Recent Posts

Most Used Categories

Tag: Sacraments

You are Here :
Everything Else, ,

Tackling the gift of celibacy

Fr. Dennis Tamburello, a Franciscan priest and Professor of Religious Studies at Siena College in Loudonville NY writes a blog, Friar at large, for the Albany Times Union (by the way, they use Word Press).

In today’s post, Take celibacy . . . please! he tackles the issue of celibacy as understood by the R.C. Church in a very even handed way. He completely avoids posturing on the issue. His thoughts are worth a read.

As a PNCC member and clergyman I agree with him.

Celibacy is a grace that is given, but not one that can be demanded. The R.C. Church cannot demand that God bestow that grace on an individual.

Father Tamburello’s points regarding issues of cost and dealing with some of the problems inherent in marriages are worth noting, but it is also worth noting that the PNCC and Orthodoxy have worked through these issues quite well. The R.C. Church is working through them in its dealings with married deacons. They are not show stoppers.

As previously noted in the blog, the PNCC studied and debated the issue of celibacy over the course of at least three synods. The exact issues discussed in Fr. Tamburello’s post were debated and resolved. As the Young Fogey points out from time to time and as I will apply to celibacy: All can, some should, none must.

Also notice the two comments immediately following the post. Typical absolutism of the extremes.

The first response is typical R.C. triumphalism; the we’re always right point of view. The commentator refuses to acknowledge the fact that Jesus, the Apostles, and the Fathers chose married men. Did Jesus make a mistake? Hmmm.

The second response tries to combine Biblical inerrancy with a political agenda. The writer misses the fact that the Catholic Church (The R.C., Orthodox, Oriental, and PNCC Churches) base their beliefs on Scripture and Tradition. Perhaps the commentator works for the IRS? As an accountant/auditor I know very well that unless an item is specifically excluded from income it is income. In the same vein perhaps the commentator believes that unless it is specifically mentioned in the Bible as right or wrong, it’s OK.

All that being said, abrogating mandatory celibacy is not the magic fix some envision. Ask your local old school protestant clergy person – they have a dearth of vocations as well. For an extreme example look at the Episcopal Church – you can be and do anything, and belief in Jesus is optional (they tend to like Gaia). They are dying off faster than the Dodo.

On the same topic, Catholic Online has a reprint of a story from CISA about African priests and seminarians who are being encouraged to join a Church (looks like vagantes) based on their take on celibacy. See: Anti-celibacy sect wooing Kenyan Catholic priests, ex-seminarians.

Current Events, Perspective, ,

The priesthood, women, and a lost shepherd

Father Chandler Holder Jones at Philorthodox had a post on Roman Catholic Acceptance of ‘Womenpriests’.

Quite a few bloggers have been posting on this issue since the alleged ordination of a group of women outside Pittsburgh.

A caveat, Father Jones is a Continuing Anglican priest in the Episcopal Church so his post may be is colored by his watching experience of the headlong slide into wherever it is the Episcopalians are going.

What struck me about the post was not the issue itself, but the way the conclusion was drawn. The conclusion over-reached the facts as they were stated. This is one of the primary problems in the blogosphere. It is a problem I have – so this hits home with me.

On to dissecting the content:

The first issue that needs to be addressed on this whole woman as priests issue is the whole concept of the priesthood.

All sacraments require proper matter and form as well as a proper minister. It’s all very well and good that these women thought they were being made priests, but you can’t make a priest out of a material that cannot become a priest (i.e., a woman). It’s like trying to make the Precious Blood out of water. It’s kind of wet like wine, it goes in a chalice like wine, you can consume it like wine, but it is not wine… It cannot be made into the Precious Blood. The same for women, they are human beings like men, they can wear clerical garb like men, but they are not men… They cannot be made into priests. If there were a valid Bishop presiding at the ordination (I doubt it), in seventy-five layers of the most traditional vestments, the ordination would still be invalid. No Holy Spirit, nothing happening.

Calling oneself a priest, and actually being a priest, outside of the Faith and Tradition of the Church, are two different things.

