Q. At Mass, when the priest elevates the Host during the Consecration, do we behold the crucified Christ, the glorious, risen Christ, or the Christ of the Last Supper? — B.M., New York.
A. The glorious, risen Christ. In his book The Eucharist, Fr. Giles Dimock, OP, said that in the third part of the Summa Theologiae, Question 76, St. Thomas Aquinas “sees the whole Christ in the species of bread and wine, but not in a place as if here and not there, that is, in heaven. Rather, he is present ‘as in the manner of a substance,’ so that when the host is consecrated he comes to be in this bread and wine on this altar, but not as if he were no longer in heaven. By the same token, he is substantially in the whole host so that breaking the host would not break his arm because he is not present in a merely physical way, but more like that of a glorified body, which according to St. Thomas, has qualities beyond the physical, without forsaking its bodiliness (cf. S.T. Suppl qq 82-85).”
Fr. Dimock said that “we are speaking of the physical in a way that goes beyond the physical — that is, the metaphysical — and this is what is meant by the substantial change. Perhaps a Jewish approach would be helpful here. The Jews saw the human person as enfleshed spirit — the person concretized in the body. So the Lord is present in his risen glorified body permeating the host with his presence. He is dynamically present there for us as a person as well as in heaven” (pp. 51-52)
Q. What are we to make of reports that Pope Francis has “opened the door” for intercommunion between Catholics and Lutherans? Lutheran belief about the Eucharist is different from the belief of Catholics, is it not? — E.D., California.
A. We hope that these reports are not true since Lutherans do indeed differ in what they believe about the Holy Eucharist. Asked recently by John-Henry Westen of LifeSite News about the possibility of intercommunion, Raymond Cardinal Burke responded this way:
“[Take] the classical Lutheran belief: There is this idea about Holy Communion of a kind of moral presence of our Lord during their celebration of the liturgy. But when the liturgy is over, those breads that are used — and I use term ‘breads’ deliberately because they are not the Body of Christ — are simply put back in the drawer for another time. For us, once the Hosts that have been placed on the altar are consecrated, are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, they are reposed in the tabernacle for those who are sick and dying, for our adoration, and for the eventual communion of the faithful. Those Hosts can never be treated in any other way than as the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in our midst.”
Cardinal Burke said that “it is very problematic to suggest that the celebration which is going to take place in honor of Martin Luther would be the occasion of some kind of ‘Eucharistic hospitality’ or intercommunion. This is not possible. Yes, it is irreformable. Either the Sacred Host is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, or it is not. And if it is, it is the gravest of sins to offer the Sacred Host to someone who does not believe.”
Recalling St. Paul’s warning in First Corinthians 11, where the apostle “said very openly that the person who receives Holy Communion without recognizing the Body of Christ eats condemnation to himself,” Burke said that’s why “we don’t invite those who don’t believe in the Real Presence to receive Holy Communion, first of all out of respect for our Lord Jesus Christ and out of respect for the reality of the Holy Eucharist, but also out of respect for those persons, because to invite them to receive something in which they don’t believe is an ultimate sign of disrespect [to our Lord] and does great harm to the souls of those who are so invited.”
Q. What is the Church’s current position on cremation? — M.K., via e-mail.
A. In August 2016, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction (Ad Resurgendum cum Christo) regarding the burial of the deceased and conservation of the ashes after cremation.
Among other things, the congregation said that “the Church insistently recommends that the bodies of the deceased be buried in cemeteries or other sacred places” as a way of confirming “her faith in the resurrection of the body” and showing “the great dignity of the human body as an integral part of the human person whose body forms part of their identity. She cannot, therefore, condone attitudes or permit rites that involve erroneous ideas about death, such as considering death as the definitive annihilation of the person, or the moment of fusion with Mother Nature or the universe, or as a stage in the cycle of regeneration, or as the definitive liberation from the ‘prison’ of the body.”
When cremation is chosen because of “sanitary, economic, or social considerations,” the document said, “this choice must never violate the explicitly stated or the reasonably inferable wishes of the deceased faithful. The Church raises no doctrinal objections to this practice, since cremation of the deceased’s body does not affect his or her soul, nor does it prevent God, in his omnipotence, from raising up the deceased body to new life. Thus cremation, in and of itself, objectively negates neither the Christian doctrine of the soul’s immortality nor that of the resurrection of the body.
“The Church continues to prefer the practice of burying the bodies of the deceased, because this shows a greater esteem towards the deceased. Nevertheless, cremation is not prohibited, ‘unless it was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine’.”
When cremation has been decided upon, the congregation said, “the ashes of the faithful must be laid to rest in a sacred place, that is, in a cemetery or, in certain cases, in a church or an area which has been set aside for this purpose and so dedicated by the competent ecclesial authority….The reservation of the ashes of the departed in a sacred place ensures that they are not excluded from the prayers and remembrance of their family or the Christian community.
“It prevents the faithful departed from being forgotten, or their remains from being shown a lack of respect, which eventuality is possible, most especially once the immediately subsequent generation has too passed away. Also it prevents any unfitting or superstitious practices.”
For these reasons, said the document, “the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence is not permitted. Only in grave and exceptional cases, dependent on cultural conditions of a localized nature, may the Ordinary, in agreement with the Episcopal Conference or the Synod of Bishops of the Oriental Churches, concede permission for the conservation of the ashes of the departed in a domestic residence. Nonetheless, the ashes may not be divided among various family members and due respect must be maintained regarding the circumstances of such a conservation.”
Furthermore, it said that “in order that every appearance of pantheism, naturalism, or nihilism be avoided, it is not permitted to scatter the ashes of the faithful departed in the air, on land, at sea, or in some other way, nor may they be preserved in mementos, pieces of jewelry, or other objects. These courses of action cannot be legitimized by an appeal to the sanitary, social, or economic motives that may have occasioned the choice of cremation.”
Finally, the congregation said that “when the deceased notoriously has requested cremation and the scattering of their ashes for reasons contrary to the Christian faith, a Christian funeral must be denied to that person according to the norms of the law.”
Q. In your response to the question about Mary and Joseph being betrothed, you wrote that “Mary’s relationship with Joseph was that of a wife, although they had decided to forgo marital relations and live in a celibate relationship.” While I understand they were Jews, following an accepted custom, many of our Catholic traditions come from God through the Jews. So, if a couple were to say to a Catholic priest, “We are going to get married and forgo marital relations,” they would be told not to get married because it is the marital act that consummates the marriage, and it must always be open to life. — C.P., North Carolina.
A. Canon 1061 of the Code of Canon Law says that a valid marriage between baptized persons “is called ratified and consummated if the parties have performed between themselves in a human manner the conjugal act which is per se suitable for the generation of children, to which marriage is ordered by its very nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.” Whether a priest could witness an exchange of vows between a couple who had decided to live a celibate life, we don’t know. This is a question for one versed in canon law.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress