Ireland Banning Confessions!!

No, this is not some exaggerated or click-bait title. Ireland is literally banning the Sacrament of Confession in the country under the pretext of Covid regulations.

It's not that there are rules surrounding how it must be conducted. No. It is just outright banned. Obviously for Catholics, they must disregard this law completely. Going to jail or risking a fine pales in comparison to having an unforgiven mortal sin on ones soul.

This is astounding and shocking.

Details can be found in an article here.

For those arguing this is only about Covid, the article points out that it will remain legal for a priest to have a "chat" with a parishioner. Can anyone tell me how a "chat" can be conducted which would exclude the possibility of a confession? No one can.

Again, this is all irrelevant. Faithful Catholics will find a way to seek out confession. Priests must make themselves available in a covert way. There are various possibilities. I mean for one thing, they could just rename confession as "a chat" for any public official or police officer.

This is beyond ridiculous. The Church is under attack and singled out like never before.

Pray for this situation and remain strong.

Give us this day our DAILY bread? Could it mean more?

I was reading some Twitter posts and came across something very interesting, something I had never heard before. It was the Lord's prayer from the Douay-Reims Bible, the traditional English Catholic Bible from 1582.

I was intrigued. Why is it translated that way? Normally, the word used there is "daily", but they are using "supersubstantial". So, of course, I Googled it, and was amazed. There was a very thorough article on the subject explaining it.

Here's a few takeaways from the article:

• The Greek word used in the Gospel in two places (Luke 11:3 & Matthew 6:11) is "epiousios".
• Not only are these the only places in the Bible where this word is used, they are the only places in all of literature!
• The word was, in fact, invented by the Gospel writers and is derived from the root words "epi" meaning over or above and "ousia" meaning being, essence, or substance.

The word "ousia" is also found in such words as homoousia which describing the fact that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, is of the same substance as God the Father, the first person of the Holy Trinity (i.e. 1 God, 3 persons).

The translation of "supersubstantial" is apt in this circumstance.

St. Jerome, who first translated the Bible from Greek to Latin, uses the word "daily" in one context for the word and supersubstantial in another. Yet, St. Jerome himself stated:

“We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures.”

Clearly, this is a reference to the Holy Eucharist. If it were meant simply as "daily" as in something you pray for each day, then they would have used a pre-existing word such as "hemera" which means daily. They intended for the word to mean something more. Plus, they specifically used the word bread. They didn't say food or sustenance, or anything other word, but bread.

Given those pieces of information, it seems clear they intended something very special and unique in the prayer. They are referring to bread, but bread whose substance is "above" or "beyond", something supernatural. Well, that accurately describes the Eucharist. Appearance of bread, but in substance, something greater, something supernatural. Specifically, the body and blood of Christ.

To read the full, very interesting article, please click here.

What is the difference between Christians and Catholics?

As a Catholic, I really dislike this question. Unfortunately it's a very common one. I am assuming that 99% of people who ask this question are not doing so maliciously or with any ill-will whatsoever. It actually makes sense. When someone says they are "Christian" generally it means a non-Catholic / non-Orthodox Christian, especially if said by someone in the United States or Canada.

I remember one time when I and my now wife were in Europe doing a tour and someone asked me this very question. I have heard it in other instances in various different ways. But this isn't just a blog about why I dislike this question, I will also attempt to the best of my ability to actually answer it!

But first, why do I dislike it? As you can probably tell, I primarily dislike this question because of the question implied within it. If you ask the "difference" between two things, it automatically implies they are, in fact, different. If I said what is the difference between an apple and an orange, it would imply those are two separate entities. If, however, one entity subsumed the other within its definition, the question would seem odd at best.

Imagine for example asking "What is the difference between a Canadian and a person?" or "What is the difference between a cell phone and technology?"

Those would seem like strange, almost unanswerable questions. It reminds me of the court room question of "Do you still beat your wife?" If answered with either "yes" or "no", it would imply the person being questioned was at some point guilty. So, the question's baseline premise must be rejected. That's exactly what I am saying with the above question. I reject the initial premise upon which it is based.

A properly phrased question in this case would be "What is the difference between non-Catholic Christians and Catholic Christians?" I know that's a bit bulky, but it maintains an important point: that Catholics are Christians. This is something which must be emphasized. Catholics are 100% Christians. In fact, we would say we are the truest and most complete form of Christianity. It would make more sense to ask "What is the difference between a Christian and a Protestant?" Even though it would make more sense, I'm not saying it does make sense. Most Protestants, in my estimation, would meet the criteria for being called Christian.

So, having said that enormous pre-amble, let's get into what actually sets Catholics apart from others who call themselves Christians?

