A Help Page for Non-Catholics and Catholics alike.
Featured on this page...
A) Philosophical Proofs on the Existence of God.
B) Why believe in God.
C) The Real Presence and the Encyclical Letter on the Eucharist. (Encyclical Letters)
Taken from, http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html Go here for other great help pages.
(For other references contact me, [
Tesa] at any time.)
Philosophical Proofs on the Existence of God
"If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free"
—Gospel according to St. John 8:31-32
The truths of Christianity lead us to salvation and light. We have the Word of God to present the truth to those who walk in darkness, so that they too may be set free. But often in our materialistic, skeptic modern world it is difficult to preach the gospel to those who are blinded by pride of intellect or resistance to a change of heart. Many people honestly do not believe in a God, and will of course reject Sacred Scripture and Church Tradition. All Christians should be well versed in the teachings of Christ and his Church, but it also helps to be familiar with the theological and philosophical writings of members of the Church. Many of the treatises of theologians and Christian philosophers can shed much light on the existence of God, the problem of evil and other objections raised by modern unbelievers.
A brief philosophical introduction to intellectual arguments regarding the existence of God can help in disseminating the truth and presenting Christianity as a rational religion and way of life to others. Here, we will focus on three famous arguments regarding God’s existence: the ontological argument, cosmological argument and teleological argument. These proofs have been endlessly debated over the centuries between various philosophers and theologians. I will present these classic proofs and leave it to the reader to judge their accuracy and logical cohesion.
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
St. Anselm, the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury and a Doctor of the Church, first formulated the Ontological Argument. This philosophical argument is perhaps the strangest and most hotly debated of the proofs. The argument has attracted the attentions of such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant (who attacked St. Anselm’s proof) and G.W.F Hegel (who defended Anselm’s proof).
The proof is most notable because it alone claims to prove the existence of God by relying independently on human reason without the need for perception or evidence. The proof itself relies on the defined concept of God as a perfect being. St. Anselm’s proof is summarized here:
God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions
.
If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.
Study the above proof carefully. It is an intriguing proof because it states that God, a perfect being, must exist in all possible circumstances in order to satisfy the definition of his perfection. A God that can exist in only some circumstances, but fails to exist in others is a less than perfect being.
St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
The great Catholic thinker, philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas summarized his cosmological argument in the Summa Theologia. In this theological masterpiece, St. Thomas writes five "ways" that we can know God exists. His first three ways deal with the cosmological argument:
St. Aquinas argues that there are things in the world in motion (this simply means that things are changing) and that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by another thing in motion. Aquinas holds that, "whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another," and that, "this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover." Hence St. Thomas argues that in order to eliminate the infinite chain of motions, there must be a first mover and source of all motion, God.
The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God.
The third way also argues using the notion of a chain of causes. St. Thomas notes that things in our world owe their existence to something else in the world. Aquinas calls this the way of "possibility and necessity," meaning that all things made possible, necessarily attribute their existence to some pre-existing thing. Only God can be the source of all things since he is a being having its own necessity and does not need a pre-existing thing to cause him to exist. All things existing can trace themselves in a chain back to God.
A second shorter version of the cosmological argument can be formulated as:
Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.
Not every being can be a dependent being.
So there exists a self-existent being.
Finally, a third rendition of the cosmological argument (extracted from the book Philosophy for Dummies by Dr. Tom Morris):
1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can’t be scientific because there can’t be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.
7. The explanation for the existence of the universe can’t be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.
8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.
9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe.
10. A rational person should believe that there is a God.
The Teleological Argument
The teleological argument, or argument from design, is also summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Here is the extract from the Summa:
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."
Perhaps this is the most common form of reasoning behind the existence of God. The average theist will argue for the existence of God with the teleological argument.
Conclusion
Of course, these three proofs have their share of proponents and opponents. The proofs do not definitively prove the existence of God because they can be argued. Even the greatest truth can be masked behind a veil of innocent ignorance or blindness of pride. It is faith that provides the bedrock for belief in God and the cornerstone for ultimate happiness. Nevertheless, these three proofs can help show that Christianity is a rational religion, as well as an endlessly controversial one.
--SMM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. New Advent Inc, 1996-97.
(online) http://www.newadvent.org
Dr. Tom Morris. Philosophy For Dummies. Foster City, California: IDG Books Worldwide Inc, 1999.
Varner, Gary. Introduction to Philosophy
(online) http://snaefell.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/
This article, if used intact, maybe distributed and posted on other websites without the author’s permission. If any part
of the article is used in a quote or used in part it must be accompanied by a link or written reference to this website’s
internet address.
