A Subtle Heresy Common to the Distribution of the Precious Blood

We’ve all seen it happen at many a Novus Ordo Parish – After the lay person designated to assist with the distribution of Holy Communion as a so-called “minister of the cup” has finish his “job”, he then takes his purificator and stuffs it totally inside the chalice thereby soaking the puirficator with the Precious Blood that had remained along the sides and base of the cup of the chalice. Many conservative Catholics will be horrified at this, since it is objectively disrespectful to treat the Holy Eucharist in such a manner. However, is soaking a purificator in the Blood of our Savior really so different from wiping the rim of the chalice after a communicant as consumed a sip of the Precious Blood? There is a subtle heresy at work in all of this.

Christ is whole and entire in each part of the Eucharistic Species

We know and believe that our Lord is present whole and entire in each of the Eucharistic species and in each part of each species. This is to say that the whole Jesus is fully and entirely present in the Host and the whole Jesus is fully and entirely present in the Chalice – furthermore, he is fully present in each piece of the Host after it is broken, and he is fully present in each drop of the Blood.

Should the Church excommunicate anyone? Can the Pope send a man to hell?

Pope Gregory IX excommunicates Henry IV

23^rd Sunday in Ordinary Time

7 September 2014

Matthew 18:15-20

If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

There can be no doubt that the power and practice of excommunication is well established both in Sacred Scripture and in the Apostolic Tradition. Not only in ancient times under the prior dispensation, but even in the New Testament, we read of men suffering the penalty of excommunication. To reject the notion of excommunication is to reject the revelation given in Scripture and Tradition, and therefore it would be a rejection of the faith itself.

And so we ask, Should the Church ever excommunicate anyone? Furthermore, considering the effects of excommunication, we ask, Can the Pope exclude someone from heaven?

Why a Catholic should not attend an invalid wedding ceremony

“Father, my sister is getting married by a protestant minister in a beautiful outdoor service on the top of a mountain! Can I attend the wedding?”

If your sister was baptized Catholic or has been received into the Church, and she didn’t get permission from the bishop, then I say, “No, you most certainly must not attend.”

Although Canon Law makes no stipulation regarding whether a Catholic may attend an invalid wedding ceremony, moral law most certainly prohibits Catholics (and, sometimes, also non-Catholics) from attending.

In this article, we hope to shed some light on what can be a rather difficult question. Difficult not only because of personal ties to those involved in the wedding service, but also because many priests spew forth variant opinions which (howsoever subtle and delicate they appear) lack any substantial foundation in moral law or the Catholic tradition.

Can I get married after having a vasectomy? (The vasectomy question, Part II)

On vasectomy and impotence

We continue our discussion of various issues related to repentance after the commission of a vasectomy. In our earlier article [here], we discussed why a reversal would sometimes (even oftentimes) be required in order to receive sacrament absolution after a vasectomy – though it is not mandated as relating to the amendment of life, but seems to be closely linked to true contrition and repentance when the reversal procedure can be obtained without excessive cost, pain, or danger and when the couple is of child-bearing age.

To our earlier question, we may add another: Can a man who has had a vasectomy validly contract marriage without getting the vasectomy reversed?

The simple answer to this question – “Is a reversal required for marriage?” – is, “No, a reversal is not required.” However, again, there is much to consider; and, in some cases, a reversal would seem to be required by the conscience of the individual (even if not by the law of the Church).

The whole question will hang on the following point: Is a vasectomy only “sterilization” (as it is commonly assumed to be), or does it cause impotence? While it would seem a silly question, we will see that impotence is defined in a broader way than many assume.

If Jesus doesn't die, how is the Mass a sacrifice?

Solemnity of Corpus Christi

In the sacramental theology of the Church, we must recognize a threefold distinction. In Latin: Res, Sacramentum, Res et Sacramentum. In English: Reality, Sacrament, Reality and Sacrament. The reality is that invisible grace given by the sacrament. The sacrament is that visible sign which is used in the rite. And the reality and sacrament is an invisible reality which is yet a sign of something further (like, for example, the way the sacred character of baptism is a reality in the soul of the baptized but is also a sacrament of the individual’s participation in Christ).

To properly understand the manner in which the Mass is a sacrifice, we must understand how each of these elements relates to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This will make clear how it is that, even though Jesus does not die upon the altar but remains living and glorified in the Holy Eucharist, the Mass is yet the very self-same sacrifice of the Cross.

Transubstantiation: Model for family life

Solemnity of Corpus Christi

“Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and the wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

These words of the Council of Trent (DS 1642), which are taken up again in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1376), make clear the dogma of transubstantiation.

By this mystery, the substance of bread is converted into the substance of Christ’s Body. Further, the substance of wine is converted to the substance of Christ’s Blood. And, because (now, in heaven) Christ’s body and blood are united one with the other and both are further united to his soul and his divinity, the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ are present in each Eucharistic species and in all of their parts.

The dogma of transubstantiation rules out two other theories: Annihilation and consubstantiation. From this teaching, we may draw a helpful analogy for family life.