I cannot really offer a complete and exhaustive list of differences between the two, but I can offer some observations and some of my own personal knowledge on the subject. To list every single difference would take volumes. These are just some that I thought of. If there are others you think are important, please feel free to list them in the comments. Again, this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. Also, I may not explain everything perfectly in precise theological language.

One thing I find great about the Catholic Church is that it is very open and transparent on its teachings. If you want to know what the Church believes, you just have to look it up. One of the best sources it the Catechism. There are different versions, and not everything has the same level of authority in its teaching, but it gives you a great idea. Many people accuse Catholics of believing certain things even when they don't. There doesn't need to be any confusion. What we teach is available and knowable by anyone.

Not everything I mention here will differentiate the Catholic Church from all other Christian communities in every way. With thousands of denominations, it would be hard to find a particular doctrine not shared by one or more of them.

Sacraments
The Catholic Church has seven sacraments.

The sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131). In other words, a sacrament is a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God. (See also CCC 1084).

These seven sacraments are the following:

Sacraments of initiation

• Baptism
• Confirmation
• Eucharist

Sacraments of healing

• Penance
• Anointing of the Sick

Sacraments of service

• Holy Orders
• Matrimony 

In Catholic theology, these sacraments impart grace, which is a free gift from God. The efficacy of the sacraments do not depend on the disposition of the person receiving them. Some of the sacraments are necessary for salvation, such as baptism, and in the case of committing a mortal sin, penance. All of the sacraments bring us closer to God. These are not merely symbolic gesture or symbols, but truly bring God's grace to us.

In some Christian denominations, there are only 2 sacraments instead of 7, and they are not considered necessary for salvation. In some cases, they are seen as merely symbolic.

Priesthood
In order to have the sacraments, the Catholic Church must have a priesthood. Although all Christians, in a certain sense, are priests, prophets, and kings, there is also a special clergy designated by God to perform various sacraments, primarily the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests are seen as the spiritual helpers of bishops who are spiritual successors of the Apostles. In theory, each bishop can trace his lineage all the way back to one of the original 12 apostles.

Priests take a vow of celibacy which is a matter of discipline rather than doctrine. On top of this, they make a vow of obedience and in some cases (particularly with religious priests) a vow of poverty. By "religious" priest, I mean a priest belonging to a particular religious order, as opposed to a diocesan priest.

Other Christians do not have the priesthood, especially not a ministerial one. This is a huge difference. Although, for example, both Catholics and Protestants celebrate a form of service or liturgy, Protestants view what is happening in a completely different way. The primary purpose of the Mass is to consecrate the Eucharist, which is an unbloody re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. It makes present his perfect atonement and allows us to do as he commanded when he said "do this in memory of me".

Most Protestant Christians do not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament (the Eucharist) and therefore they may infrequently or never have a communion service which they see as symbolic. The primary purpose of a Protestant service is to pray and hear a sermon.

This is an important distinction. As mentioned, even though many families, both Protestant and Catholic, go to their respective churches on Sunday for a service, the intention and idea behind both is dramatically different. There are, however, commonalities, such as Bible readings and a sermon, although Protestant sermons, being the central aspect of a Sunday service, can be much longer than a Catholic homily which generally lasts between 5 to 15 minutes.

Scripture and Tradition
Another big differentiator between non-Catholic and Catholic Christians is their views on Scripture and Tradition. Within Catholicism, both are seen as equal sources of belief and doctrine. However, there is some misunderstanding which must be clarified.

When the Church speaks of "Tradition", it does not simply mean things that are traditional.

The catechism really says it best, so I will quote it here:

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

Of note, Tradition is not something that is just simply "made up", it comes from the apostles and is transmitted through time. As the catechism explains, the apostles didn't yet have the Bible as we know it today. That didn't come about until the mid-300s or so. There was much debate about which books were in the Bible and so on. Therefore, one could say the Bible came from the Church and not the other way around.

Of course, this is not the view of non-Catholic Christians. Most of them would describe themselves as Bible-alone Christians or Sola Scriptura. This belief, in my opinion, seems to stem from the idea that the Church is not a visible structure with a hierarchy, but rather more a collection of believers. Because of this, it would be impossible to identify the true "Tradition" or the handing down of doctrine and belief from a particular source. It is also a Protestant belief that each individual Christian has the ability to interpret Scripture on his or her own, there is no Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church in Catholicism. The "Tradition" of Catholic teaching simply could not exist in Protestantism. 

Saints
Of course, all Christians believe in saints. Saints are quite simply those who are in heaven. The difference in belief comes from our approach to them. Catholics believe we can ask Saints in heaven to intercede for us, which means we ask them to pray for us. It's important to note, we always ask them to pray to God on our behalf. We are not praying to them as a substitution for God, as if we are deciding: Should I pray to God or to a saint today?

