar arrangement permitted by the Church where pastors can allow a couple not married in the Church to feign such a situation in the attempt to avoid scandal. It is called INTERNAL FORUM. However, the couple has to be elderly and the annulment has to be impossible to receive. They are forbidden to publicize the true nature of their relationship and they are forbidden to have any sexual congress. They must live as brother and sister. Is this what happened? [Rome and certain canonists, I learned recently, have become much more strict and hesitant to tolerate internal forum situations.]

The trouble here is that the companionship and affection owed to the lawful spouse is still withheld (or given the wrong party).

Almost everyone in my last parish was elderly. It was a small place. Over the years, however, I have spoken about the sacrament of marriage and the evil of divorce. A number of my priest friends have done the same. I am not sure this necessarily brings one into opposition with the Pope and every bishop, either. Archbishop Wuerl has said wonderful things about the indissolubility of marriage in his catechism and television program.

Let us avoid vulgarity. Dialogue must be respectful. I am a priest and I belong to the Church. The question is not whether I will stand with you, Karl, but whether or not we will both stand with Jesus.

You do not want to hear pious talk, but honestly, there are some wounds that cannot be healed in this world. Life is messy and we struggle in a society of sinners with too few saints. All God is asking of you and me is that we be faithful. We may never know success, but that is okay, as long as there is fidelity.

“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Peace,
Father Joe

Filed under: Adultery, Annulment, Catholic, Divorce, Eucharist, Marriage, Morality, Sacraments, Sexuality | 12 Comments »

Questions & Answers About Liturgical Matters

Posted on August 24, 2010 by Father Joe

Why does the Catholic Church have so many ceremonies?

The ceremonies and rituals assist in our lifting up of our hearts to God. The instrumentation of visible symbols helps us to grasp the invisible mysteries of faith.

Does the Bible approve of such things?

The Old Law prescribed many Jewish ceremonials. Christ made use of numerous such rituals and introduced his own ceremonies.

What is the altar?

The altar stands for the table upon which Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Why is the altar often so imposing and made of marble or stone?

While other materials may also make up the altar, the traditional altar was fashioned in the likeness of the martyrs’ tombs upon which the Mass was often said in the early Church.

Why is the altar covered with linen cloths?

It serves as a decorative cover giving reverence to the holy sacrifice, to help insure that if spilt no precious blood shall fall to the ground, and as a vestment for Christ symbolized there.

Why is there a cross (usually a crucifix) near the altar?

It is a visible reminder that the sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of the cross.

What is the chalice?

This is the cup into which the priest pours wine that is to be transformed into the blood of Christ.

Why do priests wear particular vestments at the altar?

The vestments remind us that the priest is a living representative of Christ at the altar. He acts in the very “person of Christ,” head of the Church. God himself prescribed vesture to be worn in the divine services of the Old Covenant.

What is the amice and what is its meaning?

This is a shoulder cloth that serves the practical purposes of covering the priest’s ordinary clerical attire and keeping the neck of certain albs (the white gown) clean. At one time it was even worn over the head as a cover against the cold. It signifies “the helmet of salvation” (Ephesians 6:17), with which the priest arms himself against devilish assaults.

What is the significance of the alb (a long white garment)?

It signifies the purity of body and soul with which a priest should possess before approaching the altar.

What does the cincture (rope worn around his waist) symbolize?

It calls to mind his priestly chastity and continence.

What does the stole (looks like a scarf) signify?

It is a vesture of dignity, as with the ancient Roman senators, symbolizing his honor and power.

What is the purpose of the chasuble (garment worn over all the rest)?

Just like the altar, as a symbol for Christ, is dressed; so too is the priest. The chasuble reminds us that he puts on Christ in a singular fashion. He is Christ, the one high priest, at the altar. It signifies the yoke of the Lord and reminds us all that to follow Christ means to take up the cross.

Suppressed today, although still implemented in the traditional liturgy is the maniple (a band hanging from the left arm); what is it about?

It is a symbol of penance, as well as of the various cares and responsibilities of the priestly vocation.

What do the different colors of vestments mean?

WHITE implies innocence and is particularly festive; it is used on feasts of the Lord and of saints who were not martyrs.

RED signifies martyrdom and is used at commemorations of the Passion, Pentecost and on the feasts of martyrs.

GREEN is used during Ordinary Time and represents the hope of eternal life.

VIOLET signifies penance and to some degree royalty (Advent and Lent).

BLACK is rarely used these days; however, it can replace white or violet at funerals and may still be used on All Souls Day. It expresses sorrow and morning.

SILVER and GOLD are variations upon white and point to even greater festivity.

What do the candles beside the altar signify?

They are another symbol for Jesus who is the Light of the World. We are reminded that his charity should always burn in our hearts. They also call to mind the first Christians who offered up the sacrifice in the dark and cold catacombs.

What is the meaning of incense?

It is a symbol of prayer that rises up to heaven as a sweet odor before God (Psalm 141:2).

Why do the priest and people make the sign of the cross at Mass?

It reminds us of the suffering and death of Christ on the cross. It also dedicates that activity to the Lord and sanctifies it. Associated with grace and blessings, it is often made over people and things.

What is the bow, bending the knee (genuflection), the bent head, and the kissing of holy objects about?

They are signs of veneration, and when directed to God, of adoration, respect, and homage to the presence of Christ upon the altar and/or in the tabernacle.

What are the principal parts of Mass?

Traditionally they were catalogued as the Offertory, Consecration, and Communion. The revised liturgy has much reduced the Offertory and simply calls it the Preparation of the Gifts. In light of renewed interest in the Scriptures, post-Vatican II directives speak of the two main parts of the Mass: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Having said this, the center of gravity will always be upon the Eucharist. At the words of consecration the priest changes the bread and wine into the living body and blood of Christ. God makes himself present upon our altars. Holy Communion is our reception of the bread of life and the cup of salvation.

