Non-Negotiables

Not an original work from me but so important that I felt the need to post anyway.

Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing or opposing particular policies.  This is the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death penalty.  Though the Church urges caution regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to employ them in some circumstances (CCC 2309, 2267).

Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke of this in a document dealing with when Catholics may receive Communion:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.  For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.  While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.  There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia” (WRHC 3).

The same is true of many other issues that are the subject of political debate: the best way to help the poor, to manage the economy, to protect the environment, to handle immigration, and to provide education, health care and retirement security.  Catholics may legitimately take different approaches to these issues while the same cannot be said for euthanasia and abortion, two actions which are always wrong no matter the circumstances.  The protection of innocent life always takes precedence to all other issues.  What good are all other rights if one does not have the right to life?

God Bless
Nathan

Ref: Catholic Answers, Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, Catholic Answers Press, 16 pgs, 2016

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.  

Friendly Letter On Eucharist

A Friendly Letter on the Eucharist

By Scott Windsor

Why am I doing this? Well, one of my sons asked about how to respond when non-Catholics refer to the Eucharist as a “cracker.” He did not want to offend or fight with the non-Catholic, but wanted to know how to answer this person. Being born and raised in a Protestant home as I was, I told my son that we need to be understanding of the Protestant mindset. Protestants are taught that the Eucharist is bread and wine, and that’s it. The ceremony surrounding “Holy Communion” for Protestants is the memorial which Jesus commanded we participate in, and since it is purely a memorial, no priests are involved and, in fact, Protestants encourage one another to celebrate Holy Communion in their own homes or in groups of family and/or friends. I recall one day preparing to have Holy Communion with Paul and Jan Crouch of TBN, I had it all laid out on my living room coffee table and went through “the narrative” with Paul Crouch (who was “leading” it for all those following along on television). I also remember the “Confirmation Camp” I attended shortly after being confirmed in the Lutheran faith, where our “leaders” passed out bread and wine and we, the youth, repeated “the narrative” ceremony then amongst ourselves we distributed the “Holy Communion.” Both of these events were emotionally stirring and motivational to me, as a Christian. It seems a lot of Protestantism is based in feelings and emotional responses - but this is something I did not see as a Protestant - and can now see, looking back objectively.

Before we get much into who “celebrates” Holy Communion – we need to discuss what exactly the Eucharist is. What are the foundational scriptural teachings for the Eucharist? Let us start with John 6.

John 6

John 6 opens with a very grand and literal miracle – the feeding of the five thousand from five barley loaves and two fishes. The next part takes us to a discussion of the real and literal feeding of the people of Israel in the desert with miraculous water and manna. Then Jesus emphatically and repeatedly states that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us! The preface of this command to eat His flesh and drink His blood are two very real and physical miracles. So, where many of our detractors insist the command to eat His flesh and drink His blood are figurative, the command is prefaced in the same chapter by two very real and literal miracles.

The next consideration is the fact that many of Jesus' disciples who heard Him teach this could not abide by it and rather than accept Him at His word, they "turned and walked with Him no more." They took Him literally and could not handle the teaching, so they walked away. Would Jesus let them walk away with an erroneous understanding? Or, did Jesus know they took Him literally and He let them walk away precisely because they took Him literally and they were walking away because they would not accept Him at His word? I submit, Jesus did not mislead them nor allow them to walk away with the wrong impression - they "got it" - they just were unwilling to accept it. I repeat, they walked away with the proper understanding, just not the faith necessary to accept and believe that Jesus would provide them with the means of fulfilling this command. Jesus commanded, and repeated this command several times in John 6, that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have "no life" in us. Ask yourself, do you believe what Jesus said? Do you accept what Jesus said? Or, do you understand the words here - but refuse to accept them as they are written and as He spoke them? Do you add to what is written and say this is figurative? If you walk with Him - then accept what He said.