Why it is significant that the Eucharist could not have been given before the Incarnation

Solemnity of Corpus Christi

As we prepare to celebrate the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ, we do well to consider (in a number of shorter posts, and perhaps one longer) various points relative to the Blessed Sacrament.

We direct our reader to a number of previous posts on the Most Holy Eucharist and the Mass:

Why the bread of life discourse cannot be a metaphor [here]

Christ’s body in heaven and in the Eucharist [here]

The whole Christ is present under both species, but one is called the Body and the other the Blood [here]

Is the Host the flesh of the Sacred Heart? [here]

Does the real presence remain after a Eucharistic miracle? [here]

What makes the Mass to be a sacrifice? [here]

And now we turn to our current question – Could the Eucharist have been given before the Incarnation? And why is this question significant?

Were the Apostles confirmed at Pentecost?

Solemnity of Pentecost

And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming: and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them parted tongues, as it were of fire: and it sat upon every one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. (Acts of the Apostles 2:2-4)

On the fiftieth day, the feast of Pentecost, which was a Sunday that year, the Holy Spirit came down in visible form upon the Apostles confirming them in the truth of the Gospel. Until this time, the Apostles were rather timid and fearful. They were not yet perfect, but were still growing in the faith.

While they themselves certainly believed in the truth of the Resurrection, the Apostles lacked the requisite strength to preach this truth openly and to defend the Gospel against every assault of the world and the devil.

In a word, we may say that the Apostles were not yet confirmed. Through the divine power and the external sign of tongues of fire, our Savior conferred upon the Twelve the reality of the sacrament of Confirmation.

Why were the heavens opened to Jesus at his baptism?

Solemnity of the Baptism of the Lord, Luke 3:15-16,21-22

After all the people had been baptized and Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove.

By baptism, men are made to be true sons of God, washed from original (and any actual) sin, infused with the virtues and gifts, built into a true temple of the Holy Trinity, and joined to the mystical Body of Christ which is the Church.

Through baptism, heaven is opened to us. However, heaven was ever open to Christ. Even from the moment of his conception he was the Son of God (by nature), he had no sin, he was filled with the perfection of all the gifts and virtues (as well as of all knowledge), his human soul was indeed that place where the fullness of Godhead deigned to dwell.

Jesus obviously could not increase in grace, being perfect from the moment of his conception – what then is the meaning of the opening of the heavens?

"Fragments" of the Eucharistic Species

17^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, John 6:1-15

When they had had their fill, he said to his disciples, “Gather the fragments loft over, so that nothing will be wasted.”

After the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fish, by which our Savior fed some five thousand men, the Lord instructed his disciples to gather up all of that which was left over. These “fragments”, as Jesus calls them, fill twelve wicker baskets – a sign of the fullness of time, and that the Savior is come twelve tribes of Israel.

However, recalling that our Lord gave the Bread of Life Discourse shortly after the miracle of the loaves, we may well recognize that this gathering of the “fragments” was an illustration of the presence of Christ under each and every part of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Jesus is teaching his disciples that the Eucharistic particles must be cared for, even after the conclusion of the Mass.

St. John the Baptist, a model for priests

June 24^th, Nativity of St. John the Baptist

The Precursor’s Nativity is celebrated by the Church because, even from the womb, he chosen and sanctified for his vocation. The Baptist is the greatest of the prophets, and is more than a prophet, for he rejoiced to see the day of the Bridegroom.

While the priest, in very specific moments, acts in persona Christi, most of his ministry is more closely tied to that of St. John the Baptist – directing people to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. In this respect, St. John is a model for the priest as “friend of the Bridegroom” and “voice of one crying out in the wilderness”.

On a personal note, St. John the Baptist is particularly dear to me as a model for the priesthood, as I was ordained a priest on the Vigil of his Nativity three years ago.

The necessity of Viaticum and the duty of priests

June 19^th, St. Juliana Falconieri

St. Juliana, whose feast is commemorated today, was the niece of St. Alexis Falconieri (one of the seven founders of the Servite Order) and foundress of the Servite Tertiaries, also called the “Mantellate”. She is the patroness of the sick and of those suffering bodily ills – on account of the circumstances of her death, she could well be called the “Patroness of Viaticum”.

When St. Juliana was in her last moments of life, and the priest was called to bring her the Blessed Sacrament as Viaticum, it was determined that she would not be able to receive on account of constant vomiting. She, however, begged the priest to spread a corporal upon her chest and to lay the Host upon it. After the priest did this, in the sight of all present, St. Juliana became radiant and the Host suddenly disappeared – having been miraculously received into her body as the “food for her journey” into eternal life.

We do well then, to consider the importance of Viaticum (Communion before death) as the last Sacrament of the Christian life.

Those interested in the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, may consider our earlier articles: When should I receive Anointing of the Sick? [here], Anointing is only for those in danger of death [here], and On surgery and Anointing [here].

