Final Words on Penance

The proclamation of God’s mercy and forgiveness also formed a prominent part of Saint Paul’s teaching:

God has reconciled us to Himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor 18-20)

The image of binding and loosing in Jewish tradition seems to have been originally used to describe the power of a judge in dealing with an accused person. If the judge found the person guilty, he would order the person to be bound and led off to prison; if he found the person innocent, he would order the person to be loosed from his bonds and released.

In Saint Matthew’s gospel, Jesus uses the same image to describe how the Church is to deal with wayward members. If your brother has offended you, He says, try to work out the problem with him privately. If that does not succeed, bring two or three witnesses.

If he refuses to listen to them, bring the matter to the Church. If the offender will not listen even to the Church, ban him from the community! Jesus assures His disciples that whatever the community binds or looses will be bound or loosed in heaven.

If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 18.18 cf. Mt. 16.19)

In other words, Jesus says to the Church: “When you ban the sinner, God bans him as well. When you reconcile the sinner, God reconciles him. When you keep the sinner bound by his sin, God keeps him bound. When you loose him from his sin, God looses him as well.”

Notice the universal scope of power: “Whatever you bind…Whatever you loose…” God sets no limits on the Church’s power of binding and loosing, forgiving or retaining sins—presupposing, of course, that the person is truly repentant.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Repentance in the Bible

The second parable is that of a woman who had lost a silver coin. Searching high and low, she finally found it. Then she called in her neighbors and said to them: “Rejoice with me! I have found the silver coin that I lost.” Note how this parable also concludes with a word about the great joy in heaven over the conversion of a single sinner: “I tell you, there will be the same kind of joy before the angels of God over one repentant sinner.”

Finally Jesus told the story of the Merciful Father. When the youngest son, after squandering his inheritance in loose living, finally came back home, disgraced and destitute, the Father ran out to meet him, embraced him, and kissed him, and without uttering a word of reproach to his son, instructed the servants: “Quick, bring out the finest robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and shoes on his feet. Take the fatted calf and kill it. Let us eat and make merry because this son of mine was dead and has come back to life. He was lost and now is found!” Again, notice the great joy over the repentance of a single sinner.

In John’s Gospel there is the woman caught in adultery. Jesus forgave with a simple word to go and sin no more. Jesus even forgave on the Cross. As He was dying on the cross he prayed for His enemies. In fact, He prayed for all sinners! He even made excuses for them! “Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing.” The good thief begged Jesus to “remember me when you enter upon your reign.” Jesus replied: “I assure you, this day you will be with me in paradise.” With that word a lifetime of crime was forgiven!

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Penance Continued

Lk. 7. 36-48; The Repentant Woman:

On one occasion when Jesus was reclining at table in the home of Simon the Pharisee, He again revealed His compassion for sinners and His authority to forgive sin. A sinful woman entered and, kneeling at His feet, bathed His feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair, kissing them and anointing them with fragrant oil. Seeing that Simon was scandalized that He should let a woman like this touch Him, Jesus defended her and said to Simon, “Her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love.” He then said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven.” At that the fellow guests began to ask among themselves, “Who is this that He even forgives sins?”

Lk. 15. 1-35; Three Parables of Mercy:

Luke 15, which shows Jesus dining with sinners and pronouncing three parables of mercy, is the richest instruction on mercy in the entire bible. The fact the Jesus, in the context of proclaiming the good news of God’s Kingdom, dined with sinners was itself an act of great significance, especially given the cultural background of contemporary Judaism. It showed that God does not reject the sinner who will accept His offer of renewed hope and friendship. The Scribes and Pharisees criticized Jesus for sitting at table with these violators of the law. In response to their charge, Jesus tells three parables of mercy. Notice the strong theme running through each of them, of great joy in heaven over the conversion of a single sinner.

The first parable is that of a shepherd who had a hundred sheep and lost one of them. He left the ninety-nine to go in search of the one that was lost. When he had found it, he called in his neighbors and said to them: “Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.” Jesus concluded the parable with these significant words: “I tell you, there will likewise be more joy in heaven over one repentant sinner than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to repent.”

