SECTION ONE

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND HER ORIGIN

INTRODUCTION _____________________________ The Church is a spiritual society, which replaces Israel as the people of God in the world. (McGrath, 2001:477). She was born in the pagan empire of Rome over 2000 years ago and took root; growing to maturity under persecution until the conversion of the emperor Constantine, who radically changed the situation. The word catholic is derived from the Greek adjective katholikos, which means universal and from the adverbial phrase, kath holou, meaning on the whole. (McBrien, 1994:3). St. Ignatius of Antioch first used the expression Catholic Church in his Epistola ad Smyrnas (the letter to the Smyrnaeans). According to him, where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, we have the Catholic Church. As a quick note and correction, the Catholic Church has been used commonly in opposition to the Protestant Churches as if the term Protestant is the opposite of Catholic. This is not the case, as the opposite of Catholic is Sectarian. The latter (i.e. Sectarian) refers to that part of the Catholic Church that separated itself from the worldwide Church. The Catholic Church is a complex reality that is at once both divine and human. She has four defining marks, namely, that she is one, holy, universal (or catholic), and apostolic. In modern English, the word Catholic is often confused and used co-referentially with/to Roman Catholic, i.e. confused with Roman Catholic. Thus, when you use catholic in nonreligious circles these days, what immediately comes to mind is the Roman Catholic Church. It may therefore be beneficial that a quick clarification is made at this point on this issue, especially in the face of the fact that some Catholics have begun to question the continual use of Roman Catholic while we are talking about inculturation. This is the process by which we adapt, without compromising, the gospel and the Christian life to an individual culture. To put it roughly, it is bringing the good news to the people in their own context and within their own categories.

The Church had her beginnings with Jesus gathering of his disciples and with the postresurrection commissioning of Peter to be the chief shepherd and foundation of the Church but in Jerusalem, not in Rome. (Op. Cit.: 5). The point then is that the distinctive identity of the Catholic Church is not the Roman primacy but the Petrine primacy. If anything, the adjective Roman, more properly describes the diocese of Rome than the worldwide Catholic Church, which is in union with the Bishop of Rome as the supreme pontiff, i.e. the head of the Catholic Church worldwide. The use of Roman is also tied to the Latin rite Catholics. Other than these, there are other rites, like the Eastern, Armenian, Byzantine, East Syrian (Chaldean), West Syrian, Maronite, Coptic, Ethiopian and Zairian rites. All these are also in union with the See of Rome. So, the Church is neither narrowly Roman nor Western but universal in the fullest sense of the word. Apparently, we can see that the word Catholic, much more than being a noun is also an adjective that qualifies the Christian, just as Christian qualifies religious and religious qualifies a human being. Thus, Richard McBrien writes that to be Catholic, therefore, is to be a kind of human being, a kind of religious person, and a kind of Christian belonging to a specific Eucharistic faith-community within the worldwide, or ecumenical, Body of Christ. (1994:6). Catholicity therefore as an adjective is not just philosophical or anthropological, it is a religious perspective, which offers us an understanding of God. This understanding of God, in turn helps us to appreciate the meaning of creation, redemption, incarnation, grace, the church, moral responsibility, eternal life and the other mysteries and doctrines of the Christian faith. So we can conveniently say that the Catholic faith is all about the doctrine of the three persons in one God, i.e. the triune God, and the Christian faith in this doctrine. What makes the Catholic Church so unique and distinct from other Christian churches we may ask? The answer is not far fetched. She is easily distinguished from others in her practical commitment to the principles of sacramentality, mediation, and communion. Without necessarily going into the rigours of a theological analysis, the practical commitment and the principles we are talking about here are the sacraments, which Pope Paul VI simply defines as a reality imbued with the hidden presence of God. That is seeing the divine in the human, the infinite in the finite, the spiritual in the material, the transcendent in the immanent, the eternal in the historical. (Op. cit.: 10). The second principle, namely mediation, which is a corollary to the first, is the view that other than just signifying, the sacrament is also the cause of what it signifies. This means that God is not just present as an object of faith in a sacramental action but that God achieves something in and through the sacramental action. So the created reality, contains, reflects and embodies the presence of God, and also makes this presence spiritually effective for those who avail themselves of the sacraments. The third principle of communion is the view that our way to God and Gods way to us is not just a matter of mediation but also a communal way, i.e. it is not just a personal or individual affair it has a communal or communitarian dimension.

TRACING THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH IN THE BIBLE Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus replied, Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in Heaven. So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Mt.16:16-19). Peters confession of faith in the Messianic person of Jesus Christ comes as an immediate precedence to two important revelations by Jesus, namely, his intention to build a community under the leadership of Peter and his first prophecy about his impending passion. I am not concerned here about the passion. I am concerned with the intention of Jesus Christ to build a community on Peter as a foundation stone. This consists of such issues as the establishment of the Church, the appointment the person of Simon Peter as the leader of the Church, and the primacy and authority of the Papacy in doctrinal and juridical matters. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven ... the power of the keys designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. (CCC 553). I do not intend to discuss these issues in any particular order of importance or chronology. I shall discuss each issue as it arises in the course of this discourse. The above-cited scriptural passage will serve as a rallying point. Who do people say the Son of man is? (Mt.16:13, Lk.9:18 & Mk 8:27) was the question Jesus put to his apostles at Caesarea Philippi. Some say you are John the Baptist, some say you are Elijah, some say you are Jeremiah and some simply say you are one of the prophets, were the answers Jesus got from his apostles. Jesus however was more interested in what his apostles think of him. They were his associates, having called and appointed them his

apostles (Lk. 6:12ff). So what they think of him would have far reaching effects and implications. Thus he asked them; But you, who do you say I am? (Mk 8:29). There is no doubt that this question places emphasis on their individual and personal understanding of him. From the context of the passage, the initial enthusiasm that ushered in the answers to the first part of the question was apparently lacking when the second question came. But Simon Peter spoke up, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Mt.16:16). Simon Peter whose original name is Simon is the brother to Andrew who initially was with John the Baptist but later became a disciple of Jesus Christ. He (Andrew) was the one who took Simon to Jesus. Jesus seeing Simon looked at him and declared You are Simon Son of John; you are to be called Cephas. (Jn.1:42) So, Simon, son of John came to be known and addressed as Simon Peter.

Basing his claim on Old Testament passages with a further ingenious analysis of related instances in scripture, Stanley L. Jaki, in his book; And On This Rock, unambiguously asserts that giving a new name, especially at the very first look, meant a claim on the one who is being named. (Jaki, 1987:72). His references among others include Is. 43:1; And now, thus says Yahweh, he who created you, Jacob, who formed you, Israel: Do not be afraid, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by your name, you are mine. This was an obvious reference to Is. 41:8 and Dt. 7:6f. In Gen.35:10 God had called Jacob and given him the new name, Israel; God said to him, your name is Jacob, but from now on you will be called not Jacob but Israel. Thus he came by the name Israel. The phenomenon of a change of name is therefore not entirely strange in the scripture. It is rather frequent enough in the Old Testament. Usually, it indicates a new dimension or a turn in the relationship between the one who names and the one named. It is a phenomenon that also conveys a particular meaning that is connected with the new name. For instance, in Genesis 17:1-15 Yahweh (God) entered into a covenant with Abraham; our father in faith, when the latter was 99 years old. God promised to make him the father of many nations and thus changed his name, which hitherto was Abram to Abraham to tally with his new role and exaltation as father of many nations. Numbers 13:16 also records the change of name of Hosea the son of Nun to Joshua by Moses. The new name Joshua means Yahweh saves and Joshua was later to lead the people of Israel to the Promised Land under the mighty and protective hand of Yahweh. Other such examples as these abound in the Old Testament. Jesus Christ who was a Jew by birth and brought up within the Jewish tradition would definitely be aware of the significance involved in the change of name. We therefore cannot say that he was not aware of the implication of giving a new name to Simon. But before we go into the implication of Simons new name, which is in fact, the crux of this discussion, let us briefly look at the profile the scriptures give of him. This profile we shall later revisit after discussing the implication of his new name. The gospels present Simon Peter as the spokesman of the apostle, a position he perhaps assumed when he made the great profession of faith in Jesus Christ. He appears also as one with some degree of initiative. Prior to the ascension of Jesus Christ, the faith of Simon Peter calls for a close attention, as it does not come through as steadfast and strong.

From the Lukean account of his call, he confessed his sinfulness as he asked Jesus to depart from him. Leave me, Lord, I am a sinful man. (Lk. 5:8). Confronted with the reality of the storm as he walked on water towards Jesus, he took fright and began to sink, a pointer to his weak faith, for he doubts the powers of he who has called him. Of this Jesus said; You have so little faith, why did you doubt? (Mt. 14:31). To the same Simon Peter Jesus once said; Get behind me Satan! You are thinking not as God thinks, but as human beings do (Mk. 8:33). This is in recognition of his human weakness by Jesus. I am inclined to say that Peter was not a friend indeed of Jesus having denied any knowledge or acquaintance with him, even before a servant girl. (Mk. 14:66-68). Anyhow, Jesus never needed anyone to come to his aid. His kingdom is not of this world, if it were, he said; my men would have fought to prevent my being surrendered to the Jews (Jn. 18:36). Biblical account of the activities of the apostles after the ascension however presents a new and confident Simon Peter. This new image may be connected with the great responsibility of feeding and taking care of the entire lamb and sheep of Christ. (Jn. 21:15-17). This responsibility has its beginning in the name Peter added to his original name. The Greek word Petros from which the name Peter is derived was not originally used as a personal name. It does not seem either that its Hebrew (Aramaic) equivalent Kepha was used as a personal name. According to Karl Adam, neither the Greek Petros, nor the Aramaic Kepha, had been employed as proper names before the time of Christ. (1929:90). It is the word used to designate an undetachable stone, a reef or rock. Some Protestants have argued that the original word used by Jesus was Petros, which means a pebble or a little stone, and that this is different from Petra, which is the actual word for rock; meaning a massive, large stone. The implication of this is that rather than Jesus equating Simon Peter and the rock, it is the opposite. He was actually contrasting Simon and the rock. The interpretation of this verse would then be that, on the one side, the rock, which is to be the foundation of the Church is Jesus himself, while on the other side, Simon, who is comparable to a mere pebble, was not qualified to be the foundation of the Church. This view is false. Greek scholars, both Catholic and non-Catholic, admit that both words; Petros and Petra, were synonyms in first century Greek. In ancient Greek poetry, they meant small stone and large rock respectively. But this distinction had disappeared by the time Matthews gospel was written in Greek. The New Testament, which of course includes Matthews gospel, was written in Koine Greek, an entirely different dialect from Attic Greek in which you find the distinction in question. In Koine Greek, Petros and Petra simply meant rock. Given that Jesus wanted to call Simon a small stone, he most probably would have used the word lithos or evna, which is the Aramaic equivalent. Even D.A. Carson, an Evangelical Protestant Greek Scholar admitted to this fact. (Gaebelein, ed.1984,
8:368).

Karl Keating, contributing to this aspect of the discussion in an article Peter the Rock posted on the Internet has this to say; To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is.22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). Thus, Petros or Kepha (or Cephas which is a slightly hellenized form of Kepha) means, rock. It took on the status of a personal name when Jesus conferred it on Simon, the son of John, the brother of Andrew. Like every change of name in the biblical tradition of the Old Testament, the new name of Simon carries with it a particular meaning and significance related to the meaning of the name. This Jesus reveals when he said; You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. (Mt.16:18). According to Adam, the central substance of this passage is the designation of Simon Peter as the foundation stone of the Church and the establishment of the Church on him. (Adam,
1929:90).

On the foundation of a rock, which is Peter, Jesus says he will build his community. So, as the foundation of a building holds up, supports and preserves the building, so Peter was to hold, support and preserve the community that Jesus establishes. For this purpose, Jesus specially prayed for him that Satan may have no hold of him and his faith may be strengthened that he in turn may strengthen his brethren. Simon, Simon! Look, Satan has got his wish to sift you all like wheat; but I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered, you in turn must strengthen your brothers. (Lk.22:31). So Simon Peter had the special function to be the support and prop of the young Christian faith. As Adam emphatically writes, In fact, St. Peter counts not merely as one stone in the newly-founded Church, nor merely as the first stone, but as the rock, the foundation stone which supports the whole Church. (ibid.:91). We may want to ask the question what community Jesus was referring to? Or what community is he going to build? The answer is, the Church, the universal, apostolic, one and holy Church. To fully appreciate this point let us take another look at the biblical tradition of the Old Testament. The word community is a derivative of the Hebrew qahal (Kahal) which is rendered in Greek as ekklesia. It signifies an assembly of the citizens of a city for legislative or deliberative purposes. This assembly consists of citizens who enjoy full rights. Therefore ekklesia implies both the dignity of the members and the legality of the assembly. This word however, had no religious connotation. The Septuagint (LXX) adopted it to render the Hebrew word kahal. The Septuagint means seventy. It is the name commonly given to the Jewish Greek version of the Old Testament made in the pre-Christian period. The LXX is the first translation of the Old Testament. It is also a translation of Old Testament, though with uneven quality. It had great authority among the Jews in the Diaspora till the first century AD. As a Greek Bible, Christians adopted it when they began their evangelical mission in the Hellenistic world. It was also the Bible of the Church among the first generation of Christians and 300 out of the 350 citations in the New Testament from the Old Testament in todays Bible are quoted according to the LXX. The Hebrew kahal in conjunction with edah in later Hebrew usage signifies the religious assembly of the Israelites. In the Old Testament, it is frequently used to designate the community of the chosen people particularly during the desert period. (cf. the reference of Acts 7:38 to Deut. 4:10 in the NJB ). Also among the Jews, certain groups like the Essenes, (Qumran) a sect made up of the priestly class and the laity who were extremely conscious of the endtimes and regarded themselves as the last generation; saw themselves as the chosen remnant of Israel, which is the true Israel that will survive the expected tribulations, the travails of the last days. That is, the few between the faithless Israel that will remain in Jerusalem (Is. 4:3) addressed their assembly with the term Kahal or ekklesia. The use of the word community by Jesus can be traced to this tradition. And the community that emerged later under the headship of Simon Peter bears a lot of similarities

to the ones referred to in the above tradition. Therefore, the expression; I will build my community by Jesus, shows that the eschatological community; the community of the end-times, is to have its beginnings here on earth in the form of an organised society whose leader he now appoints. The organised society is the Church - the Assembly of Gods faithful, (Acts 5:11). It is not just any church but the Catholic Church, because it was the only Church that existed until the 16th century heresy of Luther and the schism of Henry VIII of England. By heresy, we mean a choice, a deliberate denial of a dogma. A dogma is a doctrine promulgated with the highest authority and solemnity by the Holy See. Schism is a breach of church unity occasioned by the separation of a whole group from the rest of the Body of Christ. In the Catholic Church, simply put, it refers to breaking communion with the Pope. Jesus says of this community (the Church), the gates of the underworld can never overpower it. The Greek Hades which is the term for the underworld in Greek mythology or the Hebrew Sheol whose etymology is not certain is the dwelling place of the dead. Ancient Near East (ANE) thought conceives the world in three structures the heavens, the earth, and the underworld. The underworld or Sheol is commonly thought of as a place where Yahweh is neither thanked nor praised (Is. 38:18; Ps. 6:6). In Sheol, there is no work, no knowledge and no wisdom (Ezra 9:10). It is a colourless existence; a desolate abode. Scripture scholars are of the opinion that the personification with gates, suggest the powers of evil which first lead people into that death which is sin and then imprison them once for all in eternal death. (Comments on Mt.16:18 in the NJB.) The promise of Jesus therefore that the gates of the underworld can never overpower his Church means that the Church is indestructible. The power of the palace fortress of the agent of destruction cannot hold force against the Church. This time tested fact remains true today as it was from the initial gathering of the Church in the Upper Room in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14). As this community of the Upper Room grew in number, it witnessed rounds of persecutions that saw the apostles in jail several times and the death of the first martyr Stephen, one of the seven deacons appointed to serve the community. Scattered all around by these rounds of persecutions, members of the Church nonetheless remained faithful and lived exemplary lives. The Church was not and will never be defeated by the darkness of the underworld.

10

THE PETRINE PRIMACY THE PAPACY. Within the community or the Church, which has become noted for her unity, holiness and apostolicity, Peter exercised primacy. The Petrine primacy, which is the belief that the Pope, who occupies the chair of Peter, is the visible head of the whole Church on earth and he is infallible when he speaks solemnly in matters of faith and morals, is of central importance in the Catholic tradition. This is a role that was directly entrusted to Peter and his successors by Jesus when he promised; I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Other classic texts affirming the Petrine primacy are Luke 22:3132, Simon, Simon! Look, Satan has got his wish to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered, you in your turn must strengthen your brothers and John 21:15-19, where three times Jesus asked Peter if he loved him and upon Peters affirmation that he does, handed him the responsibility to feed and care for his lambs and sheep. Commenting on these passages, Adam noted that Christ expected a more faithful love from Peter than the other disciples and it was on the basis of this he appointed him and him alone to shepherd his flock. We may turn these

11

passages as we like, but we cannot escape the impression that the whole body of the early Christians knew that Simon bore a special relation to the stability of the Church, and derived this unique position of his from an express declaration of our Lords. (ibid.) It will be recalled that at creation God shared with humankind His immortality by endowing us with an immortal soul. God also shared with humankind His dominion over created things by mandating us to subdue the earth. (Gen. 1&2). In the same vein, Jesus mandates Peter to take charge of his faithful, members of his community or Church, as he hands him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The fact worthy of note here is the symbolic use of the keys which dates back to ancient times. Keys in ancient times and in fact, till date, symbolise authority and power. The person who holds the keys reserves the right of entrance into the house. He determines who enters and who does not enter. It is this right and prerogative that Jesus bestowed on Peter. This is a prerogative that ipso facto makes him the head of the apostolic group and therefore the head of the church. This is the role played today by the Holy Father (the Pope) who is the successor of Peter. As a matter of correct expression, the reference to Peter as the successor of Jesus Christ by some is wrong. Peter was the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the visible Church on earth. The position of Jesus Christ is not an office and his death the sacrifice on the cross is perfect, once and for all. He does not need a successor. He appointed Peter not as a successor but as a visible head of a community for which he is in fact, the head. So while it is correct to call one Holy Father the successor of another, neither Peter (the first leader of the Church) nor any occupant of his chair can be correctly referred to as successor of Christ. In what seems like an emphasis on the exercise of the authority of the key Jesus told Peter, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. The use of the terms bind and loose is very significant as both terms belong to the technical vocabulary of the rabbinic tradition. That is the technical language of the teachers of the law. Primarily, they have disciplinary connotation. To bind is to be found guilty and consequently condemned. To loose is to be acquitted or absolved of an offence. Secondarily, the use of both terms is linked to doctrinal decisions. When an opinion is forbidden, it is bound and when it is allowed, it is loosed. It cannot be said that Jesus who amazed the doctors of the law and all who heard him answer questions (presumably about the law) from the doctors of the law at the tender age of 12 years (Lk. 2:46 - 47) is not aware of the implication and technical meaning of his choice of term. Thus, we may comfortably submit that Jesus meant that Peter whom he has made controller of Gods household (as the keys symbolize in Is. 22:22) exercises the disciplinary power of admitting or excluding, as the case may be, those he thinks fit. As he administers the Church, he is also to make doctrinal decisions as necessity calls for it. God in Heaven will ratify his pronouncements. At this point, the profile of Peter after Christs ascension is called for as it will show clearly how he exercised the powers of the keys and affirmed his primacy among the apostles and his leadership of Gods household the Church of Christ.

