Tag: Question Box

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

How often should the Easter candle be replaced? How may the old Easter candle be disposed of or can it continue to be used?

Timely question! First, it may be helpful to review the Service of Light or Lucernarium at the Vigil, in which the Easter candle is prepared and lit from the newly blessed Easter fire. This is one of my favorite parts of this mother of all Catholic liturgies.

After dusk on Holy Saturday we gather outside the church (if possible) around a blazing fire. Hopefully, this is accomplished without losing any eyebrows or having to stop, drop and roll. I do advise keeping a fire extinguisher close at hand, just in case. The priest then blesses the fire and prepares the Easter or Paschal candle.

Ideally, the rite envisions that the priest would actually carve into the candle the vertical and horizontal lines of the cross, the alpha and the omega, and the year with a stylus. I have never actually seen this done and this kind of artisanry is probably not easily pulled off by most priests, let alone outside, in the dark, in the wind with a kitchen knife. Also, most parishes purchase their Easter candle pre-prepared. Here at the cathedral this year I simply traced these elements over the pre-applied wax sigils on the candle with a fancy letter opener as a stylus.

The prayer that accompanies this action is truly beautiful: “Christ yesterday and today, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega. All time belongs to him, and all ages. To him be glory and power through every age and forever. Amen.” Then, the priest inserts five grains of incense (usually embedded in some wax on the end of a nail) and says, “By his holy and glorious wounds, may Christ the Lord guard us and protect us. Amen.”

As to the candle itself, the instruction of the Church states: “This candle should be made of wax, never be artificial, be renewed each year, be only one in number, and be of sufficiently large size that it may convey the truth that Christ is the light of the world.”

I know that it is a rather large and expensive candle and, for that reason, many parishes have gotten into the habit of reusing the same candle for several years, just changing the year on the candle. This may be the case especially in smaller parishes where there are fewer times (ex. funerals, baptisms) when the Paschal candle is lit. Still, as we can see from the instruction, this is not to be done. Much to the jubilation of the religious goods suppliers and to the chagrin of parish finance councils everywhere, it should be a new candle every year.

What are you supposed to do with the old candles? Everyone knows you pile them in a dusty corner of the sacristy or on top of a cabinet to be rediscovered by future generations who will be just as befuddled about what to do with them. In all seriousness, some religious goods suppliers may buy them back (or at least they used to) and recycle the wax. Some parishes cut down the candle into smaller candles to be used for their own altar candles or to give to parishioners to take home for their own devotional use. The important thing is that symbol is destroyed (not left whole or decorated with the symbols and the year) and that (as blessed object or sacramental) it is properly and reverently disposed of — which, for the candle, ideally means burning. Happy Easter!

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: What happened to offering Holy Communion under both forms? It seems like most of the churches I go to only offer the host and rarely the chalice?

A: In terms of Church teaching, the ideal is that Holy Communion is offered under both forms — or “species” — both the body and blood of Christ. In many parishes, this is still the case, at least on Sundays, but after the pandemic the practice was slow to return.

Why is offering Holy Communion under both species the ideal? First, we can point to Scripture. All of the accounts of the “Last Supper” or first Eucharist make it clear that Jesus took and blessed both bread and wine, saying, “This is my body that is for you … This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:24-25).

Also, the “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” states: “Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.”

An addendum to the “General Instruction” from the U.S. bishops further notes: “From the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to ‘take and eat … take and drink.’ The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium in Catholic liturgical practice.”

So, why is this not done everywhere? There could be a couple of reasons. As I mentioned, the pandemic really did a number on this, as parishes discontinued distribution of the Precious Blood. Even before that, in some places, especially in more rural parishes, it may have been difficult to have in place the necessary extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Sadly, I am afraid that in many places it hinges on the individual decision of the priest. This may be out of an abundance of caution in care for the Blessed Sacrament or not wanting to spread germs or simply because it is easier. There may be times when it is better not to offer the chalice, but it should be the exception rather than the rule.

Having said that, I will admit that we do not typically have Communion under both species at our weekday liturgies at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. This has in part to do with the smaller space of the chapel and the fact that I never quite know who will be there and if I will have a deacon or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion to assist me. This may be something I need to reexamine.