Sincerely in Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Penance IV

Jesus describes His own mission as being directed to sinners. When He had called the publican Levi to be one of His disciples and accepted an invitation to dine with Levi and his disreputable friends, the Pharisees were scandalized that Jesus should eat at the same table with notorious sinners and violators of the law. “Why does He eat with such as these?” Overhearing their remark Jesus said to them, “Healthy people do not need a doctor, sick people do. I have come to call sinners, not the self-righteous.” (Mk. 2.17)

A prominent part of Jesus’ teaching was devoted to revealing God’s mercy toward repentant sinners. For example, instead of curing the paralytic Jesus says to the sick man “My son, your sins are forgiven.” Jesus thereby implies that sin is a greater affliction than sickness and that forgiveness of sin is more important than bodily healing. The scribes accused Jesus of blasphemy. Jesus says:

Why do you harbor these thoughts? Which is easier; to say to the paralytic, your sins are forgiven, or to say, Stand up, pick up your mat and walk again? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins I command you Stand! Pick up your mat and go home!

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Penance III

In the synoptic gospels, the account of Jesus’ public ministry begins with a description of John the Baptist calling the people to repent in preparation for the coming of God’s Kingdom. The austerity of John’s life bore witness to his message. Saint Matthew tells us:

In those days John the Baptizer appeared, preaching in the desert of Judea and saying, “Repent! For the kingdom of God is at hand!” It was of him that the prophet Isaiah had spoken when he said, “A voice of one crying out in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight His paths.” John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, and had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. At that time Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole region around the Jordan were going out to him. They were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they acknowledged their sins. (Mt. 3.1-12)

The Synoptics describe Jesus’ basic message in very much the same terms, but with the important addition that one must also believe in “the gospel,” the good news. The good news is precisely God’s mercy and love shown in the words and deeds of Jesus.

After John’s arrest, Jesus appeared in Galilee proclaiming the good news of God. “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand! Repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mk. 1.15)

The Greek word translated here by “repent” is “metanoiete.” Its root meaning is to “change one’s mind,” in the sense of changing one’s basic attitude, and thus one’s life. It can also be translated “reform one’s life.”

Sincerely in Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

More on the Real Presence

Jesus’ words are to be understood in the same way that Saint Paul understood them, and as early Fathers of the Church explained them, and as orthodox Christians, East and West, accepted them down to the Reformation, and as they have continued to be understood in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to our own day, namely, as literally affirming the real presence of Christ’s body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine. The truth of this belief is assured by the promise Jesus gave to His disciples at the Last Supper, that He would send them the Holy Spirit to instruct them in everything (Jn 14.26) and lead them into all truth (Jn 16.13).

Saint Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, says: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself first: only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks a judgment on himself.

When Saint Paul speaks of “The Body and Blood of the Lord” against which one would sin he is speaking literally of the sacred humanity of Christ. He is not speaking of fellow members of the Church, nor of the poor in particular, or of any other group of Christ’s “mystical body.” None of these are ever referred to as His “blood.”

Saint Paul also admonishes the Corinthians to take care not to approach the Eucharist in a thoughtless manner but to recognize the body when he says: “He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks a judgment on himself.” What is this “body” that Christians must recognize when they eat and drink the Eucharist? Is it fellow Christians, especially the poor, who are the body of Christ? No. In the immediate context the only “body” of which Paul speaks is Christ’s Eucharistic body.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Jesus Christ's Words are to be Taken Literally

The Catholic response is that Jesus’ words are to be taken literally and not merely in a metaphorical sense. Why? Whenever Jesus speaks figuratively, the use of metaphor can be easily recognized from the content or context of the saying; but there is nothing in the content or context of the Eucharistic words to suggest that He was speaking metaphorically.

Jesus Himself gives us a key for interpreting His Eucharistic words in the Bread of Life discourse recorded by John (6.52-69), in which He clearly states that His “flesh is real food” and His “blood real drink”, given as nourishment for eternal life. When some of His disciples murmured at the unreasonableness of His words, Jesus did not retract or try to explain away His words, but allowed the unbelieving disciples to walk away from Him.

