FIRST COMMUNION, WITHOUT POMP

FIRST COMMUNION, WITHOUT POMP

Rome, July 15, 2014 (Zenit.org) Father Edward McNamara, LC

Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: My great-niece was to receive her first Holy Communion and has been told she need not wear the traditional white dress, nor receive Communion with the other children who are also to receive their first Communion. She can attend any Mass and just go up and receive Communion. I have protested to the parish priest about this and have received a short reply stating that white dresses are too expensive for some mothers. No mention of the other questions I put to him. Has the parish priest the right to do this? -- D.S., Woy Woy, Australia

A: There are several levels to be dealt with in this question.

From a canonical standpoint we could say that, strictly speaking, the parish priest is within his rights in not organizing a special first Communion service. If he has ascertained that the child is sufficiently well prepared, and has made first confession, then he can authorize the child to receive Communion at any Mass with no special vesture or any special service.

This is in part because, unlike baptism or confirmation, first reception of Communion is not a distinct sacrament but rather participation in the holy Sacrifice as the culmination of the process

of initiation. In most Eastern Churches all three sacraments are given together to infants.

Nor does the missal have a special rite or Mass for first Communion, distinct from other Masses. Indeed since it is customary in many places to celebrate first Communion on Sundays of late April and May that often coincide with major solemnities.

At the same time, from a pastoral point of view, the practice of a special celebration for children receiving Communion for the first time is well established in the Latin Church and has proved its worth in many ways. Above all, when well prepared, it can be a very special experience in a child's life and can emphasize the importance of full participation in the Church's sacramental life. It can also be a good opportunity for the spiritual regeneration of a whole family.

It is true that, objectively speaking, receiving first Communion at a regular parish Mass rather than in a special celebration constitutes the same material act. Subjectively, however, it is likely that

without some external means of underlining its importance, its deeper meaning will be lost on most young children.

Admittedly, the external elements are not the heart of preparation for first Communion, which should be primarily doctrinal and spiritual, albeit adapted to 7-year-olds. Yet, we should neglect no means to help bring this deeper meaning home.

Because of this, while showing respect for the priest, in this case it would be good to inform the bishop of this particular pastoral practice, since he might have a different criterion as to its wisdom for the good of souls.

The priest, however, has brought to light a real pastoral difficulty. In certain societies, ostensibly spiritual moments such as baptisms and first Communions have sometimes degenerated into social events and given rise to unhealthy and un-Christian competition among families vying for prestige and show. Indeed, sometimes families have felt pressured into engaging in needless and ill-affordable expense on such occasions.

One solution to this problem is very common in Italy and some other countries. The parish either rents or sells to parents a standardized alblike habit that is set aside for children receiving first

Communion. It is usually the same for boys and girls, although in some cases girls wear a white headband. This solution eliminates any social distinctions and puts all the emphasis on the reception of Communion and not on superficial elements.

In the long term, when such a solution is practiced, parents end up preferring it as it frees them, not only from excessive expense, but also allows them to concentrate on the essential elements.

This is just one possible solution to a difficulty that is real in some places. There might be others also. It is important to seek solutions which overcome the difficulties while conserving and enhancing those elements which have proved their pastoral effectiveness.

We must recognize, however, that the older traditions of the special white dress for girls also had its advantages, especially when such clothing was carefully kept and used within families or was especially made by family members.

I know of at least one family in which the fabric of the mother's wedding dress was later transformed into the baptismal gowns and first Communion dresses of the children. This is a beautiful way of symbolizing the spiritual fruitfulness that also comes with marriage.

The difficulties arise when such traditions are lost, and there is more emphasis on outward appearances.

Source: - http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/first-communion-without-pomp

My friend said that Christ died once for all, so we don't need redemptive suffering souls. How should I respond?

My friend said that Christ died once for all, so we don't need redemptive suffering souls. How should I respond?

Answer

A Scripture verse to point your friend to is Colossians 1:24: "Now I [Paul] rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

Paul doesn’t mean that Christ’s death is insufficient for universal redemption. He is simply saying that his own incorporation into the mystical body of Christ (the Church) means that his sufferings can be helpful for other members of the body (the Colossian Christians to whom he is writing). They are helpful only because Paul is united to Christ in his Church and is offering his sufferings to Christ for the sake of the Church.