That's important to know. Many people ask why Catholics don't just "go straight to God"? Why have all these middlemen? First, I would say we often DO go straight to God and this is not discouraged in any way. Secondly, asking others to pray for us is something everyone does. We may ask a relative or friend to keep us in their prayers. This goes for Catholics and non-Catholics. The difference is Catholics will ask not only relatives and friends but also saints in heaven.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, we believe in the communion of saints, meaning we are all kind of in this together. Saints are close to God and are virtuous, holy and filled with grace. They are currently experiencing the beatific vision. Their intercessory prayer is powerful. As Catholics, we believe that saints can hear our prayers and bring them to God.

Purgatory and Indulgences

Purgatory in Catholic theology is a place of purification which those who are saved must spend time in order to purge or cleanse vice or attachment to sin before entering Heaven. We are told that nothing impure can enter heaven. Purgatory are for those who die in a state of grace, meaning in friendship with God, but must first be purified before entering into the beatific vision.

To me, purgatory is congruent with God's mercy. Instead of saying a person must have absolutely no attachment to sin or any disordered desires, God says a person must be in friendship with him at the time of death and that he will cleanse them of any leftover vices before they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Protestants do not explicitly believe in any form of purgatory for the most part. I did, however, discover that many Protestants believe in a sort of cleansing prior to entering Heaven, the difference is that it takes place instantaneously unlike in Catholic theology.

Because of our beliefs surrounding purgatory, we have other beliefs which correspond as well, such as indulgences. An indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. This is best explained with an example. If you steal $1000 from someone and then God forgives you for doing so, you must still, to the best of your ability, repay the amount to that person. You must make restitution. It would not be sufficient to say "well God has forgiven me, no further action necessary." This type of "repayment" cannot always take place. How could one repay gluttony, lust, sloth, etc. It's not always clear the exact "value" of these things. That's where indulgences come in. Indulgences can be granted for various actions such as prayers and fasting. Special indulgences are granted by the Church for various specific tasks such as praying at a cemetery during All Souls Day or participating in a Novena. These actions purify us and detach us from sin.

Indulgences get a little more complicated. There are some which are partial and others which are complete or plenary, meaning they either remit some or all of the temporal punishment due to sin (temporal indicating the effects of sin other than eternal consequences). One of the conditions to receive a plenary indulgence is detachment from sin, meaning we are not drawn to a particular sin. That's a big ask. If these cannot be achieved, and a person dies in God's favor, he may have to spend time in Purgatory.

🙏

There are dozens of other differences between Catholicism and non-Catholic Christianity. We could go on and on, but the above at least gives an idea. I did not provide proof, either Biblical or other, for the above, but they are certainly there. I just wanted to provide the differences, not necessarily prove them.

Hope this helps answer the question many people have asked over the years. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to put them in the comments section.

Have a great day and God Bless You.

Scary Moments During Communion

Have you ever been to Mass during the distribution of Communion and been concerned about the worthy reception of the Eucharist? I know I have been on many occasions. I would like to recount an event which took place yesterday which I found very strange.

It was daily Mass and people were going up to receive communion as per usual. A gentleman came forward whom I have never seen. Instead of placing one hand under another and making a sort of "table" with his hands upon which to receive the sacred species, he instead took the host with his index finger and thumb. The strangest part was that upon receiving the Eucharist, he leaned over and for several seconds whispered something to the priest. I have no idea what he whispered. Perhaps I am somewhat imagining it, but the priest seemed concerned after that. The prayers at the end of Mass seemed a little more rushed than usual.

I believe he did consume the Eucharist, which is the main thing. After receiving, also strangely, this person walked down the middle aisle of the church (where no one was sitting). Later, when Mass was over, he stuck around and was taking photos of the church while others were leaving.

I have no idea who this person was. I cannot say anything about the state of his soul or whether or not he was a practicing Catholic. However, these situations give me pause and I wonder how they should be properly addressed.

I always have a concern about someone who may be unstable receiving communion and then doing something like desecrating it or treating it with irreverence. It got me to wondering: how should priests address such situations? I searched for the topic of denying communion and under what circumstances that should be done. I found some interesting things.

The main people to whom Eucharist should be denied are those in persistent obstinate sin. One of the prime examples of this is politicians who publicly campaign on behalf of immoral things such as abortion. It's important to note that the Church says denial is only to those in public, persistent, obstinate sin. It cannot simply be a person who the priest believes lives as sinful life or is in a state of mortal sin.

A priest does not have certainty that a person is in a state of mortal sin. Perhaps they confessed their sin to another priest. Even if the priest has inside information, he is told to err on the side of caution. In fact, if a priest denies communion to a person who is committing a private sin (not known publicly), the priest could be committing a form of scandal. This form of scandal involves exposing someone's sins unnecessarily.

