To Intinct or Not to Intinct?

That is the question!  Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to dip the Sacred Host into the Precious Blood in reminiscence of His Suffering for our outrageous fortune; or to take the Body and Blood separately... Okay, enough Shakespearean word-play... The question of intinction, the Eastern practice of dipping the Body (bread) into the Blood (wine) for distribution to the faithful is a worthy question. The traditional practice of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is to distribute the two separately. What does Scripture say?

Of the four Gospels, three of them actually spell out the form to be used in the celebration of Eucharist. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24 and Luke 22:19-20 are the specific verses which command the process of consecrating and distributing the Eucharist. The Gospel of John does not spell it out, but does describe the identifying of Judas as the one who would betray Him in John 13:21-27, which Matthew and Mark also include BEFORE the Eucharist in Matt. 26:21-25 and Mark 14:18-21.  Some point to John 13:26-27 for a reference to intinction, but again - according to Matthew and Mark, that "dipping" took place BEFORE the institution of the Eucharist, which John does not record.

When discussing a similar topic with an Orthodox priest (a discussion on leavened v. unleavened bread) he stated " there's a reason the Orthodox do NOT change what we have been commanded to do in the Eucharist." He condescendingly adds,  "The west loves novelty, though." It would seem it is the Orthodox who have introduced novelty to the institution of the Sacrament of sacraments, not the west here.

Personally, I do not have a problem with intinction. It is a fine and pious practice of our Eastern brethren.

How Late Is Too Late?

One of the blogs I like to check in on is that of Dr. Edward Peters, a canon lawyer, and he answered the "How late can I be to Mass" question quite well.  I encourage you to read his article on this.  Essentially, fulfilling ones Sunday obligation is not a matter of timing, but intent.  Were you sitting in the car to hear how your team did when it was first and goal, and you walked in as the readings began?  Or, were you taking care of a family crisis and you walked in just before Consecration?  Dr. Peters offers that the former may be in mortal sin while the latter may not.  

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum, answers this too in similar fashion.  He points out that prior to the Vatican II reforms the "rule" was that one had to be there at least by the Offertory - however post conciliar theologians (not expressing a "rule" - answer more vaguely.  Fr. McNamara uses a baseball analogy and says:

To say that there is a particular moment before or after which we are either "out" or "safe," so to speak, is to give the wrong message and hint that, in the long run, some parts of the Mass are really not all that important. It may also give some less fervent souls a yardstick for arriving in a tardy manner. 
Although I prefer not to hazard giving a precise cutoff moment, certainly someone who arrives after the consecration has not attended Mass, should not receive Communion, and if it is a Sunday, go to another Mass. 
Arriving on time is not just a question of obligation but of love and respect for Our Lord who has gathered us together to share his gifts, and who has some grace to communicate to us in each part of the Mass. 

So, while he hasn't stated a rule, he has given his opinion that if one is not there by the time of Consecration, then they have "not attended Mass, should not receive Communion, and if it is a Sunday, go to another Mass."

From my perspective, which I grant you is from the more traditional (Pre-Vatican II) view is in line with what Fr. McNamara refers to - you need to be there pre-Offertory.  I am also of the mindset that the focal point of the Mass is the Consecration, and to miss that means you have not fulfilled your Sunday obligation.  

How late is "too late" to receive Holy Communion?  While one might fulfill their Sunday obligation if they arrive prior to the Consecration - should they receive Holy Communion?  Now, keep in mind, one does not have to receive Holy Communion to fulfill the Sunday obligation; even the excommunicated, who may not receive Communion, are still obliged to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation.  With that in mind, while it may be "lawful" for one to receive the Eucharist after arriving late - should they?  Things to consider may include causing another to sin because they may see this as scandalous (whether it is or not) and by your action be distracted and drift into gossip.  While it's not your sin, did you cause it?  