12

As noted earlier, scriptures present a new and confident post-ascension Peter. A Peter, who is aware of his enormous responsibility of feeding the entire flock of the Son of God. A Peter, who sets out to discharge his responsibilities with courage and wisdom. He started by proposing the election of another to take the place of Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:21-26). With the advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he preached the first sermon that saw over three thousand (3000) converts from Judaism becoming Christians and he admitted them into the fold (Acts 2: 14-41). The same he did with converts from paganism in Acts 10:48. Apart from working the first miracle by the apostles, of making the man lame from birth to walk (Acts 3: 6-8); he meted out the first punishment of which Ananias and his wife Sapphira were victims, (Acts 5:1-6). Peter was also the one who cast out the heretic Simon Magus who wanted to buy the powers of the Apostles (Acts 8:19-20). He, as an elder, addresses other elders (IPet.5:1) and he corrected others for doctrinal misunderstanding. (2 Pet.3:15-16). Most important of all was Peters role in the first council of the Church, the council of Jerusalem. After a long debate as regards upholding circumcision as God demanded in His covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17:10-11) with regards to Gentile converts or not, Peter spoke and recognising the efficacy of his powers to bind and loose, freely chose to exercise his powers as he declared that salvation is by the grace of the Lord Jesus and not by circumcision (see Acts 15:11). We may argue here that it was a community decision, yes, indeed it was, but the onus was on Peter to voice it. Was Peter being contemptuous of Gods covenant with Abraham, our father in faith? No, he was not. He only exercised his moral and legal authority to make doctrinal and juridical decisions as it will benefit and lead the community of Christ to her ultimate goal, namely; the salvation of the human person (Can. 1754). The Evangelists recognized and acknowledged the primacy and authority of Peter as they always put his name first any time they make a list of the apostles. And the fact remains that Peter was not the first apostle to be called by Jesus. This fact they also know. A pertinent question to ask now is whether the powers conferred on Peter are personal to him, thus ending with him and his office as chief shepherd, or are they also applicable to his successors? The simple answer is to be found in the fact that Christ did not intend his Church to die with Peter neither did he intend his Church to be a fold of sheep without a shepherd at any point in history. Therefore, the rank, dignity and powers of Peter are to be handed on to his successors.

13

SECTION TWO

THE HOLY MASS

14

INTRODUCTION __________________________________ The Holy Mass, also referred to as the Eucharist or The Lords Supper, is the centre point and summit of Catholic worship and in fact, the Christian life. (VCII, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, n.11). It is the greatest treasure of the Church, the source of the Churchs power and the visible sign on which the Churchs unity is built. It is both a sacrifice and a meal. In the Eucharist, the Church keeps alive the sacrifice of Christ that perfectly achieves our salvation at Calvary and enables her members to share in the sacred banquet of the body and blood of Christ to which Christ himself in John 6:32-58 invites us to partake. (cf. Dupuis, 2001:605). The Eucharist contains Christ himself, who in it, is present to the Church not merely by power of his grace but in the reality of his glorified humanity. (Ibid.). Contrary to the opinion held by some that the Holy Mass detracts from the uniqueness of the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary; it rather enhances it, keeps it alive and applies its power. So many years ago, precisely during the First World War, newspapers reported so much about the crowds of soldiers who daily attend the services of Catholic Chaplains. This caught the attention of non-Catholics who then started questioning why Catholics attend Mass so faithfully.

15

Anyone who has a full appreciation of what is involved and what takes place at Mass will be grateful to God for this great treasure. Unfortunately, this treasure seems hidden to many; Christians and non-Christians alike. There is a poor understanding of the treasure of the Mass by those who have found it Catholics. Like the man who found a treasure in one of the parables of Jesus, (Mt. 13:44-46) replaced the earth, went home and sold off all he had so as to raise enough money to secure the land for himself and thereafter take possession of the treasure, so we are supposed to value the Mass. Such an attitude as this is however, only possible when we know the value and worth of what we have. In his profession of faith, Pope Pius IV says concerning the Mass, I also profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true sacrifice, properly speaking, which is propitiatory for the living and the dead, and that in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood together with the soul and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly, really and substantially present, and that there takes place a change (conversio) of the whole substance of wine into the blood; and this change the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also confess that under each species alone (sub altera tantum specie) the whole and entire Christ and the true sacrament is received. I consider the above profession of faith a beautiful summary of the ideas I intend to discuss in this section. Several aspects of the Eucharist have been raised and affirmed in this profession of faith some of which have been the subject of controversies in the history and growth of the Churchs life, ditto, the Eucharist.

16

THE INSTITUTION OF THE HOLY MASS For the tradition I received from the Lord and also handed on to you is that on the night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and after he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me. And in the same way, with the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me. When you eat this bread, then, and drink this cup, you are proclaiming the Lords death until he comes. Therefore anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily is answerable for the body and blood of the Lord.
(1Cor. 11:23-27).

Perhaps it will be correct to admit that anyone who has heard about Jesus would equally have heard about the Lords Supper. While it may be true that Jesus is not synonymous with the Lords Supper, it is also true that you cannot think of the Lords Supper independently of Jesus Christ. In 1Cor.11:23-27, St. Paul reports an account that is most closely connected with the Lords Supper. He refers to it as a tradition he received from Christ. It was not part of the dialogue between Paul and Jesus Christ on Pauls way to Damascus. (Act 9: 1-9). Paul is therefore referring to tradition that dates back to the Lord. As he did in 1Cor.15:3-7 where he talks about the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul is using the technical terminology of the rabbis for the passing on of tradition.
17

From all indications, he was quoting the earliest Christian tradition about the Eucharist. And for those familiar with the writings of St. Paul, the language used in expressing the message of this tradition is not typical of him. At the Last Supper, (Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25 & Lk. 22:19-20) when everybody had settled down at table; after washing the feet of his disciples, Jesus took bread, said the blessing and gave it to his disciples as his body. The same he did with the cup of wine and he said whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me. Jesus Christ thus invited his disciples with whom he shared his Supper to continue what they have seen him do. The invitation is not an ordinary one, it was an invitation backed with authority to do as he has done. And they did; for the description of the early Christian community highlighted it as one of the identifying marks of the early Church. (Acts 2:42). The Lords Supper was a solemn and great occasion. It was as solemn as what obtains when a father gathers his children around his deathbed to give them a final instruction. He tells them the yet unknown secrets of the family and points to family possessions unknown to the children. In the same way Christ gathered his apostles around himself, just before he walked the long and painful way of the cross to his vicarious death. The apostles were his closest associates; he gathered them to give them the final lesson on the path to life. Much more than the final lesson, he gathered them to bequeath to humankind through his apostles a memorial service. Catholics do not doubt the fact that the Holy Mass is a true sacrifice instituted by Christ at the Lords Supper and that as a sacrifice; it is to perpetuate the memory, i.e. to keep alive the sacrifice of the cross. The general council of Trent in its 22nd session upheld that the Holy Mass is not a sacrifice independent of the cross. As a matter of fact, it is the sacrifice of the cross that is now offered by the Church following the command of Christ, whenever the Church celebrates the ritual of the Lords Supper in which Christ offered himself. (Dupuis, 2001:625). Accordingly, the council declares that to retain the holy Catholic Church and preserve in its purity the ancient, absolute and completely perfect faith and doctrine on the Eucharist and to prevent errors and avert heresies, vested with the rightful authority, teaches that, As the Apostle testifies there was no perfection under the former Covenant because of the insufficiency of the levitical priesthood. It was, therefore, necessary (according to the merciful ordination of God the Father) that another priest arise after the order of Melchizedek [cf.Gen 14:18; Ps 110 (109):4; Heb 7:11], our Lord Jesus Christ who could make perfect all who were to be sanctified [cf. Heb 10:14] and bring them to fulfilment. He, then our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish for them an everlasting redemption. But, because his priesthood was not to end with his death [cf. Heb 7:24, 27], at the Last

18

Supper, on the night when he was betrayed [1Cor 11:23], in order to leave to his beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as human nature demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was once for all to accomplish on the cross would be present, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world and its salutary power declaring himself constituted a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek [Ps 110 (109):4], he offered his body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father, and, under the same signs (sub earundem rerum symbolis) gave them to partake of to the disciples (whom he then established as priests of the New Convenant), and ordered them and their successors in the priesthood to offer, saying: Do this as a memorial of me, etc. [Lk 22:19; 1Cor 11:24], as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. (DS 1739 &1740). THE MASS AS A MEMORIAL SACRIFICE The Mass is a living memorial of Christs saving death, a sacrifice of the people and a sacrifice for the people. It is a sacrifice because it re-enacts the death of Christ on the cross. This is the death in which Christ offered himself as a living oblation, a spotless lamb, to appease humankinds sin. It is in this respect that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same sacrifice with that of Christ on the Cross. A sacrifice is the offering of a victim in form of a visible gift. The Mass as a Christian sacrifice is the offering of a victim by a priest, to God alone. In this case, the victim is Christ himself under the appearances of bread and wine as Christ himself did at the Last Supper. Among our African people, the concept of a sacrifice had for a long time been tied down to traditional worship of idols. As such, it carries a negative connotation in Christian circles. Any mention of sacrifice immediately suggests idolatry. Within this context, the use of the concept for the Holy Mass has created some difficulties for some people. Hence I deem it fit to make a little preliminary explanation about sacrifice in the scripture, maybe it will help in the better understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice. The question of a religious sacrifice has been in existence throughout humankinds history. This fact is true even of primitive man who in popular thinking is seen as uncultured. As a matter of fact, primitive man was quite sensible, child-like and intelligent as opposed to the beastly, savage, and ferocious picture many history books tend to present of him. The fact of the existence of religious sacrifice of some kind is also true of great and ancient civilizations and their religions. With the exception of a certain form of Buddhism, religious sacrifice is an essential part of different religions in ancient and contemporary times. The Hindu religion of Vedism and Brahmanism, the Persian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek and Roman religions all bear witness to this fact. In a special way, the Hebrew religion of Judaism, which immediately precedes Christianity, does.

19

Among the Hebrews, sacrifice was a frequent practice. The Old Testament gives in fair details, the rules by which the sacrificial rites are to be performed. The book of Leviticus for instance, chronicles the rules for peace offerings (Lev. 3), sacrifices of ignorance (Lev. 4), sacrifices for expiation of various sins (Lev. 5), sacrifices for sins of injustice (Lev.6), sacrifices for expiation of trespasses and in thanksgiving for some favour (Lev. 7). The Old Testament actually gives a narration of various and individual sacrificial offerings; from the offerings of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:1-4, Heb. 11:4) to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen. 14:17-19), the eternal priest. (Heb.7:3). With Moses; Gods chosen instrument in liberating his people from the bondage land of Egypt, sacrificial offerings took a definite form as outlined in the five chapters of the book of Leviticus mentioned above. Afterwards, an official priesthood (those in the order of Levites and the house of Aaron) was to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people. This is the context that the offering of the religious sacrifice we read in scripture concerning the presentation of Jesus in the temple, the sacrifice of Joseph and Mary falls. (Lk. 2:22-27). The idea of religious sacrifice was carried over to the New Testament, but it took a new dimension. Jesus Christ in Mt. 5:17 says, Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them, meaning that he has neither come to destroy nor consecrate the Old Testament, but to give it a new and definitive form by his teaching and way of acting, so that the goal of the law and prophets may be fully realised. In accordance with his claim (cf. Mt. 5:17), Jesus Christ instituted a new and perfect form of Christian religious sacrifice. While not throwing out the idea of a religious sacrifice, he replaced the rather imperfect sacrifices of the Old Testament referred to in the letter to the Hebrews 7:18; 10:1-10, with a new and perfect sacrifice, which is the sacrifice of the New Law, which is the Holy Mass. As a sacrifice, the Holy Mass is to be tri-dimensionally understood. It is first of all, the sacrifice of the New Law. Secondly, it is the sublime sacrifice of Christ himself. Thirdly, it is the sacrifice of the people and for the people. THE MASS AS THE SACRIFICE OF THE NEW LAW: The event of the Lords Supper is a very unique and significant one. It took place at the time when the Jews celebrated the Passover, a celebration in memory of their liberation from Egypt. It was at this memorial celebration that Christ instituted the Mass; the new and perfect sacrifice of the New Law. The Lords Supper thus marked the last of the Old Law and signifies the first of the New Law. At the announcement of the Law to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, Moses sprinkled half of the blood of the slaughtered bullocks on the altar and on the people saying; This is the blood of the covenant which Yahweh has made with you (Ex.24:8). At the Lords Supper, where and when the sacrifice of the New Law was instituted, Christ took bread, said the blessing broke it and gave it to his disciples saying; Take it and eat, this is my body. Then he took the cup filled with wine, having given thanks he gave it to his disciples and said, Drink from this, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, poured out for the forgiveness of sin. (cf. Lk.22:19-20, Mt. 26:26-29, Mk.14:22-25). Following

20

what he has done, Christ gave his disciples the authority to do the same as he said; do this in remembrance of me. (Lk.22:19, 1 Cor. 11:23-26). Jesus Christ referred to the cup of wine as his blood poured out for the forgiveness of sins. This reference is understood in the light of the bitter experience of Calvary, which he was soon after going to embrace. This is the experience of his vicarious death with which he won salvation for humankind. In the Old Passover celebration, the paschal lamb was slain and eaten, but in the perfect sacrifice of the New Law, Christ changed bread and wine into his Body and Blood. THE MASS AS THE SUBLIME SACRIFICE OF CHRIST HIMSELF: On Calvary, Christ offered himself as a great sacrifice to God for our salvation. The Mass is therefore not just a sacrifice of the New Law; it is the sublime sacrifice of Christ who freely gave up himself on the cross. (cf. Phil. 2:8). That is to say, Christ was both the priest who offered the sacrifice and the victim offered as sacrifice on the cross. Following the basic understanding of sacrifice, an object of offering is always involved the sacrificial victim. In the case of the Mass, Christ himself is the sacrificial victim. At every Mass, Christ is there, present on the altar as the acceptable and infinitely more perfect and sublime offering that can be made to the Father as compared to the sacrificial victims of the Old Testament. As the letter to the Hebrews says: The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on those who have incurred defilement, may restore their bodily purity, how much more will the blood of Christ, who offered himself, blameless as he was, to God through the eternal spirit, purify our conscience from dead actions so that we can worship the living God (Heb. 9:13-14). In fact, the whole of Hebrews 10:1-18 explains the efficacy of Christs sacrifice as compared to the ineffective sacrifices of the Old Testament. In the same vein, St. Peter talks of the precious blood of the blameless and spotless lamb by which the price of humankinds ransom from futile way of life was paid. (1 Peter 1:18-19). In relation to the Lords Supper where Christ talked about shedding his blood for humankind, the Mass is seen as most closely connected with the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. The meaning of this is that any time the Mass is celebrated, the same offering as at Calvary is repeated, Jesus Christ being the divine victim. And it is done for the same purpose for which Christ died the forgiveness of sins and the glory and honour of God. The only difference between Calvary and the altar on which Mass is celebrated is that the bloody sacrifice of Calvary is presented in an un-bloody manner at Mass. Christ having died once at Calvary does not die again at Mass. The separate consecration of the bread and the wine however symbolize his death, for it figures out the separation of his blood from his body. Christs death at Calvary is not the end of his love for humankind. His life is a continuous sacrificing of himself both before and after his death. Calvary is the supreme realization of his offering. At Mass, Christ continues to renew innumerable times, the offering of himself, for our salvation and Gods glorification. The continuous renewal of the offering

21

of himself is not an indication that his offering has not been acceptable (it is rather impossible that his offering is unacceptable) but an opportunity for us to be freely united with the death of Christ for our sins. This is necessary for it recognises the gift of free will given to us by God. Sin being a result of misuse of free will; the salvation of individual members of the human race is also to result from free choice. As Fr. Jude Mbukanma O.P. would say without Him, we are not and without us He will not. THE MASS AS THE SACRIFICE OF THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE: Though the priest really represents the people at the celebration of the Mass, the Mass is none the less a collective act of worship. In it the faithful of God have the right and the duty to play an active role. Thus, Pope Pius X said, the people should not pray in the Mass but pray the Mass. So, the Mass is truly the sacrifice of the people. When Pope John Paul II declared October 2004 to October 2005 as The Year of the Eucharist, he issued an Apostolic Letter titled Mane Nobiscum Domine in which he stressed the same point made here by one of his predecessors, I urge all the faithful he said, to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice with due reverence, offering to Jesus present in the Eucharist, both within and outside Mass, the worship demanded by so great a Mystery. (n.10). I will present my personal reflection and study of the Holy Fathers letter later on in this section. The text of the Mass makes the priest the spokesman of the people at Mass. Despite this, it provides a dialogue in which the people and the priest have their different parts to play. The words of the text of the Mass leave no doubt as to the fact that all present are expected to join their minds and hearts to the action of the priest. By so doing, all the faithful (the people and the priest) offer up the sacrifice together under the leadership of the priest. The priest sings or recites certain prayers of petition during the Mass. They are the Opening Prayer or Collect, the Prayer of Offering and the Post-communion prayers. These prayers are always in the collective pronoun we or our. The priest in a manner that shows they are prayers of the people always introduces them. He invites the people to pray with him the collect and the post-communion prayers by the words Let us pray (oremus) and as he says the collect and Post-communion prayers, he extends his hands; a gesture that suggests the inclusion of all present. The priest introduces the prayer of offering by saying: Pray brethren that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God the Father almighty. To this, the people respond; May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all His Church. This manner of introduction is an invitation to the people to unite their prayers with that of the priest. The corresponding response of the people indicates their acceptance of the priest as their representative and the willingness on the part of the people is as a result of the knowledge that the priest is offering the sacrifice for them. In all cases, after the prayers, the people respond Amen which means, So be it. This signifies their assent to the prayers of the priest. On Calvary, Jesus Christ offered himself as the sacrificial victim for humankinds salvation. Prior to this, he gave humankind the celebration by which his supreme sacrifice is to be perpetuated for he said at the Lords Supper that anytime they break bread and share the cup which is his Body and Blood, they should do it as a memorial of him. Therefore, the Mass, which is one and the same with the offering of Christ on the cross, is not just a sacrifice, but also a memorial sacrifice of Christ.

