Divine Mercy Indulgence: GET IT STRAIGHT!

This Sunday after Easter is traditionally called “Low Sunday” or Quasimodo Sunday.  In some circles, it has becomes (almost universally) “Divine Mercy Sunday.”  Now, this is not a blog post on the Divine Mercy Chaplet, its devotion, St. Faustina Kowalska, no a commentary on Bl. Pope John Paul II’s declaration of Low Sunday to be called “Divine Mercy Sunday.”  In point of fact, this Sunday is now properly called Divine Mercy Sunday, as Bl. John Paul II initiated this on April 30, 2000, in his homily at the canonization of St. Faustina.  So, that’s just fine.  Although, it is noteworthy to point out that the third edition of Roman Missal, having been promulgated prior to that homily, and translated much, much, MUCH later, does not seem to mandate this (it says “Second Sunday of Easter [or of Divine Mercy]”)—a curious fact which I would hardly call an oversight so much as a relaxing of JP2’s proclamation, so as to permit the Church to celebrate the feast of Divine Mercy as an option. 

Whatever the case, something came across my desk that really infuriated me.  I don’t know where it came from, but apparently it’s being marketed as the granting of a Plenary Indulgence.  Here’s the text of the flyer:

“Imagine your soul being, today, as pure as the day you were Baptized!
A Special Promise of Mercy:
Our Lord promised to grant complete forgiveness of sins and punishment on the Feast of Mercy as recorded in the Diary of St. Faustina:
I want to grant a complete pardon to the souls that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion on the Feast of My mercy (Diary 1109).
 My great delight is to unite Myself with souls...when I come to a human heart in Holy Communion, My hands are full of all kinds of graces which I want to give to the soul.  But souls do not even pay any attention to Me; they leave Me to Myself and busy themselves with other things.  Oh, how sad I am that souls do not recognize Love!  They treat Me as a dead object (Diary 1385, 1288).
 Divine Mercy Sunday was instituted by Blessed John Paul II in the year 2000 at the canonization of Sister Faustina on April 30, 2000.  It is celebrated on the Sunday after Easter.”

To borrow a rhetorical style from Fr. Z, “But, Father!  But Father!  If Jesus said it, isn’t that good enough?!” 

The short answer is a resounding “No!”  Here’s the thing.  The Church has canonized Sr. Faustina Kowalska.  As far as we are concerned, she is said to be most certainly in heaven, by virtue of the merits of her holy life and two posthumous miracles attributed to her intercession.  But the contents of her Diary—even if it was held in great esteem by a Pope—are not considered to be infallible, nor (to my knowledge) have they been declared to be authentic.  If they have, it still doesn’t change the argument made here:

Public revelation is what we have in Scripture and Tradition. It was completed, finished, when the last Apostle died and the New Testament was finished. So there is no more until Christ returns at the end. In this area the Church has His promise of providential protection in teaching.

 

Even though there is no new public revelation, the Church can progress in deepened understanding of the original deposit of faith--thus the Immaculate Conception, for example, was not mentioned in the first centuries, was even denied by many in Middle Ages, but could be defined in 1854. This progress is the result of the growing light of the Holy Spirit. At the Last Supper Jesus promised Him to lead the Church into all truth.

 

Private Revelation is all else. The word private is poor, but usual. Even Fatima, addressed to the world, is private. But there is a great difference. The Church does not have the providential protection in matters of private revelation. Ordinarily the decision of the local Bishop is final on authenticity of a revelation. Yet we would not have to believe any decision on private revelation--though we must obey a command, if a Bishop gives such, not to go to the place of a an alleged revelation. In obeying, we do not lose any graces. Christ saved the world by obedience--cf. Rom. 5:19. St. Margaret Mary says He told her: "Not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you

should do nothing of all that I order without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please me."

 

The most the Church can do on a private revelation is: 1) say it does not clash with public revelation. If it did, that part of it would be out. 2) Say it seems to deserve human acceptance--that is in contrast to something accepted on the divine virtue of faith, which comes into play only in the area of public revelation.  (Taken from EWTN)

 

So, what’s the point of all this?  My point is that there is a great deal of misinformation going around about the nature of Divine Mercy Sunday.  Despite what flyers and popular piety and devotion, and even pastors of souls, are saying, THERE IS NO PLENARY INDULGENCE GRANTED FOR ATTENDING MASS ON DIVINE MERCY SUNDAY.  Period.  End of Discussion.  That’s all she wrote.

