Holy Trinity Catholic Church: History

The Sacrament of Holy Orders

Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: Thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate."

(CCC 1536)

What is Our History?

The Sacrament of Holy Orders today refers to three ecclesiastical offices: Deacon, Priest and Bishop. They reflect a particular way the Church “ordered” ministry and is the result of a long history of change and development. Ministry is, of course, a necessary dimension in the life of the Christian community. Ministry is always defined in terms of its service to God in the Christian community. As the believing community has changed, so have the specific ministerial structures. Certain elements are an integral part of an “ordained” ministry. These elements are best appreciated by reflecting on the rich development in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition of those ordained to serve.

Beginning with the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), we immediately think of the Jewish priesthood. Early in the history of Israel, the father of each family or tribe, performed the explicitly, “priestly” services of offering sacrifice to Yahweh. Eventually, this ministry became “professionalized” and was associated with the Tribe of Levi.

The Israelite priesthood is generally thought of as a cultic ministry, concerned with the offering of sacrifice. In fact, this was only one of its basic functions. The early priests were also responsible for proclaiming God’s will with respect to both individuals and the community. While the practice of consulting the Urim and Thummin, the casting of lots (I Sam. 14:41-42), today seems archaic and magical, it nevertheless exemplified a prophetic dimension of the priestly ministry.

Deuteronomy 33:10 refers to the Levitical priesthood’s second function, that of teaching. It should not be forgotten that much of the Old Testament material comes from the relatively late “Priestly Collection.” It was the priests who compiled, edited and provided commentary for much of that which eventually became the Old Testament canon. Any reflection, therefore, on the Christian priesthood’s antecedents in the history of Israel should recognize all three functions: 1) the cultic 2) the prophetic and 3) the catechetic.

Much has been made of the New Testament’s silence concerning a specifically Christian “priestly” ministry. Saint Paul is often cited as advocating a plurality of such ministries as apostle, prophet and teacher, while specifically excluding the priest. I Peter, instead of a specific ministerial priesthood, speaks of the universal priesthood of all believers (I Peter 2:9). Most Christians of the early apostolic period still accepted the Jewish priesthood. The Acts of the Apostles make it clear that the Jewish-Christians continued to frequent the Temple and participate in its liturgical life. Thus, the priestly ministry would not really become an issue until (1) the destruction of the Temple ended the Jewish temple cult, (2) the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues, and (3) the rise of a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist in the early Second Century.

Discerning a well-defined ecclesial structure in the New Testament Church is quite difficult. In the Lucan tradition (the Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles) the Apostles, also referred to as “the Twelve,” play a prominent role. Luke does not present the Twelve as missionaries, but as symbolic leaders in the Jerusalem Church with authority to teach. The controversy with the Hellenists (Acts 6: 1-6) also exemplifies the Twelve’s role in the resolution of key Church disputes. However, it is difficult to determine in Luke’s tradition the historicity of his depiction of the Twelve. Clearly for Luke, they had become symbolic figures.

Saint Paul’s notion of “apostle” was decidedly different from that of Luke. For Paul and his communities the apostle was more of a missionary. While Paul obviously maintained influence in the communities he founded, it is evident that these communities had resident elders who were responsible for much of the pastoring. These resident elders became the “presbyter-bishops” of the late 1st and early 2nd Centuries. At this point, the structure of leadership was not well-defined and such terms as “presbyteroi” (elder) and “episkopoi” (overseer) were used interchangeably. The High Priest (“Hiereus”) and only priest in the Christian understanding is Christ. The New Testament uses this term only for Christ and the People of God as a whole. The word “priest” comes from the Latin “presbyter” meaning “elder”.

The Office of Deacon, as one who serves the need of the Greek Christians in the Jerusalem community, is often traced back to the commissioning of certain Hellenists (Acts 6:1-6). However, scholars today question whether these were deacons as we now understand them. Qualities of the deacon were listed in the Pastoral Letters, and other scattered references can be found, but the development of the Diaconate as a distinct ministry occurred in the post-apostolic period.

In the early Patristic Period, we note a solidification of the relatively flexible and diverse structures recounted in the New Testament Church. Development occurred in the role of the “episkopos” (meaning “overseer” from which we derived our title, bishop). This individual generally became the main leader in each Christian Community. As the leader, the responsibility of presiding at Eucharist usually fell to him. “Presbyters” served during this period primarily as a council of advisors to the bishop with little other ministerial responsibility. However, as Christian communities grew, the bishop often delegated responsibility for Eucharistic presidency to his presbyters in small communities. It is this process of delegation, with the bishop as the focus of authority, which led to the development of “monarchical episcopate” (one bishop per geographic area) in the 2nd Century. These assigned roles soon become permanent offices.

The deacon emerged as an assistant to the bishop especially in the liturgy. The deacon in the Patristic Period was in many ways more important than the presbyter. He often served as chief administrative assistant and was involved in both liturgy and the catechesis of catechumens. The deacon also had a role in serving the poor and the sick within the community.

It is also notable that there is evidence of the existence of deaconess, though more commonly in the East than in the West. Apparently they ministered to women in much the same way the deacons ministered to men. Deaconesses were often given the responsibility of assisting the bishop during the baptisms of women and in bringing Eucharist to the sick. Later, the ministry of deaconess was lost in the history of the Church. By the 5th and 6th Centuries, the presbyterate’s responsibilities grew with the Church. This led to the decline and eventual disappearance of the diaconate as anything other than a stepping-stone to priesthood.

Early theology of Holy Orders can be detected through the practices of ordination. Many texts confirm the ancient imposition of hands. This conferral of power and authority had its source in the development of two groups; (1) the local Christian Community and (2) the pastoral group the individual was joining, be they presbyters or bishops. The local community called forth the minister to serve. This was affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon, which decreed that a priest be ordained only for a particular Church. The imposition of hands by fellow presbyters and/or bishops symbolized the acceptance and approval of the universal Church and the empowerment of the minister.

During the Patristic Era, a changing theology of the Eucharist had a profound impact on ordained ministry. A growing appreciation of the sacrificial character of the Eucharistic celebration inevitably led to an emphasis on the priestly role as presider. By the Middle Ages “priesthood” was defined almost entirely in terms of its cultic function. Ordination conferred on the individual the power to “offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice.” The priestly role also led to a concern for ritual purity. This, combined with a negative view of sexuality prominent at the time, led to Church legislation mandating sexual abstinence for priest prior to offering Mass. Mandatory celibacy became a rule in the Western Church in the year 1000 C.E. as a result of the emphasis given to chastity, the monastic movement and the loss of church property through inheritance. The fear of loss of church property constituted to this trend. The priest and monks were called to live an “ideal” life.

An even more significant change in the understanding of priestly ministry concerned the relationship between the priest and the local church. As was mentioned earlier, the Council of Chalcedon in Canon 6 decreed that a priest’s ordination must be connected to the particular community, which called him forth. However, by the Third and Fourth Lateran Councils (12th – 13th Centuries) a radical reinterpretation demanded only that an ordained minister be assured of financial support by some community. The practice of “absolute ordinations” effectively eliminated the early patristic connection between the priest and the local community.

Another issue during the late Middle Ages was the consecration of bishops. The question rose: “Was a bishop’s ordination in fact sacramental or did it involve only the conferral of new juridical authority?” Preoccupation with the power to celebrate the Eucharist conferred in priesthood had led many to question whether episcopal ordination could offer another significant sacramental effect. The Church’s position would not be clear until the Second Vatican Council’s affirmation of the sacramentality of the episcopate.