Sincerely in Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

The Institution Narrative

At the Last Supper, Jesus took bread, pronounced a blessing, broke it, and gave it to His disciples saying, “This is my body.” He then took the cup, gave thanks, and passed it to them saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (I Cor 11.25), “This is my blood of the covenant” (Mk 14.24).

One of the very first Protestant reformers, Ulrich Zwingli, insisted that the Eucharistic words are to be understood in a metaphorical, not in a literal sense. He held that when Jesus gives us bread to eat, saying, “This is my body,” and when He gives us wine to drink, saying “This is my blood,” the bread and wine remain the same physical realities they were, but they now become signs or symbols of Christ’s body given up for us and of His blood shed for us on the cross. In this interpretation, we do not receive the body of Christ in any physical sense, but we do receive Him spiritually. Many Protestants accept this understanding.

Proponents of this view point out that Jesus often used metaphor to describe Himself and His disciples. For example, in speaking of Himself He said: “I am the Light of the World” (Jn 8.12); “I am the resurrection and the life” (Jn 11.25); “I am the vine, you are the branches” (Jn 15.15.5); “I am the bread of life” (Jn 6.48). Speaking of His disciples He said: “You are the salt of the earth…You are the light of the world,” (Mt 5.13f); “You are Rock” (Mt 16.18). All of these employ metaphor, suggesting that the Eucharistic words should also be understood in a figurative sense.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

The Real Presence Continued

When some of those present heard these words they were shocked and murmured among themselves, “This kind of talk is hard to endure. How can anyone take it seriously? Eat this man’s body? Drink His blood? Does He think we are cannibals?” Seeing their reaction, Jesus cautioned them that His words are not to be taken in a crudely carnal sense. Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. In other words, when they see Him ascend into heaven, they will not find it so difficult to believe that He gives His Body and Blood in a spiritual way that they cannot now imagine.

Even with this explanation, many of Jesus’ disciples found His words too much to believe; they “broke away and would not remain in His company any longer” (6.66). But instead of retracting His words or explaining them away, Jesus let the unbelieving disciples depart. He is even prepared to let the Twelve leave Him if they will not believe: “Do you also want to leave me?” Speaking in the name of the others, Peter replied, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Peter and the other disciples do not understand how Jesus will give His body as real food and His blood as real drink, but they believe in Him, and that is all that Jesus requires of them.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist

Christ is Present in the Eucharistic Species. Christ is really present in the Eucharist, in the proper reality of His humanity and divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine.

The day before Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish to feed the multitudes, reminding them how God had fed the Israelites in the desert. When Jesus returned to Capernaum on the following day, the people asked Him what sign He would perform so that they might believe in Him. Would He give them bread from heaven as Moses had done? Jesus responded by saying that He Himself is the true bread come down from heaven; those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life.

Jesus says that the bread that He will give is His flesh for the life of the world. His flesh is real food and His blood real drink. Those who eat His flesh and drink His blood will have everlasting life! Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink. The one who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. (Jn 6.53-56)

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Christ's Presence in the Word

Christ is present whenever the Word of God is proclaimed and received in faith; this includes the reading of Holy Scripture and any form of preaching or teaching the Word of God. When we hear the Word with faith, the grace of Christ acts within us, enlightening our minds, touching our hearts, and moving our wills, to the extent that we are receptive.

During His public ministry, Jesus appointed seventy-two disciples to go through the towns of Galilee proclaiming the message of the Kingdom which they had received from Him. He assured them, “Whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me” (Lk 10.16). These words assure us that Christ accompanies those whom He sends, and, in some manner, is present in the words which they speak in His name. To hear their words is to hear Christ Himself.

The Prologue of John’s Gospel which we proclaim at the end of every Mass tells us that Christ is the Word of God who reveals the Father; He is the Light who enlightens those in darkness. When we say that Christ is present in His word, however, we do not mean that His sacred humanity is somehow sacramentally contained in the word as it is in the Eucharist, but that His divine person is really present to us and acts upon us through His grace in the ways we have mentioned.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Modes of Christ's Presence

Of the various modes of presence mentioned in these documents, there are four that are especially applicable to the Eucharistic liturgy; Christ’s presence in the assembly,in the minister, in the word, and in the Eucharistic species.