The Synoptic Accounts of the First Eucharist

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

(Mat 26:26-28 DRB)

And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

(Mar 14:22-24 DRB)

And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

(Luk 22:19-20 DRB)

The point we need to look at here is that Jesus again is not using figurative language. He does not say the bread represents His body or that it is like His body - but that it IS His body. Likewise with the wine, it IS His blood not a figure of it. Our detractors will still insist He is using figurative language and go to other contexts where He clearly is using figurative speech, for example Jesus says, "I am the vine..." (John 15:1) or "I am the door..." (John 10:7), but in these contexts He is clearly using figurative speech. When He says, "I am the vine..." He goes on to make comparisons to us as being the branches and those who do not bare fruit He will cut off; this is figurative speech. When He says "I am the door..." He goes on to speak of us being the sheep and and robbers come to steal the sheep - but the sheep do not hear their voice, for He is the door and all who enter by Him will be saved. In this same context Jesus goes on to speak of being the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep. Again, the figurative nature of this narrative is quite clear. When we compare that to the consecration of the bread and wine, there is no other speech around these statements to indicate a figurative nature. He simply declares the bread to BE His body and the wine to BE His blood - and it IS. For those who have true faith in what Jesus says, no further explanation is necessary; likewise, for those without the true faith - no explanation will suffice. Those who do not have the necessary faith here will continue to insist - even without contextual support - that Jesus is speaking figuratively here. But let's move on to what St. Paul had to say about the Eucharist.

St. Paul's Accounting of the Eucharist

First, let us look at St. Paul's words:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

(1Co 11:23-29 DRB)

In St. Paul's Letter to the Corinthians we see that the partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner is a sin against the body and blood of the Lord - it is not a sin against bread or wine, for how can one offend bread or wine? What he is asking us to do is examine ourselves prior to approaching the Eucharist. This is why the Sacrament of Confession (aka: Penance or Reconciliation) is necessary prior to receiving the Eucharist if one has the stain of mortal sin on their soul. Our objectors here will state that the context does not mention mortal or venial sins - and we must agree, it does not; however, the context does speak of being "unworthy" to receive the Eucharist. The only thing which would make us unworthy to receive the body and blood of our Lord is mortal sin. So let me discuss that briefly next.

Mortal v. Venial Sin

We discuss this in the middle of a discussion on the Eucharist because of the fact that St. Paul warns us not to approach the Eucharist unworthily. So we must ask ourselves, what would make us unworthy? If one is in venial sin, that is offensive to God still - but does not separate one from the state of grace - or a state of salvation (those who die in the state of grace will be saved). However, mortal sin (a "sin which is unto death") does separate us from the state of grace. To approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist while not in the state of grace would be to do so unworthily. The first objection our detractors will have is that God does not distinguish sin, and that is simply not true.

He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. (1 John 5:16-17 DRB)

As you can see, St. John the Apostle clearly makes the case for a "sin unto death" in comparison to a "sin which is not to death." That is precisely the distinction Catholics speak of in mortal v. venial sins.

This takes us back to the point St. Paul was making about approaching the Eucharist and especially receiving it unworthily, and one who does so eats and drinks judgment unto their self for not discerning the body of the Lord. We must emphasize the point, the sin is in not realizing the body of the Lord. Consider that carefully. It is not a sin to eat bread and/or wine unworthily - but to partake in Eucharist unworthily brings upon one's self the judgment of the Lord - and why? For not recognizing the Eucharist IS His body and blood. For one to knowingly in a state of mortal sin and approach and receive the Eucharist it would be a denial of the body and blood of Christ - for what true Christian would dare bring the body and blood of the Lord into such an unworthy vessel?

In Conclusion

So as to not get too long and "preachy" in this letter, I will close now with a summary of the points.

Catholics do not view the Eucharist as a "cracker" - and hopefully, those reading this will respect our faith and our own feelings to not make reference to something we hold so reverently as a simple "cracker." Catholics have faith in the words of our Lord that what He said was absolutely true, the bread IS His body and the wine IS His blood which was shed for us. Partaking in the Eucharist fulfills the command He repeated many times in John 6 demanding we eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us. Realizing that the Eucharist IS the body and blood of our Lord, we do not approach the Sacrament unworthily - but examine ourselves first and if necessary seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance/Confession) prior to receiving the Eucharist so that we do not incur the judgment for not discerning the body and blood of our Lord.

AMDG,

Scott<<<

Remembrance

The following came from a posting in the Catholic Debate Forum by a subscriber named "Kathryn" and I felt it worthy of repeating here (with minor edits by me).

REMEMBRANCE is different for Jews and Catholics than for Protestants.  Zwingli when he insisted that Holy Communion was merely symbolic wrenched the whole thing out of its biblically established environment. He absolutely destroyed the whole biblical meaning of it and left his adherents virtually bankrupt. Calvin did not go so far but also missed the meaning or what Christ Jesus instituted. Luther attempted to have his cake and eat it too (no pun intended).  
 