In the same way, suffering souls can similarly offer up their sufferings for the benefit of others.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How can I find instruction in the faith in a non-English-language country?

I've wanted to become Catholic for several years, but my attempts have been hindered because I live in the Netherlands, a non-English-speaking country, and my primary language is English. What can I do?

Answer

How wonderful that you wish to become Catholic! Here are some suggestions:

You might contact an English-speaking embassy in the Netherlands (e.g., American, British, Australian, Canadian) and ask if it has an English-speaking Catholic chaplain for the employees. That chaplain could help you enter the Church. If not, the embassy should at least be able to put you in contact with Catholics on the staff who can tell you where they go for English-speaking Catholic services.

You might also check with English departments of local universities (particularly Catholic universities, if there are any) to see if there are any Catholics on staff or if there is an English-speaking Catholic chaplain for the Catholic students.

If there are any religious orders with houses nearby, they may have English-speaking members in residence or can put you in touch with other English-speaking members in the country.

If you continue to have trouble finding an English-speaking priest or Catholic community in the Netherlands, please write back and we will try to find other avenues of assistance for you. God bless.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Hasn't the Church destroyed an entire continent by preaching against condoms for protection from AIDS?

How can you people look at yourselves in the mirror knowing that you have basically destroyed an entire continent by spreading your message that condoms don't protect against AIDS. What would God think of that?

Answer

First of all, sexual activity outside of marriage is nothing more than usury—people using each others’ bodies for selfish sexual gratification. Only within a permanent and exclusive commitment can sex be the total and unconditional self-giving that it is meant to be. Second, there is a growing body of evidence that condoms in fact have a significant failure rate in the prevention of venereal diseases (including AIDS). Our chastity speakers recently spoke in Michigan to 10,000 students. During each talk, they asked the students what the most common sexually transmitted disease was. Not one of the students knew the answer. It is human papillomavirus (HPV), which is now responsible for the deaths of more women every year than AIDS, because it causes 99 percent of all diagnosed cervical cancer. The media won’t talk about this because the condom is useless in preventing HPV. So much for "safe sex."

But even if they did succeed in the prevention of disease, we prefer to teach people that the best prevention against such horrific diseases is to be chaste—that is, to act appropriately according to one’s state in life regarding sexual behavior. The promulgation of the idea that condom use protects us is not only deceptive; it encourages a lifestyle that leads to sorrow and perhaps even death.

Had everyone reserved sex until marriage, and if spouses remained faithful, then we would not have an AIDS epidemic. Only a return to a chaste life can stop these diseases or, in the case of those already infected, contain them. Such chastity is within God’s plan for the human race. He designed us. He knows what is best for us in regard to our relationships and our health in mind and body. So we choose to tell the truth: One cannot commit sexual sin and not expect negative consequences. Chastity is the answer.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was St. Joseph a virgin or a widower with children?

Can you tell me if the Church teaches that Joseph was a virgin, or was he a widower with children who was quite older than Mary?

Answer

An early tradition has it that Joseph was a widower who married the Virgin Mary later in life (after already having a family with his first wife). A later tradition says that Joseph was a virgin and that the "brothers" of Jesus were other relatives, perhaps cousins. Because we simply don’t know, Catholics are free to believe either tradition. All that is required of us to believe is that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, including throughout her marriage to Joseph.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does Humanae Vitae state that birth control is only forbidden for married couples?

How can I convince my friend that contraception is forbidden not only within marriage but outside it? She says Humanae Vitae is against birth control only in marriage.

Answer

Humanae Vitae is explicit in its teaching against artificial birth control, and yes, the context is marriage. But Humanae Vitae itself answers the question:

Hence, one who reflects well must also recognize that a reciprocal act of love that jeopardizes the responsibility to transmit life that God the Creator, according to particular laws, inserted therein, is in contradiction with the design constitutive of marriage, and the will of the Author or life. To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God. (HV 13)

These two sentences teach that anything that destroys the meaning of the "reciprocal act of love"—in this case contraception—is contrary to God. The Catechism calls these actions "intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370), meaning that it is evil in and of itself: It is always objectively evil, regardless of the context (within marriage or outside of it) in which it is carried out.