What ingredients compose the host that is to be consecrated?

It is unleavened bread made from pure wheaten flour and water.

What is the tabernacle?

This is the container, either upon its own altar table or in a wall, where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved.

What is the Introit?

Usually replaced by a musical piece on Sundays, it is the Entrance Antiphon of the Mass.

What is the Confiteor?

It is a confession of fault and sin; in other words, of our unworthiness as we begin the Mass.

What is the Gloria?

It is a solemn song of praise to the goodness and majesty of God.

What is the Liturgy of the Word?

It is composed of various readings and their application is a homily. The pattern on Sundays is as follows: Old Testament Reading, Responsorial Psalm, New Testament Reading, Alleluia and/or Verse, Gospel, Homily, Creed and Prayer of the Faithful (General Intercessions).

What do we understand by the Profession of Faith at Mass?

This is the Creed given to the universal Church at Nicea in 325 AD and again at the council of Constantinople in 381 AD. It is a formal confession of the Catholic faith.

What is the meaning of the priest pouring a drop of water into the wine?

It signifies the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, and it represents the water that flowed from the side of Christ.

What is the purpose of the Lavabo?

It is to clean the priest’s hands and prepare them to touch the Sacred Host. It signifies an inward purity of soul with which we should offer this holy sacrifice to God.

What is the Preface?

It is a solemn hymn of praise and thanksgiving just before the canon of the Mass proper.

What is the Sanctus?

It is the thrice-repeated salutation of the angels in heaven: Holy, Holy, Holy.

What does the word “Canon” mean?

It refers to the anaphora or Eucharistic prayer used at Mass. The oldest in the West is the first Eucharistic prayer, the Roman Canon. The word “canon” means rule and here points to the unchangeable rule or manner in which the holy sacrifice is daily commemorated. The Roman canon had remained unchanged for almost 1,300 years prior to the Second Vatican Council. The most essential part of the canon, as with those in the newer ones, finds its source in the words of our Lord, himself. Of course, the traditions of the apostles and church fathers, as well as the reverent regulations of popes, have played a part in the development of liturgy, too.

Why does the priest extend his hands over the gifts?

This action parallels a similar gesture in the old law where the priest was required to lay his hands upon the sacrificial offerings as a sign that the animal now bore their sins and had to expiate them by death. At Mass, the extension of the hands signifies that Christ is the Lamb of God who took upon himself all the sins of the world. It is also associated with the invocation of the Holy Spirit (epliclesis). The power of the Holy Spirit makes possible the sacrifice of the Mass and the transformation of the gifts.

What does the priest do at the consecration?

The priest says what Christ said at the Last Supper: “Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. . . . 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.”

What is the effect of these words?

When they are spoken, the bread and wine are changed into the true and living body and blood of Christ.

Why does the priest raise up the bread and chalice?

Not only does it better allow the people to see, he lifts up the host (not simply bread) and then the chalice with the precious blood, as an invitation to adore our Lord and Savior now present under the forms of bread and wine.

What are the two prayers, which immediately follow the consecration?

The first is a Vatican II interpolation of the words associated with the consecration, “Mysterium fidei,” or THE MYSTERY OF FAITH. The congregation offers one of several memorial acclamations, which affirm that our Eucharistic Lord and the historical Christ are one-and-the-same: “Dying [you] destroyed our death, rising [you] restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.” The anamnesis or memorial prayer is next. By recalling Christ, we make present in the Eucharist both his person and saving activity. We affirm that this is a “holy and perfect sacrifice, the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.”

How does the priest pray for the dead?

He prays that the faithful departed may also receive from the fruits of the Mass and be granted “Light, happiness, and peace” in God’s presence. Sometimes the priest will even mention the dead by name. This is called the “memento” of the dead. The congregation should pray also for their deceased relatives and friends at this stage of the liturgy.

Why do we offer the Lord’s Prayer after the Eucharistic prayer?

It is because as children of God we are entitled to call upon God as “Our Father.” The mediation of Christ brings our prayer to God in heaven. We are confident that God will hear our prayer and give us what we need for body and soul.

Why does the priest break the host?

The fracturing of the priest’s host reminds us of the passion and death of Christ when his soul parted from his body. A fragment of the consecrated host is mingled with the precious blood as a sign that Christ is here present as our Redeemer, risen from the dead.

What is the Agnus Dei?

This is the “Lamb of God” prayer that echoes Scripture in repeating three times that he is the lamb of sacrifice “who takes away the sins of the world.” It is a prayer for mercy and one which acknowledges what Christ has accomplished.

What is with the sign of peace?

It is a ritual gesture, not simply a handshake, where we extend Christ’s peace to one another. We are admonished not to come to the altar unless we are reconciled with one another. St. Paul tells us: “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (Romans 16:16). That is why it is sometimes called the kiss of peace.

What does the response “Amen” mean at communion?

It is a faith profession and means “Truly” or “Surely.” It is an affirmation of the priest’s words, “The body of Christ,” or “The blood of Christ.” More than that, it also expresses acceptance and unity with the Church that offers the sacrament. In other words, a person is saying that I accept all that the Church holds as true, the Holy Father and all the bishops in union with him, etc. Not wanting to make hypocrites of people, we do not invite non-Catholics to receive. However, we do ask them to hunger with us for a more full unity and, if possible, to make a spiritual communion.

How is Mass concluded?

The priest does a post communion prayer, renders a Trinitarian blessing and then either the priest or deacon says the words of dismissal: “The Mass is ended, go in peace.”

How is the blessing offered?

Using his right hand he makes an outward sign of the cross, saying, “May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, + and the Holy Spirit.” The people answer, “Amen.”

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Eucharist, Questions, Sacraments | 3 Comments »

Questions & Answers About Anointing of the Sick

Posted on August 20, 2010 by Father Joe

Does the Bible say anything about priests praying over the sick and anointing them with oil?