22

TODAYS CATHOLIC AND THE EUCHARIST:

(A REFLECTION ON MANE NOBISCUM DOMINE)

Pope John Paul II declared October 2004 to October 2005 as The Year of the Eucharist and issued an Apostolic letter titled, Mane Nobiscum Domine, which means Stay With us Lord. It is such a brilliant document that cannot just be glossed over as it holds a lot of very instructive and educative definitive proposals for all true Catholics. I have placed an emphasis on true Catholics. By true I mean Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. The term magisterium as used here and in its actual meaning refers to the teaching authority of the Church, in matters of faith and morals and I wish to include in it the infallibility of the Pope when he teaches ex cathedral. I am sure the term ex cathedral is not as familiar to many Catholics today as it was to many Catholics before our generation. This is because there seems to be a systematic design to play down on the authority of the Holy Father in the recent times by some elements within and outside the Church. I however do not wish to go into that here as it would be an unnecessary deviation that would on the long run be unprofitable to our discussion here. Suffice to note that ex cathedral means when the Pope speaks with the authority of his position as the Supreme Pontiff of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Apostolic Letter Mane Nobiscum Domine (which I will henceforth refer to as MND) builds around what we would often refer to as the Emmaus experience. With the great insight of a man filled with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Father brings out the many aspects of the Eucharist as reflected in the experience the two followers of our Lord had on their way to Emmaus. Moved by their love for a fellow human being, whom they felt should not travel at night; they asked the Lord to stay with them, unknown to them that it was the Lord himself. Stay with us, Lord, for it is almost evening. (Lk.24:29). With these same words, the Holy Father opens his MND.

23

Catholics are called upon in MND to live out the mystery of the Eucharist using the fitting image of the disciples on the way to Emmaus. (MND.2). We live in a troubled world; a world under the constant treat of terrorism and war, a world that has become socially and morally permissive, a world where Christian values are increasingly diminished and pushed to the rear. Living in such a world, we are bound to ask many questions, seeking explanation for many difficulties that plague our true Christian vision and mission. According to the Pope John Paul II, the divine Wayfarer [Jesus] continues to walk at our side, opening to us the Scriptures and leading us to a deeper understanding of the mysteries of God. When we meet him fully, we will pass from the light of the world to the light streaming from the Bread of life, the supreme fulfilment of his promise to be with us always, to the end of the age. (cf. Mt.28:20) (MND.2). The Eucharist is a great mystery that demands absolute worship and reverence. Thus MND calls on us to always celebrate the Holy Mass with deep reverence that is due to it. We are to offer to Jesus, ever present in the Eucharist great worship, within and outside Mass. (MND.10). A primary aspect of the Eucharist that the Emmaus experience opens up to us is that the Eucharist is a mystery of light. (MND.11). This means and implies for us that we should allow our path in life to be guided by the light of Christ, which we experience in its fullness in the Eucharistic celebration. As evident in the Emmaus experience, He interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Lk.24:27), so too in the Eucharistic celebration, the liturgy of the word of God precedes the liturgy of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the word, we learn about Christ whom we encounter in the Eucharist shortly afterwards. This is why, as the MND pointed out, the VCII constitution; Sacrosanctum Concilium, stressed that priests should treat the homily as part of the liturgy, aimed at explaining the word of God and drawing out its meaning for the Christian life. (cf. MND.13). It is a shame that a good number of our priests today do not pay this desired attention to their homilies. Many do not take time to prepare their homilies again under the false impression that they have preached that part of the gospel before and can always preach it again. But the truth remains that every time we meditate on a passage of the gospel, especially with the intention of sharing a reflection on it with Gods people, we are opened to new insights and more so, in relations to the always changing circumstances of the society we live in. If priests refuse to prepare their homilies well, the result is what we observe in many of our Eucharistic celebrations today. They end up depriving the people of God the nourishment they are entitled to from the word of God properly explained to them. It is disappointing to see and hear priests, talk and talk for lengthy periods on Sundays, ending up saying nothing. Some of us spend precious time singing choruses in the name of disposing the congregation to be alive and attentive to what we have to say. Beautiful idea! Except that in many cases, we over step the bounds, and only to reveal to the discerning mind, that we actually have not prepared or have not prepared well. Some of us seek applause by dancing to the gallery. We share irrelevant jokes, tell irrelevant stories, wanting to make the congregation laugh and say they enjoyed our preaching. Homilies are not meant to be enjoyed, it is not a concert performance, nor is it a presentation of scholarship; it is the sharing of the sacred word of God meant to nurture the faithful of God to maturity of life in

24

Christ. I strongly feel and propose that superiors and local ordinaries should call us priests to order concerning this aspect of the celebration of the Eucharist as with other aspects that would come to the fore later in this reflection. Most pathetic of all is when we insult the people of God from the pulpit. This takes different forms, like bullying at them, giving the impression you know all and they know nothing, letting them know you are in-charge and what you say goes unopposed, and etc. I do not think homily time is meant for this. The people have a lot of respect for us when we speak from the pulpit and I think their respect should not be taken for granted. Many of those we preach to are in fact more knowledgeable than us in their various fields. They look up to us to instruct them in matters of the word of God and not to insult them. Besides the pulpit and the homily we deliver from it is about the good-news of our salvation. Insults, intimidation, disregard, and disrespect, are definitely not part of this good-news. Homilies as based on the readings at Mass are meant to prepare the congregation to recognise and meet the Lord at the breaking of bread and sharing of the cup of his blood. As noted by Pope John Paul II, it is significant that the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, duly prepared by our Lords words, recognised him at the table through the simple gesture of the breaking of bread. When minds are enlightened and hearts are enkindled, signs begin to speak. (MND.14). The Eucharist is full of dynamic signs, which contain very rich luminous message. I am tempted to emphasise this next passage. Hear Pope John Paul II; As I emphasised in my Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, it is important that no dimension of this sacrament should be neglected. We are constantly tempted to reduce the Eucharist to our own dimensions, while in reality it is we who must open ourselves up to the dimensions of the Mystery. The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation. (MND.14). Going further, he says, The Eucharist is a great Mystery! And it is one which above all must be well celebrated. Holy Mass needs to be set at the centre of the Christian life and celebrated in a dignified manner by every community, in accordance with established norms, with the participation of the assembly, with the presence of ministers who carry out their assigned tasks, and with a serious concern that signing and liturgical music be suitably sacred. (MND.17). [The emphasis in bold print is that of John Paul II]. I consider this a five-star statement that each of us priests and members of the congregation, especially those that play assigned roles, with particular reference to the choristers, should always have in mind at all celebrations of the Eucharist; be it a weekday Mass or Sunday Mass. I find it really disturbing the way some of us priests celebrate Mass these days. We introduce new signs and gestures, many of which are awkward to say the least, and attempt to use expressions different from what is written in the books, many of which depreciate the actually meaning of what is suppose to have been said. It becomes most appalling, when the reasons we give for doing this is that the people like it. The Mass is not about what the people like or how the people like it, it is about re-enacting the Calvary event. How ironical it is that some of us spend close to forty five minutes or more preaching and

25

allow the offertory collection and thanksgivings, and all sorts of second collections for this and that, to go on and on, only to race through the Eucharistic prayers, at times being barely audible as we do not even pronounce the words well because there is no time. Strange indeed! Some of our choirs have almost turned the celebration of the Eucharist to a musical concert. You hear all sorts of strange and funny music, classical, traditional, and familiar liturgical music are re-invented in the sleek, jazzy, and disco-like fashion of todays crazy world of musical entertainment. Most annoying is when the responsorial psalm is so twisted that the entire congregation is at times lost as to how to respond at the end of each verse. The celebration of the Eucharist is not about the choirs competence in producing good music, though this has its important role in enhancing a great celebration, but most important is that the celebration of the Eucharist is an act of divine worship. It should be conducted with reverence and solemnity for the great mystery involved. I again call on superiors and local ordinaries to call us priests to order. Ask us to study and respect the rubrics and celebrate the Eucharist, as it ought to be celebrated. Give it the dignity and solemnity it deserves. To ensure that choirs do not hijack the celebration, they should use songs and produce music that is liturgically appropriate and easy enough for the congregation to join in. We can understand when at appropriate times during Eucharistic celebrations, the choir renders specialised songs alone. This should however be about enhancing the beauty of the celebration and not about the choirs ability to provide sensational musical hits. It will be all too great, if they can organise concerts for this purpose outside Mass. The Eucharist is a meal that brings together the body of Christ in the sharing of the bound of love and family. As a meal, it has a sacrificial meaning and recalls the fact that we bring to the present what occurred in the past, while at the same time, it impels us towards the future. (MND.15). The Holy Father reminds us also of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which I focussed on in the next section of this little book. Because Christ is truly and really present in the Eucharist, we should endeavour to take the time to kneel before Jesus present in the Eucharist, in order to make reparation by our faith and love for the acts of carelessness and neglect, and even the insults which our saviour must endure in many parts of the world. (MND.18). We can use the recitation of the Rosary, when we properly understand it in the biblical and christocentric form as presented in another Apostolic Letter; Rosarium Virginis Mariae of Pope John Paul II, as a fitting introduction to our Eucharistic adorations and contemplations. The two disciples on the way to Emmaus requested the Lord to stay with them, but Christ gave them a greater gift in response. He found a way not to stay with them, but to stay in them. This was through the Eucharist. Thus, in the Eucharist, Christ provides us the opportunity to stay in us, if only we open the doors of our hearts to him. He promised us in Jn.15:4 abide in me, and I in you will abide. The Eucharist calls us out on an evangelising mission. Upon recognising the Lord, the two disciples set out immediately (Lk.24:33) back to Jerusalem to report what had happened.

26

In like manner, our encounter with Christ, constantly intensified and deepened in the Eucharist, issues in the Church and in every Christian an urgent summons to testimony and evangelisation. (MND.24). This summon to the mission of evangelisation is given as a charge to us at the end of every Eucharistic celebration in the words of dismissal, i.e. go in peace to love and serve the Lord, and etc. It is a charge to spread the gospel and bring it to bear on our society e.g. reactivating the Christian values in our society. According to the Holy Father, In this Year of the Eucharist Christians ought to be committed to bearing more forceful witness to Gods presence in the world. We should not be afraid to speak about God and to bear proud witness to our faith. (MND.26). The Eucharist bestows on us the mission to promote peace, justice, and solidarity. The Christian who takes part in the Eucharist learns to become a promoter of communion, peace, and solidarity in every situation. More than ever, our troubled world, which began the new millennium with the sceptre of terrorism and the tragedy of war, demands that Christians learn to experience the Eucharist as a great school of peace, forming men and women who, at various levels of responsibility in social, cultural and political life, can become promoters of dialogue and communion. (MND.27). One of the very important missions the Eucharist bestows on us is that of Christian service. We are living in a world where power, wealth, popularity and stardom are the order of the day. Ours is increasingly becoming a world where only the fittest survives. Our nation, Nigeria, for instance, continues to plunge into the dark recesses of uncertainties as our leaders, purported to have been democratically elected even though we all know there were foul means involved in the said democratic election, have continued to show unveiled signs of dictatorship and gross insensitivity to the plight of the ordinary citizens. Within this context, this aspect of the Eucharist cannot but be given prominent attention. MND refers to the Eucharistic call to service as the impulse which the Eucharist gives to the community for a practical commitment to building a more just and fraternal society. (n.28). The Eucharist is a call on us to be at the service of others and not to be lords but servants of all. The Lord showed extreme love in the Eucharist as he gave himself to us as food and drink. He overturned all those criteria of power, which govern human relations and radically affirmed the criterion of service, of which he had said, if anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all. (Mk.9:35). As the Pope John Paul II resolutely affirmed, the evangelist John did not by chance omit the account of the institution of the Eucharist but decisively reported instead the washing of feet. (cf. Jn.13:1-20). The very act of Jesus bending down to wash the feet of his disciples explains the meaning of the Eucharist in univocal, unambiguous terms. This is also affirmed by St. Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians about the impropriety of a Eucharistic celebration lacking charity expressed by practical sharing with the poor (cf. ICor.11:17-22, 27-34) (MND.28). As this Apostolic Letter powerfully stated, the authenticity of our Eucharistic celebrations will be judged by the criterion of service to the needy. Come to think of it, it is in our love for one another that we will be known and recognised as true followers of Christ. (Jn.13:35).

27

THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST Very important and significant among the events of the Lords Supper is the reference of Jesus Christ to bread as his body and wine as his blood. To start with, there is nowhere in the scriptures where Jesus was said to be mentally imbalanced nor is it recorded that he goes about the streets saying things that do not make sense, either to himself or to others. It is also not on record anywhere that Jesus was a daydreamer or a fantasiser. Also, it is not written that Jesus was a jester or a clown and as such is not to be taken seriously at all times, he really may not mean what he has said. Instead, the portrait we have of Jesus, both in religious and secular literature is that of a serious minded man, a man with a singular sense of purpose and mission, one who goes about his set goals with integrity, and commitment not equivocating or trying to please any person. Even pagan historians like Josephus Flavius who at times spoke scornfully about a man called Christ who was the root cause of civil unrest in the Roman Empire, never referred to him as a jester. On this account therefore, we cannot say that Jesus was not serious when he referred to bread as his body and wine as his blood at that Supper. So too we cannot say that he was out of his mind when he made these pronouncements. The occasion was solemn, the audience was his disciples, to whom he was to entrust his mission, and it was a moment of great significance and importance. A specific occasion Christ has chosen to institute a special form of prayer. Given that Jesus Christ knew what he was saying; it becomes important to note that he did not say the bread looks like his body and the wine like his blood. Neither did he say that the bread represents his body and the wine his blood. These are possibilities of what he could have said so as to avoid equivocation. Christ did not say any of these, rather he said; This is my Body and This is my Blood. The issue of Jesus, giving his body as food and his blood as drink for mans eternal salvation goes back to his discourse in the theological gospel of St. John. This discourse opens with the miracle of the loaves, (Jn. 6:1-15) a miracle whose setting recalls the anguish of Moses when the people cried out in tears to him in the desert for meat and Yahwehs subsequent response (Num. 11:13ff). It also recalls the multiplication of loaves by the prophet Elisha at Gilgal (2 Kings 4:42-44). Out of what we may call human feeling, Jesus Christ asked Philip how to get some bread to feed the crowds surrounding him. In the opinion of Philip, this would not be easy, as it will cost some good money; besides the only boy selling food around has just five loaves and two fish. Little did Philip know that the five

28

loaves and two fish were all that the master needs. Having given thanks, the five loaves and two fish fed all present and twelve whole baskets of left over were collected. Impressed by this great miracle, the crowds went in search of Jesus the following day. When they found him at Capernaum, they displayed their relief by telling him how much they have searched for him. Jesus however was not given to their material way of thinking, he puts it straight to them that they were seeking him because of bread and not because they really love him and his teaching. He used the opportunity to advise them once again to seek and work for bread that endures for eternal life which the son of man will give. Thus, he started the gradual task of exposing the great mystery that was to come. The mystery of the vicarious death of the Son of man, who has come to give new life to the human race, by inviting the human race to share in the life giving meal of his Body and Blood. Jesus drew the attention of the crowd to the manna their ancestors had in the desert. He explained to the crowds that it was his Father, God, who gave them the manna and not Moses as they thought. This same God, he tells them is going to give them the true bread which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. In response to the crowds craving for this bread, he declared; I am the bread of life. No one who comes to me will ever hunger; no one who believes in me will ever thirst. (Jn. 6:35). With this declaration, which is more of an invitation, Jesus presents himself as the wisdom of God, which invites all peoples to her table (Proverbs 9:1 ff). The Jews had problems with this. They knew the father and mother of Jesus, how then could he claim to have come from heaven as the bread of life. They started to complain. Aware of their rather quiet grudge, Jesus explained further. He concluded the explanation by declaring again; I am the living bread which has come down form heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever and the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world. (Jn. 6:50-51). Gradually, Jesus Christ is exposing the meaning and purpose of the incarnation and the mystery of the passion. The Jews however, were not following. They were still thinking on the realm of man, and their grudge was becoming louder; How can this man give us his flesh to eat. They definitely did not understand what Jesus meant. Again, Jesus tried to lead them from the darkness of their human thoughts to the light God is offering them. His efforts seemed futile as the crowds started to leave him one after the other, perhaps afraid of being lured him into cannibalism. They perceived Jesus talk as intolerable teaching, unacceptable to anyone. The listeners of Jesus are agreeable in their understanding that Jesus meant what he said to be taken literally and not to be understood in any other way. In other words, they knew Jesus was not speaking in metaphors. At this point they were leaving Jesus one after the other. We would expect that Jesus who does not want anyone entrusted to him to be lost (Jn. 17:2) would have called back his followers and soften his teaching so as to make it agreeable to them. No! Jesus did not do that; he meant every word he said, exactly as he has said each word. For him the Jews were unteachable (cf. Mt. 19:8) and he would not because of that water down the truth, or twist it so as to win their continuous follower-ship. The truth, no matter how bitter, is the truth and only the truth shall set you free. He turned to his disciples instead and made it clear to them that they too can leave if they so desired (Jn. 6:67). To this Simon Peter, the self-appointed spokesman for the apostles replied, Lord to whom shall we go? You have the message of

29

eternal life, and we believe; we have come to know that you are the Holy One of God. (Jn. 6:69). The reference of Jesus at the Lords Supper to bread and wine as his body and blood respectively is traced back to the above discourse. It is a fulfilment of his promise to give the people the bread of life, which has come down from heaven, the bread that is his flesh, for the life of world. The bread and wine thus offered on the altar at Mass is the body and blood of Christ after the words of consecration ordained by Christ himself (Mt. 26:20-26, Lk.22:19-20, Mk.14:22-25) are pronounced by a validly ordained Catholic priest. This whole process is called transubstantiation. TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND CONSUBSTANTIATION: What happens on the altar is a great mystery, which the Church calls transubstantiation. The doctrine of transubstantiation was formally defined by the 4th Lateran Council of 1215 based on the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accident. For Aristotle, the substance is the essential nature of a thing while the accident is the outward appearance, e.g. taste, colour, shape, smell, etc. Thus, the doctrine of transubstantiation holds that the accidents (the outward appearance) of the bread and wine, i.e. smell, taste, colour, shape, etc, remain unchanged at the moment of consecration but its substance changes from the bread and wine to the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This doctrine faced a heavy Protestant criticism especially during the reformation period. The 1551 Council of Trent however vigorously defended both the doctrine and the terminology of transubstantiation in its Decree on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. The opening statement of the Decree strongly affirms that after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really and substantially contained in the venerable sacrament of the holy Eucharist under the appearance of those physical things. It proceeded with the affirmation that; By the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation. The meaning of this is that after the consecration there is a change, in the ontological reality, in the significance and in the purpose of bread and wine. When we talk about a change in the significance we are talking about a change in the meaning of the bread and wine, a change in what the bread and wine represent or signify. Hitherto, the bread and wine meant nothing other than earthly food, food for human (material) nourishment and satisfaction. With the spoken words of consecration, this meaning is changed. The bread and wine now means more than earthly food. It is now the body and blood of Christ, a heavenly food. It now signifies food and drink for human spiritual satisfaction. This mystery can therefore, be expressed as transsignification, that is, a transformation in the significance or meaning of the bread and wine. This concept however does not fully