OK, so these women aren’t priests, and any properly catechized Catholic would know that anyway (and as such making a big deal out of it is basically a lot of smoke and no fire – see the Young Fogey’s comment on the issue and on the posting).

The post goes on to infer that a Roman Catholic parish in the Diocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is going to sponsor a ‘mass’ by one of these women. Thus the Roman Catholic stance against this sort of nonsense is crumbling and the R.C. Church is on the same greasy slide as the Episcopalians.

Fr. Jones states (emphasis mine):

Saint Joan of Arc parish of Minneapolis Minnesota, a parish ostensibly in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI, is sponsoring a ‘Eucharistic Celebration’ offered by Ms. Regina Nicolosi

and he concludes by saying:

Is this the beginning of a new revolution in the American branch of the Roman Communion? The echoes of the simulacrum which transpired in the Church of the Advocate Philadelphia on 29 July 1974, and subsequent events in the Episcopal Church leading up to 1976 and 2003, are ominously unmistakable.

Now, checking out the website for St. Joan of Arc (which the diocese does not link to) reveals the parish to be on the far outer edges of Catholicism. They wallow in some kind of sci-fi weird flower power religion that vaguely resembles Catholicism. However, nowhere in last week’s bulletin did it state that the ‘mass’ would be in their church or that they were sponsoring the event. They were advertising an event at which one of their parishioners was to speak (maybe they thought it was going to be a bratwurst dinner – yeah, right).

In this week’s bulletin Fr. Jim DeBruycker, the Pastor (do a Google on this fellow – you will be incredulous), quasi-apologizes for the bulletin insert. From what I’ve read, in two weeks of checking out their stuff, the good Father has a real problem with being patriarchal – perhaps he’s a father that doesn’t want to be a father?

The funniest line in last week’s bulletin (beside the phony mass thing – and I don’t mean ha-ha funny) was this from the good Father:

In another e-mail someone suggested I was returning St. Joan’s to archaic times. I’m pretty sure that is the controversy over the ‘lord I am not worthy’ phrase before communion. I know to some people that sounds like a surrender to power based on a fear of abusive dominance. I admit if it was me saying this to the church governance I would be reticent to say it, but to me it is admitting am not perfect before God. I can be the abuser, the breaker of the community. I need the help of God. It heartens me to know the pope, the cardinals and the archbishops have to say it too.

It’s almost good catechesis for his lost flock, if only he would have focused on sin and being a “breaker of community.” Instead, he took a teaching moment and used it to denigrate others. Shame shame, patriarchal and judgmental in sheep’s clothing.

Father, be a good patriarch, a good shepherd, and take a positive stand for something. Being against everything, except what you like, makes the Church of Christ into the church of me, myself, and I…

powered by performancing firefox

Everything Else

Fixing God

Why are some ‘Churches’ so intent on redefining God. Are they that uncomfortable with the God of revelation that they need to fix Him? It would appear so.

The Presbyterians can opt to refer to the holy Trinity as “Mother, Child, and Womb”. The Episcopal Church and others have been referring to the Holy Trinity as —Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier—.

I think that anyone in an orthodox Catholic Church (PNCC, Roman Catholic) will have to take a stand on conditionally baptizing anyone who walks through the door seeking membership.

In Orthodoxy all entering are baptized, chrismated, and given the Eucharist after their period of catechesis. It’s more or less universal without exception. Since so many ‘Christians’ are failing to use the Trinitarian formula given by Jesus Christ Himself, the Orthodox way makes more and more sense, and is the only safe alternative.

Everything Else

Nerves

I’d been walking, pacing, and fiddling for three days prior to my son’s First Holy Communion. I’d walk around the kitchen opening and closing the refrigerator for no reason. At the time I had no idea why.

My always wise wife pointed out that, even though my son was nervous about receiving his First Holy Communion, I was more nervous.

As I said, that went on for a few days. I was nervous for several reasons. I had done the First Communion and Confession catechesis for the children. I had done the practices. The first confessions went very well. Yet, I was still nervous. Did they get it? Did they understand?