It most certainly does say something about this. “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders [priests] of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (James 5:14-15). We also find this passage in Mark 6:12 where the apostles “anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.”

Is not the authority of the Letter of James rather dubious?

No, Christianity has acknowledged this book from Scripture from the earliest days. It is absolutely authentic, inspired and truthful. Only in the sixteenth century, namely with the Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, was it rejected since it contradicted his views regarding the unimportance of works in our salvation.

Have not some rightly argued that James meant faith by his use of the word “oil”?

Such a contention is silly. If James had meant faith, instead of oil, he would have said so plainly. His teaching reflected the practice of the apostles in anointing the sick with oil. This practice comes all the way through the centuries to today. It is an olive oil blessed by the bishop, usually on Holy Thursday.

What other sacraments are associated with that of anointing?

When applied to the dying, the anointing of the sick has been called Extreme Unction. If the person is conscious, it is usual for them to go to confession first. If not, the presumption is made that they would like the sacrament and are sorry for their sins. Certainly, if aware and able, any serious sins should be confessed. Following the anointing, and again if possible, the sick person would receive Holy Communion. These three sacraments are sometimes called the Last Rites.

How is it administered?

The sacrament is offered by the priest who first lays his hands upon the head of the person. Then, anointing the forehead and hands, he prays: “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. [Amen.] May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up. [Amen.]

What are the effects?

It forgives some sins, remits temporal punishment due to sin, gives assistance to patiently suffer and to die a holy death, grants strength against the devil’s temptations, and sometimes even restores physical health.

How should a room be traditionally prepared for these sacraments to the infirm?

A table is covered with a white cloth. A small crucifix stands between two candles. Along with these items, holy water and a glass of ordinary water may also be placed upon the table.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Anointing of the Sick, Questions, Sacraments | Leave a comment »

Questions & Answers About Holy Orders

Posted on August 19, 2010 by Father Joe

What exactly do Catholics believe about the power of their priests?

We believe that priests are so configured to Christ that they have a special power from God to confer in Christ’s name the graces of redemption to men and women.

Does the Bible say anything about Christ commanding priests to distribute the graces of redemption?

It is clearly taught. St. Paul says, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18). Our Lord commanded the apostles to go out and baptize all nations. They were to forgive sins and to commemorate the sacrifice of the cross for the sins of the world. Faithful to their ministry, they would pray over the sick, lay hands upon those in need of the Holy Spirit, etc. All this is evidence that God wished his apostles and priests to confer by these signs his divine favor and graces. The role of the minister of God cannot be reduced solely to preaching.

But is not Christ alone the mediator and dispenser of graces?

Assuredly, Christ is the central Mediator and the dispenser of his graces. This no one should deny. However, he distributes his graces through the ministry of priests.

Is not such a ministry part of the universal call given all believers in baptism?

No, this is not the case. We should not confuse our identity as members of a priestly people in the Church by virtue of baptism with that singular priesthood made possible by ordination. St. Paul attests to a distinction: “Now there are diversities of ministries, but of the same Lord” (1 Cor 12:5). He goes on to say, “God indeed has set some in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, doctors (teachers)” (1 Cor 12:28 DRB). All are not apostles; all are not prophets; all are not teachers.

But the Bible says that we are all priests, does it not?

If such is strictly the case, then why did the apostles elect and ordain some men to be bishops and priests? Why were not all people ordained? Why did they not ordain women? And, why did St. Paul say that women should be silent in church? Baptismal priesthood is not ordained or sacerdotal priesthood. The priesthood of believers simply means that we all can sacrifice to God our prayers, good works and our hearts.

What do Protestants generally believe about the power of their ministers?

For the most part, they believe that their ministers possess no power whatsoever to distribute the graces of redemption. He is merely a preacher. According to this perspective, the ministers should not even pray for their people or bless them. If they do, then they are implying that they are intercessors and that they would have the priestly power to distribute the graces of Jesus Christ to their people.

Can a priest reconcile a sinner to God?

If the sinner is moved by faith and contrition, and receives the sacraments, then the priest can indeed reconcile him to God.

Why do Catholics call their priests “Father,” in contradiction to Christ’s command to his disciples not to be called Fathers?

Implementing a form of speech known as Hebraic Hyperbole, our Lord did not mean that the term could not be used regarding our male parent or a special spiritual father. Rather, he meant that they should not allow themselves to be called “Father” to the exclusion of our almighty Father in heaven. God himself is our ultimate Father and our Teacher. However, if the term is used with humility and in submission to God, our Father, then it is permitted.

Does the Bible say anything about priests receiving a special grace or power from God in ordination?

We read: “Do not neglect the gift [grace] you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you” (1 Timothy 4:14). The hands of bishops are imposed upon new priests or presbyters. We also read: “Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control” (2 Timothy 1:6-7). St. Paul warns Timothy to be cautious regarding whom he invites to this sacrament: “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure” (Timothy 5:22). We also recall Christ’s words: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18) . . . “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you . . . If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained,” (John 20:21,23), etc. Christ sent his apostles with power, just as the Father sent him. St. Paul asserts, “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1) . . . “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18).

Did the apostles hand down this power and authority to others?

Yes, they did. The apostles prayed and imposed hands on Paul, and sent him out as the special apostle to the Gentiles. Such could also be said for Barnabas. Paul, in turn, imposed hands on Titus and Timothy. They imposed hands on others, and so on and so forth to the present day. “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders [ordain priests] in every town as I directed you” (Titus 1:5).

Why do Roman Catholic priests not marry?

Because the Church commands that her priests not marry.
Because even the apostles left their wives to follow Christ.
Because St. Paul exhorts priests to follow his example of the single life.
Because celibacy allows more time and energy for prayer, teaching, administration of the sacraments, visiting the sick, spreading the Gospel, leaving home and facing adversity, etc.
Because people would not so readily confess their sins to a married priest for fear that he would reveal them to his spouse.
Because it best protects the property and general interests of the Church.