Now, how do we know this?  Because the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum (the handbook of Indulgences), last promulgated in 2004, states very clearly the following:

First of all, “Participation in the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacraments is not, according to tradition, enriched with indulgences; for, in and of themselves, they hold a very high (praecelsam) efficacy as far as sanctification and purification goes” (Praenotanda, 3).

Second, that same Enchiridion Indulgentiarum lists in its index all of the specific liturgical days and feasts on which some form of indulgence is granted.  These days include participation in the Solemn Easter Vigil, the Solemnity of Pentecost, the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, the Week for Christian Unity, et al.  But it does not concede any form of indulgence for the Second Sunday of Easter, aka Low Sunday, aka Dominica in Albis, aka Divine Mercy Sunday.  And if it has not been granted by the Church, then there exists no guarantee of the conferral of the promised grace.

So, I hate to be the party pooper here.  But this "indulgence for attending Mass on Divine Mercy Sunday" does not exist! 

Now, before people go all apesnot over this entry, a few things:  I am not discouraging devotion to the Divine Mercy of Our Lord, nor to St. Faustina and her writings.  I am not saying you don’t have to come to Mass this Sunday, since you’re not “getting something extra.”  Truth be told, I love the Divine Mercy Chaplet—I think it’s a wonderful devotion.  But no nun—not matter how holy or influential, or how authentic we may believe her visions of Christ to be—has the authority to grant the full remission of all temporal punishment due to the effects of sin!  Sorry...no can do!

All this having been said, THERE IS THIS:

“a plenary indulgence, granted under the usual conditions (sacramental confession, Eucharistic communion and prayer for the intentions of Supreme Pontiff) to the faithful who, on the Second Sunday of Easter or Divine Mercy Sunday, in any church or chapel, in a spirit that is completely detached from the affection for a sin, even a venial sin, take part in the prayers and devotions held in honour of Divine Mercy, or who, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed or reserved in the tabernacle, recite the Our Father and the Creed, adding a devout prayer to the merciful Lord Jesus (e.g. Merciful Jesus, I trust in you!");

 A partial indulgence, granted to the faithful who, at least with a contrite heart, pray to the merciful Lord Jesus a legitimately approved invocation.”  (Granted June 29, 2002)

So, before I get people freaking out all over the place, let’s get our facts straight about the Divine Mercy devotion, Divine Mercy Sunday, and everything else that seems to have been thrown into the mix.

To everyone out there, have a very blessed Second Sunday of Easter (or Of Divine Mercy)!

Blessings at Communion: A Continued Debate

In response to a developing thread on my Facebook page, I submit the following, which is featured on the website of St. Paul's Catholic Church in Pensacola, FL.

Congregation for Divine Worship -
On Giving Blessings During the Communion Rite
 What about giving blessings to people who come forward in the Communion line but who are not receiving Communion? Should a priest, deacon or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion give the person a blessing instead?
 What if a person who is not receiving Communion presents himself with arms crossed over the chest, during the regular administration of Communion?
 Two men wrote to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW) asking about this practice. Their query asked if there are "particular guidelines or restrictions" concerning the practice of a minister or extraordinary minister giving the person a blessing.
 The response from the CDW was in the form of a letter (Protocol No. 930/08/L), dated November 22, 2008, signed by Father Anthony Ward, SM, Under-secretary of the Congregation.
 The letter said that "this matter is presently under the attentive study of the Congregation", so "for the present, this dicastery wishes to limit itself to the following observations":

1. The liturgical blessing of the Holy Mass is properly given to each and to all at the conclusion of the Mass, just a few moments subsequent to the distribution of Holy Communion.
 2. Lay people, within the context of Holy Mass, are unable to confer blessings. These blessings, rather, are the competence of the priest (cf. Ecclesia de Mysterio, Notitiae 34 (15 Aug. 1997), art. 6, § 2; Canon 1169, § 2; and Roman Ritual De Benedictionibus (1985), n. 18).
 3. Furthermore, the laying on of a hand or hands — which has its own sacramental significance, inappropriate here — by those distributing Holy Communion, in substitution for its reception, is to be explicitly discouraged.
 4. The Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio n. 84, "forbids any pastor, for whatever reason to pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry". To be feared is that any form of blessing in substitution for communion would give the impression that the divorced and remarried have been returned, in some sense, to the status of Catholics in good standing.
 5. In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church's discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).