On the way home from baseball the evening before First Communion Sunday my son was talking to me. He was asking about the pre-communion fast. It’s two hours in the PNCC. He told me the following:

A.: Dad, how long do we fast before communion?
D.: Two hours.
A.: Do you know why dad? Because we need to be hungry for Jesus. We don’t need breakfast food – we need Jesus as our food.

I stopped being nervous from that point forward. I knew they understood.

Everything Else

The Proper Order for First Confession and First Communion

This morning’s bus stop banter included me discussing the fact that we had four children in our parish who made their First Confession this past Saturday (including my son), and that they would be making their First Holy Communion next Sunday.

At least one parent noted that she was happy to hear that a parish put First Confession before First Holy Communion. Now I’ve heard this from several people in the Albany, NY area. At first I thought these were one-off occurrences, but I’m hearing it more and more.

I’ve asked some R.C. friends if that’s what their parish does. Some say yes, others say they never heard of it. Needless to say I was intrigued. Who would invent a system like this?

It appears that the early 1970’s, a time of all kinds of crazy experiments in the R.C. Church, there was such an experiment. It was abrogated in 1973 and again in 1977. Yet it continues in little pockets here and there (consider what you’re experimenting with before you experiment, you may have to live with the results almost 30 years later).

From my personal perspective I agree with much of what Joseph A. Wemhoff says in First confession before First Communion.

As parents, my wife and I are obligated to forming our children both physically and spiritually. Part of that development is having an understanding of personal actions and their consequences. Doing something wrong requires recompense —“ a time out, loosing a privilege, etc. This, along with discussion, is intended to help the child in differentiating right from wrong and in forming a conscience that is aware and self examining. If you are going to receive the most important and precious gift in your life, the body and blood of Jesus, you need to receive with awareness and free from sin (yes, I know a 7 – 8 year old child will, most likely, not have serious sin, but that’s not the point).

Thankfully we do not have this issue in the PNCC and as a matter of fact R.C. parishes shouldn’t have it either. I’ve put together a few links to information on the subject in case you are asked about it or if you are just curious:

A Letter from The Vatican: First Penance, First Communion

Children must receive the sacrament of penance before they receive their first communion, according to a letter sent to the world’s bishops by the Vatican Congregations for the Sacraments and Divine Worship and for the Clergy. In the letter, dated March 31 but released May 19 [1977], the congregations say that in spite of a 1973 declaration on this matter, it is apparent that “dissension and doubts” still exist in some parts of the church regarding the order in which children are to receive these sacraments.

And from Catholic Culture:

After having attentively considered the matter, and keeping in view the wishes of the bishops, the Sacred Congregations for the Discipline of the Sacraments and for the Clergy, by this document do declare, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, Paul VI, that experiments of this kind, already carried out for two years, must have an end put to them simultaneously with the closing of the 1972-1973 school year and, for the future, the decree, Quam singulari, must be obeyed everywhere and by all.

Given at Rome, the 24th day of May, 1973.

Everything Else,

Sound words

I am a regular reader of Fr. Martin Fox’s blog Bonfire of the Vanities.

During the past week Fr. Fox has posted on confession (see: Don’t sweat confession) and on tradition and the Holy Mass Rites in the R.C. Church (see: What about the Traditional form of Mass? and Old Rite, New Rite…). All of these are worthy and sound reading and I highly recommend them.

While at Holy Mass on Sunday I had a moment to reflect on the response to the psalm “I will praise you, Lord, in the assembly of your people.”

As Catholic/Christian bloggers perhaps we should take that up as our motto. Fr. Fox exhibits this in spades. His words are elegant and kind, even while making a point. His are words of praise for the Lord.

Perspective

How we receive

A friend approached me today. He noted that the pastor of his parish spent the entire homily this past Sunday discussing the proper procedures for receiving the Holy Eucharist.

His statement to me boiled down to: —He talked about how we should hold out our hands. Why doesn’t he just speak about the Gospel?—

Why indeed!

In reply I said that since, at least in the United States, the Eucharist may be received in the hand in the Roman Catholic Church; pastors must take time to correct improper behaviors.