Was not the law of celibacy made in 385 AD by Pope Ciricius?

He only commanded that it be more strictly enforced. This ruling existed long before this date. The Pope himself in that council called celibacy an institution of the apostles.

Would there not be less scandal if priests were married?

This is a fantasy. There are fewer scandals among celibate priests then among married men in general and even among married ministers. The only difference is that a fallen priest is exploited by the news while cases among others are usually ignored or deemed insignificant.

Honestly, is it not impossible to keep celibacy?

Honesty has nothing to do with it. Only those of dark and unbridled passions would insinuate such a thing. There are many among the laity, of strong will and pure hearts, who keep celibacy. Such can be much easier for the priest to whom God gives special graces to observe his celibacy.

But, how can this stance not contradict St. Paul, himself, who says: “A bishop shall be of one wife”?

The apostle is simply saying that a man married twice should not be raised to the dignity of bishop. If his wife dies, he should not remarry. In those early days they had to select some married men for the priesthood because they could not find enough single men to administer the increasing number of the faithful.

How is this fair? After all, St. Paul says that it is better to marry than to burn.

“To burn,” means to find great difficulty in preserving chastity. Such people, reasons St. Paul, should not become priests. Rather, they should get married. A simple temptation against chastity does not mean “to burn.” Such temptations should be overcome.

How might one define Holy Orders?

It is a sacrament by which bishops, priests and deacons are ordained and receive the power and grace to perform their sacred duties.

Who administers the sacrament?

The bishop does so as the successor of the apostles.

What ministries must a man pass through prior to ordination?

The revised pattern is that within his educational and spiritual formation, he will be installed as a Reader and as an Acolyte. These are lay ministries, but they act as a preparation for ordination and the clerical state. Formerly, there were many other stages and the clerical state began with tonsure.

What are the three tiers of Holy Orders?

They are the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy (bishop).

What are the deacon’s duties?

The diaconate is an apostolic office of divine institution (Acts 6:1-7). Authority is granted to preach, to baptize, to administer Holy Communion, to proclaim the Gospel, to preach, and to assist the priest at Mass.

How is the ordination to the diaconate conducted?

During the Mass, the bishop imposes his hands upon the candidate, he is vested with stole and dalmatic, and the Book of the Gospels is presented to him.

What are the powers particular to priesthood?

He has the power to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass, to forgive sins and to administer the other sacraments, with the exception of Confirmation (unless he is so delegated) and Holy Orders.

How is the ordination to the priesthood conducted?

The priesthood is also granted during Mass. The bishop instructs the person to be ordained concerning the duties of the priestly life. During the Litany of the Saints, he lies outstretched with his face on the floor. The bishop invites him forward and imposes hands upon his head. This is the crucial gesture, which imparts the priestly character. He is invested with the priestly stole and with the chasuble. The palms of his hands are anointed and he receives the sign of peace from the attending bishops and priests. He is presented with the paten and chalice for the celebration of the Eucharist.

What is the highest rank of priesthood?

The highest rank is that of bishop. He possesses the fullness of priesthood. A successor of the apostles, the bishop administers confirmation and holy orders, and has charge of a diocese. The consecrating bishop lays hands upon a priest being elevated to the episcopacy. The crosier or bishop’s staff is handed him as a sign of his office of shepherd and of his power to discipline. A ring is placed on his finger as a sign of his faith and fidelity to the Church. He also receives a mitre, which, like a helmet, signifies the courage and force with which he must proclaim the Gospel and defend the Church.

Filed under: Priests, Questions, Sacraments | Leave a comment »

Questions & Answers About Marriage

Posted on August 18, 2010 by Father Joe

Does the Bible say that Christian marriage is a sacrament and more than a mere civil contract?

Yes, and we find the evidence from the mouth of Christ. The Lord tells us: “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6). St. Paul adds: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . This mystery is a profound one [great sacrament], and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:25,32).

What is the special grace that comes to a couple in marriage?

They are given the divine grace to join their hearts into a more intimate, more lasting, and more holy love. They are enabled to raise their children in reverence or holy fear and love of God.

Does the Bible actually say that married people should not remarry while their spouse is alive?

Jesus made it quite clear: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh . . . So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:5-6).

Does the Bible forbid divorce?

Yes, although many churches, which profess Christ, have permitted it on their own authority. It is evidence that the Catholic Church is the true biblical Church and the one steadfast in Christ and his truths. Difficult teachings are not eliminated or ignored simply because they are difficult or out of fashion. A proper reading of Matthew 19:6-9 shows Christ’s mind on the subject: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Then they ask Jesus, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Our Lord responded: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity [unlawful or lewd conduct, actually incest], and marries another, commits adultery.” Again, St. Paul adds upon the subject: “To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) – and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). “Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress” (Romans 7:2-3). Obviously the rights of the husband and the wife are here the same and the law holds for the husband, too.

Does the Catholic Church grant divorces?

No, although there is an annulment process which many Catholics pursue after a civil divorce. If it is determined that there was a serious impediment to a true marriage in the first instance, a marital union might be declared annulled. However, if the marriage were true, it is indissoluble. If the first marriage is a valid sacrament, it can only end at the death of one of the spouses.

Why does the Church forbid marriages among close relatives?

The prohibition in Matthew’s Gospel is certainly part of the answer. Besides violating the natural order, such bonds often prove wanting and the offspring deficient in mental and bodily development.

Why is there the custom of publishing banns?

Often made optional today, or dispensed by lawful authority, banns were published as a public announcement. Not only did this notify a parish community, but it also prevented perilous elopements, and invited general information about their freedom to marry. After such a publication, one would quickly discover if there were a prior promise from either of the parties to marry someone else of if there were a serious impediment to marriage.

What are the duties of husband and wife?

