Category: Sacraments

Canonist Edward Peters has a disturbing question:

The excommunications consequent to the illicit episcopal ordinations (1983 CIC 1382) staged by Chinese Communists are so obvious that few commentators have mentioned them. Here I raise a different question: In the face of some sacraments being so obviously celebrated with no discernible pastoral sense and, in fact, driven by little besides a "let’s stick it to the Catholic Church" animus, has the time come to step back and ask some hard questions about the canonical validity of such sacraments?

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Dr. Peters (I’m using his title here to underscore his credentials; in personal conversations he’s "Ed") elaborates by raising the question of whether the episcopal consecrations recently performed at the behest of the Chinese government contain the form of intention that is required for sacramental validity.

He cites the recent case of Mormon baptism being ruled invalid apparently on grounds of inadequate intention as a parallel case.

One could further add the invalidity of Anglican orders due (in part) to a defect of intention.

While it is true that correct intention is an essential element that must be present for the valid celebration of a sacrament, I am not sure that grounds have been offered to question the validity of the Chinese episcopal consecrations.

It is true that these consecrations seem to have a "Let’s stick it to the Catholic Church" motive, which renders them not only illicit but also sacrilegious, but the motive leading one to commit a sacrilegious act does not invalidate one’s intention in performing the act.

Suppose, for example–and God forbid–that a priest was really mad at Jesus and decided to say Mass and consecrate a Host so that he could spit on it and thus "stick it to Jesus" by his act of defiance. In this situation the priest’s motive for performing the consecration is sacrilegious, but it does not affect his intention to really and truly bring about the consecration of the elements. Indeed, his ability to "stick it to Jesus" by spitting on the host is predicated on him really and truly performing the consecration of the elements so that Jesus will be present to be spat on.

We needn’t even go so far as this kind of outright sacrilege to illustrate the issue. In principle, priests should always celebrate Mass for pious spiritual reasons, like fulfilling the will of God and bringing salvation to the world, but in particular cases they may have much more mediocre motives, like showing up to say Mass just because it is expected of them by their bishop or by the congregation who will be present.

In this case we have a situation where the motive is sub-ideal but is not the kind of direct sacrilege mentioned in the first example.

In fact, they may have a mediocre motive alongside a dim awareness that they are saying Mass also for spiritual reasons, in which case we have a situation of mixed motives.

Humans often have mixed motives for the same act–some good, some indifferent, and some bad–and this applies across the board to the sacraments.

But the Church has never judged that the motive for performing a sacrament is essential to its validity.

It thus seems to me that we have to distinguish between two different things: the intention to perform the sacrament and the motive for performing the sacrament. It’s the difference between what you’re trying to do and why you’re trying to do it. The first affects the validity of the sacrament; the second does not. You can have a good or bad or indifferent motive for performing a sacrament. What counts for validity is whether or not you intend to do what the Church does in performing the sacrament.

If you want to stick it to the Vatican by consecrating a bishop then that entails the intention to consecrate a bishop, just as if you want to consecrate a Host so you can spit on it then that entails the intention to consecrate a Host.

I thus do not see a theoretical basis for challenging the validity
of the Chinese episcopal consecrations on the grounds that the Chinese
government ordered them in order to stick it to the Vatican.

But let’s switch from the theoretical to the practical for a moment.

Here’s what Catholic News Service is reporting about who did the ordaining:

Nine papally approved bishops from the government-approved church ordained Bishop Ma, UCA News reported. Of the five government-approved bishops named as ordaining Bishop Lui, at least four are known to have reconciled with the Vatican. Other concelebrants included about 30 Chinese priests and some visiting priests from overseas [SOURCE].

So in the case of both consecrations, bishops who are approved by or otherwise reconciled with the Holy See were serving as consecrators of the new bishops.

While we can never know the heart of another with certainty, I find it likely that–in a delicate situation like this one where bishops who are reconciled with Rome are being ordered by a totalitarian government to perform an episcopal consecration–that some of them would be saying to themselves, "Y’know, I really, really hate the fact that I’m being ordered to do this, and the guy being consecrated may hate it, too, but the reality is that he’s going to have to function as a bishop from here on out, and I’m going to do my part to ensure that he becomes one, lest further confusion and chaos be sown into an already bad situation. I want the situation of the official church in China to be made better, not worse, when the hoped-for full reconciliation with Rome finally happens, and so I’m really and truly intending to consecrate this guy as a bishop."