Melchisedech, Yom Kippur, Manna, and the Paschal Lamb: Figures of the Eucharist

Melchisedech, priest of the most high God

The Church recognizes many and various realities from the Old Testament as figures for Christ’s gift of himself in the Most Holy Eucharist. On the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the Ordinary Form, the Church read from the book of Exodus – how the people were cleansed and the covenant ratified through animal sacrifice at the foot of Mount Sinai.

In the Extraordinary Form, on the other hand, the Church put before us the figure of the Manna in the desert, through the reading of a passage from the Bread of Life Discourse.

There are so many images and figures for the Eucharist in the Old Testament – the Manna, the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the Paschal Lamb, etc.! How are we to understand what each of these figures teaches us about the Blessed Sacrament? Further, we ask: Is there any one thing from Old Testament which is more completely or perfectly a figure for the Eucharist?

Why Jesus used bread (rather than the Paschal Lamb) for the Eucharist

Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus, Mark 14:12-16, 22-26

While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.”

 At the Last Supper, our Savior instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist using the natural elements of bread and wine. Thus, by the divine mandate, only pure bread and pure grape wine can be the matter of the Sacrament of the altar. Like the male-only priesthood, this is something over which the Church has no power but which she receives from her divine Head, Christ Jesus our Lord.

However, it is good to realize that our Savior could have used any food as the matter for the Eucharist. He chose bread, but he could have chosen to consecrate the flesh of the Passover Lamb (for example).

Why then, did our Lord make use of bread for the Eucharist? And, What was he teaching us?

Is the Sacred Host the flesh of Christ's Sacred Heart?

The heart tissue of the Eucharistic miracle in Lanciano

Solemnity of Corpus Christi

Unless the local bishops have moved it to the following Sunday, today is the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ, the feast of the Most Holy Eucharist.

On this day, the Church adores the Real Presence of her Savior in the Eucharistic Species. Christ our Lord is really, truly, substantially and sacramentally present in the Eucharist. This Presence is confirmed in a most astonishing way in those Eucharistic miracles where the Host and/or Precious Blood physically and visibly change shape so as to become (in sensible form) flesh and blood.

A question arises, however: Since, in some of these Eucharistic miracles, the Host changes into heart tissue, are we right to say that the Sacred Host is the flesh of the Sacred Heart of Jesus?

Pentecost and the Sacrament of Confirmation

Solemnity of Pentecost, Acts 2:1-11

Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.

The seven sacraments do not come from the Church, for she has not the power to create sacraments. Rather, they all were instituted by Christ himself. This is easiest to see in the cases of Baptism and the Eucharist, where he gave the very words and matter in the most explicit terms.

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church recognize the institution of the sacrament of Confirmation in the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Pentecost and Confirmation

The Catechism of the Catholic Church sees Pentecost as the principal Scriptural foundation for the sacrament of Confirmation:

“On several occasions Christ promised this outpouring of the Spirit, a promise which he fulfilled first on Easter Sunday [by breathing upon the Apostles] and then more strikingly at Pentecost.” (CCC 1287)

Should Confirmation and First Eucharist be given to infants?

The common practice in the East of giving both Confirmation and Eucharist to infants immediately upon their baptism occasionally causes Catholics of the Latin Rite to question whether such a practice ought to be adopted also in the West.

Especially now that, at least in the USA, a number of dioceses have lowered the age for Confirmation to seven, some individuals would like to see the age for both Confirmation and First Eucharist lowered to infancy.

While admitting that Confirmation and Communion can be given to infants, I will defend the Latin tradition of delaying these sacraments until the age of reason.

When a priest refuses communion to a public sinner, it is not to protect the Eucharist

The recent controversy over the withholding of communion by Fr. Guarnizo has sparked numerous canonical and pastoral discussions in the Catholic blogosphere. Dr. Ed Peters (to my mind) has summed up well the canonical questions in numerous articles [here] – though, to be sure, some questions still remain as to what constitutes a “public” sinner [here].

However, rather than entering immediately into the debated case of Fr. Guarnizo and Ms. Johnson, it may be good to step back and consider the question of unworthy communion in general and then turn to the first case of sacrilegious communion which occurred when Judas took the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

Because water washes, baptism forgives sins

1^st Sunday of Lent, I Peter 3:18-22

[The Flood] prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body, but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

During the season of Lent the Church militant joins with those to be baptized at the Easter Vigil in contemplating the mystery of the sacrament of baptism. Lent is a time for a renewal of our baptismal vows and a rekindling of the grace that was given us in the sacrament.

Thus, we must consider what it is that happened in our own baptism. To this end, the Church gives us to read from the First Letter of St. Peter, in which the waters of baptism are compared to the waters of the flood. Further, the Vicar of Christ speaks of the bodily washing effected through water, and the spiritual washing brought about through baptism.

When does Anointing of the Sick cause physical healing?

7^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Mark 2:1-12

“Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, pick up your mat and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth” – he said to the paralytic, “I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home.”

We have all heard that some people have been physically healed through the reception of the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, but we wonder why this occurs only sometimes and not always. Why is it that God heals one, but allows another to die? What makes Anointing here cause physical healing, but there only spiritual healing?

This Sunday’s Gospel gives us the beginning of an explanation to this complex question.