They are to live together in peace, love and fidelity. They are to raise their children as good Christians, sharing each other’s joys and sorrows.

How is this sacramental covenant enacted?

Taking each other’s right hand, they render their vows or consent before the priest or deacon. The priest blesses them and confirms their union. The priest witnesses marriages. Couples, themselves, are the actual ministers of the sacrament. The rings are blessed by the priest and they place them on each other’s fingers with the appropriate prayer. A Nuptial Blessing comes at the end of the service. If it takes place during Mass, and they are both Catholic, they will also receive Holy Communion. The marriage is fully consummated when they go home and share the marital act.

Filed under: Marriage, Morality, Questions, Sacraments, Sexuality | 18 Comments »

Questions & Answers About the Sacrifice of the Mass

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Father Joe

What do Catholics mean by the sacrifice of the Mass?

A sacrifice is the oblation of a sensible thing made by God through a lawful minister by a real change in the thing offered, testifying to God’s absolute authority over us and our complete dependence upon him.

Does God really want us to render sacrifice?

Yes, indeed, so much is this need ingrained in us that we find various forms of sacrifice in many world religions and in those of antiquity. It was because of a jealousy over the acceptance of a sacrifice that Cain killed Abel. Beginning with the Jews, sacrifice was properly directed toward the true God who had revealed himself. Noah, Abraham, and the Old Law enacted sacrifice to God. The sacrifices of the first people called by God would typify and foreshadow the sacrifice of the cross upon which Christ offered his body and blood to the Father for our redemption from sin and the devil. This same sacrifice is commemorated or made sacramentally present in the Mass. It is offered to God upon our altars for the living and the dead.

Does the Bible say anything about New Testament sacrifices?

The prophecy of Malachi states that the sacrifices of the old law would be abolished and supplanted by a new one offered for the entire world: “I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 1:10-11).

Was this prophecy fulfilled?

Yes, the Jewish sacrifices have utterly ceased. The new sacrifice is the saving death of Jesus Christ, which is renewed and made present in each Mass offered every day. Around the world and in countless places it is celebrated, from the rising of the sun to its setting.

Does this mean that, according to Catholics, Jesus must suffer and die over and over again?

No, Jesus does not suffer and die all over again. Christ has risen from the dead and can never more die. As if it were a time machine, the Mass connects us with his onetime passion and death– extended to us sacramentally so as to give us the opportunity to participate and to offer ourselves along with him. It is repeatedly offered to God the Father for the forgiveness of sins.

Does not this notion of repeated sacrifices clash with the warrant of New Testament testimony? After all, St. Paul states: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:11-12) and later: “And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (9:27-28). In 10:14, we read: “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” It seems to be saying that the one sacrifice on the cross was enough and no other ones are needed.

The one sacrifice of the cross is enough for our redemption. However, it must be commemorated and applied to souls, just as Jesus commanded: “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19). This is done daily in the Mass.

But if Christ has already died for our sins, and we are thus saved, why is the Mass necessary?

If all we had to do were to believe that Jesus had died for us and that we were then automatically saved, then there would be no need for the Mass. Of course, such a presumption would make preaching and the Church herself unnecessary. There would be no impetus to live a holy life. While proponents of such a view often speak a great deal about hell, it would largely make it inconsequential as well. Those who have committed the most grievous wrongs would be on the same footing as saints. However, our Lord, besides his death on the cross, has commanded other things of us if we are to be saved.

How can Catholics make such a claim contrary to St. Paul’s words? He writes: “For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself” (Hebrews 7:26-27).

The context is being confused here. He is not talking about the Mass but about Jewish sacrifices and their high priests. Because of their imperfections, their sacrifices were no longer needed. Catholic priests do not offer a new sacrifice, but the same oblation of Jesus on the cross. The words of Jesus make it a command performance.

Does St. Paul say that ministers should do more than preach; they should also render sacrifices to God for their peoples’ sins?

Certainly, he says in Hebrews 5:1: “For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.”

If the sacrifice of the Mass were required, it would seem to imply that the sacrifice of the cross was insufficient to reconcile us with God; is this true?

No, it is not. The sacrifice of the cross was sufficient to reconcile us with almighty God, but Christ desired that his oblation of the cross should be commemorated in “living” memory of him. As with the memorial acclamation in the revised liturgy, St. Paul says: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). As faithful adopted sons and daughters of God, our Father, we celebrate our redemption with an unbloody sacrifice (of the cross) to God for ourselves and for the good of the world.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Eucharist, Questions, Sacraments | Leave a comment »

Questions & Answers About the Real Presence in the Eucharist

Posted on August 15, 2010 by Father Joe

What is the main difference between the Holy Communion received by Catholics and that, which is implemented by non-Catholics?

While some may contend that there is some sort of weak “spiritual” presence, most non-Catholics reduce Communion to an “empty” sign, in other words, something that signifies a presence, which is absent, namely the historical Jesus. This reduces the communion elements simply to ordinary bread and wine. Of course, without a legitimate priesthood and Eucharistic liturgy, their communion is precisely such. On the other hand, Catholics believe that their Holy Communion conveys a sacramental and real presence of the risen Christ. The Eucharistic species have literally been transformed into our Lord. Possessing a valid priesthood, which celebrates a lawful Mass, the communicants eat the REAL body of Christ and drink the REAL blood of Christ.

Did Jesus really promise that he would give us his body to eat and his blood to drink?

Yes, most assuredly so. Jesus says in John 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” His fellow Jews murmured in disagreement, seriously doubting that Jesus could do such a thing. He could not be serious, they thought. Maybe, he only meant it in a figurative fashion? Of course, even that was somewhat offensive to Jews, given their strict dietary laws. Jesus reiterates it to insure that there is no confusion: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:53-55).

Later, did Jesus fulfill his promise and give his apostles his body to eat and his blood to drink?