The theological and structural developments of the late Middle Ages continued intact through the Protestant Reformation. Like many Catholic institutions, the priesthood came under attack by the reformers. The denial of the sacrificial character of the Eucharist would also allow one to deny the need for the cultic priesthood. Some reformers contested the divine institution of the bishop-priestdeacon hierarchical structure. The Church responded to these attacks in the Council of Trent. The Council strongly affirmed the hierarchy, the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, and therefore, priestly ministry. The Council also took steps to correct numerous abuses concerning private Masses, stipends and indulgences. The Council addressed the problem of uneducated clerics by mandating more extensive seminaries. These were established for training prior to ordination. This action reformed priesthood and remained essentially unchanged up to the Vatican Council II.

The Second Vatican Council’s treatment of Holy Orders expanded the view of past Church teaching. Since the sacerdotal ministry had been defined primarily in terms of the administration of the sacraments, the Council emphasized that the priest’s role included proclaiming the Word and pastoral leadership.

Vatican Council II called its ordained ministers to a more pastoral understanding of their calling. Seminary training was to give more attention to the social and behavioral sciences. Pastoral skills in counseling and spiritual direction were to be required of all priests. For, if the sacraments were to be truly effective symbols, their celebration would have to reflect the Church’s total concern for the needs of the faithful; this concern would be manifested outside the church as well as within.

Contemporary theology reflecting on the ministerial diversity of the New Testament began calling the Church to a renewed awareness of the universal priesthood of all baptized believers. [1 Peter 2:9] Vatican II recognized this but also affirmed that the priesthood of the faithful and the priesthood of Holy Orders were different “in essence rather than degree.” The Church’s vision of Holy Orders was expanded as well by the restoration of the permanent deaconate and an increasing emphasis on the pastoral role of the episcopate. An anticipated shortage of ordained ministers began to challenge the Church to reassess its approach to ministry. The absolute identification of all ministry with ordained priesthood was no longer tenable. In a broad sense, all of the faithful by virtue of their baptism and confirmation share in the mission of the Church. Today, more and more of the ministry of the Church is, in fact, being carried out by laity.

Clearly the Church’s need for an ordained ministry will continue. Today, however, the dimensions of that ministry are being broadened as ordained ministers work more in collaboration with the laity. Many speak of the new role of the ordained minister as “enabler” or “minister of ministers.” The Church challenges deacons, priests and bishops to see themselves not only as spiritual leaders and administrators of the sacraments and figures of authority, but as proclaimers of the sacramental reality present in the whole Christian community.

The diocesan office of vocations and The Bishop’s Committee on Vocations, in consultation with the National Conference of Diocesan Vocation Directors (NCDVD) and the Seminary Department of the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA), has developed the following guidelines for Diocesan Vocation Offices. These guidelines concern themselves with the particular vocations of ministry in the Church community.

The diocesan vocation office is a direct extension of the bishop’s ministry in each diocese. As much, the concerns of each office in the country vary according to particular diocesan needs and the specific mandate of the ordinary (bishop).

Along with the Bishop the total faith community is responsible for creating an atmosphere of Christian faith and genuine commitment to Christ and his mission. The Christian family provides the first experience of calling. Priests, deacons, brothers, sisters and others are responsible for attracting new vocations by the joyful and dedicated witness of their lives.

The Diocesan Vocations Board and the Parish Vocation Committee in collaboration with the Diocesan Vocations Office emphasize teamwork and bring the richness of diverse gifts and personalities to a united effort in the service of vocations.

What is Our Policy?

The Director of Church Vocations serves as the liaison person for the diocese in dealing with candidates for holy orders or religious life.

Psychologists, physicians and other professionals who work with candidates and need to contact a diocesan official should ordinarily contact the Director of Church Vocations.

Promoting and recruiting candidates for the ordained ministry and religious life is the responsibility of all members of the Church.

In every parish there is to be established a committee for the promotion and development of church vocations. Such a committee is to be subject to the parish pastoral council and the pastor.

A Diocesan Church Vocations Board is to be established and maintained to screen applicants for seminary or formation to the permanent deaconate. The Church Vocations Board also counsels the bishop of the Diocese of Shreveport concerning the formation of individual men in priesthood and permanent deaconate formation. This includes providing the bishop of the Diocese of Shreveport with a recommendation before each man is ordained. The bishop of the Diocese of Shreveport may also request counsel concerning other issues dealing with screening and formation.

Religious Communities of women should establish their own boards.

In accordance with universal Church law only the diocesan bishop shall approve a man for candidacy or Orders.

Recognizing that priests are needed around the world, but most especially in developing countries, and through a desire not to deprive those countries of ministers, the Diocese of Shreveport does not generally consider applicants from outside the United States for seminary studies. However, all men over the age of eighteen (18) who have lived in the United States for a minimum of three (3) years as resident aliens are encouraged to apply with the Vocations Director.

 

The Sacrament of Matrimony

Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another:

“It is not good that the man should be alone.” The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” i.e., his counterpart, his equal, his closest companion in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help."

Gen 2:18-25

What is Our History?

In the Jewish and Christian Tradition the exchange of the wedding vows before God and community is seen as a sacred moment and the resulting union is regarded as a holy, lifelong covenant. The Christian, and specifically the Catholic Tradition, considers marriage between two baptized persons to be a sacrament - a sign and source of grace - God’s life-giving Spirit of Love. God’s self-revelation in history and most of all in Jesus Christ, makes us aware that God is Love and that all genuine love is from God (1 Jn 4,7 f.). God is the heart and core of love, the source of all true love.

The very first pages of the Sacred Scripture tell us that the human being is created in the image and likeness of God as male and female. Husband and wife together are the reflection, the representation of God in the world. The couple, through the giving and receiving of love, makes visible God’s life giving power which flows out of all creation. The life-long, unconditional, uncompromising commitment of a Christian man and woman to each other is an image of the eternal, unconditional and uncompromising commitment of God to the human family. This commitment reached its completion and consummation in the incarnation of Jesus, God’s Son.

What is Our Policy?

Marriage As A Sacrament

Marriage as a sacrament is a serious and sacred commitment that calls a man and a woman to each other in the most profound and permanent way. Their mutual love is a reminder of the love of Jesus Christ. By the grace of this sacrament, they become able to love one another as Christ loved them. As a married couple, they become a visible sign and reminder of Christ’s love for each other and for all people.

Christian marriage forms the basis of the family, which is properly identified as the foundation of society. Such vision implies certain values and principals. Christian marriage is a vocation and a sacrament of the Church. It is a mutual bond of human love, symbolic of the eternal covenant between Christ and his Church. Marriage requires a level of personal maturity sufficient to ensure the growth of the couple and the proper up bringing of their children.

The cornerstone of our current understanding of this sacrament is the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, the Pastoral Constitution on, “The Church in the Modern World.” In sections 47-52 the Council Fathers speak in rich and inspiring terms of Matrimony as “an intimate partnership of life and love,” and “a covenant of love and fidelity” of “irrevocable personal consent.”

The teachings of the Council signify a significant shift in emphasis from contract to covenant, from a legalistic preoccupation to a more personal concern, and from a static understanding of matrimony to an appreciation of process and gradualism in the marital relationship.

