Month: June 2005

Masses Per Day

A reader writes:

I am currently involved in a group studying ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA.  Two questions came up last night.

            1) Can you go to two masses on the same day and receive communion at both?

            I realize that you can receive two times as long as the second one is a mass, (the first could be a communion service..etc).  But one of the participants really insisted that it couldn’t be two masses for the same day (like a 9:00 and an 11:00) service on Sunday.

Your friend is incorrect on this point. First, here is what the Code says as a general matter about receiving Communion:

Can.  912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law
can and must be admitted to holy communion.

This means that unless there is a specific prohibition in the law that would prevent a person from receiving at two Masses then the person is allowed to receive at two Masses.

Now, there are only two canons that deal with how often a layperson can receive Communion in a single day. One of them deals with Viaticum in case of death. Here’s the other:

Can.  917 A person who has already received the
Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within
the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates, without prejudice
to the prescript of can. 921, §2.

Canon 921, §2 deals with Viaticum, so it doesn’t apply to the situation you are asking about.

As you can see, this canon says that a person can receive Communion "a second time on the same day only within
the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates." This specifies the circumstances that must apply to the second time a person receives Communion but says nothing about the circumstances of the first time. Since there are no requirements in the law dealing with the first time one receives Communion, canon 912 applies, and so one can receive Communion at Mass both the first time one receives it in a day and the second time. In fact, it is required that one receive it at Mass the second time (per canon 917). Whether it is at a Mass or a Communion service the first time is a matter the law allows liberty on.

One thus could go to a 9 a.m. Mass and receive Communion and then go to an 11 a.m. Mass and receive again. What the law prohibits is going to more Masses than this per day and receiving Communion at each of them.

The reader continues:

            2) How many masses can a priest say a day?  I believe that He is encouraged to say at least one mass a day but what is the upper limit.

Here’s the regs on that:

Can.  905 §1. A priest is not permitted to
celebrate the Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law
permits him to celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.

§2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local
ordinary can allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if
pastoral necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of
obligation.

The typical cap is thus once per day unless the bishop allows him to say two or three Masses for pastoral reasons (three being allowed on Sundays and holy days). These latter practices are known as "binating" and "trinating," respectively.

(NOTE: The green CLSA commentary on the Code notes that there are particular circumstances in which additional Masses could be said, but that’s the general rule. There are also certain liturgical days in which multiple Masses are allowed by the law itself and so per §1 the permission of the bishop would not be needed to cover those days.)

Diagnosis: Calvary

An Israeli researcher believes that Jesus died not of blood loss, but of a blood clot:

"Professor Benjamin Brenner wrote in The Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis that Jesus’ death, traditionally believed to have occurred 3 to 6 hours after crucifixion began, was probably caused by a blood clot that reached his lungs.

"Such pulmonary embolisms, leading to sudden death, can stem from immobilization, multiple trauma and dehydration, said Brenner, a researcher at Rambam Medical Center in Haifa.

"’This fits well with Jesus’ condition and actually was in all likelihood the major cause of death by crucifixion,’ he wrote in the article, based on religious and medical texts."

GET THE STORY.

Given that the Shroud of Turin is not mentioned in the article as the source of study, how can scientists make such a determination that the cause of death was more likely to be blood clot than blood loss when they do not have a body to examine? Unless the researcher was studying blood patterns on the Shroud, believed to be Jesus’ burial clothes, making such a statement as anything more than mere speculation seems rash.

Forward Into The Past

StalinToday in 1949 George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel 1984 was published.

Man! Was it that long ago?

1984, I mean, not 1949.

I remember growing up in the years before 1984, when Orwell’s novel was still a dark prophecy of the future. There was no way that the world would really resemble the novel come that year, but the number "1984" was still an ominous and emblematic number, filled with cultural resonance.

Guess the passage of time took the edge of it.

The novel’s still a classic, though.

LEARN MORE.

Now, you may be wondering why I’ve got a picture of Joseph Stalin in this post. The reason is that 1984 was written in significant measure to illustrate Orwell’s disappointment with Soviet Communism and, if you read the novel, it’s hard not to see Joseph Stalin (who was in power in Russia at the time) and all the Soviet propaganda posters of him as the prototype for Big Brother and all the IngSoc ("English Socialism") propaganda posters of him in turn. Realizing the political context of 1984, it’s hard not to imagine Joseph Stalin’s face on all those "Big Brother Is Watching You" posters.