Again, the answer is yes. We read in Matthew 26:26-28: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’”

Is not the fact that many denominations stress the eating and drinking a sufficient indication of their belief in the body and blood of Jesus?

No, it is not. Indeed, many deny the Catholic understanding of “real presence” while making a big deal over the fact that often Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is reduced to the host. (Each particle of the host and every drop of the precious blood, not wine, is the complete Jesus, body and soul, humanity and divinity.) Certain Protestants get caught up in the mechanics and deny the very essence of the sacrament. Jesus himself was concerned that his followers might go through the motions of eating and drinking the sacred meal and lose sight of the underlining reality. He says: “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55). Further, he tells his people: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). Acknowledging this truth, the apostles raised the “breaking of the bread” or Eucharist to the center of their lives and that of their faith communities.

But Christ seems to reverse himself when he says: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” (John 6:63). How is this explained?

If it were not tragic, it would be amusing how numbers of Protestants often point to this sentence to refute the Catholic understanding of real presence. After all, it intimates that Jesus was in error or that he hastily revises his teaching when most of his followers abandon him over it. Such is far from the truth. Jesus does not suddenly suffer from amnesia regarding his earlier words; rather, he is talking about the spirit of God which makes faith possible, even in those things difficult to accept, like the graphic truth of his Eucharistic presence. Eating the flesh of Jesus without faith would profit nothing; eating it with faith gives life.

It has been offered that what Jesus meant to say at the Last Supper was, “This represents my body, this represents my blood.” Is this not more correct?

It is a lie. If Jesus meant to say that the bread and wine only represented his body and blood, then he would have said so. However, he purposely said: “This is my body, this is my blood.” Lacking a “to be” verb, his expression is even more stark: “This–my body, this–my blood.” Some time prior to the Last Supper, our Lord promised his followers that he would give them his body and blood as food and drink. Jesus spoke plainly and made no attempt to mislead his listeners with ambiguous rhetoric. Christ’s Church has believed Jesus’ words in their literal sense for two thousand years. The apostles believed that the Eucharist was the real body of Christ. It is not ordinary bread. St. Paul goes so far as to emphasize that unworthy reception of this bread of life causes damnation.

How can God possibly give us his own body to eat and his blood to drink?

This question suffers from the intrusion of modern atheism, even when it emerges from fundamentalist Christians. How could God possibly take flesh at all? And yet, he did precisely this in the incarnation. How could he feed five thousand people with a mere five loaves of bread and two fishes? Nevertheless, he did.

If God could change rivers into blood, as he did in Egypt, could he not transform bread and wine as a sacrament for his followers? Sure he could! God is almighty and can do all things. Would we be so egotistical as to hold that just because we cannot envision something as possible that it is impossible for God?

When Jesus, and today the priest, breaks the consecrated bread, is he breaking the body of Christ?

No, only the outward form of bread is broken, not Christ’s body.

How can the complete and living Christ be present in each and every Holy Communion around the world and often at the same time?

He is God. This mystery of the real presence of Christ cannot be explained in a way sufficient for human understanding. Nevertheless, we know with God that all things are possible. The sun in the sky can shed its light and warmth upon many places at the same time, but there is still only one sun. This is a poor analogy, and yet it might help.

How can Catholics argue such a transformation when St. Paul merely called it BREAD, saying, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread” (1 Corinthians 11:27)?

The apostle emphasizes “the bread” as something more than ordinary bread. Recall that in the same chapter he complains about those who fail to discern between this bread and the ordinary variety. He warns them that to eat this bread unworthily brings down judgment, making one guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Ordinary bread could not mandate such a punishment.

While it might be granted that Jesus gave his body and blood to his apostles, is it not too great a leap to suppose that priests can give this body and blood to others?

It is no stretch of credulity at all. The apostles were commanded by Jesus to repeat what he did. He gave them his body and blood so that they might have a share in his eternal life. If this power was not handed down to the priests, how could we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood? Jesus said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18); “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). The authority given the apostles is necessarily passed down to the bishops and priests.

Might the communion bread and wine be seen as a remembrance of Christ only?

No, this view is too narrow. The consecrated elements are indeed a remembrance of Christ, but they are also his body and blood. The stark words of institution make any other interpretation impossible. Further, the Hebrew view of memory is much different from our own. We tend to use remembrance in a nostalgic way, recalling something that is past and absent. The ancients saw the past coming alive again in the telling. Remembrance makes something present; it allows one to enter into the story. Regarding the Eucharist, this is not only figuratively true, but really so. The Mass allows us to visit and participate in the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Holy Communion is our encounter with our risen Lord, now made our saving food.

Can it be proven that the first Christians held such views about the Eucharist?

Yes, it can. St. Justin (150 AD) says, “The faithful receive communion not as an ordinary bread, or an ordinary drink, but we were instructed that it is the flesh and blood of Christ” (First Apology). St. Irenaeus (200 AD) writes regarding the Gnostic heretics, “They refuse to acknowledge that the bread in Communion is the body of their Lord and the chalice his blood” (Against Heresies). Other early authorities write similar testimonies, saying that Christ is joined with us in communion, not only through faith, but really and truly. It is said that just as water was changed into wine, so is the bread changed into the body of Christ. Others speak of adoration, an operation proper to God alone, as proper before the Blessed Sacrament. Extending back to apostolic times, this 16th century epiclesis illustrates this abiding belief: “Come, Holy Spirit, consecrate, change, transform by thy almighty power the bread and wine into the body of Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, and in the blood which was shed for our salvation.” Even many of the early breakaway groups from the Catholic Church retained this central teaching in the real presence.

How could Jesus reasonably be present under the appearance of so many wafers and in so many churches at the same time?

Spatial and temporal limitations do not apply to God. We may not understand it, but Jesus, being God, is not locked exclusively into any one time or place. Such is the mystery of Christ after his resurrection and ascension.

What proof can be put forward in favor of the claim that Jesus remains in the hosts reserved in the Church tabernacle?