30

express nor explains what has happened. It leaves out the change in purpose of the bread and wine. It is therefore not a correct expression but a one sided expression of the mystery that has taken place. In addition to the change in significance, there is also a change in purpose. The purpose of the earthly bread and wine lies in ministering to the natural bodily life. After consecration, a new thrust and dynamism appears. The bread and wine, which is now the body and blood of Christ minister and nourish the life of God in us and therefore strengthen us for eternal life. Because of this change in finality, the mystery may be expressed as transfinalization. Again, like the former expression this expression is incomplete as it expresses the change in purpose alone and not the change in meaning. A full and complete expression is obtained in the concept of transubstantiation. It expresses both the new significance and new purpose that the bread and wine now assume after consecration. The changes involved affect the whole being (substance) of the bread and wine. So it is complete to talk about a transformation in the substance; the substance being what makes a thing what it is. There is a change from the substance of bread and wine to the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, a transformation from the substance of bread to the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Though it still looks like bread and wine, it still tastes like bread and wine; it is in fact, the body and blood of Christ since the substance that makes it bread and wine is now the substance of the body and blood of Christ. The official position of the Catholic Church is that as long as tanssignification and transfinalization are understood within the context of the traditional understanding of transubstantiation, they are acceptable. (McGranth, 2001:526). Pope Paul VI in his 1965 encyclical Mysterium Fidei stated the issue thus, As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food. Yet they take on this new significance, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new reality. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species [that is, what is now the new substance of the elements] is not what was there before, but something completely different namely, the body and blood of Christ. As long as the appearance of bread and wine remains, Jesus Christ remains sacramentally present in the consecrated species. This is why, in the Catholic Church, the sacred species, that is, the Holy Communion, the Blessed Eucharist; the consecrated bread is preserved in the tabernacle and adored even outside Eucharistic celebrations, like at Benedictions. This teaching on the Eucharist is very central to Catholic doctrines and it is not to be confused with the teaching of consubstantiation of some other Christian churches. The concept of consubstantiation, which is especially associated with Martin Luther talks about

31

the simultaneous presence of both the bread and the body of Christ at one and the same time, i.e. Christ coming to dwell with the substance of the bread and wine. In other words, the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ. Thus, after the Communion Service as it is often called in these other Christian churches, Christ departs from the substance of the bread and wine and it once again becomes ordinary bread and ordinary wine. I want to acknowledge that there seems to be a shift in recent times in this understanding as there is an increasing reverence given to the elements of bread and wine and a tendency to consume all that is left-over and not just dispose of them by these other Christian faiths. There is however a fundamental difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation as Christian doctrines concerning the body and blood of Christ. Finally, I want to mention that while in the other sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Anointing of the sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony, we encounter Christ in his action and power, in the Eucharist we meet Christ in an objective way. That is why we talk about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This does not mean, in fact, it does not even suggest that Christ is not present in the other sacraments, but that his presence brought about in the Mass is presence in its fullest sense as Pope Paul VI puts it in his Encyclical Letter Mysterium Fidei.

32

THE EARLY HISTORY, STRUCTURE AND RITES OF THE MASS The setting of the Mass as we have it today is not exactly as it was at the Lords Supper. At the Lords Supper Jesus Christ instituted the Mass in its core and essence; in the course of time, it has been fashioned out as it is today with all the essential elements of the Lords Supper still very much intact and present. The Lords Supper itself has two principal component parts, the consecration and the communion. The consecration is the blessing of bread and the cup of wine (Mt. 26:26-28) and the communion is the sharing of the bread and wine, from the four accounts of the Lords Supper present in the Scriptures (Mt., Mk, Lk. and 1 Cor.) though they suggest two different traditions, they however present the same structure, namely, i. ii. iii. iv. Jesus took bread, then a cup of wine He gave thanks (Gave the blessing) He broke the bread He gave the bread and the cup to his disciples.

The same structure, determines today the course of the liturgy of the Eucharist
i.

ii.
iii.

iv.

The presentation of the gifts from which the offerings are taken and laid on the altar table. The Eucharistic prayer, which contains account of the Institution. The blessing and breaking of bread. The Communion rite.

We may not know precisely how the Mass was celebrated in the apostolic era, but we can be sure that it was celebrated with great reverence and devotion and that it corresponded to the action at the Lords Supper. This insight is captured in the episode at Emmaus. The disciples never recognised Jesus until they sat at table where Christ assumed the role of the Chief Celebrant and scripture says: he took the bread and said the blessing; then he broke it and handed it to them. (Lk. 24:30). So, the archetypal formula for the celebration of the Mass shows that what the Apostles did was correspondent to the Lords Supper. (Acts.2:46,20:11). Apart from the Lords Supper the early Christians had another service, which included everybody unlike the sacrificial banquet of the Lords Supper. It was adopted from their former Jewish religion and refashioned to suit their new Christian worship. It involved prayers, readings from the Law and the prophets (Todays Old Testament) and sermon based on the readings. It would not be completely out of place if this service were likened to the discussion on the way to Emmaus; where Jesus, starting with Moses (who symbolises the law) and going through the prophets, explained to the two disciples the

33

passages concerning him Jesus. (Lk. 24:27). Later on, when the Eucharistic sacrifice (Mass) was separated from the Jewish charity banquet, fixed prayers and ceremonies were provided for it. The service of prayers and instruction was put in place with the whole liturgy, as a kind of introductory service. This is what we call the liturgy of the word today. As early as the year 150 AD just about a century after the apostles, the general outline of the Mass was already fixed. In his writing, about the year 155 AD to the pagan emperor, Antoninus Pius (138-161), St. Justin explained what Christians do. According to him, On the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memories of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded, we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks that we have been judge worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgiving, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying; Amen! When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the eucharisted bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent. (cf. CCC, art. 1345) This witness of St. Justin shows that the basic structure of the Mass had been as it is now for a very long time. The development that has taken place in the Mass has to do with its manner of celebration. This was to meet with growing assembly and for better understanding of the signs and gestures of the Mass. From the time it was celebrated in homes with small gathering of the faithful (Acts. 20:7-8,11) and in catacombs during the persecution, the Mass had to be adapted to the far larger congregation and church buildings of today. Basically, like it was from time, the Mass today is made of two component parts: the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist. The liturgy of the word comprises the introductory rites, the readings, homily/sermon and the prayers of the faithful. The liturgy of the Eucharist on the other hand is made up of the offering, that is, the epiclesis, Eucharistic prayer and the rite of communion.

34

THE HOLY MASS AND THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD The Mass being a sacrifice needs a priest for its celebration. A sacrifice, in the biblical perspective, is the offering of a victim by a priest to God alone". The Catholic Priesthood fulfils this requirement. As a point of note, Jesus Christ is both the priest and the victim of sacrifice of Calvary. In other words, he was The Priest at Calvary. And the victim of offering was himself. He did not offer bulls or rams, he offered himself as the spotless lamb acceptable to God. Thus, Catholic teaching holds that he is both the priest and victim at Mass. The role of the priest then at Mass, as in the other sacraments of the Church is that of a representative of Christ. So, in the celebration of the Mass, the officiating priest stands in the person of Christ as another Christ (Alter Christus). In the face of contemporary Pentecostalism, the Catholic Priesthood, noted for its celibacy has generated some mixed feelings. As some desire and respect it, others do not see the justification for its celibacy nor why the Catholic priests should be called Reverend Fathers against the biblical injunction that call no one on earth Father (Mt. 23:10). Perhaps an insight into the concept of the priesthood may clear the air and help a better understanding of the Catholic celibate priesthood. Section four of this work deals with this issue.

35

SECTION THREE

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

36

INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________ Issues about Mary have been a source of controversy between Catholics and other Christian denominations for ages. These controversies have either been on the veneration Catholics give to Mary or the doctrinal teachings about the person of Mary e.g. that Mary is the mother of God, that she was conceived without sin, that she was a virgin before and remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus Christ, that she had no other children outside of Jesus Christ, etc. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make an important theological distinction between adoration and veneration and categorically state from the outset of this inquiry that Catholics do not adore Mary but venerate her. Adoration, which in classical theology is referred to as latria is the worship and homage that is rightly offered to God alone, while veneration, which is called dulia in classical theology is the honour due to the excellence of a created person. (Miravalle, 1993:9). Adoration is the acknowledgement of excellence and perfection of an uncreated, divine person. (Ibid.) This is the worship that God alone deserves as the creator. Veneration on the other hand refers to the recognition, honour and respect that are due to a created being on account of the excellence exhibited by that created being. This is not and does not compete with the adoration due to the creator. Adoration to Mary has never been and will never be part of authentic Catholic doctrine and devotional life.(Op. Cit., 10). Neither is devotion to Mary in form of veneration arbitrary nor extraordinary for God himself has willed that she plays an important role in the work of the incarnation, i.e. God becoming man, and the salvation of the humankind. Pope St. Pius X states this clearly, God could have given us the Redeemer of the human race and the Founder of the faith in another way than through the Virgin, but since Divine Providence has been pleased that we should have the God-man through Mary, who conceived Him by the Holy Spirit and bore Him in her womb, it remains for us to receive Christ only through the hands of Mary. (Ad diem illum). Bearing this initial clarification in mind, we shall proceed to look at the role scripture ascribed to Mary and thus try to understand the basis of the theological positions of the Catholic Church about Mary and Marian dogmas and devotions. YES, FROM NOW ONWARDS ALL GENERATIONS WILL CALL ME BLESSED

37

And Mary said: My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my saviour, because he has looked upon the lowliness of his servant. Yes, from now onwards, all generations will call me blessed, for the Almighty has done great things for me. Holy is his name, and his faithful love extends age after age to those who fear him. He has used the power of his arm; he has routed the arrogant of heart. He has pulled down princes from their thrones and raised high the lowly. He has filled the starving with good things, sent the rich away empty. He has come to the help of Israel his servant, mindful of his faithful love according to the promise he made to our ancestors of his mercy to Abraham and his descendants forever. (Luke 1:4655). The response of Mary to the greetings of Elizabeth (otherwise known as the magnificat) recalls the song of Hannah, the barren wife of Elkanah. My heart exults in Yahweh, in my God is my strength lifted up, my mouth derides my foes, for I rejoice in your deliverance. There is no Holy one like Yahweh, (indeed, there is none but you) no rock like our God. Do not keep talking as proudly, let no arrogance come from your mouth, for Yahweh is a wise God, his to weigh up deeds. The bow of the mighty has been broken but those who were tottering are now braced with strength. The full fed are living themselves out for bread but the hungry need labour no more; the barren woman bears sevenfold but the mother of many is left desolate. Yahweh gives death and life, brings down to Sheol and draws up; Yahweh makes poor and rich, he humbles and also exults. He raises the poor from the dust, he lifts the needy from the dunghill to give them a place with princes, to assign them a seat of honour; for to Yahweh belongs the pillars of the earth; on these he has poised the world. He safeguards the steps of his faithful but the wicked vanish in darkness (for human strength can win no victories). Yahweh, his enemies are shattered, the Most High thunders in the heavens, Yahweh judges the ends of the earth, he endows his king with power; he raises up the strength of his Anointed. (1 Sam. 2:1-10) This outstanding poem, which the compiler of the book of Samuel has put in the voice of Hannah, has its strong hold in its reference to the childless woman, an image that Hannah depicts. Hannah had known grief as one of the two wives of Elkanah, son of Jeroham (1Sam. 1:1). Anytime Elkanah goes up to Shiloh, which was then the home of the Ark of the Covenant to offer sacrifices he usually gives a portion to Hannah and a portion

38

each to the other wife, Peninnah and all her sons and daughters. Peninnah on her part would taunt and provoke Hannah whom it has pleased the Lord to make barren. (1 Sam.1:16) completely weighed down by such taunts and provocations from Peninnah, Hannah poured out her whole being to Yahweh in prayer asking for a child a boy. (1Sam. 1:10-11). And Yahweh Sabaoth, heard the prayer of His servant, taking note of her humiliation on account for her barrenness. Hannah was thus, blessed with a son Samuel. In thankful praise to God she prayed the above poem. This beautiful prayer of thanks glorifies God who triumphantly vindicates His faithful followers. And, in a special way, it expresses the theology of the poor of Yahweh, which is epitomized in the book of Zephaniah 2:3, seek Yahweh, all you humble of the earth and the prophecy of Isaiah 57:15, but I am with the contrite and humble In the New Testament, this same theology of the poor of Yahweh comes out conspicuously in the Beatitudes, How blessed are the poor in spirit; the kingdom of Heaven is theirs. (Matthew 5:3). Jesus also made it abundantly clear as he declares his mission in Luke 4:21, this text is being fulfilled today even while you are listening (the text in question being Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 4:18). The spirit of the Lord is on me, for he has anointed me to bring the good news to the afflicted, to proclaim liberty to captives, sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim a year of favour from the Lord. The poor of Yahweh, namely the oppressed and those whom society have humbled, hold a place of pride in the ministry of Jesus. Marys proclamation (the magnificat) which is surely more personal than Hannahs echoes the same theology of the poor of Yahweh, that God comes to the help of the poor and the simple, for He has pulled down princes from their thrones and raised the lowly having noted the humiliation of the servants. The account of the annunciation, which itself is patterned along the Old Testament angelic promise of a child to Samsons mother (Judge 13:2-7) sets forth Marys identity as one of Gods lowly the poor of Yahweh. Tradition dating to ancient times has it that she was of materially poor couple, Joachim and Anne, a belated only child, since she came into the family when both parents ordinarily had passed the age of child bearing. Mary assents her lowliness in her rather confused but lovingly submissive answer to the archangel Gabriel, You see before you the Lords servant, let it happen to me as you have said. (Luke 1:38) As God has raised her from her lowly state, she affirms that from now onwards all generation will call me blessed (Lk. 1:48). The Lord the almighty has done great things for her.

FORESHADOWMENT OF MARYS DIGNITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

39

According to scripture scholars, we can read the Old Testament in two ways, either as a purely Jewish literature or from the perspective of a Christian reader with the knowledge of the practices of the Jewish. If the Old Testament were read from purely Jewish perspective, Marys presence would be seen in line with Jewish conception (understanding) of any woman born of the religious race and cultural environment of Israel. In this case, Mary can only be seen, as intervening in the past and thus, the Old Testament cannot be affirmed to be moving decisively towards Mary. To say the least, the Old Testament read in this light gives a negative result in Mariology. On the alternative, when the Old Testament is read as a Christian literature, a completely new meaning of the expressions, symbols and realities of the Old Testament is seen. The new interpretations produced from this context overwhelm the ones from the former. The Bible, that is the Old and New Testament, becomes a whole literature with the Old Testament directed towards the New Testament in which Christ is the end and goal. Mary being intimately tied to Jesus Christ is then contemplated and seen in parts of the Old Testament. The fathers of the Second Vatican Council (VC II) express this fact beautifully by saying, The books of the Old Testament recount the period of salvation history during which the coming of Christ into the world was slowly prepared for. These earliest documents, as they are read in the Church are understood in the light of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of the Woman, Mother of the redeemer, into a gradually sharper focus. (LG. 55). The first glimmer of our salvation, which came immediately after the fall of humankind, is perhaps the sharpest image of Mary in the Old Testament. I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; it will bruise your head and you will strike its heel (Gen.3:15) this, in the circle of biblical scholars is referred to as the proto-evangelium the first gospel it opposes the human race personified in the image of the womans offspring (which significantly is rendered in the singular, thus giving room for it to be interpreted as Jesus Christ) to the devil which is personified in the image of the snake. The passage hints on an ultimate victory of the side of the womans offspring. The Greek version of the Old Testament uses the masculine pronoun he will bruise instead of the impersonal it will bruise of the English version. This symbolically ascribes the final victory to one of the womans descendant. Throwing more light on the issue, the LXX (the Latin version which was popular among the first generation of Christian) uses the feminine pronoun she will bruise This allows an interpretation that specifically suggests a reference to Mary, since the Messianic interpretation of this text in whatever version of the Old Testament, puts the Messiah and the Mother together. (cf. NJB, Comm. on Gen.3:15). Isaiah tells Israel, the House of David, that though Ahaz, the king has refused to ask for a sign about what is to come, the Lord will not withstanding give a sign which is that of a young woman, who will give birth to a son called Immanuel. The Lord will give you a

40

sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel. (Isa.7:14). Later on, Isaiah talks about Immanuel as the future saviour of his people. (Isa. 8:8-9). Isaiahs young woman could either be a virgin as the Greek version renders it or a recently married young woman as the LXX renders it. This brief analysis of Isaiahs text suggests the idea that the prophet was referring to Mary, the virgin mother of Jesus Christ, who is the saviour of the human race. This is the opinion found in Christian tradition (LG. n.55) based on the claim that Matthew 1:23 identifies Mary as the young woman of Isaiah, which, Matthew substitutes with virgin. (cf. Aniagwu, 1991:3). Still in the Old Testament, the prophet Micah in reference to the distress plaguing the Davidic dynasty chips in a word of hope as he mentions the glory that was to come, that though Bethlehem is considered least of the Kingdom of Judah, it will only be till she who is in labour gives birth (Micah 5:2). Commentaries on this passage assume that Micah is perhaps thinking of the famous prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, which historically precedes Micahs prophecy with some thirty years. Apart from these outstanding Old Testament Marian passages, other passages, which at least implicitly highlight Mary, can be found in the Old Testament. For instance, at the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Pope Pius IX in 1854 saw Mary as prototype of the Ark of Noah, which was built at the instance of Gods command to escape the effects of sin. (Gen.6). The early fathers of the Church saw Mary as a personification of the Burning bush since she held the presence of God but without corruption as the bush burns without been consumed (Ex. 3:1). The temple of God talked about in 1Kings 8 prints a picture of a sanctified dwelling place of God and therefore foreshadows Mary as the future tabernacle of Jesus Christ. Among these models, the Ark of the Covenant stands out as a strong model of Mary, who is specially chosen to hold the presence of God. (Gen.6:14, Ex.37:1). The richness of the Old Testament in foretelling the intercessory, virginal and pure nature of Mary through the use of models and archetypes cannot be over emphasised. The fathers of the VCII in LG 55 cited above already testify to this fact. THE NEW TESTAMENTS VISION OF MARY The gospels form the main thrust of the New Testament. According to scripture scholars, three stages can be identified, through which the gospels have passed to its present and final end. The first stage is that of historical place. It forms the base of the gospels. The second stage has to do with the traditions that surround the events recorded in the gospels as they are interpreted from the point of view of faith. The final stage, which is third stage, is the compilation of the gospels. This afforded the evangelists the opportunity to express their own theological vision. In the light of this one may say that the New Testament is more than anything else an encyclopaedia of documents of faith. Thus, one should be careful in interpreting its material. When it applies to Mary, extra care is to be taken not to read them as exactly historical accounts of what actually happened. It does not seem to be the intention of any