All it takes is one such person for the intention in conferring the consecration to be valid.

Switching from the practical mode to the legal mode, Dr. Peters of course knows that the Catholic Church would (barring anything unforeseen coming to light) regard these episcopal consecrations as illicit but valid. His point was to question whether this presumption on the part of the Church should be re-thought, and it is reasonable to ask what kind of intention is needed for the performance of the sacraments.

This is an area where there is still room for clarification, though the Church’s historic presumption has been that only a very general kind of intention is needed for sacramental validity–which I think is both a good thing and by divine design, for if we had to have narrowly particular intentions in performing sacraments then there would be massive numbers of invalid sacraments out there. Knowing our weaknesses and our fallen state–and, in fact, having given us the sacraments precisely in order to address our weaknesses and our fallen state–God made the sacraments like Tonka Trucks: They’re hard to break, even for play-fast-and-rough kids like us.

We can abuse them–by things like liturgical abuses or sacrilege–but it’s hard for us to destroy them. Illiceity is easy; invalidity is hard.

I’m thus pleased to say that, while Dr. Peters’ question is a good one, I don’t see a theoretical or practical reason for challenging the validity of these consecrations.

A reader writes:

My girlfriend is teaching the Confirmation class at her parish this year, and the confirmandi just picked their saint names.  One of them chose the name Moses.  I know the greats of the Old Testament are generally considered saints in their own right (or at least, that’s my understanding), but can an Old Testament name be used for Confirmation?

Confirmandi? Wasn’t that an old Jack Kirby comic published by DC? The Last Boy In The Church or something?

(Sorry. Just kidding.)

The answer is that there isn’t a rule here. Canon law does not presently make any provision regarding confirmation names.

As a result, one is free to take a name or not take a name, and there are no canonical restrictions on what such names might be.

That’s not to say that there are no moral limitations on what one could choose. If an uppity young ‘un wanted to take "Hitler" as a confirmation name then the others involved would be quite entitled to say "Nix on that."

A good rule of thumb to follow, though it doesn’t have canonical force when it comes to confirmation, would be what the Code of Canon Law says about baptismal names:

Can.  855

Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to
take care that a name foreign to Christian sensibility is not given.

"Moses" is not a name that is foreign to Christian sensibility. It may be a name that has Jewish resonances, but it’s part of the Judeo-Christian patrimony, and so it would not be a problem for a confirmand to take this name.

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy, Can my mother be my Confirmation sponsor ?  I thought I read a Canon Law stating no parents or spouses of the candidate can be a sponsor. Thanking you in advance of a prompt response, God bless you,

I’m afraid that your mom cannot be your confirmation sponsor. Here’s the canon law on that:

First, the Code of Canon Law establishes that for a person to serve as a confirmation sponsor he or she must meet the requirements of a sponsor for baptism:

Can.  893

§1. To perform the function of sponsor, a person must fulfill the conditions mentioned in can. 874 [which lays out the requirements for baptismal sponsors].

§2. It is desirable to choose as sponsor the one who undertook the same function in baptism.

If we then look at Canon 874 to see what the requirements are for baptismal sponsors, we find:

Can.  874

§1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a person must:

1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

So I’m afraid that your mom can’t serve as your confirmation sponsor. It would be preferable (see canon 893 §2, quoted above) if one of your sponsors at baptism (your godparents) were your confirmation sponsor–assuming they still meet all the requirements of canon 874–but this is not required.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

My husband had decided to go to confession after 45 years–and it’s next Wednesday.

I smoothed the way by speaking with Father who will hold our Wednesday evening confessions in his office (not together of course).  My husband is getting scrupples BUT more than that—he’s wondering if there was a booklet for someone like him to offer clues or ideas or direction.

Have you written anything about those who haven’t gone since they were kids and how to not feel guilty about forgetting things?  He’s so worried.  It’s not so much that he’s scared but he’s worried that he’ll forget to say everything and that it won’t count. I’ve told him it’s OK.  Just express sincere remorse and that God knows!  But… do you have anything?

There certainly are booklets that your husband could use. Catholic Answers carries one that is titled something like "The Little Catechism Of Confession" (see shop.catholic.com). The problem is that if his confession is scheduled for Wednesday, it wouldn’t be possible to get this booklet unless you had it overnighted.