We have Jesus’ own words for this sacred trust. He says: “This is my body,” and he makes no move to turn the sacred elements back into bread. Therefore, as long as the appearances of bread are present, so is Jesus. In addition, we know that the first Christian believers carried the consecrated bread to the sick, to prisoners, and maintained it in valuable vases for later administration to those near death. This faith of the early Church is formative to what we have always maintained.

Does the body of Christ in Holy Communion suffer from human digestion?

No, only the outward appearances are subject to change. The body of Jesus is not touched.

Does the Bible say that Jesus will live in our hearts after communion?

Yes, we find the passage in St. John 6:56: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Is it permissible only to believe that Jesus is somehow present in the bread, but not that it is actually transformed into his body?

No, it is not, if one wants to remain a true Catholic. Again, Jesus said: “This is my body.” We either believe in Jesus’ words or we do not. If it is not really changed into his body, then Jesus was lying to us. This would be absurd.

Is it idolatry to adore the communion bread?

If it were ordinary bread, adoration would indeed be idolatrous. However, since it is the body of Jesus, it is expected and proper.

Why do so many churches offer only the host and not the cup?

The pattern followed by the early Church is significant in that many received only the consecrated bread or only the precious blood. Further, the totality of Christ– body and blood, soul and divinity– is received whole and entire under either form. The practical consideration aside, which could be serious regarding excess consecrated wine, the priest’s communion of both species illustrates the unity of the host and the cup.

But, are not Catholics denying a direct command of Jesus in not drinking from the cup?

It should be said that many Catholic parishes do offer the precious blood to the congregation. However, large parishes often find it difficult. After all, unlike some of the Protestant parishes, our sensibilities about the real presence would cause a just anxiety about the use of hundreds of small thimble-sized cups. While Jesus did say “unless you eat my body . . . and unless you drink my blood”; he also said in the same chapter: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51). Clearly, this means that eating this bread will give us a share in eternal life. This is elaborated by St. Paul: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).

Is not every baptized believer a priest who can celebrate the Lord’s Supper?

No, baptismal priesthood and ministerial priesthood are quite different. The laity cannot consecrate the bread and wine. Only the apostles were commanded to do this by Jesus. Consequently, only their successors, the bishops and priests at Mass, are able to consecrate the bread and wine in the name of the people. As St. Paul tells us, the ministers are chosen by God to offer sacrifices for the people (Hebrews 5:1).

What are some of the practical reasons why the cup might not be offered?

The apostles themselves could not always administer it to the sick or imprisoned.
The danger of spillage is a real concern.
There is a great aversion to drinking from the same cup, especially with the sick.
Some places have difficulty procuring and preserving wine.
Alcoholics and certain others cannot drink it.
Because Jesus gave the Church authority to regulate such matters.

Filed under: Eucharist, Questions, Sacraments | Leave a comment »

Questions & Answers About the Reception of Communion

Posted on August 14, 2010 by Father Joe

Where do we receive Holy Communion?

Communion is usually distributed in church; however, the sick may receive it in the hospital or in their homes.

How is it administered in church?

There are two ways that the host is given at present in the Roman Rite: upon the tongue and in the hand. Various Eastern rites also have their own manner of distribution, including the spoon or a sacred tube. The priest holds up the host before the communicant and says, “The Body of Christ.” The communicant responds, “Amen,” thus acknowledging the real presence of Christ and the full authority and authenticity of the Catholic faith that makes this holy encounter possible. The unity here between the communicant, Christ and the Church is intensely intimate. It is for this reason that one who is not of our faith or who is in mortal sin should not receive the sacrament. It would turn the “Amen,” no less than a faith profession, into a lie. The person opens his mouth and puts out his tongue slightly. The minister places the host upon the tongue. The communicant immediately closes his mouth, signs himself with the cross and moves back to his place in the church. Those receiving in the hand make a throne of their left hand in their right for Christ the King. They do not put their hands side by side in the image of a bird. Nor should they pick at the host as an insect would with its pinchers. Fingers should be together and nothing should be carried. If a communicant has a rosary in the hand, a purse under the arm, or a baby held close — he or she should not receive in the hand but upon the tongue. Having received in the hand, we step aside but still facing the altar, pick up the host with the right hand and put it into the mouth. We make the sign of the cross, and then, and only then, we turn and walk back to our place. We do not walk away with the host in our hand. We do not make a hasty sign of the cross as we rush to our pew. The minister of the sacrament must be able to see the communicant put the host into the mouth.

Why is Holy Communion sometimes designated as Viaticum?

It applies to Holy Communion given to the sick as spiritual sustenance and as saving food. It helps to prepare them for the final leg of their pilgrimage into eternity.

Why are people sometimes blessed with the sacrament?

Benediction is offered with the Blessed Sacrament because it is really and truly Jesus. Thus, blessing people with the sacrament is quite literally Jesus blessing the people just as he did when he walked the earth.

How is such a benediction usually conducted?

While a hymn in honor of the Blessed Sacrament is sung, the priest, dressed in a cope and humeral veil, incenses the monstrance (a display container placed upon the altar). After this sign of adoration, he blesses the people with the Blessed Sacrament by making a sign of the cross with it over them.

Why have there been processions with the Blessed Sacrament?

It is a touching and solemn profession of our faith, giving adoration to our Savior in the consecrated host.

What is the meaning of the Vigil Light perpetually burning next to the tabernacle containing the consecrated hosts?

It is a visual reminder of the abiding presence of Jesus in the church and of our worship that is everywhere and always due him. The Lord has not abandoned us. One faithful critic claimed that it is not unlike one’s mother leaving a light burning in the window. Jesus is always there for us, ready to receive us back.

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Eucharist, Questions, Sacraments | 2 Comments »

Questions & Answers About Confession

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Father Joe

Who can forgive sins?

Only God can forgive sins, and those to whom he has given the power to do so.