An interesting example of denying communion to someone in persistent sin is someone wearing an emblem announcing their support for a sin, such as wearing a gay pride sash. This sash would be a symbol indicating this person's current and ongoing support of gay pride, thus support for homosexual actions which are contrary to Church teaching.

However, ordinarily, the priest could not use a person's private sin as a reason to exclude them from communion.

So, what about a case involving an erratic person or someone just behaving strangely? Should communion be denied that person? The answer is yes. In an article by Fr. Edward McNamara on EWTN.com, he writes:

There might be some other cases when a priest has to decide on the spur of the moment, for example, when a person is in an obviously altered state and is clearly not fully aware of what he is doing. Such cases have more to do with public order and respect for the Eucharistic species than making a judgment as to a person's interior state.

This would be a tough judgment call in many cases. A person acting a little strange would not necessary mean they are in an altered state or do not understand the Eucharist. In the story I gave above, was the person in an altered state? I have no idea. I think if a person is acting in a truly strange way, it would be a valid assumption to think the person may receive unworthily or perhaps even desecrate Our Lord in the Eucharist. That would be the worst case scenario.

Where I attend Mass, there was a guy who seemed a little "out there". I'm not judging him or whether he's in a state of grace, but his behavior was unusual. He would wave his arms, sometimes with great speed, during the Mass. However, when he went to receive communion, he did so very reverently. He would kneel down and put his hands up for the Eucharist to be placed there. He would then immediately consume the host.

A priest could not legitimately refuse communion to this man, even if he was acting a little differently during the Liturgy. His comportment during reception of communion would certainly qualify him, barring any publicly-known mortal sin, to receive Our Lord under the appearance of bread and wine.

Any time the Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity of Our Lord is at risk, it is scary and concerning. We must pray for all who receive communion that they do so in a worthy way, as spoken of by St. Paul. I believe reception on the tongue is an added guarantee of worthy reception and hopefully it will return soon.

Shocking but True: The Catholic Church is not about Rules

There is a common misconception in my opinion that the Catholic Church is about rules, but I think that's false. Unfortunately this isn't just believed by outsiders, but by most insiders in the Church as well.

The best way I can put it is that rules exist as a necessary consequence of the deeper teachings of Jesus Christ. Looking at the Catholic Faith as a series of rules takes away from the totality of the faith and is a form of reductionism.

I could use countless analogies to illustrate this point. The goal is music is to express an idea in a beautiful and appealing way. Because of this, there are rules. For example, if one wishes to express a happy theme, they would play the music in a major key. In music theory, major keys follow a pattern. For example, the basic C scale has no sharps or flats. On a piano, you would only play the white keys. Along with the melody, there are rules in terms of making chords which sound good.

No one would describe playing the piano as "following the rules". No one would say they listen to a particular piece because the person playing it is "following the rules" better than others. No, the music is either beautiful or it is not. It is either emotive or it's not. Randomly mashing the keys will produce noise as opposed to music.

Even someone with no musical training or experience can tell if a particular piece has the intended effect. They can tell whether or not they enjoy listening to it  and whether or not it expresses what it is meant to.

You could say the same for countless other endeavors, such as cooking, engineering, carpentry, etc, etc. Yes, all of these professions have rules that must be followed, but the rules come as a natural consequence of the overall goal.

When it comes to the Catholic faith, I find all too many cradle Catholics just following the rules, but are not really interested in going any further. To me that's like trying to get 50% on your test to just barely pass. Does this really show a true love for what you are doing? By the way, I am not saying I am better than others or have achieved some high level of spirituality. I am just thinking about this concept, and am myself also pursuing this!

As one priest put it, God wants everyone to be saved, so therefore salvation should presumably be easy. In Catholic theology, in order to enter into heaven, one must be in the state of grace, that means not having any mortal sins that have not been absolved. Therefore, staying out of mortal sin is sufficient to enter heaven, even if it means having to spend some time in Purgatory.

However, the saints were never satisfied with doing the bare minimum. Something I have come to appreciate more and more about the Catholic faith is that it's based on a relationship with God. This might sound obvious. But our ultimate goal is to be united with the triune God, through his Grace. This is our ultimate end as human beings. Following the rules naturally flows from this endeavor.

A holy priest recently explained that there are three phases of the spiritual life: the purgative way, the illuminative way, and the unitive way.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,

The unitive way is the way of those who are in the state of the perfect, that is, those who have their minds so drawn away from all temporal things that they enjoy great peace, who are neither agitated by various desires nor moved by any great extent by passion, and who have their minds chiefly fixed on God and their attention turned, either always or very frequently, to Him.