The right to marry is a natural right of high priority. It is not, however, an unrestricted right. It is conditioned by one’s capability to enter marriage as understood in the Catholic tradition; it is conditioned also by the rights and interests of society, both civil and ecclesiastical, and the good of the children to be born.

The Church assists couples in discerning the nature of their love relationship by stressing the gifts of fidelity, exclusivity, and permanence in matrimony. (Canon 1055) Marriage is a process, a journey that includes both expected and unexpected events. The couple is called to move toward greater intimacy and deepened commitment. This commitment explicitly signifies Christ’s presence in today’s world. This commitment is a call to ministry, the spouses for each other and beyond. It is a call to spirituality, hospitality and outreach. It is a call to be a sign and instrument of God’s grace in the world today.

Responsibilities Of The Engaged Couple

A couple desiring to be married is expected to contact the priest/deacon six months prior to the proposed date of their wedding. This interval allows time to prepare well for such a sacred commitment. Only in rare circumstances will exceptions be permitted. The required notification is designed to assure adequate time for assessment of readiness to marry and a fitting catechesis for the celebration of the sacrament.

This requirement will allow for flexibility and for a reasonable cause, if in the prudent judgment of the pastor, marriage preparation can be adequately completed. Only the diocesan bishop, vicar general, or dean may allow a specific period of preparation.

The priest/deacon or designated lay person should meet with the couple as soon as possible after initial contact to establish rapport, to discuss the details of this marriage preparation process and to respond to any question the couple may have. This important part of the process should be handled with pastoral sensitivity and not be reduced to simply “filling out the forms”.

The couple must take an active part in all steps of the guidelines that apply to them. With the assistance of their priest/deacon, they are to:

• identify and cultivate their gifts and strengths
• deal with any areas of difficulty in their relationship
• participate in assessment and preparation
• recognize and an openness to children
• participate in a formal marriage preparation program
• participate in premarital evaluation and counseling when recommended that marriage is essentially characterized by unity, fidelity, permanence

A tentative wedding date may be set at the time of this initial contact with the priest/deacon. Only when the couple has completed the two phases the Marriage Preparation Process will the final wedding date will be confirmed.

Marriage between two Catholics is to take place in the parish church of the bride or the groom. A marriage between a Catholic and a baptized Christian of another tradition should take place in the parish church of the Catholic party unless a dispensation from canonical form has been granted.

A wedding between a Catholic and a person not baptized may be celebrated in a church or in a sacred place. In this case, although the diocesan bishop’s permission is not required, the officiating minister should act prudently in light of the sacred character of ceremony and any additional diocesan guidelines of this subject. For the validity, dispensation from disparity of cult must be obtained from the bishop or the vicar general.

The celebration of a marriage signifies a new dimension of life within the Christian community. It is a time for the couple to publicly witness their union of covenant love and fidelity.

If a couple has given little thought to the significance of the parish church in their wedding plans, this is a special time to call them to a new awareness of the church as symbol of the parish faith community and the site to gather for worship and prayer. This is an important opportunity to call the couple to a new awareness of their married life as part of the sacramental life and of the parish family.

Parish regulations concerning the time and days weddings are celebrated shall be in conformity with diocesan-wide guidelines so that individual parish practices do not appear arbitrary.

For a Catholic marriage in a place other than a church or sacred place permission is required from the diocesan bishop or the vicar general. When a priest/deacon applies for the dispensation from canonical form, he must complete the marriage preparation process before applying for this dispensation. It is also his responsibility to record the marriage and notify the churches of baptism and the chancery. When a priest/deacon is planning to witness a marriage outside the territory of his parish of assignment, he MUST have a delegation from competent authority for validity. Priests in residence, deacons of the parish, and all visiting clergy need delegation for validity.

The Pastoral Responsibilities

Since the theology of the Second Vatican Council characterizes Christian marriage as an “intimate partnership”, a “conjugal covenant” of life and love, it is evident that effective pastoral preparation for couples expressing the desire to marry in the Catholic Church must be given special emphasis. Young people, in particular, need to be invited to move beyond romance or physical attraction to a sound foundation of love and commitment.

The Church has the pastoral obligation to assist those desiring to marry to make a prayerful and mature judgment concerning their marriage. In particular, the priest/deacon, who plans to witness a marriage, is personally responsible for the complete marriage preparation process. He has the serious moral and ministerial responsibility to assist the couple in understanding the meaning of Christian marriage in its human, spiritual, sacramental and canonical aspects, and to provide a liturgical experience that truly celebrates and manifests the momentous step that the couple is taking.

A positive attitude on the part of the priest/deacon toward the couple is the first step in pastoring the engaged. The priest/deacon who allows himself to be inspired and renewed by the enthusiasm of this love will find the preparation sessions a moment of grace for all.

The faithful in each parish share in the pastoral responsibility to help engaged couples prepare for their life together. Married couples have a particular responsibility to witness the holiness of their sacramental lives of intimacy, unity, self-sacrificing love and commitment. They may, therefore, be invited to participate actively in the marriage preparation of engaged couples in their parish.

Married couples have credibility in speaking to the engaged about the realities of married life and love. They also need the affirmation and guidance of the priest/deacon to deepen their understanding of the mystery of married love and the covenant of matrimony. The role of the priest/deacon is to provide opportunities for these married couples to come together for prayer, study, discussion, and mutual support. Thus, married couples can share the responsibility for marriage preparation.

The Church recognizes the unique and vital role of parents in the psychological, social, moral and spiritual development of their children. Renewal in the Church has included attempts to make sacramental preparation more family-centered. Parents are, therefore, encouraged to respond to the invitation of the priest/deacon to participate actively in the assessment and preparation of their children for marriage in the Church whenever possible. The best remote preparation by parents takes place in the family where their children experience the love their parents express to each other and to them.

The Marriage Preparation Process

The Marriage Preparation Process consists of THREE PHASES:

PHASE ONE

PHASE ONE is to be COMPLETED WITHIN 30 DAYS from the initial contact. In the event that the marriage is delayed, the couple would know three to five months prior to their tentative wedding date.

The following tasks may be accomplished in one or more sessions where the priest/deacon or designated lay-minister should:

• Establish rapport with the couple making sure each is free to marry and providing prayer, support and counsel at this most important time in their lives.
• Examine their motives for marriage and relationship with the Church.
• Explore any special circumstances that may affect marriage, for example: age, cultural background, pregnancy, military service, physical or emotional problems, levels of faith and religious issues.
• Explain the Marriage Preparation Process.
• Obtain personal information, explain what other documentation is needed, and determine whether any dispensations or permissions will be necessary.
• Administer PREMARITAL REFLECTION INSTRUMENT like FOCUS to assist in beginning the assessment of the couple’s readiness to marry.

PHASE TWO

The priest/deacon or designated minister should discuss the results of the premarital reflection instrument and the strengths and weaknesses of the couple’s communication process.

Assure the couple that the instrument is not a test but is intended to be an effective guideline for worthwhile conversation. Explain that the results are being discussed in an effort to identify strengths and weaknesses in the couple.

Through the use of the pre-marital instrument, the couple can come to recognize that there are different ways of communication.

Examine the sacramental aspects of their human covenant.