Another factor though, and perhaps more important, is do you NEED to go to Holy Communion?  I know there are times when I truly feel I NEED to receive the Eucharist, and to miss it hurts my soul so much it's almost a physical pain.  In such circumstances, I would still approach Communion - but if I arrived "late" - I would sit in the rear and do my best to cause as little disturbance and distraction as possible.

The "Catholicism.About" page offers that there is no real "time limit" on how late one can receive Holy Communion, if they are still distributing it - you may receive it - HOWEVER - just receiving the Eucharist does not constitute fulfilling the Sunday Duty (obligation).  

If you come into Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation at the time that Communion is being distributed, you may receive Communion, but you have not fulfilled your Sunday Duty. To fulfill your Sunday Duty, you need to attend the entire Mass. If, through no fault of your own, you arrive late, or important circumstances require you to leave early, you've still fulfilled your Sunday Duty. But if you leave early to get a better seat at the buffet, or you arrive late because you decided to sleep in, then you haven't fulfilled your Sunday Duty.

The opinion expressed by this "expert" seems a bit contradictory though.  He says that one may arrive late and still receive Communion, but may not have fulfilled their Sunday Duty, and goes on to explain that on days which are not obliged (daily Mass) sometimes Eucharist is distributed before, during and even after Mass.  I would add, to those who are bedbound and Eucharist is distributed to them after Mass, they have not attended Mass - and yet are licitly receiving Holy Communion.  The part I would like to see him clarify is the point about it not being a mortal sin to receive (I agree) but one would need to go to another Mass that day (if it is a Sunday or holy day of obligation).  If that Mass is the last Mass of the day and/or the person has no intention of trying to get to another Mass - then if they have not fulfilled their Sunday obligation (or duty) and since there is no further remedy or intent to remedy, then they are already in mortal sin and should not receive the Body and/or Blood of our Lord - for they would be doing so unworthily (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

The bottom line is, if you have missed ANY PART of the Mass for an unworthy reason, then you do not fulfill your Sunday obligation and if there is no opportunity to attend another Mass, then you are in mortal sin and should not receive the Eucharist.  As for being late for a "worthy" reason - one would have to HONESTLY self-examine and ask their self if they should receive Communion.  Whether one draws the line at the Offertory or the Consecration (and definitely not past the Consecration) the question should be SHOULD they receive the Eucharist, and that is a question only THEY can answer after a careful self-examination.

And, if I may poke a little jab at those who leave Mass right after receiving...  Mass is NOT OVER YET!  If you leave early, especially for an unworthy reason, then you have not fulfilled your Sunday obligation - and mere receiving of the Eucharist does not fulfill your duty.  So, to leave early can be a mortal sin.  The real "rule of thumb" here should be: "The priest is the last person to enter Mass and the first to leave."  If you arrive after the priest has entered or leave before he has processed out - you have some serious self-examination to do.  Remember who the first one to leave Mass early was?  Judas Iscariot.  

Communion of Saints

In today’s second reading we find that there is a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us.  Reading Hebrews 11, the previous chapter of today’s reading, tells us that these witnesses are the Old Testament saints.

 

These ‘dead’ saints who are alive in Christ are aware of what’s happening to us.  Here are few verses to show this awareness of those in heaven of what is happening here on Earth.

 

Heb 12:1          “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.”

 

Mt 17:3            Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

 

(If Jesus didn’t want any contact between saints on earth and saints in heaven, why did our Lord make a special point of appearing to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration in the company of Moses and Elijah, two ‘dead’ saints? (Patrick Madrid))

 

Rev 6:9-10       When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?

 

Luke 15:10       …There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents.

 

We have just learned that the ‘dead saints’ are indeed aware of earthly doings, but can they do anything about it?  Are there intercessory prayers effective?  Of course there are.  Prayers of the righteous availeth much (Jas 5:16).  Who are more righteous than those who have been made perfect (Mat 5:48) and in heaven?