You might try going to a local Catholic bookstore, if there is one in your town, as they would probably have things of this nature.

Or you could Google "examination of conscience" and see what comes up.

HERE’S AN EXAMPLE OF AN ONLINE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE.

Because your husband has not been to confession in some time (and it’s great that he’s coming back to it!), I recommend a few things:

1) He should not stress out about confessing the number of times he committed particular sins if he can’t remember. Nobody is obliged to confess more than they can remember, so if all he can say is "I did this particular sin a lot" then that’s okay. (On the other hand, if he knows the specific number then he should say it.)

2) He should not stress out about sins that he has forgotten. The Church teaches that the sacrament works as long as the person does not deliberately hold back a mortal sin that he knows about. If he can’t remember a mortal sin that he committed then he isn’t obliged to confess it. It is enough that he would confess it if he remembered it.

3) To cover unremembered mortal sins, it is customary for people to add at the end of their confession "And for all my sins I am sorry."

4) To help him not worry about forgetting to mention something that he meant to say, he should consider using a written memory aid. This could be a list of his sins that he makes up in advance, or it could be printing up an examination of conscience and putting a check mark by the ones he means to confess.

5) When he confesses, he should be as direct as possible, simply saying, "I have to confess that I frequently did this . . . . and I have to confess that I sometimes did that" and not worry about giving a lot of background detail. Being matter of fact in this way will make it easier to get through the confession. The priest can ask clarifying questions if he needs to.

6) After confession your husband should IMMEDIATELY destroy any written aid he used in the confession. I recommend tearing it up and flushing it down the toilet in the nearest men’s room.

I hope this helps, and it’s great that your husband is coming back to the practice of his faith!

A reader writes:

I’ve a friend who’s 8month old child (baptized child) has a medical syndrome and is having increasing medical problems. I think that the child should receive the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. That it will impart grace and possible healing and strengthen the child in it’s health battles, even though they are too young to understand. I believe that the power of the Holy Spirit is present in this anointing, and prayers. Others seem to be leaning so much towards the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament, that they are overlooking the strengthen and healing portion of the sacrament. I realize that the child has nothing to forgive, But as a baptized catholic christian they are in titled to the strength that this sacrament can give. Do you think that this is appropriate for an infant.

I agree with you! Infants should be able to receive the anointing of the sick!

Unfortunately, canon law in the Latin Rite of the Church does not presently provide for this. The Latin Code of Canon Law provides:

Can.  1004 §1. The anointing of the sick can be administered to a member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger due to sickness or old age.

I consider the age-of-reason requirement absolutely reprehensible. It is a remnant, so far as I can tell, of the mindset that existed in the last number of centuries, in which the anointing of the sick (then called "extreme unction," meaning final anointing) was viewed principally as a preparation for death. From that perspective, children below the age of reason wouldn’t need it since they can’t sin gravely.

But that’s NOT why Christ gave us this sacrament. He didn’t give it to us just as a preparation for death but as a means of healing, which is the way Scripture presents it (the forgiveness of sins being a secondary aspect, which is why even those who receive the anointing of the sick still need to go to confession if they are able to confess).

Whether you are sick and need healing has absolutely ZERO to do with whether you have reached the age of reason, and so I do not approve of denying this sacrament to gravely sick children under the age of reason.

Fortunately, following Vatican II, the Church started moving away from envisioning this sacrament principally as a preparation for death. Unfortunately, not all aspects of its law regarding this sacrament have yet caught up with that insight.

So what would I do if I had a gravely sick child below the age of reason? If my child was in danger of death I would immediately seek out a priest in one of the Eastern Catholic Churches (i.e., Eastern Catholics in union with the pope, not Eastern Orthodox).

Their equivalent to the Code of Canon Law–known as the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches (CCEO)–contains NO age-based requirement for the administration of this sacrament. It merely says:

Can. 738. The Christian faithful are to receive the anointing of the sick gladly whenever they are gravely ill; pastors of souls and the relatives of the sick are to see to it that the sick find relief in this sacrament at an appropriate time.

The CCEO also contains NO prohibition on Eastern priests administering this sacrament to Latin Catholics, so I would take my child to an Eastern priest in a hot second if the child was gravely ill.

Hopefully the deficiency in the Latin Code of Canon Law will be corrected in short order.