“Authentic married love is taken up into divine love and is ruled and enriched by the redemptive power of Christ and the salvific action of the Church …” (Church in the Modern World, No. 48). This love involves the good of the whole person, the spouses, and the whole Church. Remember, marriage, as understood by the Catholic Church, is not just for a couple, but also for the entire community of the faithful. This emphasis in the theology of marriage is consistent with the claims of contemporary sociology that this is the first age in which people marry and remain in marriage because they love each other. And so there is this emphasis on the mutual exchange of love as constituting the sacrament of marriage, on married love as the source of the institution of marriage, and on the need for growth in this love in order to bring the sacrament to its full realization.

The one preparing the couple for marriage must assess their readiness for marriage and complete the Pre-Nuptial Questionnaire.

The priest/deacon or designated minister has the important task of assisting the engaged couple in assessing their readiness for marriage. At this time, it is necessary that the minister be clear about what is being assessed, namely the couple’s:

• PRESENT STATE OF MATURITY, considering age, experience, and life experiences;
• POTENTIAL for personal growth in responsibility, relationship and intimacy, parenthood;
• CAPACITY to commit themselves to a lifelong marriage to each other.

Begin the liturgical wedding plans and present to them the parish guidelines. Inform the couple of the expenses that may occur. During PHASE TWO, the priest/deacon will make the decision to PROCEED or DELAY the marriage. If he proceeds, the wedding date will be confirmed and the process continues. If his decision is to delay the marriage, he will follow the procedure found in DELAY OF MARRIAGE.

If conflict of a personal nature is present between the priest/deacon and the engaged couple during the assessment process, they should mutually agree that another priest/deacon continue the marriage preparation process. This does not apply when the priest/deacon determines to delay the marriage for a good reason.

Couples who have been delayed by one priest/deacon frequently seek assistance for marriage from another priest/deacon. Since the reasons for the delay will vary in each case, pastoral considerations require a prudent investigation into the circumstances of the original delay.

PHASE THREE – Attending a marriage Preparation Program

FORMAL MARRAGE PREPARATION presents the essential human and Christian aspects of marriage. The couple becomes aware of the total dimensions of the marriage. Formal Marriage Preparation includes reflection on the nature and sacramentality of marriage, married love and family life, couple prayer, marital responsibilities, communication within marriage, personal expectations, and openness to the possibility of children and other practical considerations.

It is important that the priest/deacon or designated minister know all the available formal marriage preparation programs within the diocese. It is important that an overview of each program be given so that the program, which best fits the couple’s needs may be chosen.

If participation as a couple is impossible by reason of special circumstances (for example: military service, out-of-state residence), such persons must obtain like preparation in their own localities in dialogue and cooperation with the priest/deacon who will perform the ceremony. If a couple is unable to attend any formal preparation program, the priest/deacon is responsible for marriage preparation.

In the final Preparation Process the priest/deacon or designated minister will discuss with the couple what they have learned and experienced at their formal marriage preparation program, their understanding of sacrament in light of their formal preparation, and their responsibilities as members of God’s people, as spouses and future parents. (ref. Church in the Modern Worldno. 48)

Complete all documentary requirements. As appropriate, grant permission for mixed marriage and/or apply for appropriate permissions or dispensations.

Answer any questions the couple may have and finalize the wedding liturgical options and discuss the wedding rehearsal, music, etc.

A Delay Of Marriage

A priest/deacon may not lightly delay the marriage of a parishioner who is free to marry in the Church. A priest/deacon may recommend that the marriage be delayed only for a just cause. [see Canons 1083-1094]

In those cases where the priest/deacon has decided that the celebration of Matrimony is to be delayed, the priest/deacon will inform the couple and offer to help them overcome the obstacles to their readiness for marriage. The priest/deacon must record the reason for delay in the prenuptial questionnaire and notify, in writing, the pastor of both parties of the reason(s) for the delay. Until such matters are remedied by continuing dialogue and/or counseling where called for, he cannot proceed with marriage plans.

When this occurs, the possibility of alienation of the couple from the Church may be minimized if, from the very start, the priest/deacon is careful to explain to the couple that these guidelines are ones which are calculated to protect the rights and happiness of those involved and not arbitrarily to infringe on them. In the event of a temporary postponement of the marriage, the couple will be offered the continuing concern of the Church so that they will not be left with the false impression that the Church has abandoned them. They will be encouraged to participate in parish liturgy as an engaged couple while the postponement is in effect.

A priest/deacon should not recommend a civil union where the sacrament of Matrimony has been delayed. If the engaged couple cannot be persuaded to postpone their wedding and indicate that they will marry outside the Church, the priest/deacon will not look upon such an attempted marriage as simply the lesser of two evils. If the engaged couple is judged not ready for marriage, then any union, even a merely civil one, could be a mistake. A priest/deacon is to do all he possibly can to persuade such a couple not to enter any kind of union at that particular time.

If the couple does not accept the decision, which has been made and expresses the intention of making other arrangements, the couple must be advised that the Church will not approve their action. The couple must be advised of the right to appeal. (see pg. 14)

Special Circumstances

Due to the varying backgrounds of couples requesting marriage today, circumstances are often present that warrant additional pastoral concern:

The Marriage Of Minors

It is important that the couple understand the degree of maturity necessary for a serious, permanent commitment. When either of the parties is a minor (prior to his/her 18th birthday) at the time they make their intention to marry known to the priest/deacon, the decision to proceed may be given by the priest/deacon. This decision may be made ONLY AFTER consultation with the parents or guardians of both parties and a diocesan evaluation process has been completed. According to Church Law, those females who are not yet fourteen years of age and those males not yet sixteen years of age are not able to enter a valid marriage in the church. (c, 1083). The laws of the State concerning age must also be respected.

Pregnancy

Pregnancy must be considered equally as grave a reason for not contracting marriage as for contracting marriage. A couple needs the time and opportunity to assess their reasons and readiness for marriage exclusive of the pregnancy. Pregnancy of itself, therefore, shall constitute no exception to the regulations concerning the setting of the date of the wedding.

Different Faiths

Since the unity of the spouses is a primary goal in marriage, couples of different faiths will be offered special consideration. The couple is to be helped to identify potential problems and work out shared plans to address special needs, clarify or update their understanding of Catholic beliefs and practices, discuss the practical implications regarding faith practice, the formation of children and dealing with the feelings of family members. A cooperative effort between clergy of both faith communities is encouraged.

Validation

A validation is the exchange of consent in marriage, as it would have taken place had it been celebrated in the Church, although the solemnity may be omitted. The result is a valid marriage in the Church from the moment of the celebration.

If a couple has attempted marriage contrary to the laws of the Church or is seeking validation of an otherwise invalid marriage, they must follow the marriage preparation process described herein. The priest/deacon preparing the couple is to adjust these guidelines according to the special circumstances of the couple.

Pastoral discretion and sensitivity are essential in cases involving church validation of a civil marriage. The priest/deacon will need to determine reasons why the couple is seeking validation.

Regardless of the age of the couple, the request for validation provides an opportunity for a pastoral meeting between priest/deacon and the couple. A younger couple that has not completed a premarriage preparation program should be required to do so according to these guidelines. A couple civilly married for many years may require a different program handled privately by the priest/deacon or some other marriage preparation program suited to their needs.

Remarriage

Couples who are entering a subsequent marriage are provided special consideration owing to their differing circumstances and past experiences with marriage. Those who have been married before may not be immediately free to enter a subsequent marriage in the Church. The priest/deacon will address the circumstances of each particular situation and assist the couple accordingly. The celebration of marriage, after an annulment, differs from the first marriage in that it should be more subdued, prayerful and without much fanfare.