Each of these modes of presence is real in its own way, but only in the Eucharist is Christ’s humanity present in its physical reality, although not in the same way that other bodies are present in a given place. These modes may be briefly explained as follows.

Christ’s Presence in the assembly. Christ promised that He will be present wherever two or three are gathered in His name: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt 18.20). This does not mean that in such gatherings Christ’s bodily humanity is present as it is in the Eucharist, but He is present in His divine person, His attention and affection, and the gift of His grace.

Christ’s Presence in the Minister. Christ is present in the minister inasmuch as He acts through the minister to achieve the purpose of the sacrament. The celebrant of the Eucharist does not act in his own name and by his own power and authority, but in the person of Christ, and by Christ’s authority. He is the instrument or agent through whom Christ acts...

Sincerely in Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Eucharistic Presence

One of the critical questions that have sharply divided Christians since the Reformation is how to understand the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, High Anglicans, and Lutherans believe that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ are truly present in the Eucharist, in their proper reality, under the appearance of bread and wine.

The term “real presence” has been used to describe the special mode of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist since the middle ages. The Council of Trent entitled the first chapter of its Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist “The Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.” However, there are in fact other modes of Christ’s presence, each of them “real” in its own way. Several of these are mentioned in the Constitution on the Liturgy:

He is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, “the same now offering, through the ministry of priest, who formerly offered Himself on the cross”, but especially in the Eucharistic species.

By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when anybody baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes.

He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church.

Lastly, He is present when the Church prays and sings, for He has promised “where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.”

These are not the only ways in which Christ is present to His Church. Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei mentions all of these and adds others: “Christ is present in the Church:

As it performs works of mercy…
As it struggles to reach the harbor of eternal life…
As it preaches…
As it shepherds and guides the people of God…

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Final Point on the Male Priesthood

Third, since only priests have access to positions of full authority in the Church, to deny women priestly ordination is to reduce women to a state of second-class membership in the Church. Unless the Church changes this policy and gives women equal status, large masses of women will turn away from the Church as surely as the working class in Europe did in the nineteenth century when the Church failed to defend the rights of workers against the moneyed bourgeoisie with whom the Church allied itself. It is pointless to say that women are treated as equals of men when obviously they are not.

Response: Women are equal to men in dignity, but do not have the same roles in the Church. Women do not need presbyteral or episcopal orders to exercise great influence in the Church. It must be admitted that priests and bishops exercise the greatest authority in the Church and that women are excluded from these ranks. Ministry, however, should not be sought for the sake of power, but for service. It is not the most powerful who will be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, but the most humble and the holiest.

Some argue that it is inappropriate for a man to put forth such an argument since men hold power in the Church. The answer is that this is by Christ’s arrangement, not man’s. The Bible points out the special relationship between God and Israel expressed under the imagery of marriage. In the Old Testament, the people of Israel are described as the daughter of Zion, the bride whom Yahweh takes to Himself by a sacred covenant. In the New Testament, Christ is presented as bridegroom and the Church as His bride. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ the bridegroom unites Himself to His bride, the Church. To preserve the truth of the sacramental sign, the priest who acts in Christ’s person, must be male. The sacramental significance would be lost if a woman presided at the Eucharist. This problem is not a problem of an historical nature. It is not a matter of discussing a certain custom in the hope that it might change in the future. The very structure of Christian revelation and of the Church would be tampered with.

It is often said that if there were no women priests in the early centuries of Christianity, it was because of cultural factors. It depended on women’s subordinate role in the society of that time. But we should not forget that women had major roles in pagan religions, from Greece to Egypt and Mesopotamia. This was never the case with the Judeo-Christian people. And yet they were surrounded by peoples whose women were active participants in cult celebrations. All this surely prompts us to reflect that this choice had profound bonds with revelation itself. So it was not a factor determined by historical and cultural conditions. It was quite the opposite.

Sincerely in Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

The Priesthood Continued

Second, the Church’s tradition and practice of excluding women from priestly ordination are not based on any eternal and necessary principle but on considerations that are historically and culturally conditioned. The practice originated and developed in an environment in which women, for a variety of economical and social reasons, had a subordinate position to men. Circumstances have changed greatly in the Twentieth Century. The Church should change with the times and not allow herself to become an irrelevant anachronism, clinging to a mode of thought and behavior that is more and more out of touch with contemporary culture.

