Month: August 2005

Valid Protestant Eucharists

A piece back I noted that Protestant churches"apart from very exceptional circumstances, do not have the Real Presence when they celebrate the Lord’s Supper.”

Following which, a reader wrotes:

What are these circumstances?

The big problem keeping most Protestant Eucharists from being valid is the absence of a valid, sacramental priesthood in Protestant circles due to the fact that at the time of the Reformation all of the Protestant denominations failed to preserve the sacrament of holy orders, either altogether or in a valid form.

In rare cases, however, a Protestant minister may have a valid priestly ordination. There are basically two ways this can happen:

  1. He was ordained as a priest in a non-Protestant church, such as the Catholic Church or one of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Sometimes priests of these churches may become Protestant, in which case their priestly ordination remains valid.
  2. The Protestant denomination itself may have acquired valid holy orders, as appears to be the case with the Charistmatic Episcopal Church, which obtained holy orders from a Brazilian schismatic group that split off from the Catholic Church.

Thus there may be lone individual ministers (as in case 1) in Protestant churches who have the power to consecrate the Eucharist or, in at least one case, an entire Protestant denomination that has it.

In addition to this basic requirement, the usual conditions of using the proper matter and form and having the proper intent also must be fulfilled for a valid consecration of the Eucharist.

This Is That?

To a vastly greater degree than any other creature on earth, man is a symbolic being. Our capacity for symbolic thought–the ability to conceptualize the idea that a symbol stands for a reality or "This is that"–is vastly superior to that of any other creatures on the planet. It is what allows us to accumulate knowledge from one generation to another, to develop culture, learn science, etc., etc., etc.

But it doesn’t come on us all at once. We aren’t born with our capacity for symbolic thought all warmed up and ready to cook. It takes a while for us to learn different forms of symbolism, language being one of the first. Visual symbols can take a little longer.

If you have a really young child their visual symbol processing software ain’t all online yet.

This, of course,

MAKES ‘EM REALLY FUN TO TRY SYMBOL-BASED EXPERIMENTS ON.

Among the interesting things scientists who do this are learning are things that have to do with what are the best educational strategies for young children:

A very popular style of book contains a variety of manipulative features designed to encourage children to interact directly with the book itself–flaps that can be lifted to reveal pictures, levers that can be pulled to animate images, and so forth.

Graduate student Cynthia Chiong and I reasoned that these manipulative features might distract children from information presented in the book. Accordingly, we recently used different types of books to teach letters to 30-month-old children. One was a simple, old-fashioned alphabet book, with each letter clearly printed in simple black type accompanied by an appropriate picture–the traditional "A is for apple, B is for boy" type of book. Another book had a variety of manipulative features. The children who had been taught with the plain book subsequently recognized more letters than did those taught with the more complicated book. Presumably, the children could more readily focus their attention with the plain 2-D book, whereas with the other one their attention was drawn to the 3-D activities. Less may be more when it comes to educational books for young children.

Last Week's Show (August 4, 2005)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW (REAL AUDIO).

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW (MP3–YEE-HAW!!!).

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Is there such a person as Lillith? Are there female demons and angels?
  • Has the Vatican mandated that we all stand after Communion until everyone has received?
  • How can God is all good, why does he allow us to suffer forever in hell?
  • Where are Scriptural bases for the enthronement of the Sacred Heart?
  • How to respond to someone who says that you won’t get along with someone based on his astrological sign?
  • Has Jimmy ever heard of Fr. Hempsch and "healing the family tree"?
  • If all come to the Father through Jesus, where does that leave those before the time of Christ and those who have never heard of Jesus?
  • A brief follow-up on earlier astrology question.
  • Can the souls in purgatory pray for us?
  • What were the highlights of Pope John VIII’s reign?
  • How do the 95 Theses square with Vatican II? Would Vatican II have prevented the Protestant Reformation?
  • How much of a "hassle" will it be for the caller’s husband to get an annulment?

Last Week’s Show (August 4, 2005)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW (REAL AUDIO).

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW (MP3–YEE-HAW!!!).

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • Is there such a person as Lillith? Are there female demons and angels?
  • Has the Vatican mandated that we all stand after Communion until everyone has received?
  • How can God is all good, why does he allow us to suffer forever in hell?
  • Where are Scriptural bases for the enthronement of the Sacred Heart?
  • How to respond to someone who says that you won’t get along with someone based on his astrological sign?
  • Has Jimmy ever heard of Fr. Hempsch and "healing the family tree"?
  • If all come to the Father through Jesus, where does that leave those before the time of Christ and those who have never heard of Jesus?
  • A brief follow-up on earlier astrology question.
  • Can the souls in purgatory pray for us?
  • What were the highlights of Pope John VIII’s reign?
  • How do the 95 Theses square with Vatican II? Would Vatican II have prevented the Protestant Reformation?
  • How much of a "hassle" will it be for the caller’s husband to get an annulment?

Planned Parenthood's Caped Assassin

Screwtape must be getting a little worried that the diabolical activity at work in our nation’s largest abortuary, Planned Parenthood, is becoming more and more apparent to the casual observer. Planned Parenthood in San Francisco recently unveiled a "superheroine" named "Dianisis" (anyone remember their Greco-Roman mythology?) whose mission is to rid the world of chastity advocates and anti-abortion demonstrators.