Living Together

If, either from public knowledge or by frank admission of the couple, a priest/deacon knows that the couple is living together before their upcoming marriage, he must approach the premarital process with extreme pastoral care and delicacy.

Pope John Paul II encourages priests/deacons to take a “patient and loving” attitude toward couples living together without Church marriages. He has said that pastors must “never tire of telling people who live together that they should not consider themselves separated from the Church.” Rather, he has said, “approach people living together with discretion and respect and strive through patient and loving action to remove the impediments and smooth the road toward regularizing the situation.”

Appeal And Exceptions

If the marriage is delayed, the couple may appeal to the diocesan bishop, but only through the channels established at the diocesan level. Final determination rests with the diocesan bishop. The approval of the diocesan bishop is required for a priest/deacon to proceed with a marriage after the marriage has been delayed by another priest/deacon.

The length of the preparation is at the discretion of the diocesan bishop and is preferably six (6) months, but no less than four (4) months.

Other exceptions to these guidelines and their procedures are solely at the discretion of the diocesan bishop.

Guidelines For Interviewing Couples Of Different Faiths

• Have you discussed your individual needs regarding participation in your own church?
• What difficulties might arise around your individual needs for participation? How do you expect to deal with these difficulties?
• Do you worry that your future spouse’s participation in his/her church will cause problems between you?
• Do you believe that you might have to give up your religion in order to avoid conflict between you concerning religion?
• Do you agree concerning child bearing and the education of children?
• Have you discussed how you will handle church customs and sacramental preparation for your children?
• How do you plan to share your religion, your customs and worship with your children?
• Are you comfortable with the decisions you have made as a couple concerning your worship practices? Will you worship together?

A retreat-type weekend for the engaged is offered at least twice a year in the diocese. The weekend is developed and facilitated by a team consisting of married couples, and diocesan/parish staff. 

The Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick

“Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, and you may be healed. The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful.”

James 5:14-16

What is Our History?

The Sacrament of Anointing is a sacrament of healing and of forgiving. Both have their origin in the life and works of Jesus. All four Gospels recount healing “miracles” performed by Christ. The Gospels also provide a context for understanding the significance of these works. The evangelists clearly wish to avoid portraying Jesus solely as a “healer.” The closely connected healing miracles and exorcisms in the Gospel of Mark are cast in cosmic settings to demonstrate Jesus’ power over evil, sickness, and even death. For Matthew, Jesus’ miracles signaled the advent of the Messianic Age. Luke’s re-telling of Jesus’ healing ministry is particularly sensitive to our Lord’s compassion. John does not use the term “miracle” but calls the wondrous deeds of Jesus “signs” which tell us who Jesus is and what he is for us. John and those so disposed could perceive the true identity of Jesus and come to believe. In each Gospel, the miracles reveal something about the identity of Jesus.

The New Testament mentions a healing ministry in the early Church. James 5:14- 15 specifically speaks of an anointing of the sick performed by leaders in the community. Many scholars also assume that Mark 6:13 actually reflects the early Church’s practice of anointing. However, while a healing ministry did exist both in the life of Jesus and in the early Church, there was as yet no set form for a sacrament of healing. Paul’s Corinthian correspondence implies the presence of a charismatic gift of healing, while James’ epistle infers a more ecclesiastical healing ministry.

References to Christian healing (usually by prayer and an anointing with oil) by both Hippolytus and Tertullian make it clear that this ministry continued during the early Patristic Period. In the 3rd and 4th Centuries, however, Origen and John Chrysostom interpreted the passage in James as a reference to spiritual rather than physical healing. This spiritual/physical dichotomy would have been foreign to the Jesus, who as a Jew, would have viewed healing as affecting the whole person.

A switch happened from prayer of faith accompanied by anointing. Now prayer over the oil takes precedence. Ceasarius of Arles refers to holy oil as “the medicine of the Church.” Christians used it to anoint one another, as well as themselves. Its use was highly unstructured. At times it was drunk. At times it was used to rub on the diseased or painful parts of the body. For many Christians of the Patristic Period, holy oil replaced magical means of healing formerly used in pagan contexts. It was used to put demons to flight. The same oil used to anoint the sick was also used for exorcism on cattle, in stables, and in dangerous places. Pagan folk medicine was christianized.

In the early 5th Century Pope Innocent I wrote to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio concerning anointing (Denz.- Schon. 216). He said that oil prepared by the bishop could be used not only by the priests, but also by the laity whenever there was need for anointing. In the late Patristic Age, the laity were still ministers of this rite, along with the clergy. The effects of anointing with holy oil continued but diversity of opinion concerning its use grew.

The most dramatic shift in the theology of anointing came during the Carolingian Period. In the rituals for the pastoral care of the dying, one received the Sacrament of Penance followed by anointing. At the time of Charlemagne, anointing followed the Sacrament of Penance. By the 10th Century Penance and anointing was commonly received only by those on their deathbed. In this rite the reception of the Eucharist followed. Soon the order of these “Last Rites” changed, and the anointing was done after Viaticum (so named because the final reception of Eucharist was to be “food for the journey”. This anointing was called “Extreme Unction” from the Latin extrema unctio, the “Last Anointing”. What once had been the Sacrament of Healing was becoming a sacrament of the dying. Because of this new association of anointing with the Sacrament of Penance, the administration of anointing became reserved to the clergy. This clericalization of ministry also fitted well into the class-consciousness of feudal society.

By the 12th Century, all references to physical healing were dropped from the prayers, and the sacrament took on an increasingly penitential character. Prayers for the forgiveness of sins were recited in place of the earlier prayers for healing. Previously, only the part of the body in need of healing was anointed. Now it had become a practice to anoint each of the five senses, the hands and the feet, reflecting the idea that the senses were the principal causes of sin. However, even though references to physical healing were no longer found in the prayers, it was not completely forgotten. In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council, with an awareness of psychosomatic realities that is surprisingly modern, decreed that doctors should call the clergy to minister to the sick, because sickness is sometimes related to sin. The council recalled the Jesus warned the paralytic he had cured, “Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you.” (John 5:14)

This emphasis on the forgiveness of sins nevertheless created a theological problem concerning the unique effects of the sacrament. The Church already viewed Penance as the sacrament of forgiveness. Several Franciscan theologians speculated therefore that Extreme Unction specifically forgives only venial sins. Some Dominican theologians felt that the Sacrament of Anointing eliminates the “remnants of sin,” sinful habits which may remain even after the guilt has been forgiven. Both understandings eventually were incorporated into the scholastic theology of the sacrament.

In the 16th Century, the Council of Trent made an effort to restore the earlier meaning of anointing. Bishops overruled a first draft proposal which limited the sacrament “only to those who are in their final struggle and who have come to grips with death.” Instead, the final draft said that anointing is to be used for the sick, particularly those who are dangerously ill. Trent’s listing of the effects of the Sacrament of Anointing reflects a rich appreciation for the physical and psychological as well as the spiritual dimensions of the human person. In spite of this, anointing continued to be viewed by the faithful as a sacrament for the dying.

The Liturgical reform called for by Vatican Council II continued the reform of the sacrament. The prayer recited during the anointing again made reference to physical healing. The Council encouraged anointing at the onset of illness rather than only when one was at the point of death. Instead of anointing the five senses, the priest now anoints the forehead and hands. Furthermore, whereas anointing was part of the last rites, it was now to precede Viaticum. Viaticum, rather than anointing, is the principal Sacrament for the Dying.