This also taken from the same place as above!
Why Believe in God?
There are two types of men, those who are afraid to lose God, and those who are afraid that they might find Him…
--Blaise Pascal, philosopher and scientist
Does God exist?
This is surely a fundamental question that nearly all humans have pondered with throughout human history. The vast array of religions are a testimony to the human tendency to grasp at the divine. This in itself is perhaps the strongest testimony to God’s existence. It can be said that all humans have an innate desire; an emptiness that they feel must be filled. The human quest for power, riches, sensual pleasure, security, fame and indulgence in natural pleasures is a response to the heartfelt desire for a higher goodness. Temporal pleasures and even natural love is often transitory and ultimately unfulfilling. As humans indulge in their passions their desires continue to go unfulfilled. Many attempt to fill the void with increasing worldly pleasures with little results.
Such powerful and elusive desires are a cry from the soul which seeks something that can not be gratified by the things of this world. For the moment we will consider discontent of the heart as a mark of God calling us to embrace him.
But I demand physical proof!
St. Thomas Aquinas proposed five proofs in which humans can use natural reason to prove the existence of God through extrinsic evidence. Through the use of natural reason we can logically conclude in the existence of God. Yet strictly speaking, God’s existence cannot be definitively proven through laboratory tests and experimental science. Not all things are subject to experimental science. It is illogical to say, "If I can not see, taste, touch, feel or hear something it must not exist!" Reason and extrinsic evidence must also be considered. Experimental science and intrinsic evidence cannot definitively prove historical events, and yet by reason we know they have occurred. And surely were science falters and extrinsic evidence fail, reason and intrinsic evidence can prove the spiritual which can not be measured by material sciences.
St. Thomas Aquinas five proofs of the existence of God
Aquinas’ first proof is through the argument of motion. It can be noted that some things in the universe are in motion and it follows that whatever is in the state of motion must have been placed in motion by another such act. Motion in itself is nothing less then the reduction of something from the state of potentiality to actuality. Because something can not be in potentiality and actuality simultaneously, it follows that something can not be a mover of itself. A simple example of this is a rubber ball motionless on a flat surface. It has the potential for motion, but is not currently in the state of actual motion. In order for this to happen, something else in motion must set the ball in motion, be that gravity, another moving object or the wind. And yet something must have set that object in motion as well (even gravity, a force caused by matter warping the space-time fabric, attributes its existence to pre-existing matter and the exchange of pre-existing graviton particles). Thus pre-existing motions cause all motions. Yet, this chain can not extend into infinity because that would deny a first mover that set all else in motion. Without a first mover, nothing could be set in motion. Thus we acknowledge the first and primary mover as God.
The second proof follows closely with the first and expounds the principle of causality. St. Thomas explains that in the world of sense there is an order of causes and effects. There is a cause for all things such as the existence of a clock. And nothing can cause itself into existence. A clock cannot will itself into existence, it must be created and caused into existence by something else. A clockmaker creates a clock and causes its existence, and yet the material of the clock and the clockmaker did not cause themselves to exist. Something else must have caused their existence. All things can attribute their existence to a first cause that began all causes and all things. We call this first cause God.
Aquinas next explains that things of this universe have a transitory nature in which they are generated and then corrupt over time. Because of this the things of nature can be said to be "possible to be and possible not to be". Since it is impossible for these things always to exist, then it indicates a time when they did not exist. If there are things which are transitory (and are possible not to be) then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. However, as was already explained in his second proof, there must have been a first cause that was not of transitory nature that could have generated the beginning of nature.
In his fourth point Aquinas notes that there is a certain gradation in all things. For instance we can group things that are hot according to varying degrees of the amount of heat perceptible in that object. In classifying objects there is always something which displays the maximum fullness of that characteristic. Thus universal qualities in man such as justice and goodness must attribute their varying qualities to God; the source of maximum and perfect justice and goodness.
Finally, Thomas Aquinas says that the order of nature presupposes a higher plan in creation. The laws governing the universe presuppose a universal legislature who authored the order of the universe. We cannot say that chance creates order in the universe. If you drop a cup on the floor it shatters into bits and has become disordered. But if you were to drop bits of the cup, they would not assemble together into a cup. This is an example of the inherent disorder prevalent in the universe when things are left to chance. The existence of order and natural laws presupposes a divine intelligence who authored the universe into being.