 The Congregation's clarification that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (always laity), cannot give sacramental blessings within Mass is very helpful; and could be especially useful to pastors in parishes where inappropriate blessings during Communion have become common.
 Although the CDW letter did not mention young children, we often see little children who have not yet received first Holy Communion accompanying their parents in the Communion line, with their arms crossed over their chests — both as a signal to the minister that they are not receiving Communion, and as an expression of the child's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
 This reverent gesture of a young child is laudable and appropriate. But sometimes a minister (or extraordinary minister) interprets the child's gesture as an implicit request for a special blessing as a sort of "substitute" for Communion. While the intention of blessing the child may be good, it should be made clear to all that the priest's blessing at the conclusion of Mass includes everyone, and that there should not be separate blessings for any person during the Communion rite.
 Yes, Jesus says let the children come to me. So if you bring children up in the communion line that is fine, teach the respect for Christ’s presence in the Eucharist not to expect a blessing from the priest. It is not about the people in line (it is not about you) or about the priest, the deacon, or the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. It is all about the presence of Christ and only about the presence of God, in Jesus Christ, His Son. The Communion line is about the presence of Christ, respect for the presence of Christ, and the reception of Christ.
 So, is this sort of punishment that children should not be blessed in the Holy Communion line?  No!  It is not!   What we are emphasizing is why anyone is in the Communion line.  We are approaching Christ to receive Christ.   If we are not of age, or are in RCIA, we should approach with reverence and teach your children that as they stand before the body and bold of Christ, they are in the Holy presence of God Almighty’s Son Himself!

Ask Father... A Proper Place for Prayers

A commenter on another blog post writes:

Why in the new order is it thought to be so important to celebrate the "liturgy of the Word" from the sedilia rather than the altar, as in the TLM? Even amongst his mini-rants against some of ways in which the NO has been said, (at that time) Card. Ratzinger in his "The Spirit of the Liturgy" remarks that the shift to the sedilia was an important one. Why? I don't understand that. 

 I honestly cannot comment on the mind of (then-)Cardinal Ratzinger when he speaks of the importance of the shift from the altar to the "presider's chair" with regard to the Collect, but my own observation is that it has to do a great deal with a re-focusing and a re-purposing of the attention given to the altar.  The New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) of Paul VI--and what continues to be the prevailing theology in even the most recent documents--places particular emphasis on the Altar of Sacrifice as that aspect of the church building that has but a singular purpose: it is the locus on which the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is re-presented for the People of God in the Eucharistic Supper of the Lamb.  To that end, those actions which have no direct and immediate correlation to that Sacrifice (such as the Collect, bidding prayers, the Liturgy of the Word, etc.) are seen only to distract from that singular and all-important function of the Altar of Sacrifice.  [NB: this is my own estimation, and not a dogmatic declaration.]

The emphasis of certain actions and prayers of the Mass taking place at the sedilia (or "presider's chair," depending on your preference) is not one of de-emphasizing the altar in favor of the chair, but rather of clarifying and streamlining the focus of the altar.  The current General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) makes it very clear that the chair should be in a prominent place, but should in no way resemble a throne or a place of such importance so as to distract from the altar itself.

An examination of the GIRM also makes it clear that those prayers which are directly associated with the sacrificial nature of the altar (e.g., the Post-Communion prayer) may be prayed at the altar: 

Then, standing at the chair or at the altar, and facing the people with hands joined, the Priest says, Let us pray; then, with hands extended, he recites the Prayer after Communion (GIRM 165).