This is what we should be seeking to attain.  That's the goal of our Catholic Faith and what the great saints were able to experience. I think this is how our faith should be explained and told to others. Many outsiders see the Catholic faith as a series of strict rules, rather than the attainment of a personal and deep relationship with God that is beyond words.

What happens when people don't realize this? Well again we go back to the rules. People ask about the minimum requirements. People ask questions all the time like "Are Catholics allowed to....." "Wait, are you saying Catholics can't......." Often these questions are related to forms of pleasure attained through sex or food. As Catholics, we should try to change the conversation. Instead of explaining in detail what we are allowed to do, we should explain the point of the Faith, which is union with God. Otherwise people think it's just some kind of strict regimen that we follow.

At the beginning of this essay, I gave several examples of endeavors wherein there is an obvious end and means. Because people understand the end, they are able to accept the means. That's why we should emphasize the end. Imagine if someone was hooking up the electricity to a house and said "I don't think it's important to follow all these rules created by people, I just do what I think feels right for me, I'm open-minded." If that person was incorrectly installing the wiring and creating fire hazards, no one would think they were doing something good. They would be shocked (quite literally). People would be concerned, not because they are sticklers but because they understand the ultimate end of what is being done. The electricity is being hooked up in a safe and regulated way to ensure heat and light to the house.

We have explained the ultimate end of our Faith - union with God. This must remain at the forefront of any discussion. It should be framed in the positive. Otherwise, it can end up sounding arbitrary. It's also important to explain why a particular rule will bring about a particular outcome. Again, this is important in how things are phrased.

One thing that prompted this essay is the common attitude I have observed from my fellow Catholics in which they have this mentality of just following the rules. Again, I am not advocating not following the rules. To the contrary, I am saying people need to go beyond the rules, to understand WHY they are doing them and what the ultimate purpose is for these rules.

For example, when we pray, we are connecting with God. The better we pray, the better we connect with our Creator. If we see prayer as some regimented perfunctory task, then we will not attempt to grow deeper in our connection to God through prayer.

Another example is the Mass. I often see people talk during Mass or just before when others are praying. Fr. Ripperger talks about how we have been indoctrinated as Catholics with the idea that the only form of prayer is verbal prayer and because of this people think that when there is any silence whatsoever, then nothing is "happening" and they can be free to whisper to the person next to them. I'm not coming at this from a place of judgment. Most people are not doing this maliciously. I have done it myself on many occasions. But to go back to the original point, these people may think of everything in terms of rules, and the rules state you must go to Mass. There isn't a specific rule saying not to whisper during Mass, but that would come from an overall attitude of reverence for the Mass. The attitude of reverence would come from knowing what the Mass is and its ultimate purpose.

The same goes for reverence towards the Eucharist. If people truly understand that they are partaking of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to attain a close union with him, they would not casually receive communion and think nothing of it. The latter attitude again comes from thinking in terms of the rules. The "rules" state that you must line up, receive communion and consume the Eucharist. That's it. Those are the rules. But the Eucharist is so much more than that.

Overall I think this is a huge problem in our Church, both inside and out. I don't wish to come across as some kind of expert. I am simply seeking to understand these issues. Please comment below if you have of your own input to add to this discussion.

Is attending Mass at Home Equivalent to Attending in Person?

Since Covid-19, there have been calls at many times and in many places for churchgoing parishioners to "JUST STAY HOME". We are told it's the same thing. God is everywhere isn't he? Why would we have to go to a physical building? Isn't the "Church" the communion of believers? Aren't we united by spirit and not physically?

I want to delve into this subject as there is a ton of confusion and controversy. This is not meant to be an exhaustive theological treatise on the subject, but just some of my own thoughts and ideas from my understanding. I do encourage debate so if you would like to add anything or disagree with me, please feel free to do so in the comments section.

Here is my response to the arguments above. Yes, God is omnipresent. He's not just in a church, obviously. But that is besides the point. God asks that we give special attention to him, not for his sake, but for our own and he designed this attention in a particular way.

How should we know the best way to worship God? There are countless possible ways we could do that, but are they all ways God wants? Not necessarily. God in the person of Jesus Christ instructed us on what to do.

John 6:50

This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread[c] which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Our Lord goes on to say Do this in Memory of Me. Jesus Christ clearly identifies what exactly he would like done in order that we remember him. He intended for us to partake of his body, blood, soul, and divinity in the form of bread and wine. This is the ultimate sacrifice, the perfect sacrifice, from God himself.

The Mass is the greatest prayer to God that the Church offers as it is a re-presentation of the sacrificial death and resurrection of Our Lord in atonement for our sins so that we may be united with him.