I want to be clear, while the Church has a clear history and preference of Communion under both forms, it is not as though you receive less Jesus if you only receive under one or the other form. In the smallest morsel or the tiniest sip, we receive the whole Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

Q. What is a scapular? Are there different types? Are they no longer popular?

A. Great question and a fitting follow up to last week’s column regarding indulgences, as we will see. First, what is a scapular? In Catholic popular piety, a scapular is a small, woolen, rectangular cloth worn front and back over the shoulders (usually under the shirt) and connected by a string. It is basically a miniature version of what some religious brothers and sisters might wear as part of their religious habit.

The monastic practice of wearing of a scapular is mentioned as early as the 7th century in the Rule of St. Benedict. Likely an outer garment or apron worn for serving, it gradually took on more of a spiritual significance and became incorporated in the common dress of different religious orders.

There are many different types and colors of scapulars, based on different religious orders’ habits and particular devotions. For example, there is a white scapular with a blue and red cross in honor of the Trinity (a miniature version of the habit of the Order of the Most Holy Trinity), a blue scapular in honor of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a red scapular in honor of the Passion of Christ, a black scapular in honor of the Seven Sorrows of Mary. The most popular scapular is the brown scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, associated with the Carmelites. There is even a five-fold scapular that bundles all of these.

With the development of third orders and various confraternities associated with different religious orders, it became popular for the laity to wear a smaller version of the religious habit as a sign of their commitment to live out something of the charism and spirituality of that particular order. That is the first and original purpose of the scapular. It is a reminder to the wearer of their commitment to a certain set of ideals, devotions or practices.

It is in the category of what we call “sacramentals” in the Church, things like holy water, blessed salt, rosary beads, crucifixes, medals, icons and other holy items, meant to remind us of God’s love, the saints and the mysteries of our faith. I often describes sacramentals as “hooks” on which to hang our prayers.

As with many pious practices, the granting of an indulgence eventually became attached to the wearing of the brown scapular in particular. A medieval tradition of an appearance of Mary to St. Simon Stock says that she said to him: “Whoever dies clothed in this habit shall not suffer the fires of hell.” To be clear, the scapular is not a “magic item” or a “get out of hell or purgatory free pass.” All of the same conditions for any indulgenced act would apply, namely, being free of serious sin (in a “state of grace”) and being detached from sin.

I was invested in the brown scapular in college and have worn one ever since. Often throughout the day, I will feel it and try to remember that I have given myself to Our Lady in a special way, knowing that she only ever wants to draw me closer to her Son, Jesus.

Scapulars wear out or break over time. I don’t know how many scapulars I have been through. Like any sacramental, the scapular should be blessed by a priest or deacon. Any priest may invest a person in the brown scapular and there is a ritual for this in the “Book of Blessings.” While perhaps not as popular as in earlier times, this is still a worthy and time-honored devotional practice.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

Q. Please explain what is required to obtain the indulgence for the First Fridays devotion to the Sacred Heart. I have read that you need to be in a state of grace. Does that mean going to confession each month?

A. First, it may be helpful for our readers to briefly explain what an indulgence is, as some may be unfamiliar with the concept or believe that this is something the Church no longer practices.

An indulgence, as defined in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” is “a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church” (para. 1471). Indulgences, therefore, are connected with our understanding of purgatory, that state of final purification after death before entering heaven.

Recognizing that all analogies limp, here is one helpful analogy I have heard. Suppose you broke your neighbor’s window while playing baseball. Hopefully, you would go over to your neighbor’s house, explain what happened and apologize. Your neighbor may graciously forgive you, but there is still the matter of the window to be repaired. Your neighbor may ask you to replace it, which might mean doing some extra chores to earn the money to repair the window or paying them back in kind by raking their leaves or offering to watch their dog when they are away. The sin (carelessly, if not intentionally, breaking the window) is truly forgiven, but something still needs to be “worked off.” An indulgence is basically the lessening or elimination of that “temporal punishment” or that “working off” that needs to be done in purgatory.

The faithful may do many things to obtain an indulgence, under the usual conditions of going to confession, receiving Communion and praying for the intentions of the pope. The other, more tricky, condition is that the person is “to have the interior disposition of complete detachment from sin, even venial sin” (“The Gift of the Indulgence,” Apostolic Penitentiary, 2000). This means that the person is to be in a “state of grace” (i.e. unaware of any unconfessed mortal sin) and detached from sin. The person is not complacent in his or her sinfulness but recognizes (however small) that it is an offense against God. It is the sentiment expressed in the Act of Contrition in the words, “I detest all of my sins.”