A reader writes:

My husband is in RCIA, and he thinks he has to be in the Confessional for 6 hours, relaying every horrid thing he ever did in his childhood, like the one time he killed a bird out of meanness, and all those times he didn’t keep holy the Sabbath growing up, etc.

Okay, just to make sure you know: Your husband doesn’t need to confess anything from before he was baptized. Baptism wipes out all sins prior to it, so if he wasn’t baptized until sometime after he was an infant then he doesn’t need to worry about that chunk of his life.

And he keeps asking me for an example of a venial sin. Believe it or not, I can’t think of an example.

Well, killing a bird out of meanness and not keeping the Sabbath holy as a non-Catholic strike me as two good examples.

Killing a human is a grave sin, but killing an animal is not–unless by killing it you somehow gravely damage a human being (e.g., by killing the horse of a man who needs the horse to earn his livelihood or killing a very expensive purebred pet or something).

Similarly, non-Catholics are not obliged by canon law to attend Mass or to refrain from servile labor on Sundays. Their obligations for Sunday observance are much more general and, not being bound by a specific standard, they generally do not sin mortally if they fail to go to church or otherwise observe Sundays. This is especially so for those raised in households where Sunday observance was very lax.

Second, our pastor and instructor, whom I love and respect, kind of laughed and said, "I’ve been a priest for 35 years and I haven’t yet met someone who’s broken all ten Commandments."

I was thinking to myself, "Oh, yes you have. You’ve met me."

Further, my husband has also broken all ten. All one has to do is read one of those Examination of Conscience books to figure out that most people have broken all ten.

True, but you have to realize that the things listed in an examination of conscience aren’t all mortal sins. For example: "Have I stolen the property of another?" is only mortal if you gravely harm the person from whom your steal. If you take a box of pens home from work then that’s going to be venial (unless for some really weird reason the existence of your place of employment hinges on its having that box of pens or something).

If you steal a thousand bucks from work, though, that’s going to be mortal since that thousand dollars represents a thousand dollars of damage that was done to some person or persons (like your fellow employees) who would otherwise have it (the loss of a thousand bucks being a serious matter for anyone who isn’t very wealthy).

My husband was raised in a single parent home where religion was not a priority. I asked him the other day, "When you (stole the candy, killed the bird, missed Church) did you know it was a sin?" He replied that he knew in his heart those things were bad, even if he didn’t know they were ‘sins’. So, does he have to confess them?

The fact that he couldn’t articulate the word "sin" in connection with them doesn’t of itself mean that he’s off the hook, because he still knew they were wrong and did them anyway. But the fact that he was raised in this kind of religiously lax family (in the case of missing church) and that he’s talking about very small things (stealing candy, killing a bird) mean that the grave matter needed for mortal sin is not there.

Am I going to be an old woman before my husband emerges from the Confessional?

That would depend on whether there is a mini-black hole or other extreme gravitational force in the confessional that could warp spacetime while your husband is making his confession.

I mean, we’re trying to have kids, for crying out loud.

Good luck with that! We need more kids around!

Can you, at your leisure, please explain ‘First Confession: What to Say, What not to Say"?

In a post I did earlier today (by a strange coincidence), I talked about how the process of making a confession generally works, and I’m sure that they’ll give your husband additional guidance in his RCIA course.

I would say this, though: It is clear that your husband is currently suffering from a case of confessional scrupulosity, by which I mean that he’s overestimating what sins he needs to confess. This is a normal thing in persons just coming into the Church, because he hasn’t yet had a chance to learn what does and does not need to be confessed. As he learns more, this tendency should go away.

A standard piece of advice for people who have scrupulosity is that they are to confess ONLY those sins which they are CERTAIN were mortal sins and to refrain from confessing everything else, simply saying "And for all my sins I am sorry."

I would therefore look through the Ten Commandments, with a knowledge of the different ways one can offend against them, and say, "Can I remember any cases where I KNOW that I GRAVELY offended against one of these DELIBERATELY and KNOWING that it was a grave violation at the time?"

Since he was raised in a religiously lax family, he likely did not know that many of the sins he may have committed in his life were grave violations, even if they were.

Making this kind of confession will suffice. As long as he doesn’t deliberately hold back something that he KNOWS to be a mortal sin then the absolution will be valid, and if he later comes to the conclusion that something he failed to mention was mortal then he can confess it at that time.