It has to do also with the Jewish concept of TIME as opposed to the Gentile concept of a long string of hours and days but to dig into that deeply here would confuse the biblical Jewish / Catholic beginners understanding ---- let's call it Remembrance 101. Also, our "reformers" were Rennaisance men who took the enlightened man position and moved understanding fully into their own time as though Christianity was "coming of age."
 
In order to get it right as Christians, we need to know what it meant to the Jews (who, by the way, we are far closer to as Catholics than we are to Protesants). This is just one of the things that is so tragic in the trend in some circles to "protestantize" the Catholic Church. (I digress)...
 
Below is a Messianic Jewish rabbi's explanation of REMEMBRANCE in the biblical sense, which is the Jewish sense, which is the Catholic sense but not the Protestant sense. This again is a thing that renders Catholics - Protestants incomunicado...
 
Kathryn
 
The following is borrowed from "A Discussion of Messianic Judaism, the Emerging Messianic Jewish Paradigm, ..... of Rabbi Stuart Dauermann, PhD. 
 
http://rabbenu.blogspot.com/2007/01/seeds-weeds-and-walking-highwire-more.html
 
Rabbi DAuermann is speaking of the Jewish concept of REMEMBRANCE (zikkaron / anamnesis). He writes:
 
 "The remembered event [in the now] is equally a valid witness to Israel’s encounter with God as the first witness (Childs, 89). 

We see new facets of the past as we grapple with the Holy One in the present, using the template of the past as a framework for self-understanding. When we encounter the story of the Exodus, we grapple with the God who redeemed us just as truly as did the Exodus generation. Our response now to the record of his saving mercies is as real and as consequential as was theirs, and the consequences of careless disregard, no less significant. We are as culpable for ingratitude as were they. “Today, if you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” 

The Holy Past is Present as Catalytic Memory: With Judicial Power 

“Each generation of Israel, living in a concrete situation within history, was challenged by God to obedient response through the medium of her tradition. Not a mere subjective reflection, but in the biblical category, a real event as a moment of redemptive time from the past initiated a genuine encounter in the present” (Childs, 83-84). The events of Israel’s redemption were such significant realizations in history of divine redemptive intervention, that together with the rituals, rites, and commandments they entail, they have the authority to assess each successive generation of Israel, including ours. Our response to these events, rites, rituals and obligations, is our response to God, for which we are accountable. 

The Haggadah, echoing the Talmud, agrees. It reminds us, “In every generation a man is bound to regard himself as though he personally had gone forth from Egypt. (cf. TB Pesachim). Torah tells us of Passover, "'This will be a day for you to remember [v’haya hayom hazzeh lachem l’zikkaron].” The LXX translates zikkaron as “anamnesis.” It is also the term used in the Newer Covenant underlying the phrase, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

The holy past is no mere collection of data to be recalled, but a continuing reality to be honored or desecrated. As a zikkaron, a holy memorial, the redemption from Egypt is so authoritatively present with us at the seder, that a cavalier attitude toward the event marks as “The Wicked Son,” unworthy of redemption, anyone who fails to accord it due respect. In zikkaron or anamnesis, the holy past is present with power, assessing our response.

This is a new perspective for some of us and surely for most of our Movement. It makes us wriggle with discomfort because it contravenes our axiomatic commitment to autonomy. We reflexively think ourselves to only be responsible when we choose to be so. The Bible, and our tradition disagrees; hence the discomfort. 

That anamnesis has intrusive and unavoidable authority to judge our response is proven in Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Table. In First Corinthians 11, he states that those who fail to discern the reality present among them in the zikkaron/anamnesis, who drink the Lord’s cup and eat the bread in an unworthy manner, desecrate the body and blood of the Lord and eat and drink judgment upon themselves. He makes this point unambiguous when be states “This is why many among you are weak and sick, and some have died.” 

Because of this numinous power of zikkaron/anemesis, honoring the holy Jewish past and the holy Jewish future as re-presented in the liturgy, ritual, and calendar of our people must become a lived reality in our movement. Our only other option is to dishonor God and to trifle with his holy saving acts. I think it no exaggeration to say that failure to properly honor our holy past, present as zikkaron/anamnesis, is just as truly an act of desecration as was the failure of the Corinthians to honor body and blood of Messiah present in their midst in the bread and the wine.