The First Friday devotion may also be worth explaining. This goes back to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690) and the visions she had of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The idea is to observe nine consecutive first Fridays of the month by participating in Mass and receiving Communion in reparation for the sins against the Sacred Heart of Jesus. There are a number of promises attached to this devotion. The usual conditions for all “indulgenced acts” would apply here, which to my mind would include monthly confession, at least if necessary.

I should also explain that an indulgence may be “partial” or “plenary.” A partial indulgence is the remission of some of the temporal punishment due to sins, whereas a plenary indulgence is the remission of all temporal punishment due to sins.

One final note: while doing various things or praying specific prayers to obtain indulgences is time-honored and well established in the Church’s theology and practice, I think we always need to be careful not to think that we can “force God’s hand.” God is not a “gumball machine,” in which we put our quarter and turn the crank to get what we want. All is grace!

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

Q. Recently, I visited a Catholic church in which the tabernacle was located in a side chapel. I felt an emptiness not seeing the tabernacle in the main church. Am I too hung up on this and missing the bigger picture?

A. There may be nothing more frightening for a priest than to tiptoe into the minefield of the “tabernacle wars” — but here goes nothing!

Some think that the tabernacle must absolutely be central in any Catholic church. Anything less is seen as a slight to our Lord, truly present in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Others will say that the tabernacle shouldn’t be anywhere near the sanctuary because it steals focus from the altar and the actual celebration of the Eucharist. I have also heard people make a distinction between the “active” presence of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist and the “static” presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species. Personally, I don’t know how the living God, the second person of the Holy Trinity, can be anything but actively present. In any case, I think both are wrong.

So, what guidance do we have from the Church on this? The “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” (most recently revised in 2011) states: “In accordance with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, conspicuous, worthily decorated, and suitable for prayer.” The tabernacle may be “in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration … not excluding its being positioned on an old altar no longer used for celebration” or it may be “in some chapel suitable for private adoration and prayer of the faithful and organically connected to the church and readily noticeable by the Christian faithful.”

The keys here seem to be that the tabernacle should be located in a place that is noble, prominent, worthily decorated, suitable for prayer, organically connected to the church and easily noticeable. As long as these criteria are met, I think it is in the right place.

Some years ago I remember reading an intentionally “fake news” story on a Catholic humor website with the headline: “Man goes to Halloween party dressed as tabernacle; is promptly placed in the corner and ignored.” I have never been very convinced by the argument that the presence of the tabernacle in or near the sanctuary/altar necessarily “distracts” from the Mass. How can Jesus distract from his own sacrifice? To me that is like saying, “Jesus, do you mind waiting over there? We’re trying to celebrate Mass.”

At the same time, I am not in the camp that the tabernacle must always be central in the sanctuary. Much of this depends on the particular architecture of the church. My rule of thumb is not to get in a fight with a building; the building always wins. In an older, more traditionally laid out church that was built with the intention of having the tabernacle in the middle, that may indeed be the most fitting placement. Why fight that, only to replace it with seasonal decorations? Is that any less distracting? At the same time, in a more modern church that was designed with the option of a separate (but hopefully conspicuous and beautiful) chapel, why try to shoehorn a tabernacle into the sanctuary that was not designed for it? In all cases, I think we want to avoid the tabernacle moving from place to place within the church as pastors come and go, depending on their personal preferences, in which case perhaps a tabernacle on wheels would be most convenient.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

By Fr. Thom Hennen
Question Box

Q: Can you explain the understanding of salvation from canon 9 in the Council of Trent?

A: If I had a nickel for every time someone asked me this, I would have 5 cents. For starters, what is the Council of Trent? It is one of 21 “ecumenical councils” in the Catholic Church, in which the bishops of the world (the successors of the Apostles) gathered to discuss matters of faith. The result of each of these councils was the formal affirmation, clarification or further definition of some aspect of the Christian faith.

The first ecumenical council was the Council of Nicaea, held in 325 to address the heresy of Arianism and what we believe about the divine and human natures of Christ. The most recent ecumenical council was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Prior to Vatican II, ecumenical councils were more about doctrine, less about pastoral practice. Vatican II was called specifically as a “pastoral council.” While the council documents are loaded with doctrine, the primary concern was how we live and apply what we believe in a rapidly changing world.

Canon 9 from the Council of Trent (convened over multiple sessions between 1545 and 1563) states: “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema [excommunicated].”