EXCERPT:

"The eight-minute [animated video] ‘A Superhero for Choice,’ posted on the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate website, has a bespectacled black woman in San Francisco morphing into a red-suited flying enforcer, bent on making the world safe for the organization’s values.

"Viewers see three teenagers talking with an ugly green-faced man sporting a top hat and bow tie who tries to tell the kids abstinence is the only sure way to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. The teen girl rebuts the man, naming several birth-control methods.

"Retorts the little green man: ‘Those are instruments from the devil’s toolbox!’

"The superhero arrives in time to fill a trash can with water and dump the pro-abstinence character into it, slamming the cover down. After the man’s muffled voice eventually dies off, the superhero tosses the teens a ‘safe sex kit,’ reminding the kids: ‘Safe is sexy!’

"The ‘Superhero for Choice,’ dubbed Dianisis, next confronts a group of protesters in front of a Planned Parenthood facility. They, too, are ugly and have green faces, carrying signs that say, ‘Pray for thy sins.’

"The superhero character uses a ‘condom gun’ that catches each protester in a prophylactic bubble, which subsequently explodes. Though she admits the protesters have a First Amendment right to picket, she glories in the fact that people can now visit the Planned Parenthood facility unimpeded."

GET THE STORY.

(WARNING: The second image taken from the cartoon and posted with WorldNet’s story is quite graphic.)

ANOTHER WARNING: Surf through the San Francisco Planned Parenthood site at your own risk. Some of the materials that are marketed for teenagers are unmentionable in polite company.

Planned Parenthood’s Caped Assassin

Ppsuperhero

Screwtape must be getting a little worried that the diabolical activity at work in our nation’s largest abortuary, Planned Parenthood, is becoming more and more apparent to the casual observer. Planned Parenthood in San Francisco recently unveiled a "superheroine" named "Dianisis" (anyone remember their Greco-Roman mythology?) whose mission is to rid the world of chastity advocates and anti-abortion demonstrators.

EXCERPT:

"The eight-minute [animated video] ‘A Superhero for Choice,’ posted on the Planned Parenthood Golden Gate website, has a bespectacled black woman in San Francisco morphing into a red-suited flying enforcer, bent on making the world safe for the organization’s values.

"Viewers see three teenagers talking with an ugly green-faced man sporting a top hat and bow tie who tries to tell the kids abstinence is the only sure way to protect against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. The teen girl rebuts the man, naming several birth-control methods.

"Retorts the little green man: ‘Those are instruments from the devil’s toolbox!’

"The superhero arrives in time to fill a trash can with water and dump the pro-abstinence character into it, slamming the cover down. After the man’s muffled voice eventually dies off, the superhero tosses the teens a ‘safe sex kit,’ reminding the kids: ‘Safe is sexy!’

"The ‘Superhero for Choice,’ dubbed Dianisis, next confronts a group of protesters in front of a Planned Parenthood facility. They, too, are ugly and have green faces, carrying signs that say, ‘Pray for thy sins.’

"The superhero character uses a ‘condom gun’ that catches each protester in a prophylactic bubble, which subsequently explodes. Though she admits the protesters have a First Amendment right to picket, she glories in the fact that people can now visit the Planned Parenthood facility unimpeded."

GET THE STORY.

(WARNING: The second image taken from the cartoon and posted with WorldNet’s story is quite graphic.)

ANOTHER WARNING: Surf through the San Francisco Planned Parenthood site at your own risk. Some of the materials that are marketed for teenagers are unmentionable in polite company.

Married At The Rehersal?

A reader writes:

I have just a quick question about marriage. I was recently married in the Catholic Church (both my wife and I are strong, faithful Catholics). During the rehearsal, the deacon forgot to mention to us to not recite the vows he was saying because it was just a rehearsal. He wanted us to hear them but not recite them. So, we repeated what he said during the rehearsal. My question is this: does this mean that we were married, in the eyes of God, that night instead of the following day during the wedding mass?

No, you were married the following day. Here’s why.

The Code of Canon Law provides:

Canon  1108

§1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

§2. The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who [a] is present, [b] asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and [c] receives it in the name of the Church.

The deacon in question may have [a] been present and may have asked you to repeat the vows after him, but since the context was a wedding rehersal he was not [b] genuinely asking for the two of you to manifest matrimonial consent there on the spot, nor did he [c] receive this consent in the name of the Church. Y’all may have gone through all the motions of a wedding, but you were in rehersal mode, not actual performance mode.

Even if the two of you were attempting to exchange matrimonial consent at the time, the deacon had not genuinely asked for it nor did he genuinely receive it. As a result, the Catholic form of marriage was not observed (because of the deacon’s attitude of mind at the time) at this ceremony and so the marriage would be null on defect of form grounds–and that’s assuming that a rehersal ceremony could even be counted as a ceremony to begin with.

The situation is analogous to performing a baptism as part of a stage play. All the right words and actions may be said and done, ane even said and done by people capable of performing and receiving baptism, but without the requisite intent the sacrament is not performed.

In the case of your rehersal ceremony the deacon (at least) lacked the intent needed to do his role as required by canon law. He was acting in the capacity of a wedding reherser, not a wedding officiant. Form was thus not satisfied.

Congrats on your recent marriage, though!