Conclusions from St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs
These proofs reveal many truths about the divine God. The existence of life and the order of creation can be attributed to God; the cause and creator of the universe. From the principal of causality we know that God is infinite and beyond the laws of nature and our human universe. In order for him to be the first cause, he must have been in existence before all else in the universe. We know that nature is composed of things that are not eternal but are transitory. Thus the universe attributes its transitory nature to a first cause that cannot be defined as transitory and is thus not a part of nature. So God is neither of a finite lifetime, nor is he "inseparably a part of nature". Nature by itself is not God. We also know that God is the divine source of justice and goodness; attributes found in all men and woman in varying degrees. In fact our universal feelings of justice demand a God. Justice is not a human attribute created by us, it is a quality imprinted in our very being by our creator. A being who must also posses the very quintessence of justice in order to endow us with justice.
Finally, we know that God is personal. It can be likewise argued that the qualities that make humans personal and conscience are what place us above other created things such as plants and animals. Since God is a higher order of being, he is likewise the very quintessence of a personal being.
But why do bad things happen to good people?
So where is this supremely good, personal and just God in our world? Why so much misery and suffering? This is a fundamental mystery for which human reason cannot fully explain. Although we can reasonably conclude to the existence of God we cannot hope to fully fathom the infinite and divine intellect of our creator with finite human minds.
However, we can reason that God has decided to endow us with free will, a tremendous gift that gives humans the freedom to choose between love of God and hatred of him. We can choose between good and evil. So why did he decide to give us the freedom to choose evil? It is enough to say that God created us as human beings and not as preprogrammed robots. In his infinite goodness he desired the free love of humanity over forced obedience to his will. For love cannot be forced, it must be given by desire and choice.
Because of our free will, some people have embraced evil and selfishness to satiate themselves at the expense of others. True evil is a result of desire of oneself over that of God, and thus sin and evil is a rejection of God. Because God is of infinite perfection, beatitude, and justice, he cannot allow sin to go unpunished. Neither can he allow sinful people to embrace him in his fullness in heaven. Thus our world, tainted by sin, is racked with much sadness and suffering. Sin separates us from the all-pleasing and loving God.
As emphasized before, the simultaneous existence of good and evil is a mystery to human intelligence, but it in no way proves that God does not exist. It only points to our own finite and limited existence. Our God is infinitely good and just, and thus as the source of our lives were are created to be his friends and children. We are called to live in goodness and justice as a response to our love of God. God loves us, but it is up to us to return his love.
So is there hope? Is humanity forever seperated from the fullness of God by sin? This is a question which I will attempt to answer in my next article.
--SMM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My next article, Why Should I believe in Christianity? will explore our relationship with God and his son Jesus Christ. This will be followed by Why Should I believe in Catholicism? Which will point to Catholicism as the one true universal church of our Lord.
Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. New Advent Inc, 1996-97.
(online) http://www.newadvent.org
Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble and Rev. Charles Carty. Radio Replies. Vol. 1 and 3. Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers Inc, 1979. 3 vols. 1942-1979.
This article, if used intact, may be distributed and posted on other websites without the author’s permission. If any part of the article is used in a quote or used in part, it must be accompanied by a link or written reference to this website’s internet address: www.geocities.com/athens/academy/1649.
Taken From, http://www.catholic.com/library/cag_ecclesia_de_eucharista.asp
Ecclesia de Eucharistia
THE PURPOSE OF THE ENCYCLICAL
“In some places, the practice of eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives that, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation.
“It is my hope that the present encyclical letter will effectively help to banish the dark clouds of unacceptable doctrine and practice, so that the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery” (10).
In April 2003, Pope John Paul II released the fourteenth encyclical of his pontificate, Ecclesia de Eucharistia. It focuses “on the Eucharist in its relationship to the Church.”
The importance of the topic for all Catholics, the Pope explains, is that “the Church draws her life from the Eucharist . . . The Second Vatican Council rightly proclaimed that the Eucharistic sacrifice is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’ ‘For the most holy Eucharist contains the Church’s entire spiritual wealth: Christ himself’” (EDE 1; cf. Lumen Gentium 11; Presbyterorum Ordinis, 5). He emphasizes that “the Eucharist, as Christ’s saving presence in the community of the faithful and its spiritual food, is the most precious possession that the Church can have in her journey through history” (EDE 9).
Yet today correct doctrine and practice regarding the Eucharist is threatened. While noting positive signs of eucharistic faith and love in the Church, he acknowledges that “unfortunately, alongside these lights, there are also shadows” (10), which are his reason for writing.