Therefore God has told us specifically how we ought to worship him. This does not mean that other forms of worship are bad or wrong. The Church has plenty of other forms of worship such as the Rosary, the Chaplet of Divine Mercy, the Divine Office, meditation, etc. These all have their place, but the Mass is the ultimate.

The Mass must be done in person, so that we can receive the body and blood of Our Lord into our bodies and souls. In Catholic theology, we are not just a spiritual religion. Our faith is also physical. This is opposed to many other religions and other Christians who believe that the physical part of the world is inferior or unimportant. Therefore they diminish or reject sacramentals, paintings, statues, and other such things.

But it's not just the Mass which must take place in person - it's all of the sacraments. Baptism must use water, confession must be done in person with a priest, confirmation involves oil being placed on the head, etc. There are no purely spiritual sacraments. In fact, a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward reality.

God himself became incarnate in the form of a man. He was not satisfied to remain spiritual, but chose to become a physical person in order that we may come ever closer to him. We as human beings were designed with bodies in a physical world. When God created our world while creating the universe, he saw it and said it was good. We disagree with the Manicheans and dualists who believe that the physically created world is evil and that only the spiritual world is good. Christ became incarnate and thus sanctified the entire physical universe.

There is also a practical reason for in-person sacraments and gatherings. We are social beings. Telling each person to remain atomized is contrary to our nature. We need other human beings. At Mass every day we confirm our belief in the "Communion of Saints". Yes, the communion of saints involves those in heaven, but there is also a communal aspect to which we all belong.

Having said all of this, I must of course mention the caveat that we are not absolutely required to attend sacraments in person even if this will put people's lives at risk. As with everything, it's not completely black and white. Yes, we should avoid unnecessary risk, but we must also realize the vital importance the sacraments play in our lives and not be too nonchalant about dismissing them as less than this. I am not here to condemn anyone, who out of love of neighbor and desire to keep people safe, decides to stay home. I am simply emphasizing that our first obligation and duty and purpose is to worship God, and we best do that in the way he taught us.

Have a great day everyone.

Back to plain old "Ordinary" time....or are we?

There is some confusion as to what the term ordinary time means in the Catholic Church. I think I always assumed, and many still do, that it means nothing "extraordinary" is happening. But that's not really accurate. In fact, when the Church calls the period of time "Ordinary", it simply refers to ordinal numerals.

According to Wikipedia:

In linguistics, ordinal numerals or ordinal number words are words representing position or rank in a sequential order; the order may be of size, importance, chronology, and so on (e.g., "third", "tertiary"). They differ from cardinal numerals, which represent quantity (e.g., "three") and other types of numerals.

The other type of numbers are called cardinal numerals which would be used for things like quantities and amounts. So it makes sense that the weeks are numbered in the Church this way.

Today, Monday, January 11, 2021, is called the first day of Ordinary Time. We have begun a new season. Something I cannot seem to explain is that although today is the first day of ordinary time according to the calendar, it also says that this coming Sunday, on January 17, is the "second Sunday of Ordinary Time". Very confusing. If today is the first day of Ordinary time, that would mean yesterday was presumably not included.

In fact, yesterday is the Solemnity of the Baptism of Our Lord. According to the calendar and the archbishop this morning, today is the first day of the liturgical new year, and therefore yesterday would not be included. I am very confused. If anyone knows what is going on, please let me know.

The basic idea behind ordinary time is that there are two major periods in the Christian calendar: Christmas and Easter. We prepare for these two major periods with Advent and Lent, respectively. Ordinary time is basically the period of time outside of these. The longest period of continual Ordinary Time is between the end of Eastertide and the beginning of Advent which in 2021 will be approximately 188 days, depending on how it's supposed to be calculated. In other words, more than half the year.

It's important to note that all Masses are equally important and extraordinary in that sense since the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Savior comes to us at those times. Also, even during ordinary time, there are major solemnities, feasts, etc. 

Top 7 things you need to know about confession

1. Everyone is scared of confession
Nobody is so confident of the insignificance of their sins that they breeze into and out of the confession box without a single worry. Most people fret so much about entering into a one-on-one with a priest that they literally shake and sweat. They believe their sins are so abominable that the priest will be shocked. Realizing that most people are scared of confession is a good first step to getting there.

2. Priests cannot tell anyone else your sins
No matter what happens, a priest is never permitted to tell someone else your sins or even imply them. Even if he faces death, he cannot reveal something you confessed under the seal of confession.

3. You needn't be embarrased
No matter what you've done that needs to be confessed, you don't need to worry about it. The priest has most likely already heard the same sins before, and even if he hasn't, he won't be shocked because he understands human weakness. Many priests say they actually forget what they hear in the confessional.