Perhaps the most significant post-conciliar reform concerns the context in which the Sacrament of Anointing is addressed. The new Rite of 1983 and the new Code of Canon Law speak of anointing as one element in the pastoral care of the sick. Consideration is given to the complementary dimensions of such pastoral ministry as frequent visitation by a priest sharing a Scripture reading, prayer with the sick, counseling, Eucharist, and the Sacrament of Penance (Reconciliation). Furthermore, a sensitivity is assumed for the concerns and needs of the family of the sick and dying.

Theologically, these changes represent a return to the holistic notion of the human person embraced by the Hebrew people. Inner and outer healing are considered the principal effects of the sacrament and both are intimately connected.

Even the dimension of forgiveness, which the Church attached to the sacrament in the beginning of the Second Millennium, can be understood as contributing to the healing of the whole person. Mark made this connection in his re-telling of the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). In this account, Jesus forgives sins even as he heals. The physical healing is a sign of the spiritual healing. More importantly, this integral healing is rooted in the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. By grounding this sacrament in the Paschal Mystery we are able to see the relationship of the Sacrament of Anointing, and all sacraments, to the redemptive work of Christ through the Church.

What is Our Policy?

The Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick should be part of the overall care and concern of the Church for the sick of the community. This care includes visits to the sick and prayers for their well-being.

The Sacrament of Anointing is appropriate for those whose health is seriously impaired by sickness, or for those weakened by advanced age. This includes persons who are seriously ill whether at home, in hospitals or in nursing homes, as well as sick children who are old enough to experience benefit from the sacrament.

The nature of this sacrament asks for celebration at the beginning of a serious illness. To postpone anointing conveys the faulty impression that this is a sacrament for the dying.

The Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick should be celebrated at the beginning of a serious illness. Viaticum, celebrated when death is close, will then be better understood as the last sacrament of Christian life. (PCS 175).

The actual time of the anointing should be chosen in consultation with the family and the sick person so that a convenient time may be chosen for all to participate. It should be done before scheduled surgery.

The Sacrament of Anointing may be celebrated in the sick person’s room, at home or in the hospital. It may also be celebrated in the parish church or hospital chapel. Consideration should be given to the condition of the patient, others in the room, the space available and the needs of a real celebration.

If the sick person(s) wishes to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance, provision for this is made prior to the celebration of anointing.

The Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick may be repeated if the sickness recurs or if the condition becomes more serious.

Persons who are already dead are not to be anointed. Rather, the priest will say the “Prayer after Death.” (PCS, #221)

It is recommended that the priest be prepared to celebrate the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick when visiting the sick in a hospital or nursing home. Diocesan guidelines for Nursing Home Ministry (Diocesan Journal, IV, 10, 13, February 1990) recommend communal anointing on at least a quarterly basis.

Anointing of the Sick will be celebrated in parishes at least once or twice annually during Mass after appropriate preparation of the congregation. On these occasions it is desirable that a special effort be made to bring shut-ins and residents of nursing homes to the parish church, if their condition permits. On such occasions the sick, surrounded by the Church in the person of their family or friends, can receive special support and encouragement from the faith community. (NCD, #128).

This celebration may occur during Ordinary Time, even on Sunday. Appropriate readings are found in the Lectionary (2nd Edition #s 790-795), and in the Pastoral Care of the Sick Rites of Anointing and Viaticum, pp. 286 ff.

“All baptized Christians who are able to receive communion are bound to receive viaticum by reason of the precept to receive communion when in danger of death from any cause. Priests with pastoral responsibility must see that the celebration of this sacrament is not delayed, but that the faithful are nourished by it while still in full possession of their faculties.” (PCS 27)

The Sacrament is intended for those seriously ill because of sickness or old age. Patients undergoing surgery on account of serious illness, or elderly persons who are in a weak condition though not seriously ill, and children who are seriously ill and have sufficient understanding may receive this sacrament. Since this is a departure in many respects from the Church’s practice in the past, catechesis is imperative concerning the Christian interpretation of sickness and healing. (CCC 1491-1532)

The Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is intended to comfort the sick in time of anxiety, to encourage them to fight against illness and perhaps to restore them to health.

The sacrament of anointing may be repeated:

• When the sick person recovers after being anointed and, at a later time becomes sick again.
• When, during the same illness, the condition of the sick person becomes more serious.
• In the case of a person who is chronically ill, or elderly and in a weakened condition, the sacrament of anointing may be repeated when in the pastoral judgment of the priest the condition of the sick person warrants the repetition of the sacrament (PCS #102)

The practice of Indiscriminately anointing numbers of people simply because they are ill or have reached an advanced age is to be avoided. Only those whose health is seriously impaired by illness, or old age are proper subjects for the sacrament. (PSC 108)

Sick children are to be anointed if they have sufficient use of reason to be strengthened by the Sacraments. In case of doubt, the Sacrament of Anointing is to be administered. (PCS 12, CIC 1005)

For persons who no longer have the use of their faculties -- but as Christian believers would have asked for the sacrament – may be anointed. (CIC 1006)

Persons who are already dead are not to be anointed. Instead the priest should pray for them and for strength for their families. Samples of appropriate prayers are found in the ritual.

Christians who regain their health after anointing give thanks to God for this gift.

 

The Sacrament of Penance (Reconciliation)

“Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God’s mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors their conversion.”

(LG11.2/CCC 1422)

What is Our History?

The Sacrament of Penance in our tradition can be traced back to the people of Israel. The Hebrews saw the Mosaic and later Davidic covenants as constitutive of their relationship with Yahweh. In the Hebrew Scriptures, sin was an act of infidelity which alienates one from God. While sin was spoken of as a breaking of the Law of Moses, it was not so much a juridical offense as an offense against a covenant. To break the covenant was to break relationships with God and affected not only the individual but affected the whole people. In the event of such a sin, Jewish ritual and legislation provided for reconciliation of the sinner to God and to the community that was hurt by the sin. This notion of alienation and reconciliation would later be accepted into the early Christian community.

A distinctly Christian understanding of reconciliation sprang from the power of the Christ-event itself. The Death and Resurrection of Jesus was God’s definitive act of reconciliation with an alienated world. The first sacrament of forgiveness celebrated by the Christian community was Baptism. Through this sacrament of conversion, the individual was symbolically immersed into Jesus’ Death and Resurrection. It was in Baptism that the convert renounced his/her past sins. He/she died to sin and became alive before God and was embraced by the Christian community, the Body of Christ.

Eucharist was also viewed as a sacrament of forgiveness and reconciliation. In fact, it was the principal Sacrament of ongoing forgiveness for the baptized. This was only natural because Eucharist was seen as the representation of Jesus being “broken and poured out” for the forgiveness of sins. It is surprising to note that the Sacrament of Penance was not part of the normal life of the early Church. However, it is a testimony to the power of Baptism that the Christian community felt this sacrament completely freed them from the bonds of sin.

It was not long, however, before the community had to deal pastorally with those who apostasized or committed serious sin. The early Church, experiencing periodic persecution found members of their communities who had rejected the faith under pressure. Since they were already baptized, the Church needed to find some way to reconcile them with the community. What resulted was a long and intense process of reconciliation. Documents in the Second and Third Centuries attest to the practice of granting a one-time post-baptismal forgiveness which required a long period of public penance. By the Forth and Fifth Centuries this came to be known as “canonical penance” because various local councils promulgated a variety of canons to regulate its practice. The penitents were similar to the catechumens. After performing their assigned penitential works, they would be allowed to return to the eucharistic community by a rite known as the “reconciliation of the penitent”.

