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