Sola Fide, Heresy, & Damnation

A non-Catholic reader writes:

I was discussing several issues with a Romanist Apologist on the Planet Envoy forum. He indicated that the Magisterium declares that anyone who believes in Sola Fide is a heretic, and that as a result, their damnation is certain. What say you on the matter?

I’ll tell you. But before I do, let me say something else: Didn’t your momma teach you any manners at all?

Unless you are uncommonly unfamiliar with the standard use of the terms you are using, you must realize that the term "Romanist" is a religious slur that is highly offensive and used to express contempt for Catholics.

Would you really walk up to an African American and say something like, "So I was talking with a <INSERT RACIAL SLUR> activist, and he said . . . "?

Or would you e-mail a Jewish scholar and say, "I was in a chat room with a <INSERT ETHNO-RELIGIOUS SLUR> guy and was wondering if you, as one of his fellow <SLURS>, could comment on what he said?"

If you wouldn’t do these things, what the HECK are you doing writing to me, asking for my opinion on something, and throwing a religious term of contempt in my face?

Whatever bigoted language you may choose to use when among your own co-religionists, common sense should tell you how rude it is to go throwing such language in the faces of those from whom you are asking favors.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Having made this point, let us now go the extra mile to address the subject of your query.

Since I have not read the exchange in question, I cannot comment on what the Catholic apologist said. I can only comment on what you report him as saying. There may be important nuances that have been lost in transmission.

That being said, there are two difficulties with the position as you present it.

The first concerns the use of the phrase "sola fide." While certain interpretations of the proposition that we are justified "by faith alone" (sola fide) have been infallibly rejected by the Magisterium, and while it would be materially heretical to endorse these interpretations, it is not the case that every possible use of the phrase has been infallibly rejected as heretical.

The use of the phrase is intrinsically misleading and contrary to the language of Scripture (since the only time the phrase is ever used in Scripture, in James 2:24, it is rejected under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost), but it is nevertheless possible to ascribe a meaning to the phrase that is non-heretical. For example, if (a) one understands the faith in question to be faith that results in hope and charity and if (b) one understands this phrase (as Luther did) non-exclusively of baptism, then the result is non-heretical. (See the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.)

It is thus not the case that every possible interpretation (however forced or improbable) of the phrase "sola fide" has been infallibly rejected as heretical.

The second problem with the position you articulated concerns the damnation of heretics. While it is true that one who is formally guilty of heresy loses the state of grace and will be lost unless he responds to God’s grace and repents, it is not the case that all who embrace heretical positions lack the state of grace.

Those who, though excusing causes such as ignorance, hold in good conscience positions that are materially heretical are not formally guilty of heresy and so do not commit mortal sin by holding these positions and do not lose the state of grace.

The Church thus does not hold that all who use the formula "sola fide" (whether in non-heretical or even heretical senses) are damned.

Sola Fide, Heresy, & Damnation

A non-Catholic reader writes:

I was discussing several issues with a Romanist Apologist on the Planet Envoy forum. He indicated that the Magisterium declares that anyone who believes in Sola Fide is a heretic, and that as a result, their damnation is certain. What say you on the matter?

I’ll tell you. But before I do, let me say something else: Didn’t your momma teach you any manners at all?

Unless you are uncommonly unfamiliar with the standard use of the terms you are using, you must realize that the term "Romanist" is a religious slur that is highly offensive and used to express contempt for Catholics.

Would you really walk up to an African American and say something like, "So I was talking with a <INSERT RACIAL SLUR> activist, and he said . . . "?

Or would you e-mail a Jewish scholar and say, "I was in a chat room with a <INSERT ETHNO-RELIGIOUS SLUR> guy and was wondering if you, as one of his fellow <SLURS>, could comment on what he said?"

If you wouldn’t do these things, what the HECK are you doing writing to me, asking for my opinion on something, and throwing a religious term of contempt in my face?

Whatever bigoted language you may choose to use when among your own co-religionists, common sense should tell you how rude it is to go throwing such language in the faces of those from whom you are asking favors.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Having made this point, let us now go the extra mile to address the subject of your query.

Since I have not read the exchange in question, I cannot comment on what the Catholic apologist said. I can only comment on what you report him as saying. There may be important nuances that have been lost in transmission.

That being said, there are two difficulties with the position as you present it.

The first concerns the use of the phrase "sola fide." While certain interpretations of the proposition that we are justified "by faith alone" (sola fide) have been infallibly rejected by the Magisterium, and while it would be materially heretical to endorse these interpretations, it is not the case that every possible use of the phrase has been infallibly rejected as heretical.