41

of the evangelists to give an exact historical account of events. They were rather more interested in presenting the mystery of Christ with the aim of building up faith in their readers. The evangelists cannot be accused of falsifying or inaccurately reporting the events in the light of the passion, death, resurrection and glorification of Jesus Christ. In other words, the gospels present concrete historical events as seen in the light of the Paschal event by men of faith. The vision of Mary in the New Testament is that of a humble and obedient servant of God, one whose meekness enables her to put her total trust and confidence in God a pious young woman. Her prominent appearances in the New Testament are found in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. The Lucan account of the annunciation describes how the angel Gabriel was sent to a woman, named Mary, in Galilee. The dialogue that ensued between the angel and Mary is of special interest. The greeting of the angel, Rejoice, you who enjoys Gods favour! The Lord is with you (Lk.1:28) echoes the greeting to the daughter of Zion. A greeting that is motivated by the idea that has God has come to His people. Isaiah puts it like this: Cry and shout for joy, you who live in Zion, for the Holy One of Israel is among you in His greatness (Isa.12:6) The greeting of the angel is therefore an invitation to be happy and joyful. Little wonder then, Mary was disturbed. As scripture puts it, she was deeply disturbed by these words and asked herself what this greeting could mean (Lk.1:29). The full import of the greeting in question is appreciated when it is correctly noted that the name of Mary was not included in the angelic greeting and that the you who enjoy Gods favour is rendered as full of grace in other translations. The fact here is that no one with a fallen nature as all humankind have can possess a fullness of grace. So, for Mary to have been addressed as Full of Grace and by an angel of God is not a passing comment. It is an indication of her exemption from the stain of original sin. As the Catholic catechism puts it, all mankind have contracted the guilt and stain of original sin except the Blessed Virgin Mary who by virtue of her being the Mother of God was conceived without the least guilt and stain of original sin. (Reference?) This teaching is the basis of the dogmatic pronouncement on Marys Immaculate Conception, which is discussed below. Other than the angelic greetings, the New Testament gives other instances (in seed form) of the revealed truths about Mary. And like the mustard seed, some of these have grown to subjects of dogmatic definitions. Such instances include the encounter between Mary and Elizabeth (Lk. 2:4-20), the presentation in the temple which featured the prophetic words of Simeon, in which Marys sorrow on account of her son (Jesus) was fore-told (Lk. 2:34-35) and the missing of Jesus in the temple (Lk.2:41-52). Matthew added to these in his narrative. He mentions the betrothal of Mary to Joseph. (Mt.1:18), the reluctance of Joseph to take Mary a pregnant virgin home as wife and the consequence interference of an angel of God (Mt.1:20), the visit of the wise men from the East at the birth Jesus (Mt.2:1-12), the flight into Egypt and the return of the Holy family to Israel (Mt. 2:13-23).

42

The striking fact about these infancy narratives is the unity between Jesus and Mary as the references repeatedly pointed out. Mark Miravalle, assents to this as a sign of the profound union of Jesus and Mary that would continue for all time. (1993:22). The gospel according to St. John whose main thrust is showing the divinity of Jesus did not miss out on Mary. Interestingly, the two times the evangelist mentioned Mary were so strategic that one cannot just wave them aside as coincidental. John featured Mary at the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus, i.e. the wedding feast at Canaan (Jn.2:1-11). Here, through Marys intercessory role, Jesus performed his first miracle where he turned water into wine. As Miravalle notes, here too, the Marian words, do whatever he tells you (Jn 2:5) were spoken and till today they continue to echo. (Ibid.) It is perfectly in place to think that Marys intercession on behalf of the celebrant at the Canan wedding was effective because Jesus had always listened to His mother (do exegetes support this?). After all, Lk.2:51 reminds us that after the incident in the temple (Lk.2:41f), when Jesus was found among the teachers and scribes after three days of their searching for him, he went to Nazareth with Mary and Joseph and lived under their authority. John again featured Mary at the close of Jesus public ministry at the foot of the cross. (Jn.19:25-27). Here Jesus entrusted his mother in the care of His beloved disciple and also entrusted his beloved disciple to his mother as son. Mariologists opine that the act of Jesus by which he entrusted his beloved disciple to his mother equally signifies that he is entrusting all who are his beloved (cf. Jn. 15:10-15) to the care of his mother. This opinion finds a basis in the exegesis of the scriptural passage, which says, Woman, this is your son. This is your mother. According to this exegesis the gesture of Jesus here is more than of one who is just a dutiful son, but implies a declaration that Mary, the new Eve, is the spiritual mother of all the faithful, of whom the beloved disciple is the type and representative. (NJB, comm. on Jn.19:27) If the African proverb that says the biggest masquerade comes out last, is anything to go by, then the fact that John chose to mention Mary at the end of Jesus public ministry and even the gesture of Jesus to give his mother as mother of all his beloved, at the end of his life as man, cannot be overemphasised. Many a time, reference had been made to the gospel according to Mark by some, as a test case to show that Jesus had no regards for Mary. The question that follows is usually, why then do Catholics make such big deal out of Mary? In truth, the gospel according to Mark has not been an easy nut to crack for Mariologists. But before we make an appraisal of Mark 3:31-34 (which is often the passage quoted), it will be pertinent to note that Mark though historically proven to be the first writing of the New Testament, is not the complete New Testament revelation. Thus, even if Mark is anti-Mary literarily, it does not prove that Mary is irrelevant in the salvation history of humankind.

43

As a matter of fact, the text of Mark (Mk.3:34) in which Jesus asks who are my mother and my brothers? reveals the exemplary lifestyle of Mary as a member of Gods kingdom on earth. So much so that all who do the will of God are his brothers and sisters and mother. (Mk.3:35). One will be correct to say that Jesus has not only signified the perfect manner in which his mother (Mary) has co-operated with the will of God for our salvation (cf. Lk.1:38) which is doing the will of God, but has also pointed to Mary as a model of Christian obedience to Gods will. Most importantly, he has given an insight into the relationship between himself and those who strive after doing Gods will, that is, those who strive after righteousness. The Acts of the Apostles also did not forget to mention the place of Mary in the beginning of the church. Mary was portrayed as being at the heart of the infant church. Her presence in what could be called the first congregation of the church, at the upper room (Acts 1:13-24) was well noted. Finally, the apocalyptic description of a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and twelve stars for a crown (Rev. 12:1) paints a picture of Mary as typifying the Church. THE CHURCHS TEACHING ON MARY: MARIAN DOGMAS The Church uses the term dogma to designate a statement of faith. It is a doctrine promulgated with the highest authority and solemnity a denial of which will amount to a heresy. It is a response of the Church to Gods revelation, an act of obedience on the part of the Church. Gods revelation of Himself has been fully made, once and for all in Jesus Christ (Heb.1:1-3). So the Church does not add anything to this through the pronouncement of dogmas (as some people erroneously presume). Rather, after listening throughout history to the word of God (scripture), led by the Holy Spirit, the church grasps and understands better this single revelation of God in Christ and so pronounces dogmas guarding the word of God with exactitude. According to the theologian, Walter Kasper there are three types of dogmatic statements: (i) (ii) (iii) Those, which relate to Gods salvific purpose. These are dogmas that concern the Trinity, the pre-existence of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Those, which relate to the means of salvation. These include the dogmas to uphold the truth that God wants the concrete, historical church to be a sign and means of salvation for the world. Those, which proclaim paradigmatic truths. These are dogmas, which exemplify or typify some truths. (1991:220)

44

Marian dogmas fall within the third group of dogmatic statements. At the moment, there are four dogmas on Mary, namely, (i) Mother of God, (ii) the Immaculate Conception, (iii) the Virginity of Mary and (iv) the Assumption. MARY MOTHER OF GOD The first and foremost revealed truth about Mary from which all her other roles and all her other honours flow is that Mary is the Mother of God. This doctrine proclaims that the Virgin Mary is true Mother of Jesus Christ who is God the Son made man. The doctrine of Marys divine motherhood, as it is commonly referred to, is explicitly revealed in sacred scripture. (Miravalle, 1993:34) As a concept, motherhood refers to the phenomenon by which a woman shares or more properly put, gives to her offspring (child) the same nature as hers. This is done through the process of conception, gestation and birth. Thus, when a woman, Martha, gives birth to a child, Andrew, Martha is the mother of that complete person called Andrew. Going by this understanding of motherhood one may wonder why Catholics call Mary mother of God. Mary was created in time unlike God who is uncreated and eternal. Mary was human while God is divine. The question then is; is it in the same sense of motherhood as bestowing a like nature on another that Mary is referred to as Mother of God? The answer is Yes (the latter). How is this possible? It is possible by virtue of Mary being the Mother of Jesus Christ who is both the Son of God and God himself. That Mary is the mother of Jesus is unquestionably clear in scripture. Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the savour (cf.Isa.7:14, Micah 5:2) alluded to the mother of the saviour as a young woman. The New Testament infancy narrative of Matthew and Luke univocally stated the same fact, (Mt.1:18, Lk.1:31:2:6-7) and specifically identified Mary as the Mother of Jesus Christ. On his part, Jesus did not deny Mary as mother. The wedding feast at Canaan and the account of Jesus missing in the temple testify to this (cf. Jn.2:1-12, Lk.2:41-50). It is also a clear fact in scripture that Jesus claims to be one and the same with God. That is to say, He is truly God. The Theological gospel according to John opens with this fact. In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God (Jn.1:1). This verse recalls to our minds the Old Testament impression of the Word of God and His wisdom present with Him before the world was created (cf.Wis.7:22, Prov. 8:2236) where the Word (divine logos) refers to Jesus Christ, this verse of John (Jn.1:1) affirms that Jesus Christ is eternal with God and He is God. By claiming God as his father, Jesus claims equality with God in the Jewish understanding of father and son relationship. (Jn.5:8). St. Paul talks of the same equality of

45

Jesus Christ with God, as he made a contrast between Jesus and Adam who was created in Gods image but misused this privilege. Who being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped (Phil.2:6). Note worthy also is the fact that when Jesus was referred to as God he did not deny that he is God. (cf. Jn.20:28) instead he blessed those who will believe that he is truly God without even having any physical evidence to testify to their faith. (Jn.20:29). If Jesus is God and Mary is the Mother of Jesus, by simple logic, it follows that Mary is the Mother of God. This issue seems resolved at this point, except for a Christological question, which the Patriarch of Constantinople; Nestorius, the great preacher, was guilty of an error. Nestorius appeared to divide the one person of Jesus Christ into two separate persons according to his two natures the divine and human nature. And he taught that Mary is the mother of the human person of Jesus Christ and not the mother of the divine person of Jesus Christ. Thus, Mary was not to be referred to as theotokos (God- bearer or Mother of God) but as Christotokos (Mother of Christ). The issue at stake here is more of the error of talking about two persons in Jesus Christ than about Mary being the Mother of God or of Jesus Christ. If the error of talking about two persons in Jesus Christ is erased then there will be no difficulty with Mary being the Mother of God by virtue of her being the Mother of the one person, of Jesus. Truly speaking, Jesus Christ is one person in whom consists two natures, the nature of God and the nature of man. These two natures are inseparably joined together in the one person of Jesus. This union, which is the subject of another dogmatic definition, is appropriately referred to as the hypostatic union. Mary surely did not give Jesus his divine nature neither did she give him his divine personhood. These aspects of Jesus being divine existed from all eternity. But as Mark Miravalle, S.T.D. puts it, when in the fullness of time God sent his son born of a woman (Gal.4:4), Mary gave Jesus a human nature identical to her own in the same way that each of our human mothers gave each of us a human nature. (1993:36). In so far as the two natures in Jesus are not separable (how does this match up with the Chalcedonian definition?) and in so far as there is one person in Jesus Christ and not two persons, and in so far as Mary is the mother of this one person, then Mary is the mother of the complete person of Jesus, which means that Mary is the mother of Jesus who is God or Mary is the Mother of God. Thus, the 431 A.D. ecumenical Council of Ephesus (that is the council of all the Bishops) declared, against Nestorius that if anyone does not confess that Emmanuel (Christ) in truth is God and that on this account the Holy Virgin (Mary) is the Mother of God in as much as she gave birth to the Word of God made fleshlet him be anathema. (DS.113). By the term anathema, we mean an official condemnation of a doctrinal or moral position by the Church.

46

No matter how incomprehensible and illogical this amazing truth may sound to natural reasoning, it is not an impossibility since God himself is involved. Where God is, all things are possible, and human logic is at best, a childs play. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION This doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is the second central Marian doctrine, has a long history behind it. Pope Pius IX defined it in 1854. The doctrine proclaims that Mary was conceived without any stain of original sin. This doctrine was the subject of prolonged debate. By the close of the 7 th century, the Eastern Church established a feast called the feast of the conception of the virgin. It was celebrated after the feasts of the Annunciation and the conception of John the Baptist. This new feast entails the celebration of Mary as the all holy woman in whom there was no trace of sin (The panhagia). The story in the Western Church (Roman Catholic) was however different. Difficulties with the understanding of this doctrine arose with the stress (from the time of St. Augustine) of the sinful condition of all human beings, that is, the universality of original sin. This stress was occasioned by the need to highlight our need for salvation through the grace of God given in Jesus Christ. Saying that Mary did not share in original sin would be denying that she was saved by Christ as she would, in the first place, not need salvation since she is already free from humankind sinful nature. It would also be undermining the universal character of Jesus redemptive act. The opinion of such great theologians of authority like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure was that Mary was not immaculate in the first instant of her conception. But thanks to Jesus Christ, the perfect redeemer, Mary was perfectly redeemed from original sin in the second instant of her existence. John Duns Scotus, a renowned theologian of the Franciscan Order, held that precisely because Mary was most perfectly redeemed by the most perfect redeemer, she enjoyed the fullness of grace from the very first instant of her existence. The struggle about when precisely was Mary immaculate went on till the end of the 15 century when Rome (the seat of the Latin Church) officially adopted the feast of the conception of Mary. The teaching that Mary was immaculate from the first instant of her existence was neither condemned nor affirmed by any Pope.
th

Pope Alexander VII, however, resolved the issue when he declared on the 8 th of December 1661 in favour of the Immaculate Conception of Mary from the first instant of her existence. On the 8th of December 1854, almost two centuries after the papal declaration of Alexander VII, Pope Pius IX took a more definitive stand. He pronounced as an article of faith, the Immaculate Conception of Mary. For the honour of the holy and undivided Trinity, for the honour and renown of the virgin Mother of God, for the

47

exaltation of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define: the doctrine that maintains that the most Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of her conception, by a unique grace and privilege of Almighty God and in consideration of the merits of Christ Jesus the saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore must be firmly and constantly held by all the faithful. (Pius IX, ineffabilis Deus, 1854). (DS 28032904) The scripture provides two passages, which at least give an implicit idea of this revealed truth. Gen.3:15 records God telling Satan that He will put enmity between Satan and the woman whose offspring shall crush Satans head. This enmity extends also to the offspring of both parties the woman and the Satan. This passage points to the complete and absolute opposition between Jesus who is the offspring of the woman and sin which is the offspring of Satan. Mary, the woman so referred to in this passage, is given similar opposition to the serpent which is Satan in the passage. It is on this note that it will be inconceivable that at any point in Marys existence, she part took of humankinds fallen nature, which is the result of original sin. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is revealed also in the angelic greetings of the annunciation. Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you. (Lk.1:28). Marys name was substituted for in this greeting with full of grace. That this title served as a substitute for Marys name in the sight of God who is all knowing is to indicate that her very being is full of grace. It is true that no one with a fallen nature as all others of the human race are can be appropriately described as full of grace. Mary has been compared by the early church fathers to Eve in her original state. Thus, Mary is frequently referred to as the New Eve. Eve was conceived in grace without a fallen nature. So, to compare Mary to her is to talk of another like Eve who was conceived without the fallen nature. Our understanding and explanation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception ultimately depends largely on how we understand and explain the doctrine of original sin. One such way of understanding and explaining the doctrine of original sin is that we are conceived and born with a stain of sin on the soul or conceived and born without grace. Within this context, it would mean that only Mary was born in the state of grace. If alternatively, our understanding and explanation of original sin is that of a sinful condition in which every human being is born a corporate alienation of the human race from God, then we may have to propose a different explanation for the Immaculate Conception. This explanation would be that in view of her role in the redemptive plan of God, she was excerpted from this collective condition of alienation and God was fully present to her in grace from the beginning.

48

Whatever the explanation we give of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the fact remains that this dogma teaches, that Mary was exempt in a unique and exceptional way from the normal and the usual impact of sin, or, more positively, that she was given a greater degree of grace (i.e. God was more intensely present to her than to others) in view of her role as the God-bearer. (McBrien, 1994:1101). The dogma of the Immaculate Conception thus shows that God can be, and in fact, is, utterly gracious to us not by our merits but by reason of divine love and mercy. PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY Pope St. Martin I at the Lateran Synod of 649 A.D defined the doctrine of Marys perpetual virginity, which is the third central doctrine regarding the blessed virgin. This dogma enjoyed a unanimous acceptance among the early fathers of the Church. The dogma proclaims that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, during the birth of Jesus and she remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Thus, it has a threefold aspect. That Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus is a clear and straightforward scriptural fact. The prophecy of Isaiah (Isa. 7:14) refers to the young woman who is with child. The Greek version of this translates young woman as virgin. Mt.1:22-23 makes reference to this Old Testament verse, (in fact, it quotes it verbatim) as the evangelist, Matthew points out that Marys conception is a fulfilment of scripture. This reference of Matthew authenticates Isaiahs prophecy for Deuteronomy 18:20-22ff tells us that the mark of an authentic prophet is the fulfilment of his prophecies. The evangelist, Luke also records the fact of Marys virginity before the birth of Jesus as he introduced the annunciation account. In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph And the virgins name was Mary. (Lk.1:26-27) Marys response to the angelic message also confirmed her virginity. But how can this come about, since I have no knowledge of man? (Lk.1:34). Knowledge of man in the scriptural sense, that is, to know a man, is to have sex with a man. Mary therefore is telling the angel she has never done this. Apart from being a virgin before the birth of Jesus, Mary is also considered to have retained her virginity during the birth of Jesus. This means that Jesus left the womb of Mary without her losing her physical virginity, that is, there was no injury or violation of her virginal seal. This was possible by virtue of Gods special divine action for God is allpowerful. (Miravalle, 1993:46) (Many theologians would consider that this lessens Marys
motherhood, a concept which is even more important.)