I’d also be patient with him. First confessions of adult converts can often take a while. I think that my first one lasted for something like 45 minutes (though that may be a bad memory and it may have been considerably less). It took so long not because I had that many mortal sins to confess, but because I was new to confession and was in the same situation as your husband.

I didn’t know what to confess and I wasn’t efficient at it, so I went into too much detail and confessed all kinds of things I didn’t know to be mortal, just to be sure. I didn’t know, for example, that I could just say "I have THIS to confess and THAT to confess" and move through things swiftly. Today the same initial confession would take me five minutes–ten tops, depending on any questions the priest wanted to ask me.

Also, if it is going to take a long time, you can simply stay home while your husband does it. He also might want to make a special appointment for it rather than making other people wait in line during a really long confession.

One thing that might help your husband get through it would be to write out a list of what he needs to confess. If he does this, he should do it BY HAND (NOT on a computer, where there could be an electronic record of it created accidentally or by spyware).

If he thinks he may be overcome by emotion, he can also hand the list to the priest and say "I confess THIS." If he does that, he should afterwards get the list back from the priest and DESTROY it (tearing it into little bits and flushing it down the nearest men’s room toilet would be a good way).

Measures such as these should allow him to get through the confession more quickly and get back to your marriage . . . already in progress.

20

 

A reader writes:

I have recently heard a Catholic priest state that the number of sacraments was not always seven, and in fact was not defined until the 11th or 12th century.  My understanding on this is that the term sacraments at one point had a broader meaning. 

Correct.

For instance, Christ Himself may be considered a sacrament. 

Well, that’s not the example I would cite. People can still refer to Christ or to the Church as sacraments in an extended sense. In the sense of the term that we’re after, a sacrament is a sacred rite of some kind that is performed by Christians. Jesus and the Church don’t qualify under that meaning of the term.

Some believed that funerals are sacraments.

Yes, this is a good example. Also blessings, foot washing, and the anointing of kings have been cited as sacraments.

How would you respond to the contention that the number of sacraments varied in the earlier Church (pre 11th century), yet the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Faith and has never erred in matters of faith and morals?

I would point out that the term sacramentum is not found in the Bible (its Greek equivalent–musterion–is found in the Bible, but does not seemed to be used in the sense that we are investigating). It is therefore a theological term that the Church has come to use to describe certain biblical realities.

Because it is a theological term, its boundaries are what the Church says its boundaries are. These boundaries changed over time. Originally, it was applied to various sacred rites, but as theology progressed, the Church began to make a distinction between those sacred rites that were given to us by Jesus himself to convey grace sacramentally and those that were not.

Other, similar rites that either didn’t come from Jesus (like the anointing of kings) or that don’t convey grace sacramentally (like footwashing) therefore became known as sacramentals–things that were like sacraments in some ways but not in others.

As it reflected on these matters, the Church eventually discerned that that there were seven biblical realities that count as sacraments in the modern sense. There had always been those seven–and only those seven–that were sacraments in this sense, but this fact previously masked by the lack of precision with which the word sacrament was being used. When it’s used in the precise sense, it picks out these seven things and only these seven things, which have always been sacraments in this sense.

This kind of parallels the formation of the canon of Scripture. Originally there were a bunch of religious writings circulating in Jewish and Christian communities, and it took time for the Church to discern which of these were inspired and which were not. (E.g., yesterday we talked about two first century documents: 1 Corinthians, which is inspired, and the Didache, which is not inspired.)

The inspired books had always been inspired. It just took time for the canon of scripture to be discerned by the Church, but eventually the Church signed off on it infallibly. The same thing happened to what we might call "the canon of the sacraments."

That’s why this doesn’t conflict with the Church’s infallibility: Because before a certain point in time the Church had not addressed the matter infallibly.

If you want to show this to the priest, you might want to point to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter:

1114 "Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus . . . of the Fathers," we profess that "the sacraments of the new law were . . . all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord."

1117 As she has done for the canon of Sacred Scripture and for the doctrine of the faith, the Church, by the power of the Spirit who guides her "into all truth," has gradually recognized this treasure received from Christ and, as the faithful steward of God’s mysteries, has determined its "dispensation." Thus the Church has discerned over the centuries that among liturgical celebrations there are seven that are, in the strict sense of the term, sacraments instituted by the Lord.

