December 2007 Print

Why is it that the reception of Holy Communion does not break the Friday abstinence?

It is certainly true that the Holy Eucharist contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. However, the catechism reminds us that it is under the appearances of bread and wine. This means that when transubstantiation takes place, the substance of the bread no longer remains, and that instead the substance of Christ is present whole and entire. However, the accidents do not change, and remain the accidents of bread and wine. This means that Christ's body is present whole and entire under each particle of the Host, but without all the physical characteristics of the body, namely the height, weight, color, or even the chemical composition. Every aspect of Christ's body that can be measured is absent, for all that man can measure makes up the accidents or external appearances. His body is present in the manner of a substance, the underlying reality behind the appearances.

With this understanding, we can now determine if the Holy Eucharist truly is Christ's flesh, if to partake of it truly is to eat meat, if it really is cannibalism to consume the Holy Eucharist, as the Jews falsely interpreted His words when they cried out: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (Jn. 6:53).

The Blessed Eucharist is most certainly the flesh of Christ, but present in the manner of a substance, as Christ Himself is present, whole and entire, which is what the Holy Eucharist really is. It is not, however, flesh in the common way of understanding, that is with the accidents of flesh, namely its appearance, color, weight, and texture. Consequently it is not cannibalism to consume the Holy Eucharist, nor is it the eating of flesh meat as indicated by the Church's precept of Friday abstinence. It is to be nourished with the entire substance of Christ, His sacred Humanity as well as His Divinity, His human life as one risen from the dead, and His divine life as Son of the Father. It is for this reason that our Divine Savior tells us:

He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed (i.e., true, substantial nourishment for the eternal life of the soul, as symbolized by meat): and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. (Jn. 6:55-57)

 

Are prayers made while in the state of mortal sin useless?

It would seem that prayers offered while in mortal sin, that is in rebellion against God and His law, would be ineffective and useless, for the sinner is not a friend of God, and has nothing supernatural in common with Him.

This is, however, by the grace of the Good Lord, entirely false. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains with precision (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 83, a. 15), there is a twofold efficacy of our prayers, namely that of meriting and that of impetrating. Prayers offered to God in the state of grace are certainly vastly more powerful because they are meritorious, meriting an effectiveness that is infallible, provided that we are asking for graces necessary for our own salvation, and with piety and perseverance. This is the meaning of the wonderfully consoling words of our Divine Savior: "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you" (Jn. 15:7), and of St. John: "Dearly beloved, if our hearts do not reprehend us, we have confidence towards God: And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of Him: because we keep His commandments and do those things which are pleasing in His sight" (I Jn. 3:21-22).

Yet even when a man is not in the state of sanctifying grace the second effect of his prayers still remains, the effect that our prayers have as a petition begging God's help and grace. This can only be attributed to the divine Mercy, but is the whole reason for our justification, for if God did not listen to our prayers when we were dead in our sins, how would we receive the actual graces to accomplish His holy will? This is how St. Thomas puts it:

As to its efficacy in impetrating, prayer derives this from the grace of God, to Whom we pray, and Who instigates us to pray. Wherefore Augustine says: "He would not urge us to ask, unless He were willing to give"; and Chrysostom says: "He never refuses to grant our prayers, since in His loving-kindness He urged us not to faint in praying."

St. Thomas further points out that in the soul that is not in the state of grace, this efficacy of petition or begging derives chiefly from faith,

because it is through faith that man comes to know of God's omnipotence and mercy, which are the source whence prayer impetrates what it asks for. (Ibid., ad 3)

This is most evident in the prayers of sinners that Sacred Scripture tells us were heard, by which prayers the sinners attained justification. This is the case of the publican who went home justified after having prayed "O God be merciful to me a sinner" (Lk. 18:13). It is also the case of the thief whom we call "good" because he converted and was justified on the cross, after having prayed: "Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into Thy kingdom" (Lk. 23:42).