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
One Catholic doctrine that has been under threat is the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Some have tried to portray the Eucharist simply as a fellowship meal among Christians in which we receive Jesus. But it is more. The Pope stresses:
“The Eucharist is a sacrifice in the strict sense, and not only in a general way, as if it were simply a matter of Christ’s offering himself to the faithful as their spiritual food. The gift of his love and obedience to the point of giving his life is in the first place a gift to his Father. Certainly it is a gift given for our sake, and indeed that of all humanity, yet it is first and foremost a gift to the Father” (13).
Against the horizontal or community-centered approach taken in many parishes, the Pope reminds us that the primary dimension of the Eucharist is vertical or God-centered: The Eucharist makes present Christ’s sacrifice in which he gives himself in love to the Father for our sake.
Christ clearly intended the Eucharist to be understood as a sacrifice, as the Pope points out: “In instituting it, he did not merely say: ‘This is my body,’ ‘this is my blood,’ but went on to add: ‘which is given for you,’ ‘which is poured out for you.’ Jesus did not simply state that what he was giving them to eat and drink was his body and his blood; he also expressed its sacrificial meaning and made sacramentally present his sacrifice which would soon be offered on the Cross for the salvation of all” (12).
THE REAL PRESENCE
Another doctrine that has been under threat is the Real Presence of Christ and, in particular, the fact that the bread and wine are transubstantiated. In some places the Real Presence is affirmed while transubstantiation is ignored or denied, leading the faithful to think that Jesus is merely present “in the bread and the wine.” Other times the uniqueness of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is subverted by emphasis on Christ’s presence “in the community,” as if this were equal to his presence in the Eucharist.
To counter these, the Pope emphasizes: “The sacramental re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice . . . in the Mass involves a most special presence that—in the words of Paul VI—‘is called “real” not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were “not real,” but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present’” (15; cf. Mysterium Fidei, 39).
Further, at the consecration the bread and wine cease to exist, leaving only their appearances cloaking the Real Presence of Christ. John Paul II explains: “There remains the boundary indicated by Paul VI: ‘Every theological explanation that seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that, in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine’” (EDE 15; cf. Solemn Profession of Faith, 25).
ADORATION AND EXPOSTITION
At times the horizontal emphasis on “community” and the subversion of the Real Presence have led to an emphasis on the Mass as “an action of the community” to the exclusion of traditional forms of eucharistic devotion outside the Mass. In many places, eucharistic adoration has been discouraged, whether in the form of praying before the tabernacle or before the host in eucharistic exposition.
Against these tendencies, the Pope reminds us that “the worship of the Eucharist outside of the Mass is of inestimable value for the life of the Church” (EDE 25).
He exclaims: “It is pleasant to spend time with him, to lie close to his breast like the beloved disciple and to feel the infinite love present in his heart. If in our time Christians must be distinguished above all by the ‘art of prayer,’ how can we not feel a renewed need to spend time in spiritual converse, in silent adoration, in heartfelt love before Christ present in the Most Holy Sacrament? How often, dear brother and sisters, have I experienced this, and drawn from it strength, consolation, and support!” (25).
The Pope underscores that “this practice, repeatedly praised and recommended by the Magisterium, is supported by the example of many saints” and states that pastors must encourage it, including by their own example: “It is the responsibility of pastors to encourage, also by their personal witness, the practice of Eucharistic adoration, and exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in particular, as well as prayer of adoration before Christ present under the eucharistic species” (25).
THE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD
The Eucharist cannot be consecrated without a validly ordained priest. Yet some have tried to blur the line in the Catholic Church between the clergy and the laity. This has been done by overemphasizing the role of the congregation in the Mass, sometimes even encouraging lay people to say the words of the Eucharistic Prayer. Other times it has been done by trying to normalize having lay people in pastoral roles in parishes that lack a priest.
Against these tendencies the Holy Father emphasizes that the Eucharist “is a gift that radically transcends the power of the assembly. . . . The assembly gathered together for the celebration of the Eucharist, if it is to be a truly eucharistic assembly, absolutely requires the presence of an ordained priest as its president” (29).
“It is the ordained priest who, acting in the person of Christ, brings about the eucharistic sacrifice and offers it to God in the name of all the people. For this reason, the Roman Missal prescribes that only the priest should recite the Eucharistic Prayer, while the people participate in faith and in silence” (28).
In the case of parishes that lack a priest and use laity to lead Communion services, the Pope emphasizes: “When a community lacks a priest, attempts are rightly made somehow to remedy the situation so that it can continue its Sunday celebrations. . . . But such solutions must be considered merely temporary, while the community awaits a priest.