I also noted that the PNCC doesn’t go in for the ‘communion in the hand bit. Only the ordained may touch the Holy Eucharist (Bishops, Priests, and Deacons). It should also be noted that the PNCC does not have ‘Extraordinary Ministers of Communion’. The PNCC also has regular exposition and benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, at a minimum, on every first Sunday. We stress the dignity and reverence due the real presence of Jesus Christ.

In my opinion ‘communion in the hand’ is a horrid abuse. I will not speak for the Roman Catholic Church on the issue, it is not my place. However, the article —Communion in the Hand, Rethinking Communion in the Hand— by Jude A Huntz from catholic-pages.com does a great job of detailing this issue.

The point about improper behavior and abuse is that it exists where it is allowed. If we stop, before opening the door to situations that might lead to abuse, we have far less to worry about. Once the door is opened it is very difficult to close it.

Whenever we deign to partake of the Bread of Life we should be circumspect, composed, of proper physical and spiritual demeanor. Even the Saints recalled their unworthiness and the care that must be taken in receiving the Eucharist. To wit St. Paul tells us:

—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”

I’ve had people come forward for communion in our parish and stand there with their hand out. I simply, quietly, and very gently tell them that I cannot place the Eucharist in their hand. Since we give the Eucharist, Body and Blood, by intinction I ask if they have any health reasons for not receiving the Precious Blood. Regardless of that fact, the Eucharist goes on the tongue.

In my experience only one person has walked away. I also had one person ask me about this at a non-liturgical event. They said they would never go to a church where they cannot get communion in the hand.

Unfortunately, for that Roman Catholic person, they had a very poor understanding and/or education on the fact that ‘communion in the hand’ is not their right. It is in fact an ‘indult’ given to the various dioceses in the United States. They also had a very poor understanding of the concept of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is for them but not for them alone. It is the Bread of Life, entire and complete, for all who partake worthily. The ministers of the altar acting in persona Christi are giving of what they sacramentally represent.

A little Aquinas should help.

Síºmit íºnus, síºmunt mille:
Quantum í­sti, tantum í­lle:
Nec síºmptus consíºmitur.

Síºmunt bóni, síºmunt máli:
Sórte tamen inæquáli,
Ví­tæ vel intéritus.

Mors est mális, ví­ta bónis:
Ví­de páris sumptiónis
Quam sit dí­spar éxitus.

Whether one or thousands eat,
All receive the selfsame meat,
Nor the less for others leave.

Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial food;
But with ends how opposite!

Here ‘t is life, and there ‘t is death,
The same, yet issuing to each,
In a difference infinite.

To my friend I can only say; remember what you receive is due the utmost in holy dignity and respect.

Perspective

The Tonsure and Minor Orders

The Roman Church lost something when the tonsure and minor orders were done away with.

In their current system the order of acolyte and lector were preserved. These were two of the minor orders in the former system, prior to ordination to the sub-diaconate (Note: there is a range of opinions on whether the sub-diaconate was a minor or major order. However, in common usage and understanding it was considered a major order and carried with it the obligation to recite the Divine Office and to perpetual celibacy).

The orders of lector and acolyte are still quasi-secular. In certain Roman Catholic dioceses men wishing admission so as to minister as lectors and acolytes are so admitted. Note however that in today’s Roman Church a man does not become a cleric per se until he receives ordination to the diaconate.

Luckily, the tonsure and the full range of minor orders were maintained in the PNCC. They are also maintained in the SSPX, the FSSP, and in several monastic orders as well as in the Eastern Churches.

I decided to set down these reflections on the tonsure and minor orders. These reflections were precipitated by my musing about the symbolism of clothing. I was inspired to this train of thought from two sources.

Before I was ordained as Deacon I went through the tonsure and minor orders. My ecumenical friends were very interested in this. They asked: Why? What does it symbolize etc? I wanted to address that.

Second, I was reading the posts on Anglo Catholicism at Pious and Overly Devotional (cross posted at Occidentalis) which is, in my opinion, a tongue in cheek look at the trends in Anglo Catholicism, while at the same time, a cry for something the vast majority of the Roman Catholic faithful miss.

These rites are rich with historical symbolism and a message for today.