A reader writes:

Please help me.  I live in a parish where members are pushing for the emphasis on community during the Mass.  They are citing an article in St. Anthony’s Messenger by a Fr. Lawrence E. Mick entitled Finding Jesus in the Eucharist:  Four Ways He is Present.  Even the title does not make sense to me.  It seems as though he is only present one way in the Eucharist—and that’s by being in the Eucharist.  Hey, maybe I’m too concrete a thinker.

I respect you.  You are a lucid thinker and you have the integrity to back up your arguments with primary (vs. secondary) sources.  In short, I know that Jesus is present in the the Blessed Sacrament, the Priest, the Word, and the people—but isn’t He most ‘substantially’ present in the Eucharist—and doesn’t that mean something?  If it didn’t mean something, why mention it in Sacrosanctum Consilium, ect.

What is the best way to argue against an overemphasis on Jesus’ presence in the community during Mass; what is the best way to argue against the notion that Jesus is equally present all four ways?

Am I wrong in my thinking?  Even the head of our Archdiocesan Worship office told me "we need to get the emphasis on the community, make the mystery accessible to the people, ect."

Regarding the nonsensicalness of the title, I think that they’re using the term "Eucharist" as an overall term for the celebration of Mass, at which the Sacrament, the priest, the word, and the people are all present. (Admittedly, it’s a dumb title.)

This kind of effort to flatten the uniqueness of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist has been around since during the Second Vatican Council, when some theologians were going nuts and proposing a number of false ideas such as the idea that Christ is equally present in things besides the Eucharist. As a result, Paul VI rushed out an encyclical during the Council called Mysterium Fidei ("The Mystery of Faith") to set matters straight. It’s worth a rather lengthy quotation from the encyclical to show what authentic Catholic teaching on this matter is. The money quote is at the end. Here goes:

Various Ways in Which Christ is Present

35. All of us realize that there is more than one way in which Christ is present in His Church. We want to go into this very joyful subject, which the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy presented briefly, (30) at somewhat greater length. Christ is present in His Church when she prays, since He is the one who "prays for us and prays in us and to whom we pray: He prays for us as our priest, He prays in us as our head, He is prayed to by us as our God" (31); and He is the one who has promised, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them." (32) He is present in the Church as she performs her works of mercy, not just because whatever good we do to one of His least brethren we do to Christ Himself, (33)but also because Christ is the one who performs these works through the Church and who continually helps men with His divine love. He is present in the Church as she moves along on her pilgrimage with a longing to reach the portals of eternal life, for He is the one who dwells in our hearts through faith, (34) and who instills charity in them through the Holy Spirit whom He gives to us. (35)

36. In still another very genuine way, He is present in the Church as she preaches, since the Gospel which she proclaims is the word of God, and it is only in the name of Christ, the Incarnate Word of God, and by His authority and with His help that it is preached, so that there might be "one flock resting secure in one shepherd." (36)

37. He is present in His Church as she rules and governs the People of God, since her sacred power comes from Christ and since Christ, the "Shepherd of Shepherds," (37) is present in the bishops who exercise that power, in keeping with the promise He made to the Apostles.

38. Moreover, Christ is present in His Church in a still more sublime manner as she offers the Sacrifice of the Mass in His name; He is present in her as she administers the sacraments. On the matter of Christ’s presence in the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass, We would like very much to call what St. John Chrysostom, overcome with awe, had to say in such accurate and eloquent words: "I wish to add something that is clearly awe-inspiring, but do not be surprised or upset. What is this? It is the same offering, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul. It is the same one that Christ gave to His disciples and the same one that priests now perform: the latter is in no way inferior to the former, for it is not men who sanctify the latter, but He who sanctified the former. For just as the words which God spoke are the same as those that the priest now pronounces, so too the offering is the same." (38) No one is unaware that the sacraments are the actions of Christ who administers them through men. And so the sacraments are holy in themselves and they pour grace into the soul by the power of Christ, when they touch the body.

The Highest Kind of Presence.