“The sacramental incompleteness of these celebrations should above all inspire the whole community to pray with greater fervor that the Lord will send laborers into his harvest. It should also be an incentive to mobilize all the resources needed for an adequate pastoral promotion of vocations, without yielding to the temptation to seek solutions that lower the moral and formative standards demanded of candidates for the priesthood” (32).
Those laity who do serve in such parishes “have a responsibility, therefore, to keep alive in the community a genuine hunger for the Eucharist, so that no opportunity for the celebration of Mass will ever be missed, also taking advantage of the occasional presence of a priest who is not impeded by Church law from celebrating Mass” (33).
PROTESTANT SERVICES
The blurring of the fact that a validly ordained priest is needed to celebrate the Eucharist has led some, out of a well-meaning but misguided sense of ecumenism, to treat Eucharists as valid among Protestant groups, which lack the sacrament of holy orders.
Against this the Pope argues: “The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made toward full visible unity” (30).
“Catholics may not receive communion in those communities that lack a valid sacrament of orders” (46).
In the same way, the Pope stresses, Catholics cannot satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending Protestant services: “It is unthinkable to substitute for Sunday Mass ecumenical celebrations of the word or services of common prayer with Christians from the aforementioned ecclesial communities, or even participation in their own liturgical services. Such celebrations and services, however praiseworthy in certain situations, prepare for the goal of full communion, including eucharistic communion, but they cannot replace it” (30).
RECEIVING COMMUNION
Eucharistic Communion is both an expression and an intensifier of communion with the Church. As a result, there are limits to who can receive Communion. In Ecclesia de Eucharistia, John Paul II points out that communion with the Church is both visible and invisible, and both are needed to receive the Eucharist.
Visible communion with the Church “entails communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments, and in the Church’s hierarchical order” (35)—in other words, accepting Catholic doctrine, receiving the Church’s sacraments, and being subject to its governance. In short, being a faithful Catholic.
Invisible communion with the Church, “in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves.” Union with God is achieved through the state of grace, which is thus indispensable to receiving eucharistic Communion. Though some have tried to deny this or to water down the fact that every mortal sin destroys the state of grace, it remains true.
Thus the pontiff states that “along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that ‘anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before coming to communion. ’ I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent . . . affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, ‘one must first confess one’s sins, when one is aware of mortal sin’” (36; cf. CCC 1385).
This means that some Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion. This is a particularly sensitive issue when it comes to those who live in objectively immoral situations, such as invalid marriages. These can arise when a Catholic marries outside the Church without a dispensation or remarries after divorce without an annulment.
In regard to such cases, the Pope stresses: “The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct that is seriously, clearly, and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who ‘obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ are not to be admitted to eucharistic communion” (EDE 37; cf. CIC 915).
NON-CATHOLICS AND COMMUNION
Because non-Catholics lack visible communion with the Church, it is not normally possible for them to receive Communion at Mass. However, there are certain situations in which they can. The pontiff explains that “in this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion that remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established” (EDE 45).
The required conditions are set forth in the Code of Canon Law. In the case of Eastern Christians, who have valid Eucharists, the Code provides that they may receive reconciliation, Communion, or the anointing of the sick “if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed” (CIC 844 §3).
In the case of Protestant Christians, however, the requirements are more extensive. Due to the absence of valid holy orders in their communities, Protestants do not have valid Eucharists. They also frequently do not share the Church’s beliefs concerning the Eucharist.
As a result, the Code provides that “if the danger of death is present or other grave necessity, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops, Catholic ministers may licitly administer these sacraments to other Christians who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and on their own ask for it, provided they manifest Catholic faith in these sacraments and are properly disposed” (§4).
In his encyclical, the Pontiff stresses that “these conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases. . . . The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions—who have a right to our witness to the truth—and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity” (46).
LITURGICAL ABUSE
The Pope is very concerned with the problem of liturgical abuse: “It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses that have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against ‘formalism’ has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the ‘forms’ chosen by the Church’s great liturgical tradition and her magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations that are often completely inappropriate.
“I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated” (52).
The Pope goes on to note that “priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities that conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church” (52). He also warns that consequences are forthcoming for those who refuse to celebrate the liturgy properly, stating: “Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: It is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality” (52).
The document to which he refers is expected out in late 2003. In an interview with Inside the Vatican, Francis Cardinal Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, summarized its message as “the do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace.” Ecclesia de Eucharistia’s emphasis on traditional Catholic faith and practice regarding the Eucharist offers a preview of what is to come.
(Go too, More Truths For more help!)
or
(Encyclical Letters)
or
(Roman Catholics United)
or
(Catholic Vocations)
Stumble!