In his Summa Theologica, III, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that painlessly, and without change in Marys virgin body, her son emerged from the tabernacle of the spotless womb as he was later to emerge from the tomb, without moving the stone or breaking the seal of Pilate.(Q 28, a.2). The use of the term painlessly here by Thomas Aquinas is significant as it reminds us of the pain that goes with childbirth, from which Mary is excepted by virtue of her Immaculate Conception.
49

The Second Vatican Council confirms the virginity of Mary before and during the birth of Christ in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church with the following words, this union of the mother with the son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christs virginal conception then also at the birth of our Lord, who did not diminish his mothers virginal integrity but sanctified it (LG. n.57). The third aspect of Marys perpetual virginity is that she remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, till the end of her earthly life. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, it would have been disrespectful to the Holy Spirit on the part of Mary to allow a human conception to follow the miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit in her virginal womb. Objections to Marys perpetual virginity have been centred on the reference to the brethren or brothers and sisters of Jesus in Matthew 12:46f, 13:55 and Mark 3:31f. Those who make these objections often lose sight of the fact that the Greek word adelphos that translates as brothers in English is used in scripture to mean cousins and close relatives. For instance, Gen. 13:8, 29:15, used the same word to denote the relationship between Lot and Abraham and between Jacob and Leban, who are in fact not brothers. THE ASSUMPTION The dogma of the Assumption complements the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the same way that the resurrection of Christ complements his crucifixion and life of sacrificial service to others. Just as the Immaculate Conception was not merely a personal privilege conferred upon Mary but a reality bestowed in view of her role in the economy of salvation, so the Assumption is not merely a personal privilege unrelated to the wider mission of her life. Her union with God in Christ was unique from the beginning. Her call to final union with God in Christ, in the totality of her human existence (body and soul), was also unique in the end. The dogma of the Assumption asserts something about human existence in asserting something about Mary: that human existence is bodily existence, and that we are destined for glory not only in the realm of the spiritual but in the realm of the material as well. (McBrien, Op. Cit.). In 1946, Pope Pius XII asked the bishops of the world whether to define Marys assumption as dogma. Out of the 1232 bishops 1210 answered in the affirmative. Thus, in 1950, on the first day of November, Pope Pius XII defined the assumption as a dogma. According to him, the doctrine has deep roots in the scriptural teaching on the holiness, and dignity of Mary, and on the meaning of man, sin, death and the resurrection of the body. (Munificentissimus Deus, Nov.1st 1950).

50

The doctrine of assumption proclaims that after Marys earthly life, she was taken up to heaven body and soul. In defining this, Pope Pius XII made reference to Genesis 3:15 as foreshadowing Mary sharing in the same absolute victory of her son over Satan. Paul teaches in his letter to the Romans that sin and death are the two-fold effects of evil (Rom. 5-8). And corruption we know is the effect of original sin. Mary, by virtue of her sharing in her sons victory over Satan and evil would not know eternal death or bodily corruption. According to Wuerl and Lawler, since she had never been subject to sin, she, like her divine son, was not to remain in the grave, subject to the empire of death that sin had brought into the world. (1976:244). Scripture does not provide any explicit teaching on which Marys assumption is based but there are seeds of the definition in scriptural passages like Luke 1:28. The Assumption is seen as a natural effect of her being full of grace. Revelation 12:1 is also seen as confirming Marys assumption, for Marys coronation implies her preceding bodily assumption (but this text is not primarily about Mary). Some argue that Marys assumption is out of place, this may not be true if we considered the rising from the tomb recorded in Matthew 27:52. And 1 Cor.15:23, which talks of the dead coming to life beginning with Christ and then those who belong to him. Among those who belong to Christ, Mary definitely comes first.

51

SECTION FOUR

THE SACRAMENTS AND SACRAMENTALS

INTRODUCTION ___________________________________________ The sacraments of the New Testament were instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church. As actions of

52

Christ and of the Church, they are signs and means by which faith is expressed and strengthened, worship is offered to God and our sanctification is brought about. Thus they contribute in the most effective manner to establishing, strengthening and manifesting ecclesiastical communion. Accordingly, in the celebration of the sacraments both the sacred ministers and all the other members of Christs faithful must show great reverence and due care. (Can.840) The old catechism defines a sacrament as an outward sign of inward grace ordained by Jesus Christ, by which grace is given to our soul. This means that there are three things that are necessary to constitute a sacrament: (i) that it is instituted by Christ, (ii) that it is an outward sign, and (iii) that it has the power to give grace. The new Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) corroborates this when it states categorically Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. (ccc:1210). Only Christ instituted the sacraments since it is only God that can furnish signs with powers that give grace. Holy Scripture, tradition and the teaching of the Church make it clear that Christ instituted the sacraments. By outward sign we mean something, which the senses can perceive. This refers to what is called the matter and the form of a sacrament. While the matter refers to the external thing or action, the form refers to the formula or words, e.g. in the sacrament of baptism, we see water and hear the words pronounced as the water is poured over the forehead of the person baptized. These are no doubt, signs and words perceived by the senses of sight and hearing. (Morrow, 1959:266). Finally, the sacraments signify the graces they bestow on the receiver. For instance, in baptism, the washing signifies the cleansing of the soul from sin, as long as the recipient puts no obstacles. Thus, the sacraments are channels by which the graces of God reach to our souls, feeding and nourishing them. The Council of Trent in 1547 declared the sacraments as acting ex opere operato (DS 1608) i.e. by virtue of the fact of the action performed and not ex opere operantis i.e. by virtue of the one who performs the action. The sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ, by whose, merits we possess them. They do not derive any merit from the person administering them. Therefore the sacraments give grace of themselves, even when the priest or person administering them is unworthy, as long as the recipient has the proper dispositions. Good medicine is good regardless of the druggist or physician. (Morrow, op. cit.). Catholicism has been described as a sacramental faith-tradition (McBrien, 1994:785), which means that very few things are more characteristic of the Catholic faith than its sacramental life. The church is seen as the universal sacrament of salvation. (cf. McDonald, 1983:1). There are seven sacraments, baptism, confirmation, holy Eucharist, reconciliation, anointing of the sick, holy orders and matrimony. They each touch on all the stages and important moments of the Christian life, giving birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian faith. (ccc:1210). The sacraments are acts of Christ who personally sanctifies each individual through contact with him in them. (McDonald, op.

53

cit., 2). Though she is the guardian and interpreter of the will of Christ as far as the sacraments are concerned, the Church however cannot invent new sacraments nor delete from the existing sacraments. She cannot even change the existing elements of the sacraments insofar as Christ has determined them. From the history of the development of Christian theology we have a number of understandings of the function and role of the sacraments. They convey grace, strengthen faith, enhance unity and commitment within the church and reassure us of the promises of God toward us. (cf. McGrath, op. cit., 516-522). The seven sacraments come under three broad headings, (i) the sacraments of initiation baptism, confirmation and holy Eucharist, (ii) the sacraments of forgiveness and healing reconciliation or penance and anointing of the sick, and (iii) the sacraments of vocation and commitment holy orders and matrimony or marriage. THE SACRAMENTS OF INITIATION The CCC says the Christian initiation is accomplished by three sacraments together: Baptism, which is the beginning of the new life; Confirmation, which is its strengthening; and the Eucharist, which nourishes the disciple with Christs body and blood for his transformation in Christ. (art. 1275). These sacraments lay the foundations of the Christian life and according to Pope Paul IV; Christians receive in increasing measure the treasure of divine life and therefore advance toward perfection of charity by means of these sacraments of initiation. Through these sacraments of initiation, the faithful are freed from the power of darkness, for they die with Christ, are buried with him and thus, rise with him to new life. They become adopted children of God and celebrate the memorial of the Lords death and resurrection. (McBrien, op. cit. 806) BAPTISM Baptism is the very first sacrament that is received and serves as the gateway to the other sacraments; thus, it is the basis of the whole Christian life. According to the CCC 1213, it is the gateway to life in the Spirit. It gives to our souls a new life of sanctifying grace, thus making us children of God and heirs to his kingdom. It is a sacrament that frees us from sin, makes us members of Christ and therefore incorporated into his church. It is a sacrament of regeneration through water and word. (ccc:1213). Christ instituted baptism as a sacrament at his own baptism in the Jordan ?? (Mt. 3:13-16; Mk 1:9-11 & Lk.3:21-22) after which he commanded his spotless to baptize at his ascension. Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Mt.28:19; Mk 16:15-16). In his discussion with Nicodemus, Jesus made allusions to the necessity of baptism for salvation. In truth I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above. (Jn 3:3). To be born from above is translated by many versions of the bible as born again. In explaining to Nicodemus what this meant, Jesus referred to being born through water and the Spirit. St. Paul took on this theme in his letter to the Romans 6:1-11. According to Paul, by our baptism into his death we were buried with him, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the Fathers glorious power, we too should begin living a new life. (Rom.6:4). Commentaries on this verse show that Paul was not

54

contrasting baptism with faith here but making a categorical statement that baptism goes with faith. This same fact he expressed in Gal.3:26; Eph.4:5 and is equally expressed by the author of the letter to the Hebrews in Heb.10:22. (NJB, Rom.6:4a). By implication therefore, as the sinner is immersed in the waters of baptism, he is buried with Christ (Col.2:12), with the same Christ, the sinner as a Christian rises as in the resurrection (Rom.8:11), to be a new creature (2Cor.5:17) or new person (Eph.2:15). According to the gospel of St. John, Jesus himself baptized people, After this, Jesus went with his disciples into the Judaean countryside and stayed with them there and baptized. (Jn 3:22), and approved of his disciples to baptize. (Jn 4:1-4). It was however at the Pentecost gathering that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit became associated with baptism. (Acts 2:1-39). As the bible tells us over three thousand were baptized on this day. And since this very day, the church has celebrated and administered baptism. (ccc 1226). According to Richard McBrien, there can be little doubt that the Pentecost occurrence influenced the ways in which the evangelists later interpreted the baptism of Jesus by John and the subsequent initiatory practice of the Church. (Op. Cit., 809). Baptism imprints an indelible spiritual sign or character on the recipient. This means that the recipient of the sacrament of baptism is configured into the person of Christ as he/she is sealed with the mark of Gods ownership, which cannot be effaced. By the term effaced we mean the character so imprinted cannot be eliminated nor made indistinct. For this very reason, the sacrament of baptism once validly administered and received is not repeated. (DS 1609 & 1624). For baptism to be validly administered, it must follow the essential rite, which consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (ccc:1278). This is properly referred to as the Trinitarian formula for baptism. The fruits of baptism are manifold. As the CCC puts it, [It] is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man [and woman] becomes an adoptive son [and daughter] of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ. (art.1279). With this manifold fruit of the baptismal grace, it is only proper and wise that nobody is excluded from the reception of the sacrament. Thus, the Church teaches, every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized. (Can.864, ccc.1246). This means that the young and the old, the adult and the infant are eligible for baptism so long as they have not been baptized earlier. There is however some controversies concerning the baptism of infants. Some other Christian faiths differ from the Catholic teaching on the basis of the argument that infants who in fact have not attained the age of reason should not be baptized and that the practice of infant baptism by the Catholic Church is either mistaken or out rightly wrong. SHOULD INFANTS BE BAPTIZED?

55

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth. (ccc 1250) Infant baptism is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the sacrament of baptism. It has, from time immemorial been a practice of the Church and as the CCC noted, there is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century (ccc 1252). At the beginning of the apostolic preaching, there were records of whole households receiving baptism (Acts 16:15, 18:8; 1Cor.1:16). It is not impossible that these households had children and infants among them. The difficulty connected with the baptism of infants has to do with whether infants could be said to have faith, since baptism is tied to faith. In response to this St. Thomas Aquinas compared baptismal (spiritual) rebirth to physical birth. According to him, as the infant does not receive independent nourishment while in the mothers womb, but is sustained by the nourishment of the mother, so children who are yet without the use of reason, as if in the womb of the Church, receive salvation through the activity of the Church. Another fact to note here is that baptism is a grace and a gift of God. This means that it does not presuppose any human merit. It is not a result of anyones worthiness that he or she is baptized. Thus, children are rightly baptized into the faith of the Church. CONFIRMATION The sacrament of confirmation completes the sacraments of Christian initiation. It is necessary for the completion of the grace of baptism. By the sacrament of confirmation, (the baptized) are more perfectly bound to the church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. (LG11). According to the CCC, the sacrament of confirmation brings about an increase and a deepening our baptismal grace. It makes us more firmly united to Christ as it increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us. It also bounds us more perfectly to the church and gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread the faith and defend the same faith, both in words and deeds. (ccc:1303). This sacrament is given only once and like baptism, it also imprints an indelible character, i.e. a spiritual mark. This character is the sign that the Christian has been sealed by the Holy Spirit to witness to Christ. Every baptized person who has not received this sacrament is eligible and should receive the sacrament of confirmation. As a sacrament that indicates the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, this sacrament has its biblical roots. In the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah proclaims that the Holy Spirit would rest on the expected Messiah. On him will rest the spirit of Yahweh, the spirit of

56

wisdom and insight, the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and fear of Yahweh. (Is.11:2). This prophecy was confirmed in Is.61:1 as well as reflected in Lk.4:18. There were explicit references in the New Testament to the coming down of the Spirit upon Jesus Christ. In some of these references, the experience was presented as a confirmation of Jesus as the expected messiah. The CCC tells us; the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus at his baptism by John was the sign that this was he who was to come, the Messiah, the Son of God. (ccc:1286). The coming of the Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism (cf. Mk 1:10, Mt.3:13-17) was not temporal, it was permanent. According to the gospel of John, I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven and remained on him (Jn 1:32). Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 1:35, Mt 1:20). His whole life and ministry was lived and done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, he lived completely in communion with the Holy Spirit. This Spirit, according to John 3:34 has been given to him by the Father in full measure. This fullness of the Spirit, which Jesus had was not to remain exclusively with him, he was also to communicate it to Gods people. I shall pour clean water over you and you will be cleansed; I shall cleanse you of all your filth and of all your idols. I shall give you a new heart, and put a new spirit in you (Ez.36:25. See also Joel 3:1-2). At various times in the scripture, Jesus promised that he was going to send the Spirit to his followers. In the gospel of St. Luke, Jesus told his disciples not to be afraid that the Spirit will be with them in their mission so that they can bear fearless witness to their faith. When they take before synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how to defend yourselves or what to say, because when the time comes, the Holy Spirit will teach you what you should say. (Lk 12:11-12). In John 7:37-38, Jesus promised his followers living water, and the evangelist went on to say He was speaking of the Spirit which those who believed in him were to receive; for there was no Spirit as yet because Jesus had not yet been glorified. (Jn 7:39). There is a whole pericope in the gospel of John that discussed the sending of the Spirit i.e. Jn 16:5-15. Specifically, verse 7 says, Still, I am telling you the truth: it is for your own good that I am going, because unless I go, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. In verses 12 and 13, he says, I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now. However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking of his own accord, but will say only what he has been told; and will reveal to you the things to come. There is also this reference to the coming of the Spirit, which Jesus was going to send from the Father to his disciples; When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send from the Father, the Spirit of truth who issues from the Father, he will be my witness. And you too will be witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning. (Jn 15:26-27). Even after his resurrection, Jesus Christ restated the fact that he will send his disciples the Spirit; And now I am sending upon you what the Father has promised. Stay in the city, then, until you are clothed with the power from on high. (Lk 24:49). The reference here to what the Father has promised according to commentaries is a reference to the Holy Spirit. Of utmost significance is the fulfillment of these promises, which took place, first on Easter Sunday and then on the day of Pentecost. On the day of his resurrection, when he appeared to the disciples, having greeted them, Peace be with you. He continued; As the Father has sent me, so am I sending you. He then breathed on them and said; Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyones sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyones sins, they

57

are retained. (Jn 20:22). We shall dwell more on this verse of scripture when we talk about the sacrament of reconciliation below. Suffice to just note here that this was in fulfillment of his promise of the Holy Spirit, which he himself has the fullness of. According to John McDonald, we know that on the feast of Pentecost the Holy Spirit came down in an extraordinary way on the apostles together in the upper room and they were so filled with the Holy Spirit that by divine inspiration they began to proclaim the mighty works of God. (McDonald, 1983:32). McDonald is referring to Acts 2:1-41. The CCC, quoting Pope Paul VI says, From that time on the apostles, in fulfillment of Christs will, imparted to the newly baptized by laying on of hands the gift of the Spirit that completes the grace of Baptism. For this reason in the Letter to the Hebrews the doctrine concerning Baptism and the laying on of hands is listed among the first elements of Christian instruction. The imposition of hands is rightly recognized by the Catholic tradition as the origin of the sacrament of confirmation, which in a certain way perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church. (ccc:1288). Paul VI reference here to the Letter to the Hebrews is Heb.6:1-2, Let us leave behind us then all the elementary teaching about Christ and go on to its completion, without going over the fundamental doctrines again: the turning away from dead actions, faith in God, the teaching about baptisms and the laying-on of hands, about the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement. The sacrament of confirmation enables us to attain spiritual maturity, what St. Thomas Aquinas referred to as the spiritual coming of age. Spiritual maturity is reflected in our serious spiritual activities, which arise from our convictions and our deep knowledge of God, the church and the world. Thus, confirmation bestows on us great spiritual and moral responsibilities. According to McDonald, (i) a Christian who is spiritually mature is able to evaluate the things and affairs of this world at their proper worth in relation to the Christian life, (ii) spiritual maturity enables us to discover our proper place in the life of the Church and the duties that go with it. We are made aware of our personal and social responsibilities as members of the Mystical Body of Christ. And (iii) hand in hand with spiritual maturity goes the freedom to make a responsible choice, the wisdom to make the necessary adjustments that are called for in ones growth in the Christian life and a maturity of judgement. (1983:33). Confirmation is a sacrament given for the purpose of receiving the fullness of the Holy Spirit who works in many different ways. The essential rites of confirmation consist in the anointing of the forehead with the sacred oil of chrism and the laying on of hands. This is accompanied with the words, Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus, it gives us a further share in the priesthood of Christ, makes us more perfectly conformed to Christ, strengthens us in the Holy Spirit and therefore strengthens us to bear witness to Christ.