These various ways in which Christ is present fill the mind with astonishment and offer the Church a mystery for her contemplation. But there is another way in which Christ is present in His Church, a way that surpasses all the others. It is His presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is, for this reason, "a more consoling source of devotion, a lovelier object of contemplation and holier in what it contains" (39) than all the other sacraments; for it contains Christ Himself and it is "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments." (40)

39. This presence is called "real" not to exclude the idea that the others are "real" too, but rather to indicate presence par excellence, because it is substantial and through it Christ becomes present whole and entire, God and man. (41) And so it would be wrong for anyone to try to explain this manner of presence by dreaming up a so-called "pneumatic" nature of the glorious body of Christ that would be present everywhere; or for anyone to limit it to symbolism, as if this most sacred Sacrament were to consist in nothing more than an efficacious sign "of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful, the members of His Mystical Body." (42) [SOURCE.]

Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also notes:

1373 "Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church:195 in his word, in his Church’s prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name,"196 in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned,197 in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister. But "he is present . . . most especially in the Eucharistic species."198

1374 The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."199 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."200 "This presence is called ‘real’ – by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."201 [SOURCE.]

Hope this helps!

A Catholic reader who left the faith, was baptized in a Protestant church, and then returned to the faith writes:

I realize that the baptism I sought in a Protestant Church did not invalidate my original baptism since baptism is an indelible mark on the soul.  Yet, since I publicly rejected the Faith, is there anything that must be done, aside from Sacramental Confession, to demonstrate my return to communion with the Catholic Church?

No, making a good sacramental confession is all that is needed (i.e., one mentioning that you had left the faith and attempted baptism outside the Church).

Is there anything that can be done optionally?

Buy a really big crucifix and put it on your wall?

There are no Church-approved optional ceremonies for a person returning in this fashion, but there is no reason you can’t do something concrete–such as getting a really big crucifix–to symbolize your return to the faith.

Secondly, if I was in a state of mortal sin by having formally rejected the Catholic Faith, and yet continued to receive the Eucharist and go to confession at the same time, are the confessions I made in the period between when I was baptised outside the Church and when I returned to full communion with the Church (and finally confessed the baptism outside of the Church) invalid?  If so do I need to make a general confession for this time period?

This is a more complicated question. You begin it with the supposition that you committed a mortal sin in your rejection of the faith. That’s not at all an unreasonable supposition, for you were beyond the age of reason when you left (based on other things you say in your e-mail), but the Church would not teach that you automatically were in a state of mortal sin.

*IF* you were in mortal sin due to your repudiation of the faith and your attempted re-baptism *AND* you knew that you needed to mention this in confession *AND* if you didn’t mention it *THEN* the confessions were invalid and a general confession for the period would be mandatory (including the times you went to Communion and confession knowing that you shouldn’t).

On the other hand, there are a significant number of conditions there complicating matters.

My advice would be to go ahead and do a general confession for the period. Rather than try to nail down exactly what you were responsible for and in what degree, though, I would suggest that you name the objective acts you did (repudiate the faith, attempt baptism outside the church, continue to go to Communion and occasionally confession in the Church) and then say that you are not entirely sure of your culpability for each of these at the time (assuming that is the case), but that you wish to confess them *IN CASE* you need to do so.

Hope this helps, and welcome back!

20

A reader writes:

My friend’s Mother who has been a Catholic all her life and will stay in the Church, has been having problems believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Any reading you know of she can do?

It’s a little hard to know what to recommend without understanding more precisely what the source of her difficulty is (i.e., which objections to the Real Presence she finds troubling).

In general I would recommend the material in the library and This Rock archive at www.catholic.com that deals with this. It hits about every objection that I’m aware of to the Real Presence.

If the problem is just a general psychological difficulty of accepting something that is contrary to the senses then some of the following points may be helpful for her to contemplate:

1. There are many times in life where appearances are misleading and we need to act on what we know to be the case, appearances notwithstanding.
2. We have Jesus’ word on this really emphatically in Scripture.
3. It’s been the unbroken faith of the Church ever since.
4. We can have faith in God to guide his Church into correct beliefs.
5. God is omnipotent and even the things that seem unimaginably hard to us are equally easy for him as the smallest acts. It is as easy for God to make Jesus present in the Eucharist as it is for him to create a single atom or pick up a piece of paper or cause a gentle breeze to blow. Being omnipotent, God does not expend resources when he does things and so all things are equally easy to him. He is completely un-strained by everything he does since he has infinite resources to draw upon (that’s what omnipotence does for you). Something may seem hard to us, but that’s because of our limited resources. It’s not hard to God. For him, everything is easy. It’s just a question of what he chooses to do, and he’s told us that he’s chosen to do this.