4. If you're not 100% ready, don't worry
You don't need to have an act of contrition memorized in order to go to confession. Simple recount the sins you remember and show some repentence. The priest will give absolution.

5. Penance ain't what it used to be
In the olden days, it seems penance could quite harsh. Often, people would have to confess publically, and then a very public display of penance would be given, such as wearing something indicating guilt for a year. Nowadays, penance is usually very minimal, such as saying one or two Our Father prayers. The usual complaint I receive is that the penance is too lenient.

6. You don't have to make yourself known
If you are feeling shy or simply prefer a more private confession, you can always stay behind the separator where the priest cannot see you. Many confessionals either have this as the only possibility or they will make either a private or face to face confession possible. Be careful though, try to understand the layout of the confessional before entering or enter slowly. One time I wanted to go privately, but ended up face to face with the priest. It's kind of hard at that point to just go to the private area and pretend that didn't happen!

7. Everyone, including the pope, goes to confession
The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Priests, bishops, and even the pope regularly go to confession. Don't feel like you are the lowest of the low for going to confession. We're all human and confession strengthens us against the evils of the world. Fear not confession!

Followup to question about intinction

My friend asked if intinction is legitimate in the Latin Rite Catholic Church. I knew that it was, but I have found official documentation to support this. In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, it states the following (in Chapter IV):

245. The Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon.

249. If the concelebrants' Communion is by intinction, the principal celebrant receives the Body and Blood of the Lord in the usual way, but making sure that enough of the precious Blood remains in the chalice for the Communion of the concelebrants. Then the deacon, or one of the concelebrants, arranges the chalice as appropriate in the center of the altar or at the side on another corporal together with the paten containing particles of the host.

285. For Communion under both kinds the following should be prepared:

1. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by communicants' drinking directly from the chalice, a chalice of a sufficiently large size or several chalices are prepared. Care should, however, be taken in planning lest beyond what is needed of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration.
   
2. If Communion is carried out by intinction, the hosts should be neither too thin nor too small, but rather a little thicker than usual, so that after being dipped partly into the Blood of Christ they can still easily be distributed to each communicant.

287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

Thanks for the great question.

Unusual Baptism Involving Lemon Cola (this is not an April Fool's Joke!)

In Norway, interesting news has emerged that a baby was baptized with lemon cola, instead of the obviously usual water. Apparently this was done because the water pipes had frozen and they could not get any water for the sacrament. I do not know what denomination this was, as the story does not indicate this. They only mention that there was a priest, named Paal Dale, who did the baptism.

It seems statistically probable that the priest is of the national Church of Norway, in which case he would not be Catholic. 83% of the population belong to the national church.

How does this action square with Catholic teaching on baptism? Well, surprisingly it could be valid given certain circumstances. First of all, no water could be available with which to perform the baptism. Secondly, the baby would have to be in some kind of proximate danger of death. A substance other than water in baptism should not be used if there is not a serious reason. Since I do not know the circumstances of this baptism, I cannot say if it followed to rules or not.

Another interesting piece of information is that although this was not done in a Catholic Church, if it was validly done and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then it would be considered valid, and if the child was to later become Catholic, he would not have to be baptized again. If, however lemon cola was used and it was not necessary, they may opt to do a conditional baptism, which basically says we are not 100% certain that the baby was baptized, but if not, we will now. If he was baptized already, this "new" baptism will not have an additional effect, but if he was not correctly baptized the first time, this will bring him into the Body of Christ. If a priest is not available, anyone can validly baptize a baby and, in fact, should.

To get more detail on the use of liquids other than water for baptism, I went to Catholic.com, and found a Question and Answer which referenced the Code of Canon Law. It states the following:

The code of canon law explains that "true, clean, and natural water" is necessary for baptism (canon 849). Liquids can be assessed in three categories: Those that are certainly valid, those that are doubtfully valid, and those that are certainly invalid.

Certainly valid liquids include water as found in rivers, oceans, lakes, hot springs, melted ice or snow, mineral water, dew, slightly muddy water (as long as the water predominates), and slightly brackish water.

Doubtfully valid liquids are those that are a mixture of water and some other substance, such as beer, soda, light tea, thin soup or broth, and artificially scented water such as rose water.The last category is of liquids which are certainly invalid. It includes oil, urine, grease, phlegm, shoe polish, and milk.

The rule of thumb is that, in emergency situations, you should always try to baptize with certainly valid liquids, beginning with plain, clean water. If plain water isn't available, baptize with a doubtfully valid liquid using the formula, "If this water is valid, I baptize you in the name of the Father. . ." If the danger of death passes, the person should later be conditionally baptized with certainly valid water. Never attempt to baptize anyone with a certainly invalid liquid.