This is by no means a comprehensive answer, and I have no doubt that any number of my more traditional confreres will jump at the opportunity to suggest that this ought not have been changed.  However, as faithful sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church, it is incumbent upon us to accept those which which are given to us for our edification of our souls and the renewal of our worship.  The logic in the decision to remove from the altar those aspects of the Mass which are not directly and immediately connected to the action that takes place on the altar is not necessarily a bad one.  Whether the theological or liturgical principles I stated above came into the decision is beyond me.  

[Personally, I think it far more likely that this adjustment is the result of a reductionist attitude by the reformers to make the average parish Mass align more closely to the style and rubrics of the Pontifical Mass of the Usus Antiquior (Extraordinary Form), in which the bishop would pray the prayers from his cathedra, and not from the altar.]

Attending Mass When you Can't Receive Communion

An excellent piece by the indomitable Fr. Z.  Check out the original here.

From a reader:

Fr. Z I’m struggling to wrap my head around what the point of going to Mass if we’re not in the state of sanctifying grace.

My understanding is when we fall from grace, any good works we do merit us nothing. Also, it only takes one mortal sin to sever our relationship with God, so committing another one by not fulfilling my Sunday obligation wouldn’t really make a difference in regards of the state of my soul. And finally, I can’t receive communion, so I don’t receive any graces from that.

So in summation, I wouldn’t sever my relationship with God because it already is; I can’t merit any good works or graces from Mass because I’m not in the state of sanctifying grace, and finally, because my relationship with God is severed, he doesn’t care if I’m there or not.

So really, what’s the point of going to Mass when i’m in the state of mortal sin?

The attitude described in your question above, and I assuming you are presenting this as ahypothetical question, is dangerous.  Hypothetical it may be, but I will treat it seriously.

There is an image in Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited: the blow upon the bruise.

To commit a mortal sin is bad.  To commit another with the attitude that it doesn’t make any difference now that you have already committed one is dreadful.  It can lead to what we refer to as hardness of heart, the ingrained callousness about sin that ultimately ends in never seeking forgiveness and reconciliation.

Not to attend Mass, intentionally not to fulfill your obligation, is itself a mortal sin.

Purposely multiplying mortal sins with the attitude that it doesn’t make a difference or that it is pointless to do something good and indeed obligatory is foolish and dangerous.

The Lord Himself speaks about blasphemy, sins against the Holy Spirit, which are unpardonable.  This sin against the Holy Spirit can manifest in various ways, including impenitence and despair.

A few more things.

First, our obligation to attend Holy Mass on days of precept is a commandment of the Church rooted in the divine positive law given in the Ten Commandments.  Holy Church says you have to go to Mass because God says we are to give Him His due.  That is a good enough reason to go.

Second, while it is true that, being in the state of mortal sin you would not receive the graces that would come from reception of the Eucharist, there are other actual graces offered to sinners to help them return to the state of grace.  Just because you cannot go to Communion, that doesn’t mean that you cannot receive human formation and edification from the readings, sermons, probity and good example of the congregants, the ars celebrandi of the priest, the beauty of the windows, a waft of incense, etc.  God works in the small things, too, in the spaces between the signs, and in the silences.  It could very well be that something will penetrate which will help to bring about conversion and, thus, help drag the soul back from the ledge looming above the pit of eternal hell.

Third, some people are under the mistaken impression that attendance at Holy Mass automatically implies reception of Holy Communion.  When they go to Mass, they automatically receive whether they ought to or not.  Similarly, people could have the false idea that if they cannot receive Communion, then it is pointless to go to Mass.   It is good for people to receive Communion if they are properly disposed.  However, the Latin Church’s law requires reception of Communion once a year.  At the same time, the laws says that we must attend Mass on every day of precept, which of course includes all Sundays.  Going to Mass does not imply automatic Communion.  We go to Mass for many other reasons as well.

Finally, and I’m serious, spend a little while trying to imagine the first ten seconds of realization experienced by the soul who winds up in hell.

Imagine the shock of realization.  “This can’t be happening to me!”   Imagine the first ten seconds.  Imagine the surprise and panic and anger and fear and the growing understanding that it will never end.