58

THE SACRAMENTS OF HEALING The Christian receives a new life in Christ through the sacraments of Christian initiation. According to St. Paul, however, we carry this treasure in vessels of clay, so that this all surpassing power may not be seen as ours but Gods (IICor.4:7), meaning that our new life in Christ is still subject to human weakness and thus can be weakened or even lost by sin (ccc.1420). But the Lord has willed that the Church continues through the power of the Holy Spirit and for this, he instituted the sacraments of healing. (ccc.1421). These are the sacraments of penance or reconciliation and the anointing of the sick. PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION The sacrament of penance or reconciliation enables us to be reconciled to the Father through the confession of our sins for which we are truly sorry with the firm purpose not to sin again. Referring to canon 959, McDonald writes, when in the sacrament of penance the faithful confess their sins to a lawful minister, are sorry for them and have a firm purpose of amendment, they receive from God pardon for the sins which they have committed after baptism through the absolution given them by the minister. (1983:69). Apart from forgiveness that we receive, we are also reconciled to the Church which our sins have caused some harm. The sacrament of reconciliation is a personal encounter with Christ. Like the leper in the gospel of St. Mark, we come to the Father asking him to cure us of our sins and sinfulness, if he wills (Mk 1:40). And Jesus response is always that he wills, thus, through the hands of the priest, Jesus reaches out to us and says, as he did to the leper, I do want to, be cured. By this, he touches us personally and individually, healing us of the wounds of our sins and carrying on himself our iniquity. Thereby, making us fit again for a renewed relationship with God. As I noted above, by this same sacrament and this same singular act of confession, we receive a new grace and strength through the Holy Spirit, who works in the Church and through the Church, in the words and actions of the Churchs ministers, to say no to sin in future and yes to holiness. Even if we fall again, he is there to help us again. No matter who grave our sins are, his love is always stronger than our sin. For as scripture says, though your sins may be red as crimson, I shall make you white as snow. The Holy Rule of St. Benedict testifies to this when it says, His blood has infinite power to cleanse. Nothing we ever do could justify despair of his mercy. (HR 4:74). It is important to explain briefly some of the concepts used by McDonald. A lawful minister here refers to a validly ordained catholic priest, with the faculty to forgive sins. The faculty to take confession is given usually to the priest by his Bishop after ordination. It therefore means that if for any reason, the Bishop does not authorize a priest to hear confessions, then, he is not a lawful minister of the sacrament of penance. The CCC says only priests who have received the faculty of absolving from the authority of the Church can forgive sins in the name of Christ. (ccc.1495). It is also instructive that McDonald points out the fact of sorrow for sins on the part of the penitent. This is what the Church calls contrition. The forgiveness of our sins in the

59

sacrament of penance is dependent on our contrition for our sins; this includes our sincere resolve not to sin again. In other words, the efficacy of the words of absolution is to some extent dependent on the sincerity of our contrition. According to the Council of Trent in 1551 and as quoted in the CCC 1451, Among the penitents acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again. (cf. DS1677). If we were not truly sorry and sincerely willing to turn away from sin, our confession would be but a mere ritual. To gain forgiveness we have to first be truly sorry and be willing to make efforts not to sin again. The sins of which the sacrament of penance cleanses us are the sins we commit after baptism. The Church refers to these as actual sins. It should be noted that it is not the priest per se who forgives our sins; God is the one who forgives, for only God forgives sins. (cf. ccc.1441). How can he speak like this insulting God? Who can forgive sins except God? (Mk.2:7). This verse of the gospel of Mark corroborates Is.43:25, I it is, I am He who blots out your offenses for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more and Ps.103:3, he forgives all your sins and heals all your sickness. The priest is Gods instrument in bringing about our forgiveness. The words of absolution clearly articulate this. God the Father of mercy has reconciled the world to Himself through the death and resurrection of His son and has sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins. Through the ministry of the Church, may God grant you pardon and peace. I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. We live today in a world that is excessively permissive and thus great Christian values have been terribly eroded. There are many mistaken opinions today about confession, some unfortunately propagated by priests either out of their laziness to sit in the confessional, and therefore want to rationalize its value away or out of ignorance of the truth of the sacrament, for which in fact, they are also culpable. Many Catholics today find it difficult to go to confession, having imbibed some of these erroneous popular opinions. For instance, some think and argue that we are only required to take grave sins like murder and adultery and perhaps any of the seven serious sins mentioned in scripture to confession. The others they think is not necessary since the penitential act at the beginning of the celebration of the Eucharist can cleanse us of them. Some include the dangerous thinking that apart from these seven deadly sins, other minor offences we call venial sins are really no sins, they are just part of the gimmicks of life. This attitude puts us in the danger of falling into the shoes of the Pharisee who congratulated himself before God as his life bore a favourable comparison with that of his neighbours. (Lk 18:9-14). Sin, no matter the shape it takes and the depth it goes, is an offence against the infinite goodness of God, thus, no sin can be regarded as trivial and little. I am not trying to create an awesome fear in our minds, but asking that we wake up to the reality of the fact that we, at all times, stand in need of the mercy of God. St. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Rom.3:23). And corroboration St. John writes, anyone who says he is not a sinner is a liar and makes God a liar. How is one who denies his sinfulness a liar and makes God a liar? He is a liar because the incarnation, in the first place is a mission to redeem us from our sins. If we have not sinned, then what need would there be for such a mission of

60

redemption? If only we learn to turn our gaze to Gods love and all that His love entails, we would come to a greater understanding of how easily we offend him in our thoughts and actions with the willful pleasures we derive from our thoughts and self pride our so called trivial actions nurture in contrast to our Christian calling. Just maybe some of us are too aware of our sinfulness and have the great difficulty of always going to a priest for confession. We think nurse the thoughts of what the priest might be thinking about us. My dear friend, the priest himself is a sinner who needs confession too. I can assure you that he is most probably never shocked at anything you have to say. He would have heard them all several times and very too often from several others. He is the channel of Gods grace and not sitting in the confessional as a judge to determine who goes to heaven or not. He is not interested in who you are but how to bring you closer to God. He is not interested in what your sins are but to put you in the presence of the Father of mercy and by the authority vested on him to ask for Gods mercy in the name of the Church for you. Every confession is an hour of mercy where what matters is not how many sins, what sins, how long have you been to confession last, but that today salvation has come into this house, for this man (and woman) too is a son (and daughter) of Abraham. (Lk.19:9-10). Again, many people are bothered by the fact that they have the same list of sins to confess every time they go to confession. The fact is this, we are the same person, we live in the same circumstances and perhaps the same environment, and we confront the same set of temptations and suffer the same weaknesses. So, we commit the same sins over and over again. The best thing is to keep struggling and keep taking them to confession as often as we become victims of these sins. This is the only way we make progress, which is more often than not very gradual. As long as each time we go to confession, we are genuinely sorrow for our sins, we are on the right part, thus, we have to be careful not to make it a ritual. This requires a sincere preparation in which we make a realistic firm purpose of amendment not to sin again and ready to follow our purpose through. Never worry that your confession is not perfect as some of us do. You really do not need to make a list of every sin and the number of times you fall into them. You are not required to present the priest with a complete psychoanalysis of yourself. Suffice to mention what you remember and what you do not; be sure to be truly sorrow for also. Some people say they do not know what to say, since they cannot recall any sin they may have committed. It is good to still go to confession and tell the priest just that. What matters is here is the awareness that you are a sinner in need of the mercy of God, though you may not be able to articulate your sins. The publican said to God, God, be merciful to me, a sinner. And scripture says, This man, I tell you, went home again at rights with God (Lk. 18:13). That God can and indeed does forgive sins was made abundantly clear by Jesus in his ministry as recorded in the New Testament. As the Son of God, Jesus said of himself that he had authority to forgive sins and did exercise the authority. (Mk.2:5, 10). To the woman who washed his feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair and covered them with kisses, Jesus said, your sins are forgiven (Lk.7:48). Jesus not only exercised this authority, he gave the power to exercise this authority to the Church.

61

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH TO FORGIVE SINS Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry, which he charged with the ministry of reconciliation. The apostle is sent out on behalf of Christ with God making his appeal through him and pleading: Be reconciled to God. (ccc.1442). Jesus conferred on the Church one of the powers he conferred on Peter and the other apostles (should this not be the other way round?), namely, the authority to bind and to loose. In truth I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Matt. 18:18). John Aniagwu, (1991) putting this text side by side with the text of John 20:23; Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyones sins they are forgiven; if you retain anyones sins they are retained agreed with Michael Schmaus that Johns text is a clarification and explicitation of Matthews binding and loosing. This is to say that the bind and loose in Matthew 16:19; 18:18 involves the authority to forgive sins. We know God alone can forgive sins, but it has pleased Him to make this means of grace available to the Church through the apostles (Jn. 20:23; Matt. 18:18) as Jesus did with Peter (Matt. 16:19). The Church in her wisdom, knowing that the Holy Father (the successor of Peter) and the Bishops (those who today occupy the position of the apostles) can not reach out all alone to all the members of her community, entrusted the exercise of the authority to forgive sins, the power to bind and loose, to her ordained ministers the Priests. For Christ wills that all who have gone astray be reconciled to the Father (God) like the prodigal son was reconciled to the father. (Lk.15:11-24). For God does not wish the death of a sinner, but that the sinner should turn away from his sins and be saved. The priest as a representative of Christ and his Church reconciles the contrite soul to God in the sacrament of penance. Through the beautiful words of absolution, he expresses the mystery of the sacrament, prays Gods pardon and peace on the penitent and exercises the Churchs authority to forgive and loose from the bondage of sin by absolving the penitent of his/her sins. He plays the role of a father who welcomes and celebrates the return of the prodigal child. He plays the role of a teacher who counsels and instructs the penitent to avoid sins and all occasions of sin. He is the merciful judge who absolves the penitent of his sins and teaches him to accept and reciprocate Gods loving forgiveness. (Mozia, 1994:120). NECESSITY OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

62

We cannot underestimate the value and importance of the sacrament of penance as it goes with numerous spiritual effects necessary for our Christian life. Amongst these are; (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers grace Reconciliation with the Church Remission of the eternal punishment incurred by grave (mortal) sins Remission, at least in part, of temporal punishments resulting from sin Peace and serenity of conscience, and spiritual consolation An increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle. (ccc.1496).

It is important to state here that it is only through individual and integral confession in which the penitent receives absolution that grave sins are forgiven and reconciliation with God and the Church is achieved. ST. ANSELMS PRAYER OF CONTRITION: St. Mary Magdalene, you cam with
springing tears to the spring of mercy, Christ; from him your burning thirst was abundantly refreshed; through him your sins were forgiven; by him your bitter sorrow was consoled. My dearest lady, well you know by your own life how a sinful soul can be reconciled with its Creator, what counsel a soul in misery needs, what medicine will restore the sick to health. We know this of you, dear friend of God, since you were the one to whom were many sins forgiven, because she loved much (cf. Lk.7:36-47). Most blessed lady, I who am the most evil and sinful of men do not recall your sins as a reproach, but call upon the boundless mercy by which they were blotted out. This is my reassurance, so that I do not despair; this is my longing, so that I shall not perish. I say this of myself miserably cast down into depths of vice, bowed down with the weight of crimes, thrust down by my own hand into a dark prison of sins, wrapped round with the shadows of darkness. Therefore, since you are now with the chosen because you are beloved, and are beloved because you are chosen of God, I, in my misery, pray to you, in bliss; in my darkness I ask for light; in my sins, redemption; impure, I ask for purity. Recall in loving-kindness what you used to be, how much you needed mercy, and seek for me that same forgiving love that you received when you wanted it. Ask urgently that I may have the love that pierces the heart; tears that are humble; desire for the homeland of heaven; impatience with this earthly exile; searing repentance; and a dread of torments in eternity. Draw me to Him where I may wash away my sins; bring me to Him who can slake my thirst; pour over me those waters that will make my dry places fresh. You will not find it hard to gain all you desire from so loving and so kind a Lord, who is alive and reigns and is your friend My Lord, my most dear Jesus, I want your love to burn in me as you command, and as it did in your faithful servant and disciple. May I desire you alone and sacrifice to you a troubled spirit, a broken and contrite heart (Ps 50[51]:17). Give me, O Lord, in this exile, the bread of tears and sorrow for which I hunger more than for any choice delights. Hear me, for your love, and for the dear merits of your beloved Mary, and your blessed Mother, the greater Mary. Redeemer, my good Jesus, do not despise the prayers of one who has sinned against you, but strengthen the efforts of a weakling that loves you. Shake my heart out of its indolence, Lord, and in the ardour of your love bring me to the everlasting sight of your glory, where with the Father and the Holy Spirit you live and reign, God, for ever. Amen.

ANOINTING OF THE SICK By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them
63

up and save them. And indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the people of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ. (LG 11). The sacrament of the anointing of the sick is that through which the Church commends her sick faithful who are dangerously sick to the power of God. The idea is that God may bring them relief and save their souls should they die. The Church makes a distinction, as those in the medical profession are wont to do, between those who are dangerously ill and those who are seriously ill. The use of dangerous indicts a perceived danger to the life of the sick individual; this is not necessarily implied in serious. Thus, the sacrament of anointing of the sick is intended for the sick that are in a danger of death. According to Canon 1004 n.1, the anointing of the sick can be administered to any member of the faithful who, having reached the use of reason, begins to be in danger of death by reason of illness or old age. The Church believes and confesses that among the seven sacraments there is one especially intended to strengthen those who are being tried by illness, the Anointing of the sick: This sacred anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ our Lord as a true and proper sacrament of the New Testament. It is alluded to indeed by Mark, but is recommended to the faithful and promulgated by James the apostle and brother of the Lord. (ccc.1511). The scripture is filled with references to God as the healer. His healing is both spiritual and material, i.e. forgiveness of sins and restoration of physical health. While He (God) was leading His people through the desert, He gave them statutes and laws to abide by. In one of such laws, He said; If you listen carefully to the voice of Yahweh, your God, and if you obey his commands and statutes, I will not inflict on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am Yahweh, the One who heals you. (Ex.15:26). The Prophet Isaiah also referred to the time when God will usher in a time when He will forgive the offences of the people of Zion and heal their illnesses. (Is.33:24). The New Testament is replete with stories of Christ as the healer. He has come to heal humanity in its entirety. He healed both body and soul. He talks about himself as the physician that the sick are in need of. (Mk.2:17). The crowds aware of the power that came out of him struggled to touch him for by this power they were healed. (Lk.6:19). Jesus took pity on the sick and cured them. A leper came to Jesus and begged him, if you so will, you can make me clean. Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, I will; be clean. Based on the numerous healing deeds of Jesus and specifically his instruction to his disciples to heal those who are sick as well as free the possessed (cf. Mt.10:1, Lk.9:1) and the fact that the disciples actually carried out this instruction even during Jesus life time (Mk.6:13), James declared; If anyone is sick, let him call on the elders of the Church. They shall pray for him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer said in faith will save the sick person; the Lord will raise him up and if he has committed any sins,

64

he will be forgiven. (Js 5:14-15). Commentaries on this declaration of James are agreed that through the words of James the Church continued and still continues Christs ministry to the sick. Salvation includes both physical and spiritual health. Thus, the sacrament of the anointing of the sick as we have it today in the practice of the Church is simply in compliance to Jesus instruction. He laid his hands on the sick and when he sent out his disciples as missionaries, he asked them to lay their hands on the sick or anoint them with oil for the restoration of their health. (Mk.6:13 & 16:18). At this point, I wish to emphatically say that the oil by which the sick is anointed sacramentally is not the popular olive oil that we find on the stalls around our Churches and in the markets. It is special oil, specially blessed by the Bishop at the Mass of Chrism on Holy Thursday. While I do not condemn the current trend of the lay faithful bringing all kinds of oil for blessing and using the same indiscriminately for anointing, they should be educated as to the truth of the sacrament of anointing of the sick and be discouraged from the current near fetish practice of the use of olive oil at the slightest possible instance. The CCC, n.1516 quoting from the Council of Trent and Canon 1003, n.1 declares that Only priests (bishops and presbyters) are ministers of the Anointing of the sick. THE SACRAMENTS AT THE SERVICE OF COMMUNION The two sacraments under this group the sacrament of Holy Orders and the sacrament of Matrimony are directed towards the salvation of others. They are not sacraments meant for personal salvation. If they contribute to personal salvation, which they do, it is in their service to others that they do so. HOLY ORDERS By divine institution some among Christs faithful are, through the sacrament of order, marked with an indelible character and are thus constituted sacred ministers; thereby they are consecrated and deputed so that, each according to his own grade, they fulfill, in the person of Christ the Head, the offices of teaching, sanctifying and ruling, and so they nourish the people of God. (Can.1008) By virtue of the sacrament of baptism, all the Christian faithful share in the kingly, prophetic and priestly function of Christ. Thus the Church talks about the priesthood of the faithful. This is however different from the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood, which is the content of the sacrament of orders. The ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful differ essentially as well as in degree. While the royal priesthood of the faithful is not sacramental (??), the ministerial priesthood is. Perhaps, we should understand from the outset the reasoning behind the use of the plural orders instead of order. This sacrament consists of three levels the diaconate, the presbyterate, and the episcopate, corresponding to the deacon, the priest, and the bishop respectively. The Second Vatican Council expressly notes that the divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who from ancient times have been called bishops, priests and deacons. (LG 28). Explaining this further, the CCC acknowledges that the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) and the practice

65

of the Church from time immemorial recognizes two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ, namely; the episcopacy i.e. the bishopric and the presbyterate i.e. the priesthood. The diaconate is a ministry at the service (of these other two??). Thus, the term sacerdos is used to denote only priests and bishops and not deacons. This notwithstanding, Catholic teaching maintains that the degrees of priestly participation episcopate and presbyterate, and the degree of service diaconate, are conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders. (cf. ccc.1554). According to Pope John Paul II, the sacrament of Holy Orders is the fruit of the special grace of vocation and the basis of the priests identity. (cf. McDonald, 1983:129). This sacrament is conferred by the imposition (laying on) of hands and the prayer of consecration as prescribed for each grade by the liturgical books. (can.1009, n.2). It 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. (ccc.1536). This sacrament takes its name from ordo, which in Roman antiquity refers to a social group like the senatorial order and equestrian order. The Church adopted it for the clergy. In the teachings of the Church, clerics are a distinct group in the Church, which comprise the order of bishops, the order of priests and the order of deacons. (Pazhayampallil, 1995:437). The term clergy itself is from the Greek kleros. This means lot or portion or heritage. It is used for those who have chosen the Lord as their special lot or portion or heritage. (ibid.). PRIESTHOOD IN SCRIPTURE In the Old Testament, God constituted His chosen people into a kingdom of priest and a holy nation. But you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Ex.19:6). II Mac.2:17-18 refers to this fact as it talks about God saving His people and returning to them their heritage. This heritage among others includes the priesthood. Though God has constituted the whole of Israel as a royal priesthood, He nevertheless chose one of the twelve tribes of Israel, setting them apart for liturgical services. This was the tribe of Levi. Yahweh spoke to Moses and said: Do not take any census of the Levites, or register them among the sons of Israel. You yourself must enlist the Levites to serve the Holy Tent of the Testimony and to look after its furnishings and its belongings. They are to carry the Holy Tent, and all its furnishings; they are to take care of it and set up their camp around it. Whenever the Holy Tent is to be moved, the Levites shall take it down; whenever the Holy Tent is to be set up again, they shall do this. Any layman coming near it shall be put to death. The sons of Israel are to set up their tents in formation, each man with his own group and under his own banner. But the Levites are to set up their tents around the Holy Tent of the Testimony, lest Gods anger fall on the whole community of Israel. The Levites will take care of the Holy Tent of the Testimony. (Nim.1:48-53). This instruction was authenticated by Joshua, But to the tribe of Levi, Moses had given no land; Yahweh the God of Israel is their inheritance, as he has told them. (Josh.13:33). There was therefore, a clear and definite distinction between the universal priesthood and the individual priesthood even in the Old Testament. The clarity of this distinction was testified to when Korah, Dathan and Abiram rebelled against Moses and Aaron and denied the distinction between the individual and universal priesthood. For