The link to this Catholic Answers Q&A can be found here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9211qq.asp

Here is the full Lemon Cola Baptism story from Reuters (on Yahoo):

Tue Mar 31, 2:22 PM

OSLO (Reuters) - A Norwegian church used lemon-flavored cola instead of water in a baptism ceremony after its taps were temporarily turned off because of freezing temperatures, daily Vaart Land said Tuesday.

Priest Paal Dale from the town of Stord, about 150 miles west of the capital Oslo, improvised during a recent cold-spell by dabbing the lemon fizzy water on a baby during a baptism ceremony, it said.

"It had gone flat," Dale was quoted as saying by the newspaper. "Only the lemon smell made this unusual."

Dale said the child's family were informed about the switch only after the ceremony because the priest "had a need to inform" them about the lingering lemon scent.

"They didn't say much, but I assumed they smelled the aroma as well," Dale told Vaart Land.
(Reporting by Wojciech Moskwa)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090331/odds/odd_us_baptism

Eucharistic Congress 2008 in Quebec

I had an awesome time at the Eucharistic Congress. In attendance were over 1,000 priests, hundreds of bishops, and over 20 cardinals. This was truly an event of huge proportions.

During the congress, we attended the largest mass in the world every day. These were beautiful ceremonies. The procession itself took over 10 minutes, by the time all the bishops had been seated.

The event was attended by over 20,000 people. This was truly awe-inspiring. No extraordinary ministers were needed for Eucharist. There were plenty of priests on hand. I've been to mass when there's less than 50 people there, and extraordinary ministers will be employed. This is simply unnecessary and possibly wrong.

I met my cousin Fr. Roy Farrell. I actually ran into him several times during the Congress. That was a good surprise.

I met a lot of great people as well. Many people my age who have devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, to Christ, and to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

One of the emphases of the congress was Eucharistic Adoration. Spending an hour with our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This can be a very powerful devotion.

All in all, this was a very powerful experience. We will look forward to the next event in 2012 in Dublin, Ireland!

The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Last Rites (also known as Extreme Unction)

In a tragic event which took the United States by surprise was the assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963 at 12:30 pm. He was riding along in his Presidential Limousine in Texas, when he was shot in the head. He was obviously dead from the enormous wound he had sustained. Others, including the Governor of Texas were injured as well.

One thing about the assassination of which many are not aware, is that after being shot, a priest gave President John F. Kennedy his Last Rites, also known as Extreme Unction and more recently, Anointing of the Sick. This is one of the seven sacraments established by Christ.

The Priest who performed this sacrament was the Very Reverend Oscar L. Huber. Like all sacraments, Extreme Unction affects the soul of the recipient. According to the priest who performed the ceremony, although JFK appeared dead, his soul may still have been within his body, and although not visible to human eyes, the President could have accepted the sacrament before his soul left his body.

The following is taken from Time Magazine from Friday, November 29, 1963, and gives a lot of information.

At 12:45, two Roman Catholic priests went swiftly into the emergency room. A policeman came out. "How is he?" a reporter asked. "He's dead," came the reply. Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff appeared. To a deluge of questions, he screamed, "I can't say, I just can't say!"

Last Rites. But he was dead. It was about 1 p.m. The Very Rev. Oscar L. Huber drew back a sheet that covered the President's face, and anointed John Kennedy's forehead with oil. He gave him conditional absolution—tendered when a priest has no way of knowing the victim's mind or whether the soul has yet left the body. In Latin, Father Huber said, "I absolve you from all censures and sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. If you are living, may the Lord by this holy anointing forgive whatever you have sinned. Amen. I, by the faculty given to me by the Apostolic See, grant to you a plenary indulgence and remission of all sins and I bless you. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Then he covered the President's face once more with the sheet and in English offered the prayers for the Dying and for the Departed Soul: "May the most clement Virgin Mary, Mother of God, the most loving consoler of the afflicted, commend to her Son the soul of this servant, John . . . Jesus, Mary and Joseph, assist me in my last agony. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, may I sleep and rest in peace in your holy company . . . Grant, O Lord, that while we here lament the departure of Your servant, we may ever remember that we are most certainly to follow him. Give us grace to prepare for that last hour by a good life, that we may not be surprised by a sudden death but be ever watching, for when Thou shall call that soul, we may enter eternal glory through Christ, Our Lord. Eternal rest grant him, O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him. Amen."

Jacqueline Kennedy stood next to the President's body, and with a clear voice, prayed with the others: "Our Father, Who art in Heaven . . ." and "Hail, Mary, full of grace. . . ." End of Quote from Time.

These are very beautiful prayers said during a solemn occasion. May we pray that the soul of John F. Kennedy is with the Lord, just as we pray for everyone who leaves this world for the next.