 

I feel I must make clear that Jesus alone is our mediator, John Henry Cardinal Newman pointed out:

The Catholic Church allows no…Saint, not even the Blessed Virgin herself, to come between the soul and its Creator…The devotions then to angels and saints as little interfered with the incommunicable glory of the Eternal, as the love which we bear our friends and relations, our tender human sympathies, are inconsistent with that supreme homage of the heart to the Unseen.  (Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p.284-285)

 

We can therefore see that asking saints to pray for us (whether they are ‘living’ or ‘dead’) is acceptable, approved by God, and avails much. 

 

[Text adapted from http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap070100.htm ]

Communion in a non-Catholic Service

Q.  Can Catholics receive communion in a non-Catholic ceremony?

 

 

R.     Catholics believe that the Eucharist is a sign of unity.  This is one of the reasons that Protestants can’t ordinarily receive Communion in Catholic churches.  The same holds true in the opposite direction:  For a Catholic to receive Protestant communion would not only give the impression that the Protestant version is valid, but it would also create a false sense of unity.  There is no true unity between us sadly and for us to receive communion in a Protestant church would be lying with our bodies.  Almost as if we would say yes by bobbing our heads up and down in the affirmative but saying no with our words.  We would be giving a mixed message, and a confusing one.  And therefore lend confusion as to what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the matter.

 

And that, my friend, is the main reason a Catholic Christian shouldn’t receive communion in a non-Catholic church.  The Catholic Church teaches in the True Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, most other churches do not believe in this change.  For a Catholic to receive communion in a non-Catholic church would be saying to the other Christians of that church that he believes as they do.  The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.  Everything revolves around this fact, the fact that Jesus Christ is actually present in the consecrated bread and wine.  We would be doing a great disservice to those Christians by going along with their ideology.  We ought to provoke their thinking instead and to wake them up from their complacency by simply not partaking of communion and keeping to the truth.  In fact, we are not in full communion with each other yet and pretending that we are is not helpful for any member of His Church.

God Bless
Nathan

Wise As Serpents

It seems strange that we are told, by Jesus Himself, to be "wise as serpents" when the first thing most of us think of when it comes to serpents is Satan, who took the form of a serpent in the temptation of Eve.  Many may not even realize this statement comes from Scripture, when most certainly it does.   But what is Jesus saying to us, in context here?  He's talking about when He is going to send them (the Apostles) out and that they would be persecuted for His sake.  It would not be so wise to flaunt their Christianity in a world which, as He knew would be coming, persecutes Christians - simply because they believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.  Be cautious, and shrewd - and know when it is time to kick the dust from your sandals and move on to the next town. 

 

Jesus, in this context, also tells them (and us) to be "simple as doves."  St. Augustine reflects upon this passage quite well, so let us look at what he said:

Now what need is there to commend to you in many words the simplicity of the dove? For the serpent's poison had need to be guarded against: there, there was a danger in imitation; there, there was something to be feared; but the dove may you imitate securely. Mark how the doves rejoice in society; everywhere do they fly and feed together; they do not love to be alone, they delight in communion, they preserve affection; their cooings are the plaintive cries of love, with kissings they beget their young. Yea even when doves, as we have often noticed, dispute about their holes, it is as it were but a peaceful strife. Do they separate, because of their contentions? Nay, still do they fly and feed together, and their very strife is peaceful. See this strife of doves, in what the Apostle says, If any man obey not our word by this epistle, mark that man, and have no company with him. Behold the strife; but observe now how it is the strife of doves, not of wolves. He subjoined immediately, Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. The dove loves even when she is in strife; and the wolf even when he caresses, hates. Therefore having the simplicity of doves, and the wisdom of serpents, celebrate the solemnities of the Martyrs in sobriety of mind, not in bodily excess, sing lauds to God. For He who is the Martyrs' God, is our Lord God also, He it is who will crown us. If we shall have wrestled well, we shall be crowned by Him, who has crowned already those whom we desire to imitate.  (Sermon 14 on the New Testament).