We need to remember that the Council of Trent was convened to address the Protestant Reformation, which had a huge impact on the Church in Western Europe. The rallying cry of Martin Luther (a former Augustinian monk) was sola fide, meaning “faith alone.” Luther and other reformers held that one was justified (made right with God) by an interior act of faith alone and not by a person’s good works or moral choices.

We should also remember that the Protestant reformers were reacting to abuses within the Church and an attitude that had crept in that you could earn (or “buy”) your way to heaven. To be perfectly clear, this was not and is not an accurate understanding of Catholic soteriology (theology of salvation). Much of what we thought we disagreed on has in part been reconciled, for example in the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which was the product of Catholic and Lutheran dialogue. While not accepted by all, this document states that we are justified “by grace through faith.” Also, faith means something more than mere intellectual assent. As the Apostle James wrote in his letter, “Faith without works is dead” (see James 2:14-26).

Back to Canon 9: basically, it is stating that we do not believe that by faith “alone” we are restored to right relationship with God. How we act on that faith, how we live that faith matters. We can accept Jesus one moment and deny him the next, by word, thought or action. We absolutely believe that we have all been redeemed (“bought back” or ransomed) by the precious blood of Jesus, who died for our sins and truly rose from the dead. We also believe that we are immersed in this saving mystery by our baptism. And yet, we are not stripped of our free will. We can still reject this gift. To be “saved,” therefore means to accept this gift not just once, but in some sense daily, in our concrete choices and cooperation with the gift of God’s grace.

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)

Q. What is the origin of meatless Fridays during Lent? Why is it considered a sacrifice? Also, what do you think about Sundays in Lent? Can those be “cheat days” when it comes to our Lenten resolutions?

A. Great questions — and timely! From my research, the practice of abstaining from meat on Fridays (especially in the weeks leading up to Easter), goes back to the earliest days of the Church. The practice became more standardized over time but the idea of not eating the “flesh meat” of animals (beef, pork, poultry, etc. as distinguished from animal products and from fish) to commemorate the day of Jesus’ crucifixion and death is certainly ancient.

In some ways I think this may be even more of a sacrifice today than it was then, as many of us are accustomed to eating meat most every day. However, in the ancient world, except for perhaps the wealthy, meat was far from a staple food. It was a luxury. An example of this might be in the “Parable of the Prodigal Son” (Luke 15:11-32), when the father in the story orders that the fattened calf be slaughtered for a special feast upon his son’s return. It is clear that this was hardly an everyday occasion, but only for a great celebration.

Given this, I wonder if asking people to give up meat then would be like asking people today to refrain, if at all possible, from drinking champagne and eating escargot. “Fine. I suppose I can manage that.” Not much of a sacrifice, but the idea is that in honor of our Lord’s ultimate sacrifice our pleasures should be more sparing on Fridays. It is not that we forget the resurrection but that we always carry the memory of Christ’s passion and death — in which he laid his own flesh down on the altar of the cross as the “Lamb of God.”

I do wonder if all-you-can-eat fish fries or dining sumptuously at your favorite seafood restaurant really keeps the spirit of this. Don’t get me wrong, I do love a good parish fish fry during Lent (even if I have to burn my clothes when I get home), but again, the idea is to unite ourselves even in some small way to this saving mystery.

As to holding to our Lenten observances even on Sundays during Lent, I would say that if you are taking up some new spiritual or charitable practice, by all means keep it up on Sunday! It can be hard to build a strong habit if you are regularly skipping days. However, when it comes to giving up something, I would play this by ear. My first rule of thumb for people in deciding what they should give up for Lent is that their penance should not become everybody else’s penance. In other words, if giving up coffee turns you into an unbearable person for 40 days, then drink your coffee and find a different penance. In the same way, if indulging a little on Sunday is what it will take to get you through Lent, I wouldn’t let it bother you too much. It is still true (even in Lent) that every Sunday is, in a sense, a “mini-Easter.” In addition, the Sundays of Lent are not actually counted in the 40 days of Lent.

Again, we need to keep in mind the principle underneath these practices, namely, to become more Christ-like people, to develop good habits (virtue) that might actually go beyond Lent, and to express our solidarity in some small way with Christ and with the poor. It is the least we can do, so pass the tartar sauce!

(Father Thom Hennen serves as the pastor of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Davenport. Send questions to messenger@davenportdiocese.org)