I suggest avoiding the voluntary infliction of your own blow upon the bruise you already inflicted on yourself.  Don’t hurt yourself, at least because of the dread of the loss of heaven if not, at first, the love of God who made you in His image and desires your eternal happiness with Him in heaven.

Ask Father...The Truth about Annulments

A reader writes:

With many Anglicans entering the Catholic Church, I know quite a few who are undergoing the annulment process right now. In talking with them, I was surprised by two things that seem to have been, at least implicitly, communicated to them in their initial meeting with the tribunal: they all came away relatively assured of the final outcome of the inquiry, though they were disappointed as to the timeline; and secondly, they seemed to be under the impression that infidelity was grounds for an annulment. I can perhaps see infidelity as speaking to the intent and understanding of marriage or maybe the ability to contract marriage, especially if the infidelity was serial. Even then, that seems pretty weak. I'd like to find out what the standard really is for an annulment, on what grounds annulments have been granted or withheld. 

There's a lot here.  Hopefully I can answer this cogently.  [N.B. This is not intended to be exhaustive!]


First of all, we need to demythologize what an annulment is and is not.  This is probably one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented aspects of the Church.  Using the via negativa method, let's start by looking at what an annulment is not.  

• An annulment is NOT a decree by the Church which negates, nullifies, or renders void a marriage! 
• A Declaration of Nullity is NOT a Catholic divorce.
• It is NOT merely a "hoop" to be jumped through.
• It does NOT make children from a marriage illegitimate.
• It does NOT suggest, imply, or state--directly or indirectly--that the time the couple was married did somehow not exist (this is a very common misunderstanding--but no matter how we try, we cannot will away the past!).
• Just because a marriage doesn't "work" doesn't mean it was not Sacramentally valid.  (The fact is, there are many marriages which are Sacramentally valid, but people are not able to achieve harmony in married life.  This is unfortunate, but it is precisely why the Church requires six months of preparation and counseling prior to marriage!)

So, what exactly is the deal?  

To understand what we're dealing with, we first need to understand the basic mechanics of a Sacrament in general.  A Sacrament requires three things: matter, person, and form.  Matter is that which is being acted upon, the object.  Person is the one who is given the authority to perform the sacrament validly.  Form is the words and/or actions prescribed by the Church for confecting a Sacrament.  If any of these three criteria are not present, then the Sacrament is invalid.  For example, if a validly ordained priest (Person) says Mass using the proper words of Consecration for the Eucharist (Form), but uses cookies and milk instead of unleavened bread and natural wine (Matter), the Sacrament is invalid...the Eucharist is not present.

The same is true of Marriage.  In a marriage, the Matter and Person are one and the same--the individuals exchanging their consent.  And the Form is the marriage vows--the consent itself.  

There are a number of reasons that a marriage might not be valid--too many to list.  But there are some basics that can help one establish whether or not a marriage might be invalid.  Most invalid marriages are declared to be invalid by reason of a defect of consent--i.e., some problem with the marriage vows, which is what makes the marriage (canon 1057).  

When someone seeks a declaration of nullity, he or she (called the Petitioner) files a suit in which one alleges that the marriage was not sacramentally valid.  After an investigation by the competent Tribunal, the Church issues a decree stating whether or not the marriage was, in fact, a validly-confected Sacrament.  

What is most important is to remember that all marriages enjoy the favor of the law (canon 1060).  That is to say, every marriage is presumed valid until proven otherwise.  So no Tribunal or other office should EVER, under ANY circumstances, suggest, hint, intimate, or otherwise propose that a person's marriage will be declared null by the Church without having seen the proofs of the case.  To do so is a gross miscarriage of justice.  It is unfair to the individuals involved, and it smacks of disrespect for the very favor of the law which protects marriage against undue prosecution.

With regard to infidelity--and again, without going into specifics--a history of serial infidelity on the part of one of the parties is sometimes an indication of a person's defect of consent or an intention to "simulate" the Sacrament.  But it is not a guarantee.  We must never lose sight of the value of Sacramental grace, nor of the possibility of a person's conversion.  Therefore, the evidence in a particular case is extremely important.  Infidelity itself is not a grounds for nullity (this is a misinterpretation of Matthew 19, which I'll try to post on later).  Infidelity may, however, be symptomatic of something which may have prevented the Sacrament from taking place.  It is a subtle, but extremely important, distinction.