The tonsure (Lat. tonsura, from tondere, to shave) consists of shaving or cutting part of the hair of the head as a sign of dedication to special service. The reception of the tonsure marked admission to orders and to the rights and privileges of clerical standing. It is administered by a bishop or abbot.

The Scriptures are replete with the call to disavow worldliness. The idea of shaving the head to mark an oath or to denote service appears in the Old Testament (Num. 6:18)

Then at the entrance of the meeting tent the nazirite shall shave his dedicated head, collect the hair, and put it in the fire that is under the peace offering.

St. Paul had his head shaved when he made a vow (Acts 18:18);

Paul remained for quite some time, and after saying farewell to the brothers he sailed for Syria, together with Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had his hair cut because he had taken a vow.

And others did likewise as in Acts 21:18-24 (Council of Jerusalem).

The next day, Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present. He greeted them, then proceeded to tell them in detail what God had accomplished among the Gentiles through his ministry. They praised God when they heard it but said to him, “Brother, you see how many thousands of believers there are from among the Jews, and they are all zealous observers of the law. They have been informed that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses and that you are telling them not to circumcise their children or to observe their customary practices. What is to be done? They will surely hear that you have arrived. So do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow. Take these men and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses that they may have their heads shaved. In this way everyone will know that there is nothing to the reports they have been given about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law.

The fathers and Counsels each tried to address the issue of worldliness.

Tertullian advised Christians to avoid vanity in dressing their hair.

What purpose, again, does all the labor spent in arranging the hair render to salvation? Why is no rest allowed to your hair? First, it must be bound, then loosed, then cultivated, then thinned out? Some are anxious to force their hair into curls. Tertullian, 4.21.

Jerome chastises any treatment of the self as an object of beauty for the sake of beauty. In his Letter to Eustochium Letter 23 para. 28 —“ 384)

Avoid men, also, when you see them loaded with chains and wearing their hair long like women, contrary to the apostle’s precept

According to Prudentius (IIepur. xiii. 30) it was customary for the hair to be cut short at ordination.

Paulinus of Nola (c. 490) alludes to the tonsure as in use among the (Western) monks.

In approx. 500 Sidonius Apollinaris (iv. 13) testified that Germanicus the bishop had his hair cut ” in rotae speciem.”

The earliest instance of an ecclesiastical precept on the subject occurs in can. 41 of the Council of Toledo (the Council was presided over by St. Isidore who notes the clerical tonsure as a rite established before his time.) (A.n. 633):

omnes clerici, detonso superius capite toto, inferius solam circuli coronam relinquant.

Can. 33 of the Quinisext council (or Council of Trullo – 692) requires even singers and readers to be tonsured.

Ancient Epitome: Whoever is worthy of the priesthood should be ordained whether he is sprung of a priestly line or no. And he that has been blessed un-tonsured shalt not read the Holy Scriptures at the ambo.

The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) Canon 5, discuses the acceptance of tonsure and the intent of the tonsured.

St. Bonaventure writes (Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1889, Vol 4, pp. 607-610.):

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod in Christo Iesu non valet circumcisio etc.; intelligendum est, quod per se non valet ad iustificationem capillorum amotio, verumtamen ad eruditionem valet, valet etiam ad distinctionem. [To that which is objected, that in Christ Jesus circumcision is not worth etc.; it must be understood, that per se the removal of hair is not worth (anything) for justification, nevertheless for instruction it is worth (something), (and) it is also worth (something) for distinuishing.]

By a recurring focus, beginning in scripture, finding a symbolism in the usages of Rome where slaves had their hair cut marking them as slaves, finding common usage in the monasteries, to its gradual adoption by all clerics, the tonsure is well established as the symbolic and outward testimony of the cleric as to his service to Christ. The cleric was no longer part of the world, but a slave of Christ. As Bonaventure states, the tonsure has worth for instructing and distinguishing.

I myself was fortunate to have been admitted to the clerical state by this rite. Symbolism and ancient rites are something that the PNCC faithful have carried on because they well know that such rites touch us deeply.