Douay-Rheims Bible 

16 Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. 17 But beware of men. For they will deliver you up in councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues. 18 And you shall be brought before governors, and before kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles: 19 But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak. 20 For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. 21 The brother also shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death. 22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.  (Matthew 10:16-22).

So go out there, preach the gospel - but don't be foolish about it!  Persevere in Him and in simple communion with His Church.   Do not be like the wolves who, as St. Augustine put it, even when they caress, they hate.  Be like the doves, and commune in love.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

No Communion for Pro Abort Politicians

Vatican Official: Bishops Have no Choice But to Refuse Communion to Pro-Abort Politicians

By Hilary White

ROME, January 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Raymond Burke, in an exclusive interview last week, told LifeSiteNews.com that the issue of pro-abortion politicians continuing to receive Holy Communion is still one of major concern and that it is the duty of bishops to ensure that they are refused.

He told LifeSiteNews.com, "I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."

Among the US bishops directly to address the issue, Archbishop Burke was one of around a dozen who vigorously supported a directive of the Vatican that said pro-abortion Catholic politicians "must be refused" Holy Communion if they attempt to receive at Mass. Others have refused to abide by the Vatican instruction and the Church's own Code of Canon Law, saying they would rather focus on "education" of such politicians.

Archbishop Burke called "nonsense" the accusation, regularly made by some bishops, that refusing Holy Communion "makes the Communion rail a [political] battle ground". In fact, he said, the precise opposite is true. The politician who insists on being seen receiving Holy Communion, despite his opposition to the Church's central teachings, is using that reception for political leverage.

In 2004, when self-proclaimed Catholic and candidate for the Democrat party, Sen. John Kerry, was frequently photographed receiving Holy Communion despite his vigorous support of abortion, the US Bishops Conference issued a document which said only that it is up to individual bishops whether to implement the Church's code of Canon Law and refuse Communion. The issue has remained prominent with the appointment of Joe Biden, another pro-abortion Catholic politician, as Vice President of the United States of America.

Archbishop Burke recalled previous experiences with Kerry, pointing to the several occasions when the senator was pictured in Time magazine receiving Communion from Papal representatives at various public events. Burke said that it is clear that Kerry was using his reception of Holy Communion to send a message.

"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."

"What are they doing? They're using the Eucharist as a political tool."

In refusing, far from politicising the Eucharist, the Church is returning the matter to its religious reality. The most important reasons to refuse, he said, are pastoral and religious in nature.

"The Holy Eucharist, the most sacred reality of our life in the Church, has to be protected against sacrilege. At the same time, individuals have to be protected for the sake of their own salvation from committing one of the gravest sins, namely to receive Holy Communion unworthily."

Archbishop Burke also dismissed the commonly proffered excuse that such politicians need more "education". Speaking from his own direct experience, he said that Catholic politicians who are informed by their pastors or bishops that their positions in support of pro-abortion legislation makes it impossible for them to receive Holy Communion, "I've always found that they don't come forward."

"When you talk to these people, they know," he said. "They know what they're doing is very wrong. They have to answer to God for that, but why through our pastoral negligence add on to that, that they have to answer to God for who knows how many unworthy receptions of Holy Communion?"

Archbishop Burke said that the issue had been debated enough. He rejected the idea that the matter should be left to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the Conference has no authority in the matter. "This is a law of the universal Church and it should be applied."

"I think this argument too is being used by people who don't want to confront the issue, this whole 'wait 'til the Conference decides'...well the Conference has been discussing this since at least 2004. And nothing happens."

When asked what the solution was, he responded, "Individual bishops and priests simply have to do their duty. They have to confront politicians, Catholic politicians, who are sinning gravely and publicly in this regard. And that's their duty.

"And if they carry it out, not only can they not be reproached for that, but they should be praised for confronting this situation."