The Church also teaches that sex outside of marriage is contrary to the will of God and destroys the true purpose of the act (cf. CCC 2353). Therefore, if one uses birth control while engaging in sex outside of marriage, he is compounding one sin with another. 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was the Anglican schism brought about because Church officials told Henry VIII to have an affair when he requested an annulment?

An Anglican priest told me two reasons for the Anglican schism were that (1) when Henry VIII requested an annulment, he was told by Church officials to have an affair, and (2) Rome was overtaxing Europe and Henry couldn't pay the taxes demanded.

Answer

In response to the claim that Church officials ordered Henry to have an affair, it is reasonable to ask that credible documentation be provided to substantiate the claim. Lack of evidence not withstanding, Henry VIII was already having affairs by the time he became involved with Anne Boleyn. It is known, for example, that Henry had already had an affair with Anne’s sister Mary before turning his attention to Anne. Anne refused to have an affair with him. She was not interested in doing the right thing; she simply wanted Henry to marry her. (Had she been inclined to act rightly, she would have refused any involvement with a married man.) Even if it could be proven that Church officials told Henry to have an affair, that would have been a personal failing of theirs. It would not have justified Henry having an affair or going into schism when his request for an annulment was denied.

Although it is also the priest’s responsibility to prove his claim of unjust taxation, the question is also a non sequitur. Unjust taxation is not an excuse for schism from the Church founded by Jesus Christ. (But, as an aside, it is also noteworthy that Henry VIII was as notoriously lavish with money as his father, Henry VII, was frugal. In his lifetime he managed to work through the enormous treasury his father had hoarded.)

What all this boils down to is that the priest is resting his personal defense of the Anglican schism on the personal failings of fallible human beings. He should instead be asking himself which church is the Church that Christ founded. Perhaps he might find insight into that by reading the biography of Sir Thomas More, a contemporary of Henry VIII. Despite the personal failures of contemporary churchmen, More was willing to lay down his life for the Church rather than follow Henry VIII into schism.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was the Council of Trent inconsistent in its treatment of the deuterocanonical books?

I read in a Protestant book recently that the Council of Trent was inconsistent because it accepted some “apocryphal” books—such as 1 and 2 Maccabees—as canonical but did not accept others, such as 1 and 2 Esdras. How do you respond?

Answer

Trent simply reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.

At all these councils the canon that was proclaimed included the seven deuterocanonical books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach—and rejected 1 and 2 Esdras. Far from being inconsistent; Trent reaffirmed what the Church had taught since the earliest centuries.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What's the difference between the natural law and the laws of nature?

Catholic moral theologians talks about the natural law, and scientists talk about the laws of nature, but they don't seem to be talking about the same thing. What is the difference between natural law and the laws of nature?

Answer

Pope John Paul answered this question nicely in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. He said the natural law of moral theology "receives this name not because it refers to the nature of irrational things but because the reason which promulgates it is proper to human nature" (VS 42). The moral law is called natural law because it is based on our nature as rational beings. It is not based on the nature of irrational beings, such as animals, plants, or inanimate matter. When scientists refer to the laws of nature, they mean physical laws such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

When it comes to chastity, where should an engaged couple draw the line ?

A priest told my fiancé that it is okay for my fiancé and me to touch intimately before we are married so long as we don't engage in intercourse. I'm a little uneasy about this interpretation of chastity. Is he correct?

Answer

No. Jesus stated in Matthew 5:28 that a person can commit sins of sexual impurity even in his thoughts: "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The same is true of fornication (premarital sex).

Looking at a woman (or man) to whom you are not married and indulging in lustful thoughts counts as committing fornication in your heart. If indulging yourself in mental lust for a man to whom you are not married counts as fornication, how much more so will intimate touching in which you partially act out the sexual desire you have for another?

Though some priests may not like to say so, fornication is a grave (mortal) sin. Paul says, "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness . . . and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:19-21). This is a severe teaching. It is one many unmarried people find hard to accept, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture, and we must hold to it.