Rites are good practice, marking both the times of, and events in, our lives. These are moments of solemn reflection. In them we find a moment that brings us one step closer to Christ. A moment that confirms our intention to not only do what the Church does, but live out in reality what the living Church teaches. Thusly the tonure is a sacramental.

As noted, the tonsure is the transition point from the lay to the clerical state. It is symbolized by the cutting of each man’s hair, in the form of the Holy Cross, followed by his receiving the surplice. The Bishop tonsures each man who has acknowledged this willingness to abide in the Church.

In the opening prayer the Bishop says:

May God bestow upon them the Holy Spirit, to preserve in them forever the spirit of piety and protect their hearts against the entanglements of the world and worldly ambition. And as they are changed in outward appearance, may His right hand grant them an increase of virtue, deliver their eyes from all blindness, spiritual and human, and bestow on them the light of everlasting grace.

After the tonsure he turns toward the tonsured and prays:

Here, O Lord, our humble prayer, and grant to bless these Your servants. In Your holy name we now invest them with the garb of holy religion. May they, by Your help, remain faithful in Your Church and merit to attain life everlasting. Through Christ our Lord.

The bishop then invests each man with the surplice, saying to each:

May the Lord clothe you with the new man, who is created according to God in justice and true holiness.

He then prays:

Almighty, eternal God, forgive our sins and deliver these Your servants from all slavery of secular fashions, so that, as they renounce the ignominy of worldly style, they may possess Your grace forever. And as we make them wear the likeness of Your crown upon their heads, may they, by Your help, merit to attain within their hearts the everlasting inheritance. Who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, God, forever and ever.

The bishop then gives the men the following admonition:

Dearly beloved sons, you should consider that today you have been placed under the jurisdiction of the Church and have received the privileges of clerics. Take care, lest you forfeit them through you fault. Strive to be pleasing to God by modest dress, becoming demeanor, and good works. May He grant it to you by His Holy Spirit.

Now think about this. We are acknowledging separateness. Not aloofness, but separateness. We are acknowledging that we desire a spirit of piety and protection against the entanglements of the world and worldly ambition. That is a powerful message and witness in this day and age. We are asking God to create us as a new man, a man of justice and holiness. As Psalm 51 proclaims: Create a new heart in me.

Against you alone have I sinned; I have done such evil in your sight That you are just in your sentence, blameless when you condemn.
True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me.
Still, you insist on sincerity of heart; in my inmost being teach me wisdom.
Cleanse me with hyssop, that I may be pure; wash me, make me whiter than snow.
Let me hear sounds of joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
Turn away your face from my sins; blot out all my guilt.
A clean heart create for me, God; renew in me a steadfast spirit.
Do not drive me from your presence, nor take from me your holy spirit.
Restore my joy in your salvation; sustain in me a willing spirit.
I will teach the wicked your ways, that sinners may return to you.
Rescue me from death, God, my saving God, that my tongue may praise your healing power.
Lord, open my lips; my mouth will proclaim your praise.
For you do not desire sacrifice; a burnt offering you would not accept.
My sacrifice, God, is a broken spirit; God, do not spurn a broken, humbled heart.

We are pledged to God’s work in a special way. We undertake that work not just in the philosophical sense or intellectually, but physically as well. We dress differently. We look differently. Inwardly and outwardly we strive to be the new man.

This message is not lost on the lost culture of today. Think of ‘Goth’ culture. Goth culture is replete with religious elements and symbolism. The Goth wiki states:

Religious imagery has frequently played an important part in gothic fashion and also in song lyrics. Many Goths believe in open-mindedness and diversity, and aspire to “free themselves from the limitations” of traditional belief systems. An interest in neo-paganism and the occult amongst Goths is higher than amongst the general population, but there is a wide diversity of other religious beliefs. The main exception to this tolerance is for any form of religious fundamentalism…

Right down to black dress and makeup, the Goth culture takes (and certainly has co-opted Christian) symbolism and has used it to effectively place its mark on mainstream culture. It is defined by and expanded by its dress. Some people would say —“ hey look, they dress as they believe, I can identify with that. If it were merely philosophical or intellectual its world would be limited to a few small discussion groups. People couldn’t get their minds around it. Instead its lived blackness is the outward and public proclamation of what it stands for: individualism, nihilism, and anarchy. It is its point of departure and its point of attachment.