We must not, therefore, minimize the extraordinary and divine power of prayer, even that made when in the state of mortal sin. For this is a power that derives entirely from God's mercy, and it has no limit. Such prayers will be heard on account of the faith and the importunity of the soul begging God's help, grace, mercy, and forgiveness, as our Divine Lord Himself promised when He said:

Ask, and it shall be given to you: seek and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. (Lk. 11:9-10)

No greater service can we render to our neighbors and friends than inspiring and encouraging them to pray to Jesus and through Mary, whatever the state of their soul.

 

 

How does the Confessor determine the penance to give to his penitent in the confessional?

The Council of Trent, in its decree on the Sacrament of Penance, gives the principle for the determination of the penance to be given by the Confessor:

The priests of the Lord ought, therefore, so far as the spirit and prudence suggest, to enjoin salutary and suitable satisfactions, in keeping with the nature of the crimes and the ability of the penitents. (Session XIV, 8, Dz. 905).

This means in practice that the priest is bound to give a heavy penance when the penitent confesses a mortal sin, unless there is a just reason for not doing so, such as the inability of the penitent to do a heavy penance. A heavy penance is a work that would oblige under pain of mortal sin if commanded by the Church, such as five decades of the Rosary, assistance at Mass, a one-day fast. A Way of the Cross would also be a heavy penance. However, shorter prayers are light penances, unless they are enjoined to be done several times over.

The precise determination of the penance is not an easy thing to do, since prudence demands that it be adapted to the condition of the penitent. In this, two grave dangers are to be avoided. The first is for the Confessor to be too lax in giving a very light penance, "lest," as the Council of Trent teaches,

if they should connive at sins and deal too leniently with penitents, by the imposition of certain very light works for grave offenses, they might become participators in the crimes of others. (Ibid.)

Indeed, excessive mitigation of the penance fails to impress on the penitent the need for a true amendment of life, and can lead to routine confessions and repetition of the same sins. The second danger is to be too harsh and demanding on the penitent, so as to give excessively burdensome penances that make Confession disagreeable, that are not accomplished very willingly, and that can turn penitents away from ready and frequent confession.

In general the Confessor ought to err on the side of giving a lighter penance and of being rather too benign than too harsh, for Confession is the sacrament of God's mercy, and he could do much more harm by exceedingly harsh penances than by being too soft. Moreover, it is better that the penitent do a lighter penance more willingly than a heavier penance begrudgingly or with negligence. However, the penitent should want, and can certainly request, a moderately hard penance, providing that he truly is willing to do it, and wants to do it out of a sincere desire to make up for his sins.

One of the great challenges for the Confessor is to avoid routine in the giving of penances. It is an unfortunate but frequent occurrence that the penitent can almost always predict the penance, and that the penance is the same for nearly any sin. In such cases, the penance does not have the full satisfactory value that it could have had. This danger is overcome by the Confessor's effort to apply a remedial penance, namely one which is at the same time a real atonement for sins and an effective remedy, such as imposing almsgiving on the avaricious or mortification on those who commit sins of sensuality. This is what the Council of Trent has to say:

Let them keep before their eyes that the satisfaction which they impose be not only for the safeguarding of a new life and a remedy against infirmity, but also for the chastisement and atonement of past sins. (Ibid.)

The Confessor who is a little creative in this way will think of different ways in which to impose the three chief kinds of penances, or good works, that satisfy for sins. The first kind are works of religion, such as various prayers; the second are works of charity, such as helping the poor and almsgiving; and the third are works of mortification, such as fasting and abstinence. The penitent should not be surprised to receive as a penance some such work. However, he does have the right to say so, if he feels that the penance is too difficult or too demanding for him to accomplish. He can also point out that the priest does not have the right to impose a public penance (which could harm a person's reputation), nor one that is incongruous, inappropriate, or astonishing. Yet all other things being equal, the penitent should thank God for (and even request) a penance which is a remedy for his fault, as also for a penance which is more difficult to accomplish, for it will be more effective in satisfying for his sins.

 

Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments as seminary professor and the US District Superior, he is currently the rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia. Those wishing answers may please send their questions to Q & A, in care of Angelus Press, 2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109.