Sometimes people rationalize extramarital sexual practices on the grounds that by committing a lesser sin one may avoid a greater one, such as fornication. There are two problems with this. First, as the Holy Father made clear in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, one may never do something intrinsically wrong in order to avoid a problem. We cannot do evil that good may come of it.

Second, this strategy simply doesn’t work. If you find it difficult to restrain yourself sexually, following this priest’s advice will not make it easier to control yourself—quite the opposite.

By the way, you might want to ask this priest yourself and not rely on your fiancé to interpret the priest’s remarks.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What is the appropriate means to dispose of an old Bible?

What is the appropriate means to dispose of an old Bible?

Answer

There is no specifically mandated means of disposing of old Bibles. Some Catholics follow a custom of disposing of religious articles that have been blessed either by burying or burning them, but even that is not mandated by law. If the Bible has been blessed you might choose to follow that custom. If not, dispose of it as you would any other book. If it’s still in fair condition, you might put it on a book donation table to benefit someone else.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is it proper to wear a cross or must it be a crucifix?

What is the proper crucifix to have or to wear? I was told that a cross is not the same as a crucifix. I was told also that a cross represents that Jesus has risen and is proper to wear.

Answer

Some Protestants suggest that because Catholics often depict Jesus on the cross it means that they believe he has not risen. This is, of course, nonsense. Catholics are adamant about the Resurrection of Christ. That’s why it is written into the creed that we say every Sunday.

Depicting the cross bare is not an especially good symbol of the resurrection since the cross probably never stood bare. When Jesus was taken down from it, the crossbeam that his arms were nailed to was probably removed. It is doubtful that after he rose from the dead anyone bothered putting the crossbeam back up.

From a Catholic perspective there is little theological significance for items of personal jewelry whether or not the cross is bare. In a wide variety of art forms, Christians throughout the ages have depicted both Jesus on the cross and the bare cross depending not on theological considerations but on other factors, such as whether the medium they were working in could accommodate the human form easily and whether they had the artistic skill or craftsmanship to fashion a corpus.

Traditionally there has been a preference for showing the corpus when possible, as this is a more vivid reminder of the crucifixion (the crucifixion is the whole point of a cross, after all). However, this is not a theological mandate.

Bottom line: Wear whichever one you prefer. (Though know that most people will identify you as a Catholic if you wear one with a corpus.)

-Catholic Answer-

In what language was the Bible first written?

 In what language was the Bible first written?

(Pictures of The Dead Sea Scrolls - The first Bible)

 

  

The first human author to write down the biblical record was Moses. He was commanded by God to take on this task, for Exodus 34:27 records God's words to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." And what language did he use? He wrote in his native language, called Hebrew.

Hebrew is one of a group of languages known as the Semitic languages which were spoken throughout that part of the world, then called Mesopotamia, located today mainly in Iraq. Their alphabet consisted of 22 letters, all consonants. (Imagine having an alphabet with no vowels! Much later they did add vowels.)

During the thousand years of its composition, almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.

The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.

So the New Testament authors wrote in Greek. They did not, however, use really high-class or classical Greek, but a very common and everyday type of Greek. For many years some scholars ridiculed the Greek of the New Testament because many of its words were strange to those who read the writings of the great Greek classical authors such as Plato and Aristotle. But later many records were uncovered of ordinary people, and amazingly there were the same common terms used in everyday speech! The ridicule dried up accordingly.

The earliest copies of parts of the Hebrew Old Testament were discovered in 1947. They are part of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls and actually date back to the first century BC. Even though they are at least 900 years older than any parts of the Bible we had before this, they are not the originals. They are copies. The originals have all been lost or destroyed. But we are not at all doubtful that we may not have the original text. Copying by scribes was done with great care in those days and because the text was regarded as sacred, the copyists were extremely painstaking. Today some 5000 hand-copied documents exist of all or part of the Bible, and they agree in 98% of the text! No other ancient writing has this amount of underlying support with such amazing agreement as to the text.

Yes, we do have what God wanted us to have! By way of translation, we now have His revelation in our own language and in 2300 other languages, too. Today we have the very Bible that comes to us from the three languages used in the original. Truly we can say, "God speaks my language, too!"