Dress and posture convey to the eyes, and rites culturally sustain A message. We need to recapture the means of delivering THE message. The tonsure is the anti-Goth message, the anti-worldliness message. It is not individualism, but submission. It is not nihilism but a proclamation that God is indeed alive and active in the world and in each of our lives. It is not anarchy, but order.

Tradition and order in historical perspective are necessary in order to counter what we rail against. If we believe in the communion of saints as more than just a happy concept and an intellectual construct, but rather as a reality, we need to recapture the precedence of our Catholic/Christian imagery.

Stay tuned for more on the Minor Orders (The Order of Porter, The Order of Reader, The Order of Blesser, The Order of Acolyte).

Perspective, Saints and Martyrs

Where is your nose leading you?

Every Wednesday evening we hold Holy Mass, Exposition, a Novena to Our Lady of Czestochowa, and Benediction. The Holy Mass is attended by a small group of regulars who each have their own reasons for needing this time aside with the Lord.

Last night I paused to wonder about all that goes on in a parish community, at a diocesan level, and in the lives of the clergy. I wondered about some of my experiences as a young altar boy. Some clergy just didn’t seem ‘into’ the Holy Mass. Many did, they were devout and faithful, but for some the emphasis fell on politics (internal and external), their personal proclivities, or on business. Their nose was leading them elsewhere.

As I stand before the altar in my role as deacon —“ called to be an exemplar of holy service, I am still amazed, in awe, overcome by God’s infinite mercy.

He allows me to stand there, clumsy and awkward as I am. He allows me to hold His body and blood in my hands. I just want to scream out —“ look, this is Jesus, this is God, here for us. My own weakness grieves me in light of His great love and mercy.

When I enter Church I do not head for the sacristy or office. I stand there in front of the tabernacle, just to say thank you. Thank you for allowing me to come here and serve once again.

Will I loose it someday? Will my nose lead elsewhere? I pray not.

Michael Kwatera in his book The Liturgical Ministry of Deacons begins with a discussion of St. Lawrence’s glorious martyrdom. He says:

On the third day Lawrence made good on his promise: he gathered a great number of the city’s poor and placed them in rows: the elderly, the blind, the lame, lepers, orphans, widows. Then, instead of handing over silver and gold, Lawrence presented these lowly ones to the eyes of the greedy official: “Here are the true treasures of the Church.” This bold affirmation of their surpassing Christian dignity, which came easily from a man who had faithfully ministered the Lord’s Blood and the Lord’s charity to them, won him a painful but glorious death on the gridiron. St. Augustine linked Lawrence’s self-sacrifice in martyrdom with his self-giving in the Eucharist:

Lawrence, as you have heard, fulfilled the office of deacon in the church of Rome. There he ministered the sacred Blood of Christ; there he poured out his own blood for the sake of Christ. . . . The holy apostle John has clearly revealed the mystery of the Lord’s Supper by telling us: “As Christ laid down his life for us, so we must lay down our lives for our brothers.” St. Lawrence grasped that teaching; he understood it and practiced it. In a word, what he received at that table, he prepared to fulfill in himself. He loved Christ during life and imitated him in death.,’

The story of St. Lawrence shows that the liturgical ministry of deacons ideally was a seal they placed on their other duties.

All I want to say is this: Please, Lord Jesus, keep me firmly planted in the Holy Mass. Grant that from the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, Your grace may flow into my heart, that it might fill me, so that Your glory may be seen through the work you have called me to do. Amen.

Perspective

Our Eucharistic Need

There are many sources of information available regarding the reception of Holy Communion, the Eucharist, between the many Churches.

Many people are often confronted with a dilemma when they are in “another” church. These occasions may be based on proximity (it’s the closest church to me), moral imperative (I can no longer attend that church due to scandal), or for family reasons (we all want to attend together; we’re going to a wedding, funeral, other service).