The use of the phrase is intrinsically misleading and contrary to the language of Scripture (since the only time the phrase is ever used in Scripture, in James 2:24, it is rejected under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost), but it is nevertheless possible to ascribe a meaning to the phrase that is non-heretical. For example, if (a) one understands the faith in question to be faith that results in hope and charity and if (b) one understands this phrase (as Luther did) non-exclusively of baptism, then the result is non-heretical. (See the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.)

It is thus not the case that every possible interpretation (however forced or improbable) of the phrase "sola fide" has been infallibly rejected as heretical.

The second problem with the position you articulated concerns the damnation of heretics. While it is true that one who is formally guilty of heresy loses the state of grace and will be lost unless he responds to God’s grace and repents, it is not the case that all who embrace heretical positions lack the state of grace.

Those who, though excusing causes such as ignorance, hold in good conscience positions that are materially heretical are not formally guilty of heresy and so do not commit mortal sin by holding these positions and do not lose the state of grace.

The Church thus does not hold that all who use the formula "sola fide" (whether in non-heretical or even heretical senses) are damned.

Meet The Pope

… at a papal liturgy.

"The halberds moved forwards and, suddenly, the Pope was before us. He himself made nothing of his entry, but, as one, we swayed towards him. Tears streamed down the cheeks of the Rottweiler nun, and, to my enormous surprise, down my own. Here was the living successor of St. Peter, the guardian of the spirit at the heart of all Rome’s gilded worldly treasures. Here was the Holy Father. When people clapped, I willingly joined in.

"Astounded at my reaction, I expected it to pass. It did not. During the entire lengthy Mass, with its mainly commonplace liturgy and dodgy singing, I remained moved in a way I did not find at all comfortable. I wanted my detachment back, but I couldn’t find it.

"And it did not end there. As it was Corpus Christi, when Mass was over, the Pope, holding aloft the monstrance containing the Blessed Sacrament, came slowly down the steps to get into an open-topped popemobile, a prie-dieu protected by a golden canopy settled on its flat-back. He was very close and looked very serious.

"Then Signora Wild Boar called out his name — ‘Benedetto!’ — and as he turned to acknowledge us, his face lightened and he smiled a smile of delighted sweetness before raising his arm to indicate that the Blessed Sacrament was more worthy of our attention. If Signora Wild Boar had not been quite so bristly, I’d have kissed her."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Ut Unum Sint for the link.)

The great thing about being Catholic is that love properly expressed for human beings leads us to the love of God. Non-Catholic Christians often complain about Catholic devotion to Mary and the saints, and this story of Pope Benedict is a perfect parable of the right understanding of Catholic devotion to Mary and the saints. Our love for fellow Christians, including love for our spiritual father in the faith, does not end with them; it is directed on to God himself and indeed magnifies the glory of God. The saints don’t jealously hoard our love for them. They acknowledge it, are delighted by it, and point us on to God.

The California Housing Crisis

Housing is INSANELY expensive in California.

Why?

Everyone wants to move there ’cause of economic opportunity/better climate/chance to rub shoulders with movie stars/blue staters love good shushi?

Mayby those are pieces of the puzzle (at least the first two), but Thomas Sowell has another one.

GET THE STORY.

(Hint: Higher concentration of environmental whackos.)

Enter The Spongers

Dolphin_spongerA few years ago, scientists were all shook up when they discovered primates making and using simple tools.

(Stripping the twigs off branches so they could stick them down holes to get yummy, high-protein termintes to eat, as I recall.)

This was regarded as important because humans had been regarded as the only critters that made tools (as opposed to simply finding something and using it) since the de-twigging move involved modifying something found.

Wel it looks like monkeys may not be the only non-human tool-makers (or users) around.

It seems that certain dolphins Down Under have taken to making protective nose coverings out of sponges which they rip from the ocean floor (thus modifying them, much to the horror of the sponge, if sponges were able to think).

The dolphins who use the nose coverings have been dubbed "spongers" by the humans studying them, and they use them (the nose coverings, not the humans) to protect their noses when foraging for food on the ocean floor so they don’t get stung by stonefish, etc.

Unlike canary songs, which are passed down through the male-line and is largely genetic, sponging behavior in dolphins appears to be passed down through the female line and seems not to be a genetically-determined behavior since most (even most females) don’t do it.

Only one male was observed using a sponge. Kruetzen noted that, as
adults, male and female dolphins have very different lifestyles.

Adult
males form small groups of two or three individuals that chase females
in reproductive condition, he explained. "I would think that they do
not have time to engage in such a time-consuming foraging activity as
adults, as they are busy herding females."

 
 
 

GET THE STORY.