Response: If Jesus chose only men to be apostles, it was not because He lacked the wisdom of courage to break cultural patterns. He showed in many ways (by prohibiting divorce, conversing with a Samaritan woman, dining with publicans and sinners, giving a more human interpretation to Sabbath laws, etc.) that He could rise above the restrictions of the prevailing culture. If the early Church followed the pattern set by Jesus, it was not because it was unthinkable, according to the culture of the time, to appoint women to hold religious office. As a matter of fact, women served as priestesses in pagan religions of Jesus’ time.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

More of the Male Priesthood

The following are the principal arguments put forward by those who hold that women should not be excluded from ministerial priesthood because of their sex. First, women should have equal rights and dignity in the Church and should not suffer discrimination because of their sex. Vatican II recognized this principle, and so does Saint Paul: “All of you who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Him. There does not exist among you Jew or Greek, slave or freeman, male or female. All are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3.27). Granted that no one has a right to ordination, nevertheless one does have a right not to be discriminated against simply because of one’s sex.

Response: To recognize the differences between men and women is not to show discrimination, but to invite reflection on the proper way to promote the dignity and role of each sex. If a priest is to be a visible symbol of Christ, who stands in relation to the Church as groom and bride, it is not discriminatory to choose those to be priests who can represent Christ in this way.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

The Male Priesthood

Finally, the Holy See and the vast majority of bishops throughout the world teach that a male priesthood is divinely willed for the Church and that the Church does not have the authority to change this. The faithful are to give obsequium religiosum (religious submission, allegiance) to the Roman Pontiff and to the college of bishops when they teach as successors of Peter and the apostles.

Response: Granted that one should show respect for the magisterium of the Church, critics feel compelled to stand up for what they regard as a matter of truth and justice.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

More on Women Priests

Third, it has been the constant and unwavering tradition of the Church, both East and West, from the very beginning down to our own day, to admit only men to ordination. Since the Holy Ghost guides the Church, this strong tradition must be recognized as reflecting God’s will for the Church.

Response: This tradition is the reflection of the male dominant culture which has prevailed in Christian environments from ancient times up to the present. But that culture is now in process of changing; so also should the attitude and practice of the Church with regard to women. The “Spirit” is free to breathe where it wills.

Fourth, the priest represents Christ in relation to the Church. He is a living sacrament of Christ and acts in the very person of Christ in celebrating the Eucharist. In the language of the East, he is an Icon of Christ. But Christ is related to the Church as groom to bride. Therefore the priest must be a man, for only a man can represent Christ in this way.

Response: Every Christian must put on Christ (Gal 3.27; Rom 3.14), live the life of Christ (Gal 2.20), and represent Christ to the faith assembly.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Women Priests...?

Second, the faith and practice of the early Church is normative for the Church of all ages. But the early Church, following the pattern set by Jesus, admitted only men to the offices of presbyter and bishop. Therefore the Church today must continue to do the same. If the early Church ordained only men to the presbyterate, it was not simply because the culture of the times excluded women from roles of religious leadership. Many pagan religions at that time employed priestesses.

Response: The fact that the early Church chose only men as bishops and presbyters is not based on any immutable law binding the Church in later times but reflects the influence of the male dominant cultures in which the Church had its origin and early development. In Israel, only men were allowed to serve as priests and elders of the people, just as only males were allowed to attend Jewish synagogue services. Despite the presence of priestesses in some pagan religions of that time, from which many early converts were drawn, all of the cultures which helped to shape the early Church were male dominant. Since we live in a different culture, we are not bound by these practices of a by-gone-day.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Women Priests? II

The following are the principal reasons that are usually offered for admitting only men to the priesthood. I will also give you critiques that are frequently given in response. First, Christ chose only men as apostles. This was not simply because Jewish culture at that time excluded women from positions of authority and leadership in religious society, for Jesus showed that He was able to rise above conventional norms, yet He did not do so in this case. His exclusive choice of men as apostles must have been a deliberate decision which remains binding on the later Church. Moreover, Jesus invited only the Twelve to attend the Last Supper at which He instituted the Eucharist, although it was customary for all members of a family, male and female, to take part in the Passover supper.