In the 6th and 7th Centuries, the celebration of the sacrament underwent a dramatic change largely through the influence of Irish missionaries. Primarily, Christianity was brought to Ireland by the monks from Europe. These monks already had practiced, from their life in the monastery, a form of spiritual direction, which frequently included a personal confession of specific sins. When these monks came to Ireland they naturally brought the practice with them. Soon, many of the laity in Ireland also submitted to this private penitential discipline. When the Irish returned to the continent as missionaries, they maintained the practice of this “private confession” which included absolution and the assignment of a satisfaction or “penance.” By the 10th Century the Western Church and had largely replaced public canonical penance.

Such theologians as Thomas Aquinas tried to balance the essential elements of confession, contrition and the priest’s absolution. Others, like Duns Scotus, strongly emphasized only the priest’s absolution. Scotus maintained that sins could be absolved by a priest even if the penitent had only “imperfect” contrition. Absolution itself became the essence of the sacrament.

The Protestant Reformers brought much of this theology under attack. The Church responded by correcting numerous sacramental abuses and by clarifying its theological stance in the Sixteenth Century Council of Trent. The Council taught that sacramental confession was the normal means of forgiveness for all serious sins committed after Baptism and defended the validity of the “integral” confession in which all serious sins must be detailed to the best of one’s ability. The Council also cast the sacramental action in juridical terms, with the priest as judge.

The teaching of the Council of Trent has remained the norm for the Church up to the present time. However the theological and canonical parameters set by the Council left much room for adaptation, however. The Second Vatican Council’s treatment of this Sacrament, along with the subsequently promulgated New Rite of Reconciliation (1973), has exemplified some of the new directions that the Sacrament may take.

While the individual reception of the Sacrament is still recommended (and required for cases of serious sin), provision is made for a more pastoral, face-to-face (without a confessional screen) encounter. In this context, the role of the priest is not only as a representative of Christ but also as a representative of the loving Christian community. The new rite also clearly portrays the priest as healer and guide as much as judge and reflects some of the Sacrament’s roots in monastic spiritual direction.

This restoration of the communal dimension of reconciliation reflected the Church’s appreciation of the complexity of sin. Political and liberation theologians have raised our consciousness to the reality of social sin. This sin, which has its roots in the will of individuals, becomes so imbedded in social structures that the structures themselves stand in need of transformation. As Pope John Paul II has reminded us, no concept of social sin should blind us to the reality of sin’s roots in the human person. However, we do see more clearly that while sin may begin with the individual, its effects impact the rest of the Christian community and even the whole of society.

The Sacrament of Penance has been and is still in a period of transition. Its form and theology have changed throughout the centuries. Yet the Church of Christ has claimed the power to assist in the reconciliation of sinners to God and Church. As Richard McBrien has put it, “A Church which cannot forgive the sins of others against itself is not the Church of Christ.” The “how” of reconciliation should never overshadow the presence of a reconciling Spirit in the Church of Christ.

What is Our Policy?

It is important for all to remember that we, the faithful who have reached the age of reason are bound to confess our grave sins at least once a year. [see Canon 989]

For children preparing for this sacrament we encourage a period of time between First Penance and First Communion in order to make it clear that these sacrament are distinct and one is not simply a preparation for the other. We also emphasize the importance of parental participation in the preparation, catechesis and celebration for this sacrament.

We see the pastor as having the final responsibility to determine the readiness of a child for his or her first celebration of the Sacrament of Penance. Consultation between pastor, catechist, parent and/or child should be required only in instances where doubt exists regarding the readiness of a child.

The preparation and catechesis for the Sacrament of Penance in all parishes of the Diocese of Shreveport shall take in consideration the Revised Rite of Reconciliation. Children and adults will be taught and given opportunities to use scripture in preparation for the reception of the sacrament. They will we taught ways to look upon their lives and to examine their sinfulness. They will learn to reflect upon an Examination of Conscience in order to be open to the Sacrament of Penance.

 

The Sacrament of Eucharist

“The most venerable sacrament is the blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The eucharistic sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, in which the Sacrifice of the cross is forever perpetuated, is the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life.” (Canon 897)

What is Our History?

Any comprehensive understanding of the sacraments must look at the whole of the tradition if the full power of the sacrament is to be brought to bear on the life of the Church. Consequently, a true appreciation of the Eucharist requires that we begin at its roots in the ritual life of the people of Israel.

Some Hebrew Roots

We know from the Old Testament that the people of Israel celebrated their relationship with God through a variety of different sacrificial rituals, which included sin offerings, shared offerings and gift offerings. The shared offering is of particular importance for an understanding of the Eucharist. It usually was a sacred meal, which affirmed the covenantal bond between God and his people. The annual Passover celebration, commemorating God’s liberation of Israel from Egyptian slavery, was such a meal. It was celebrated each spring and includes various prayers of thanksgiving as the story of the first Passover was retold. The meal itself consisted of roast lamb eaten with unleavened bread and wine. Each element in the meal contained rich symbolism rooted in Yahweh’s saving action. This sacred meal soon became one of the principle ways that Israel preserved the story of God’s saving work on its behalf.

In The Time Of Christ

It is most significant that all four Gospels in some way connect Jesus’ final meal with the Passover. It is clear, however, that for the Christian community, this thanksgiving called “eucharist” was much more than Passover commemoration. While the Passover recalled God’s past activity, Jesus gave to the meal a radically new meaning. God had indeed acted in the past, but his saving work was now present in a new and definitive way. Jesus and his presence in the elements of bread and wine was first expressed in the eucharistic narratives found in the Synoptic Gospels and I Corinthians. Paul’s story specifically identifies the Last Supper with Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. The Gospel accounts connect the Lord’s Supper with the Passover meal.

In The Early Church

Early in the Church’s development, the meal sharing bread and wine by a gathering of believers was a more informal fellowship meal. Just as a family or the larger assembly communally celebrated the Passover meal, so the meal shared by the faith community emphasized the importance of communal worship. However, as the local communities grew in size, the sharing of a communal meal became less practical. The meal became more formal, increasing in dominance. As the communal dimensions slowly subsided, the sacrificial understanding of the sacred meal received greater emphasis. The notion of sacrifice was common in the Roman culture and, as mentioned above, was a familiar form of worship for the Jews. The early Christian community did not merely identify Jesus with the eucharistic elements of bread and wine, but they most especially recognized the presence of Jesus with the ritual action of “breaking” and being “poured out.” The occurrence of the Eucharist was an experience of Christ’s death and resurrection, his redemptive action.

In the second and third centuries, the rise of Gnosticism brought the humanity of Jesus under attack. Such gifted apologists as Justin, Irenaeus and Cyprian quickly came to the defense of the Church’s teaching on the humanity of Jesus, at the same time emphasizing the reality of his body and blood in the Eucharist. If the human Jesus suffered and died on the cross, then this human Jesus must be truly present in the Eucharist. Thus began a slow shift in emphasis from Christ’s presence in the ritual action of the Eucharistic meal to Christ’s specific presence in the bread and wine.