To whom did God give such a power?

The Scriptures reveal that Jesus gave this power to his apostles. We read in John 20:22-23: “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’” Our Lord says that all power in heaven and on earth has been given to him, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Jesus was sent into the world to forgive sins, and so he similarly sent the apostles.

Instead of confession, maybe this meant that priests could forgive sins in baptism?

The Bible makes a clear distinction between the sins forgiven by baptism and those remitted afterwards. Regarding the former, we are told, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness [remission] of sins” (Acts 2:38); as for the latter, there is the charge, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:23).

Maybe Christ forgives sins, but not priests?

Jesus Christ does forgive our sins, provided that we confess them to a priest (particularly if we have the opportunity to do so).

The Scriptures assert that the forgiveness of sins shall be preached to all nations; if mercy is granted in preaching, why is confession necessary?

The proclamation of forgiveness points to the remission of sins through baptism, confession, or any other means instituted by the Lord.

Does not the biblical notion of forgiving sins apply to the excommunication of sinners or their restoration?

The apostles are given a two-fold power. First, they can forgive sins as our Lord makes clear. Second, they are given the authority to excommunicate. Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).

If Mary Magdalene can have her sins forgiven because she “loved much” then perhaps all sins are similarly forgiven (see Luke 7:47)?

Mary Magdalene’s outward display of great sorrow in her confession of Jesus brings about the forgiveness of her sins by Christ (who knew her sins). It is not the sentiment of love that is sufficient, but a practical love which results in sorrow, confession if possible, satisfaction and a firm resolve not to sin again. Few priests are given the supernatural power to read souls; thus, unlike Jesus, the priest cannot know what your sins are unless you tell him. This allows the priest to apply an appropriate penance and to give adequate counsel.

If confession is legitimate, why does the Bible remain silent about it?

It is not silent. We have already read Christ’s stipulation in its favor. The historical fact that the early Christians, indeed Catholics during the last two thousand years, have confessed their sins is proof that Christ taught the apostles that sins should be confessed.

But St. Paul said as proof of ourselves, “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28). He did not say “Go to confession.” Is there not a real clash?

St. Paul meant that we should be proved according to the teaching of Christ. In other words, we are to prove and to examine our conscience. If we discover any sins, then we should confess them before “eating of this bread.” Certainly, St. Paul would not contradict Jesus who commanded the apostles to forgive sins.

As we say in the Lord’s Prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us,” are we not forgiven by forgiving others?

It means that if we want our heavenly Father to forgive our sins, then we must forgive our neighbor. This is more than a precondition connected to human activity. God is not crudely bargaining with us. This line has everything to do with conversion or transformation into a new Christ. We are to imitate and to manifest the loving mercy of God in our very selves. By forgiving others, we become precisely the types of persons who are open to the graces of mercy. God can use us in ushering in his kingdom. We grow in holiness because we become revelatory to the face and presence of God. Ultimately, the Father will look upon us and see his Son living in us. He will give us a share in the eternal life that Christ merits on our behalf.

If sins can readily be forgiven, will it not entice people to easily relapse into sin?

No, because a good confession demands true sorrow for sin and a firm intention to avoid sin in the future. The more a sinner experiences and expresses his sorrow in confession, the less likely will he return to his sin. This sorrow is more than just “feeling” sorry. It reflects a real remorse over what our sins have accomplished. Our sins inhibit our transformation in Christ, deprive us of grace, and threaten us with the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. While fear of punishment illustrates imperfect contrition; we are all to strive for perfect contrition. This requires that we be conscious of the dishonor our sins bring upon God for whom we are created. They strike down our Savior upon Calvary (often imaged in the Sacred Heart devotion).

Can it be said that the apostles went to confession?

We certainly know that our Lord told his apostles to forgive sins; no doubt, if they committed any, they forgave each other’s sins.

Can a priest charge money for forgiving sins?

No, this would be a great crime called simony. Severe punishments would be inflicted upon any priest who would dare do something so offensive.

Can a priest forgive a thief who has no intention to return stolen goods?

No, the stolen property, if possible, must be restored to the lawful owner or at least a promise must be given that restoration will be made. Only then is the priest at liberty to absolve the sin.

Does the Bible distinguish any sins as mortal?

It most certainly does. The Bible tells us that some sins deserve death and that they exclude sinners from the kingdom of heaven. St. Paul states in Galatians 5:19-21: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” St. Paul enumerates a number of serious or mortal sins in 1 Corinthians. Exclusion from the kingdom of God literally means damnation.

Does the Bible mention any sins as venial (more easily forgiven)?

Again, the answer is yes. “For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again” (Proverbs 24:16). Evidently it is possible for a righteous or just man to commit certain sins and not forfeit his good status. However, if a person commits a mortal sin, he can no longer be considered righteous or just. [Also see James 3:2.]

Is there a clear biblical teaching that God punishes mortal sins with temporal and eternal punishments?

This is the case. David was guilty of murder, which merited the pains of hell (2 Samuel 12:9). Nathan warned him of his mortal peril. David repents: “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Samuel 12:13). Nathan responds as the voice of God: “The Lord has put away your sin,” (2 Samuel 12:13) that is, the eternal punishment of hell. Nathan continues: “You shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die” (2 Samuel 12:13-14). This was clearly temporal punishment.

How is the Sacrament of Penance administered?

It is very simple. The ritual usually begins with the sign of the cross. The penitent will often ask for a blessing from the priest at the beginning. Next, he confesses his sins. The priest might offer some fatherly advice, a penance is imposed, and absolution is given.

What are the essential words of absolution?

“God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church, may God give you pardon and peace, and I ABSOLVE YOU FROM YOUR SINS IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, + AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Amen.”

For more such material, contact me about getting my book, CATHOLIC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS.

Filed under: Confession, Questions, Sacraments | 10 Comments »

« Previous Page — Next Page »