66

their punishment, the Lord opened up the earth and swallowed them all. (cf. Num.16:2-3, 32-33). The place of Israel as Gods chosen one is today a prerogative of all Christians the sons and daughters of God. The promise of God to make Israel a kingdom of priests is therefore applicable to Gods household today. In line with this, the Church teaches that all the faithful of God share the same dignity and equality by virtue of their baptism. (Can. 208). Baptism is the sign by which we are bestowed with the inward grace of being Gods children. Therefore, the Christian family can rightly be described as a Kingdom of Priests. We all share in the priestly, kingly and prophetic mission of Christ. This, in the technical language of the church, is the priesthood of the faithful which has been referred to above. Going through the Old Testament we notice that those referred to as priests are specially designated officials who are in-charge of performing rituals and conducting sacrificial services. The law of the Pentateuch, (the five books of Moses) while reserving the exclusive position of Aaron and his sons, who alone received the oil of anointing and have special priestly attire, (Ex.28-29) limited the priesthood to the Levites, the descendant of Levi (Dt.10:8-9) who served at liturgical services in the temple. History reveals that between 2000 and 1700 BC (why these dates?), there was no official priesthood among the Jews. Sacrificial services were performed by individual family heads in various holy places. (Gen.31:54). As the Israelites began to develop a structured society, a special class came to preside over their rather complex rituals. After the Canaan conquest, ordinary Israelites offered sacrifices at altars and high places (Judges 13:19-20, 1Kgs.3:3-4), but when it comes to sacrifice in the temple it was left to the priests of Levitical lineage. The chief function of the priest in the Old Testament was the performance of sacrifices, since only the priest is allowed to approach the altar. Even at that the priest must be properly vested in specific vestments that portray his holiness. Other functions that the Old Testament Priest had include judging (Deut.17:9, Ezek. 15:1 & Num. 5:11-31) and teaching the law to the people (Deut. 33:10, Mal. 2:6-8). Apart from the passion narrative in which the priests were rather prominent, much mention was not made of them in the New Testament. Jesus did not apply the title to himself, neither did he apply it to his disciples. In fact, the idea of the Christian priesthood in the New Testament was first applied to the whole Christian community in 1Peter 2:5, Rev. 1:6, 20:5. These passages are however, mere references to Exodus 19:6. (so what?) The Letter to the Hebrews stands out in the New Testament in its treatment of Christs priesthood (Heb. 3:3-8). The priesthood of Christ is likened to that of Melchizedeks, the King of Salem, priest of the Most High God (Gen.14:18). Melchizedeks priesthood is superior to Aaronic priesthood (Heb.7:1-17; 8:1-13) and it is eternal like that of Christ (Ps.110:4, Heb.5:6, 6:20). The priesthood of Christ is in itself perfect and does not need to offer his sacrifice over and over again. (Heb. 3:1-4; 3:1-4; 7:27; 8:4-6; 9:12; 25; 10:5). The Catholic priesthood stands in parallel to the priesthood in the scripture. As God constituted Israel a kingdom of priests by virtue of their being his chosen people but chose from among them those to officiate at liturgical services so also his church, the community of believers, are a kingdom of priests by virtue of their baptism, but from among them he has chosen some for ministerial services the ordained priesthood. Every High Priest is taken from among mortals and appointed to be their representative before

67

God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sin Besides, one does not presume to take this dignity, but takes it only when called by God, as Aaron was This is how God proclaimed him priest in the order of Melchizedek. (Heb.5:1-10). (This is a passage about Christ, not
about ordained priesthood as such.)

The ministerial priesthood represents Christ the head of the Church. It acts in the name of the whole Church when presenting the prayer of the Church to God, especially during the celebration of the Eucharist. Only a baptised male Catholic can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. No one has a right to the sacrament of Holy Orders. Any one who feels he has a calling to the sacred priesthood must first submit himself humbly to the Church. Only the Church, through the bishop, has the right and responsibility to call anyone forward to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. The emphasis on baptised male as the only persons who can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders has become necessary because in recent times there have been clamour, especially in the American and European Church for the ordination of women to the Catholic priesthood. The long history of the Church shows that women have never been candidates for the ordained ministry. This is in line with the Churchs teachings that only a baptised man can validly receive sacred ordination. (Can.1024). In the Scriptures Christ did not call or appoint a woman among the twelve (cf. Mk 3:13-19; Mt 10:1-4; Lk 6:12-16) to whom the ordained ministry was entrusted at the last supper. (cf. Lk 22:14-20). CELIBACY IN THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD In the Latin Church the sacrament of Holy Orders for the presbyterate is normally conferred only on candidates who are ready to embrace celibacy freely and who publicly manifest their intention of staying celibate for the love of Gods kingdom and the service of men. (ccc.1599). Celibacy in the Catholic priesthood has been a source of controversy even among Catholic priests. Some desire that it be abolished while others maintain that it should be retained as a necessary part of the priestly ministry. The recent sexual scandal crisis that rocked the American Church has again brought the question of the appropriateness of celibacy in the priesthood to the fore. I must note here that the issue of paedophilia, sexual abuse of children, (which was specifically the problem in the American Church) is more an issue of sexual disorientation than an issue of celibacy. In fact sexual misconduct has no intrinsic link to celibacy, as even chastity is demanded in the married state. Celibacy, which consists in not marrying, is a vocation. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is a call to be chaste in a special way. The vocation to celibacy is different form the vocation to the priesthood. The Church however, acting in experience and in her wisdom, guided by the Holy Spirit and finding a backing in scripture, made celibacy a prerequisite vocation for vocation to the priesthood. In other words, vocation to the Catholic priesthood becomes complete only when an aspirant has the vocation to the celibate life. One appreciates the wisdom of the church in reaching this decision, when celibacy is properly conceived as a way of being completely and totally available and dedicated to the Lord so as to be sent out by him. Considering the Old Testament tradition that requires continence both on the part of the Israelites and of course, their priests before some specific engagements with the Lord, (cf. Ex.15:15, 1Sam.21:2-7), one may say that the biblical tradition backing celibacy in the
68

Catholic priesthood pre-dates the New Testament in a sense. In the New Testament, the example of Jesus as a celibate and the demands Christ made on his apostles, Truly, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters, or father or mother, or children, or lands for my sake and for the Gospel, who will not receive his reward (Mk.10:29-30) show a certain preference on the part of Jesus, for celibacy over marriage. For instance, after responding to the Pharisees question on marriage and divorce, the disciples thought that it might just be better not to marry, Jesus reply was; Not everybody can accept what you have just said, but only those who have received this gift. There are eunuchs born so from their mothers womb. Some have been made that way by others. But there are some who have given up the possibility of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who can accept it, accept it. (Mt 19:11-12). Apart from these, the New Testament states no regulation on celibacy. Passages like 1 Tim.3: 2; 1Cor.9:5 and Mk.1:29-31 make it clear that there is no hard and fast rule about celibacy in the New Testament. On the other hand, such passages like 1Cor.7:8; 32-35 and Mt.19:11-12 portray a strong preference for celibacy by Christ and the apostle, Paul. May be, encouraged by such preference in the scripture and the popularity priestly celibacy enjoyed, in the opinions of Pope Innocent 1 (AD 404), Pope Leo (AD 446) and Pope Gregory VII, the Council of Trent in AD 1563 moved for priestly celibacy. The Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965 later affirmed this. Here the fathers of the Church acknowledge that celibacy is not demanded by the very nature of the priesthood, nevertheless, they see it as a sign of the complete consecration of the priest, as well a transcendental eschatological sign, this simply means that it is a pointer to the end and what is beyond this material world. If viewed ecclesiologically, that is, from the point of the community of Gods faithful, the Church, celibacy is a sign of the priests total consecration and dedication to the Church. It is a renunciation of earthly and material fatherhood to embrace the higher and spiritual fatherhood. In relation to Christ, celibacy helps the priest to be configured, completely identified and fitted with and into Christ. Being that the priest shares in the mediatory role of Christ as another Christ he is called to imitate Christ who exercised his mediation in a celibate state. Finally, by celibacy, the priest, bears witness to the end of time and transitory nature of our world. His celibacy is a proclamation of the eschatological fact that in heaven there is no giving in marriage.

MATRIMONY OR MARRIAGE The term marriage comes from the Latin matrimonium, which means munus matris, that is, the office of the mother. Marriage is an enduring and exclusive covenant of love between a man and a woman. (Pazhayampallili, 1995:665). Marriage is a covenant not a contract (but we did use the term in the past). The Second Vatican Council avoided the use of the term contract to describe marriage. Contract deals with things where the services of people are engaged for a period of time. Against this, the Fathers of the council preferred the term covenant, which signifies bond, mutual commitment, partnership and love. Covenant is a relationship of mutual trust and fidelity. According to Vatican Council II,

69

The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by his laws. It is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent. Hence by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other, a relationship arises, which by divine will and in the eyes of society too is a lasting one. For the good of the spouses and their offspring as well as of society, the existence of this sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone. For God himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes. (GS n.48). Marriage is the covenant of love; therefore, love is the basis of marriage. In love, one chooses to freely commit himself or herself to another. Marriage is not aimed at just settling down, as it is secularly interpreted these days, nor is it aimed at obtaining social and economic status, or to legitimise the practice of sex in the eyes of society, as some pastors erroneously preach today. It is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, [this] has between the baptised been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. (Can.1055 n.1). Today, many look at marriage as a purely secular contract that can be made and unmade by the state. This is not true. It is a sacred and religious phenomenon instituted by God from the very beginning of creation. The rib which Yahweh God had taken from man He formed into a woman and brought her to man. Then man said, Now this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken from man. That is why man leaves his father and mother and is attached to his wife and with her becomes one flesh. (Gen.2:22-24). Thus, marriage is rightfully put as part of Gods plan for humanity. In the first place, scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God (Gen.1:26-27) and affirms that man and woman were created for each other (Gen.2:18), and concludes with the image of the wedding feast of the Lamb. (Rev.19:7, 9). And throughout, scripture speaks of the mystery of marriage, its meaning and origin, as well as its end. This fact is given credence by Jesus Christ in his discourse on marriage and divorce with the Pharisees in the gospel of Matthew. Jesus replied, Have you not read that in the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and he said: Man has now to leave father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one body? So they are no longer two but one body; let no one separate what God has joined. (Mt 19:4-6). Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the presence of Christ among his people. Explaining this fact, the CCC says, On the threshold of his public life, Jesus performs his first sign at his mothers request during a wedding feast. The Church attaches great importance to Jesus presence at the

70

wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christs presence (n.1613). MATRIMONIAL CONSENT Marriage can only be brought about through the irrevocable consent freely and lawfully given by two partners male and female who are capable of giving it. This consent, referred to as matrimonial consent, is very important and cannot be supplied by any human power (cf. Can.1057 n.1). Those who can lawfully give matrimonial consent are; (i) those who have sufficient use of reason, (ii) those who are not impeded by any serious lack of judgement about the essential rights and duties of marriage, and (iii) those who are not impeded by their psychic nature as to become incapable of assuming marriage obligations. (cf. Can.1095). Marriage exists from the very moment spouses exchange consent. Where this consent, freely given, is lacking, there is no marriage. The consent must be an act of the will of both parties. It must be given freely without coercion, be it fear or physical threat. Where the freedom is lacking, the marriage is invalid. The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses as the indispensable element that makes marriage (ccc.1626). Marriage as a sacrament signifies the union between Christ and the Church. As a sacrament it bestows grace upon the spouses to love each other with the love with which Christ loves his Church. This same grace of marriage as a sacrament strengthens the indissoluble unity that the spouses have entered and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life (ccc.1661).

SACRAMENTALS Sacramentals are sacred signs, devotional actions and objects, which are instituted by the Church and which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They are part of the sign language of the liturgy and they assist us in the practice of acts of virtue, which obtain graces for us from God. Sacramentals are said to resemble the sacraments because they are signs whose effects do not come primarily as a result of the prayers of the individual. There is however a significant difference between the sacraments and sacramentals. Unlike the sacraments, which deliver grace, sacramentals prepare us for the reception of grace. While the sacraments work ex opere operato, that is, they produce their effects by divine power; the sacramentals produce their effects through the intercession of the Church. Thus, the CCC quoting from the Second Vatican Council says, Holy Mother Church has, moreover, instituted sacramentals, these are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are

71

disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy. (cf. SC.60, Can. 1166, ccc.1667). Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain ministries of the Church and certain states of life. (ccc.1668). They do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit like the sacraments do. They however prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with such grace. Arguably sacramentals perhaps more than anything else make us distinctively Catholic. A sign of the cross, a crucifix on the wall of our rooms, a scapular around our neck, a rosary in our pocket, going to church on first Fridays, doing the stations of the cross, celebrating the feast day of a saint, etc. are things that show to those around us that we are unmistakeably Catholics. They are definitely not the whole of our faith by any means and they do not redeem souls, but they teach us. They turn our hearts towards God, helping us to remember always that He is our refuge and our hope. They are very powerful. There are various forms of sacramentals. Among them blessings either of persons, meals, objects and places come first. Such blessings that concern the objects or places blessed for liturgical use or the ones that consecrate persons have lasting importance. Among the blessings that consecrate persons are the rite of religious profession and the blessing of certain ministries in the Church, e.g. lectors, acolytes, catechists, etc. These should not be confused with sacramental ordination, as they are not the same. Exorcism, in which the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the evil one, comes under sacramentals. Jesus exorcised and from him the Church received the power and office to exorcise. A priest and only a priest with the permission of the bishop can perform solemn exorcism, which is called a major exorcism. (cf. ccc.1673). The priest doing exorcism should proceed with prudence, with a strict observance of the rules of the Church. Canon 1172, n.1&2 states, No one may lawfully exorcise the possessed without the special and express permission of the local Ordinary. This permission is to be granted by the local Ordinary only to a priest who is endowed with piety, knowledge, prudence and integrity of life. Exorcism is directed towards expelling the devil or evil one from those under demonic possession, i.e. liberation from demonic possession. It is not directed to physical or psychological illness, this, according to the CCC is the concern of medical science. (cf. ccc.1673). Those priests involved with exorcism are therefore to be certain that they are dealing with a case of demonic possession and not physical, psychological, or mental illness. With regard to blessed objects like crucifix, holy water, medals, rosaries, etc., they are not to be superstitiously used as if they are charms or amulets with self-contained powers. Rather they are to be used as focus points that channel our faith towards Jesus. Much depends on the faith and devotion of the person who uses a sacramental. This faith is to be centred on Jesus, as was the faith of the blind man whom Jesus healed with mud and spittle. His faith was not on the mud and spittle but on Jesus (Jn 9:1-7).

72

APPENDIX

UNDERSTANDING WHY CATHOLICS PRAY FOR THE DEAD By Dr. Nelson O. Idogho (KSM)

73

Heaven is a place for God, his angels and those who are clean after death. In Pauls letter to the Romans 14:17, he tells us that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. No wonder in Rev.21:27, Jesus revealed to John that nothing unclean will enter it The book of Revelation tells us that heaven is the final city, which is the goal of humankinds long pilgrimage here on earth. It is a place where He will wipe away every tears from their eyes, there shall be no more death, or mourning, crying out or pain for the world that was has passed away. (Rev.21:4). It is also a place where there is no need of light of the sun or the moon since Gods glory is the light and the lamb is the lamp. (Rev.21:23). Furthermore the book of Revelation tells us that to the victor I will give to eat of the tree of life which is Gods paradise (Rev.2:7) and the victor has nothing to fear from the second death. (Rev.2:11). Here the second death refers to eternal condemnation, which separates the soul, not from the body, but from God and the place for this soul is hell. Hell is a place for the devil and those who are unclean and have committed grievous sins before and after death. Then death and the nether world were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. (Rev.20:13-15). However we are told that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. (Rom.3:23). We do know that we inherited the original sin from the fall of our first parents, Adam and Eve. Having fallen short of Gods glory, humankind became stalemated; log jammed or deadlocked in achieving the goal of inheriting the kingdom of God. The almighty God who has always been merciful decided to send his only begotten son Jesus Christ in order to bring us back to his fold. This time around, God wanted a definitive sanctification through the sacrifice of His son who was completely eternal (divine). Jesus acknowledged in Mt 22:41-46 that he is the Lord referred to in Ps.110. Again in Jn 8:46 & 55 he acknowledged that he is eternal and sinless. He was the perfect master that had to break the logjam that hinders our eternal salvation. While on earth, Jesus taught us and showed us the way to salvation (heaven). He out rightly forgave sins and gave his disciples the power to forgive sins in Jn 20:22-23. From the risen Christ, a new world for humankind began. The power to forgive sins, which he bestowed on the Church, is an invaluable secret treasure to the Church and humanity. Through baptism, we are assured of heaven; but then Mt 16:27 says know that the son of man would come in the glory of his Father with the Holy Angels, and he will reward each one according to his deed. This fact is testified to in Rev.20:13. Jesus Christ however spoke of the unforgivable sin. And so I tell you this: people can be forgiven any sin and any evil thing they say against the son of man, but whoever says evil word against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. The one who speaks against the son of man will be forgiven: but the one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Mt 12:31-32, Mk 3:22, Lk 11:15). Many translations have the in this age or in the age to come as in this world or in the next. In the context of this verse, it means there is the possibility of forgiveness of sins even after death. This definitely would not be in heaven, since nothing unclean can get there. So there would not be any need of forgiveness in heaven. Neither would it be in hell as nothing can cross from hell to heaven. So the forgiveness of sins in hell would be useless. There must then be a place where sins can be forgiven after death. The Catholic Church calls this place purgatory.

74

For the forgiveness of sins after ones death, 1Jn 5:15-17 exalts that we should pray for one another but not with regards to sins that lead to permanent death, i.e those that lead to hell. To further buttress the fact that we can pray for the dead who have committed sins that would not lead them to hell, i.e. venial sins, 2Mac.12:43-46 presents us with an example of soldiers who were asked to pray for the forgiveness of the sins of their fellow soldiers who had died during a war as a result of their idolatry. I submit from the afore mentioned passages that there are three distinct groups: the first are those who are clean (pure) and would go to heaven, the second are those who have committed grievous sins that will lead them to hell if they do not repent of them here on earth. The last group the third are those who have committed venial sins and have died with them. They will have to go through a process of cleansing (purification or purgation). This last group of people are the ones we pray for even when they are dead, that God may forgive their sins. * Being a talk delivered to Knights and Ladies of St. Mulumba, Afemai Sub-Council on the 28th day of March, 2004.

75