In the fourth century another movement, Arianism, challenged Christology from another direction. Arius maintained that though Jesus was the incarnation of God’s Word and no ordinary man, he was not divine. This movement would continue to grow for several centuries. As St. Jerome put it, the world woke up one morning and found itself Arian. In reaction to Arian teachings the Church began to stress the divinity of Jesus. If the earlier Gnosticism caused the Church to stress the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, Arianism caused it to stress the divinity of that real presence. In an effort to preserve an appreciation for the divine presence, the liturgy began to emphasize reverence before the eucharistic elements. Absolutions and washings were required of priests, tabernacles became more ornate, and the people came to be separated from the altar by a railing. Communion was received on the tongue for it was considered irreverent to touch the Host.

The “Mass,” as it came to be called, now was understood as a sacrifice offered for the atonement of sin. Where Christ previously was active in the Eucharist, offering himself for the community, now he was primarily the sacrificial “victim,” being offered to God by the Church.

In The Middle Ages

This change in understanding of Eucharist paved the way for the practice in the Middle Ages of the “votive Mass” – a Mass offered specifically for a certain intention or a petition. With the focus now on the sacrifice of the Mass rather than the sharing of a sacred meal, the presence of a congregation became less important. Because of the growing missionary work of the monasteries, abbots began to demand that their lay monks be ordained. Later these monks began offering votive Masses in the monastery, often without a congregation. Thus arose the practice of “private” Masses – a practice whose abuses would ultimately contribute to the Reformation.

The late Middle Ages were a time of flourishing theological reflection. One common subject concerned the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This presence had long been affirmed by the faithful on an experimental level. But now, these scholastic theologians began speculating on how Christ became present. Earlier, the Fathers of the Church had used such terms as “transmutation,” “transfiguration” and “transelementation” to describe what they thought occurred. But it was one of the greatest theologians in Church history, Thomas Aquinas, who took Hildebert of Tours’ term “transubstantiation” and developed a theology of the Eucharist so comprehensive that it would remain normative for almost 600 years. Simply put, Thomas employed the philosophical categories of Aristotle to describe the Real Presence as a change in the substance or essence of the elements from that of bread and wine to that of Christ. While the substance changed, the accidents or visible form of the bread and wine remained the same. This technical explanation helped account for two very important realities; namely that (1) the faithful clearly encountered the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and (2) that in spite of this encounter, the signs of bread and wine appeared unchanged. This approach represented a dramatic advancement over previous eucharistic theology. Prior to Thomas, most understandings of the real presence were overly physical, and many questioned how Jesus could be unchanged. Thomas described the Eucharist in terms of Christ’s presence both in Heaven and in the Eucharist. He described the Eucharist in terms of Christ’s meta-physical presence.

This development in the Middle Ages was the direct result of both the predominant perception of the Mass as sacrifice and the emphasis on the divine Presence in the Eucharistic elements:

• Lay reception of communion dropped off dramatically.
• The faithful were so awed by the real presence of Christ that they felt unworthy to receive communion.
• The focus on the holy sacrifice of the Mass made reception seem less important.

One could gain the spiritual benefits of the Eucharist through the priest’s offering of the Mass and the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century pointed out the dangerous consequences of such an approach.

During The Renaissance

The Protestant Reformation was a significant event in the history of western civilization. Its effects on Catholic thought and teaching are too numerous to mention. One of the more positive developments was the impetus the Reformation gave to internal Church reform regarding such abuses as the demanding of Mass stipends, multiple abuse of private Masses, lack of reception of communion by lay people and the inappropriate offering of indulgences. The Council of Trent addressed many of these abuses. In order to correct these abuses, Trent developed numerous rubrics with regard to the celebration of the Mass. While this eliminated many of the abuses, it also cast the eucharistic liturgy into one form that remained essentially unchanged until the Second Vatican Council.

The Council of Trent promulgated three documents with regard to the Eucharist that aptly demonstrated the state of Eucharist theology at the time. The first was on Christ’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament, the second on the reception of communion and the third concerned the sacrifice of the Mass. While many abuses were corrected and annual reception of the Eucharist was made mandatory, these three documents reinforced the separation of adoration, Eucharistic communion and sacrifice. What once was a unified sacramental action was now split into three different understandings.

The Vatican Council II To Today

Contrary to the perception of some, Vatican II did not repudiate any of Trent’s doctrines regarding the Eucharist (or any other doctrines). The Church seldom, if ever, repudiates its past; it simply shifts in new directions while holding on to the wisdom of its Tradition. Significantly, the first document promulgated by the Second Vatican Council was the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This document provided an excellent example of the “new” directions that the Council explored. The Constitution consistently used biblical rather than scholastic terminology. By suggesting that the altar be turned so that the priest would face the people. The Laity would share in the prayers of the liturgy, now spoken in the vernacular. In this the Council recovered the biblical notion of a Eucharistic meal. The Mass is now treated as the community’s offering celebrated as a covenantal meal. We are to revere Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, but we are reminded that it is an active presence, one that demands participation, change and conversion. Jesus is not just present; he is present for the Church and its mission.

The Council also reminded us that the Eucharist is a sacrament of initiation. It is an effective symbol of admission and participation in the worship of the community. This initiatory function has its roots in the Jewish practice of having a newly initiated convert offer a sign of full membership in the community.

What is Our Policy?

The restored Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults is for the unbaptized adult’s first reception of the Eucharist. This is an integral part of the catechumenate process. The Rite is also to be used for first reception of Eucharist by unbaptized children who have reached catechetical age.

Adequate and meaningful catechesis regarding the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist must precede the first reception of communion. Parents play a significant role in this area. They must be encouraged to demonstrate participation in catechetical preparation specifically designed for celebration of the sacrament. This may take the form of:

• RCIA
• A parish sacramental preparation program designed for children
• A family catechetical program.
• Should the catechist/pastor have reason to believe that the preparation is inadequate, an interview to discuss this concern will be arranged with the family.

The pastor has final responsibility for determining the readiness of a child for First Eucharist. (Canon 914)

Because pastors are usually not directly involved in the catechesis, parents in consultation with the catechists, are logically the ones to decide if a child is ready for celebration of the sacrament. Every effort should be made to insure that parents accept this privilege and responsibility. Interviews with parents or children are appropriate if the interview encourages a process of mutual discernment. Consultation between pastor and parent and/or child should be required only in instances where serious doubt exists regarding the readiness of a child.

Parents not only have the right but also have the responsibility to be intimately involved in preparing their children for First Communion. Therefore, they participate in the parish adult pre-sacramental catechesis. The parish likewise has the responsibility to provide suitable opportunities for family involvement.

Since each sacrament deserves distinct preparation, catechesis for First Communion is conducted separately from introductory catechesis for the sacrament of Reconciliation.

The significance of the Eucharist is manifested when children and parents within their faith community celebrate it with faith and devotion. Children normally should receive First Eucharist in the parish in which their parents are members. Taking into account the nature of contemporary society, pastors and directors may make allowances to permit a child to receive First Eucharist in a faith community of which his or her family feels a real part – for example: the parish of grandparents and relatives; the parish in which a child celebrates mass with his or her parents; or a parish with a celebration in another culture (Hispanic, Vietnamese) if that is not available in the parish of residence. (A child is not permitted to prepare for First Eucharist in another parish simply because its preparation requirements are more convenient or less stringent.)

When planning group celebrations of First Eucharist, care will be taken that the number of children to receive the sacrament does not preclude the presence of the parish community and the families of the children, in accord with our traditions and the communal nature of the sacrament.