Response: Jesus chose twelve men as His inner circle of disciples in order to symbolize the renewal of Israel descended from the twelve patriarchs. This has nothing to do with deciding whether women can be ordained presbyters. Presbyters are not the same as Apostles.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Women Priests?

It has been a constant tradition of the Roman Catholic Church that only males may be admitted to priestly ordination. In recent years, the question has been asked whether the time has not come for the Church to change the practice of restricting priestly ordination to persons of the male gender. However, there has never been any doubt about this matter in the official teaching of the Catholic Church. To give a definitive response to those who in recent years have been strongly advocating the ordination of women, Blessed Pope John Paul II issued the Apostolic Letter: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, May 22, 1994, in which he declared that male priesthood was established by Christ Himself and that the Church has no authority to change this discipline. He explained that the male priest represents the very person of Christ in His spousal relationship to the Church. The Pontiff concluded with a firm statement that is intended to put an end to any doubt or debate over this question in the Church:

“In order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (Lk 22.32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Who Receives the Fruits of the Mass?

There are three ways in which the fruits of the Mass are distributed: to the celebrant in a very special way (specialissime), to the whole Church in a general way (generalissime), and to those for whom the Mass was offered in a particular way (specialiter).

Those who offer the Mass receive the greatest fruit from the Mass. The fruit received is in proportion to the fervor and purity of dispositions with which they offer it. The priest enjoys certain special advantages in that it is easier for him to be fully attentive, since he performs the sacred rite, and he receives grace of state to celebrate the Mass worthily (he may fail to cooperate with that grace, of course, but it is given.

There are two kinds of intentions for which the Mass is offered, general and particular. "Every Mass is offered not for the benefit of only a few, but for the salvation of the whole world." Those for whom the Mass is offered in a particular way would benefit more than those for whom it is offered only in general. The fruits that anyone actually receives from the Mass depend upon the will of God for that individual, and the suitability of that person's dispositions for receiving grace.

For Baptists and Disciples of Christ, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is exclusively a memorial meal. In no sense is it a sacrifice. Presbyterians and Methodists accept the Eucharist as a sacrifice of praise. Some also see it as a sacrament (understood as a sacred sign) through which we offer ourselves to the Father in union with the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, which is commemorated, but not renewed, in the Eucharist. Lutherans continue to reject what the Council of Trent says about the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice "offered for the living and the dead," since this implies a doctrine of Purgatory which they do not accept.

In Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching

Christ’s Redemptive Sacrifice Shown Forth in the Two-fold Consecration

The two-fold consecration show forth the body and blood of Christ under the separate signs of bread and wine, and thus can be seen as visible signs pointing to the separation of His body and blood in death.

Pius XII developed this idea in his encyclical Mediator Dei:

“According to the plan of divine wisdom, the sacrifice of Our Redeemer is shown forth in an admirable manner by external signs which are symbols of His death…The Eucharistic species under which He is present symbolize the violent separation of His body and blood and so a commemorative showing forth of His death which took place in reality on Calvary is repeated in each sacrifice of the altar, because by distinct representations Christ Jesus is signified and shown forth in the state of victim.”

The Eucharistic Liturgy makes Christ’s Sacrifice present in its essential reality. The Liturgy of the Eucharist makes really present the same priest and the same victim, offering Himself to the Father for us with the same dispositions with which He once offered Himself on the Cross. We thus share at the same time in Christ’s unique sacrifice on Calvary and in His eternal offering of that sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary.

The faithful can thereby join in offering Christ and themselves in union with Him to the Father. The very reason for renewing the sacrifice of Christ under sacred signs is so that we the faithful may join with Christ in offering His sacrifice and ourselves in union with Him to the Father.

Some people object that the sacrifice described here is not real because the immolation is not real but is only shown forth in sign. However, this objection loses sight of the fact that all sacrifice is in the order of sign. This objection obscures the fact that the essential element of sacrifice is not, per se, the slaying of the victim but the ritual act of offering that signifies the human person’s worship of God as Creator and Lord.

Sincerely in Christ,

Rev. Jeffery A. Fasching