Many Churches open the communion table to all attendees. Part of the reason for this may be their theological view of the Eucharist. ‘We’re sharing special bread/wine that is a symbol of Jesus.’ Such a sharing places the onus on the act of community and the reason for coming together. We are here as one to praise God together. The Eucharist is symbolic of our Christian action and mandate. It’s still just bread and wine albeit invoking a special representation.

For Catholic worshipers the story is different. We fully believe that the act of consecration changes the bread and wine. It is no longer bread and wine in any way except for its appearance and taste. The elements of bread and wine have been fully changed into Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus is truly present in every possible way, body, blood, soul, and divinity. He is there ready for us to receive Him. By receiving Him we are joined together not just in theory, but in reality by the action of Christ and the grace of God. When I receive I receive and am joined to my brothers and sisters throughout the world. By the Body and Blood of Christ we become the Body of Christ.

This is wonderful and mystical and the act of receiving has consequences. We are changed by God’s grace, we are joined together, we are confirmed in our Christian mission, we are nourished, and our desire to be so very close and intimately joined with Jesus Christ is increased.

In short, as the Rev. Ernest Falardeau, SSS. has said, “…it will be necessary to eliminate the idea that the Eucharist is some kind of reward for good behavior. It is the bread of life. It is a necessity.”

The Rev. Falardeau captures the key element of the Eucharist. It is the nourishment that fulfills our essential human desire – to be one with Christ and to be with Him forever. Jesus Himself advised us that the Eucharist is essential for our salvation: —Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have life in you.— (Jn 6).

God has put the desire for heaven in each of us. It is our soul’s longing to return to its origin. No matter the amount of masking today’s society attempt to do. No matter the level of covering up we engage in, the desire is there. The Eucharist allows us daily or weekly closeness to Christ.

As Catholic Christians we have two essential obligations.

The first is the Catechesis of the Eucharist. We musty teach our brothers and sisters what the Eucharist is, the mystery beyond symbolism which is the reality of Jesus Christ.

The second is the opening of the Eucharistic door to all who share in Eucharistic faith. This is commonly referred to as Eucharistic Sharing.

In our Church, the communion rail is open. What is required is proper disposition and the faith and belief that what you receive is the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearance and taste of bread and wine.

Our Roman Catholic friends as well as those attending a Roman church might ask —“ what does this all mean? As a member of the Roman church you would have to look to the conditions found in the Code of Canon Law – Canon 844:2. For non Roman Catholics you would have to follow the “rules” published in the pew missal. It is all very legalistic and formal and in the end you would have to make a decision as to whether you would approach the Altar or not (all while getting quite conflicted regarding your need versus the rules).

The Canon states: “Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister” (Catholic meaning churches with valid Holy Orders such as the Orthodox, PNCC)

I highly recommend the article: Eucharistic Sharing: Recent Developments by Ernest Falardeau, SSS. as originally published in Ecumenical Trends, for a further exposition on this matter. See especially:

—One of the problems with the present legislation in Canon 844, and the other official documents of the Church are that initially these existing rules were interpreted very strictly. Any attempt to interpret them generously was resisted. At the present time, this is changing. The Guidelines of South Africa, India, Germany and Austria tend to interpret existing rules more broadly. The new Policy for Canada expressly recalls the general principle of Canon Law that privileges are to be interpreted broadly. And it understands Eucharistic sharing as a privilege.— (Eucharistic Sharing: Recent Developments, Ernest Falardeau, SSS., Originally published in Ecumenical Trends)

At face value, there is no clear, understandable, or easily discernable guide for anyone in approaching an understanding of Canon 844:2. Many Bishop’s conferences (setting Roman Church policies at the national level) give very broad latitude to the believer and interpret these concepts with great charity (South Africa, Canada as noted above). In the United States a very formal and legalistic view is taken.

To me, rules exist to guide people in making informed descisions. They are not meant as a roadblock to Jesus. As soon as we get away from minimalism and legalism, as soon as we stop loosing sight of our need for Jesus because we are busy interpreting a law, as soon as we stop treating the Eucharist as a personal possession that I may choose to give or withhold, and as soon as we focus on teaching Christ real and present, our road to God will open and we will be better fulfilling Christ’s direction.

All Right Reserved © 2005 - 2023