As far as a universal standard for a Declaration of Matrimonial Nullity goes, it's difficult to pinpoint.  What is most important--and very commonly misunderstood--is that any defect in a person's consent must be present BEFORE and AT THE MOMENT OF consent.  What happens afterward cannot affect it--it can only give evidence to it!  

So what is this thing that people call "an annulment"?  It is nothing more than a Declaration by the Church certifying that which was already true--that the Sacrament of Marriage did not take place due to a pre-existing defect at the moment that consent was exchanged (with some exceptions, but I won't go into them).  

For anyone who has a marriage case before a Tribunal, a couple of things: NEVER presume that a Declaration of Nullity will be granted just because you apply for it.  It is not a rubber stamp, it is not pro forma, it is not guaranteed!  So those people who go ahead and make plans to be remarried before the Tribunal has issued a decision in their case are only doing themselves a grave disservice (and yet, it's always the Church's fault in their minds!).  

Second, try not to get discouraged.  As divorce rates have increased over the years, Tribunals have been inundated with requests for investigating marriages.  Investigations take time--especially when Tribunals are given little or no evidence.  NO ONE has a right to have their marriage declared null.  A person only has a right to petition a Tribunal to investigate his/her marriage.  Even then, there is no guarantee that a Tribunal will necessarily accept the case for trial.

Over the years, innumerable volumes have been written about Marriage--its Sacramental nature, what is necessary for it to be valid, etc.  And yet, it is by far the most misunderstood and abused of the Sacraments.  Many people see Marriage as something that can be bought and sold, a free pass to tax deductions, a chance to get dressed up and throw a great party.  But Marriage is a solemn covenant that exists until death.  It is the solemn union of man and woman that "they might become one flesh" in the procreative act, and that they might share a harmonious life together.  Marriage is a right according to the natural law--but what a grave disservice we do to ourselves when we misuse it and seek to subordinate it to our own whims and ends!


[As an aside, I think it's really great the number of Anglican clergy who are coming into full communion with the Catholic Church.  However, the Holy See has been abundantly clear that Tribunals are not to water-down the process of marital investigation or in any way "sweep things under the rug."  To do so would be a grave abuse of the tremendous responsibility that Tribunals have to serving the cause of Truth.]

Ask Father... "What happened to the altar rails?"

‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy,

And before all the people I will be honored.’  (Leviticus 10:3)

A reader asks: “Father, what happened to the altar rails?  They’re not in churches anymore, and I miss them.  No one ever told us why they were ripped out!”

First of all, I personally believe that it is a crime and a shame that no one ever properly catechized this person’s parish about why the altar rail was removed.  Priests have an obligation to make certain that the people of their parishes understand why changes—particularly changes which may be seen by some as architecturally or liturgically drastic—are made, what the motivation behind the change is, and most importantly how it affects how the community worships. 



Rail at the Papal High Altar at St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City



For those (like myself) who grew up in parishes that are more modern in design and didn’t have altar rails to begin with, a brief overview.  Altar rails are very basically railings that formally and definitively delineated the sanctuary space of a church building.  They are still seen in many older parishes where liturgically-motivated renovations have been more modest or where the historical integrity of buildings was sought to be preserved.  In some respect, altar rails help to create a very visual understanding of the nature of the sanctuary, which is (or ought to be) that part of the church in which the Divine Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is preserved.  It is sacred space(“sanctuary” is derived from the Latin word sanctus which means “holy”), our Holy of Holies, not unlike the inner sanctum of the Temple of Solomon (cf. Leviticus 16).  According to this perspective, altar rails serve as a barrier, not so much to keep people from getting too close to God (as was often thought) as they were presence to emphasize the awesome presence of God within that space, a space through which superfluous traffic ought not to pass.

A second interpretation of altar rails that is more Eucharistic than “hierarchical” (if I may use that term loosely) is that of the altar rail being seen as an extension of the altar itself.  In many cases, churches went to great lengths to see that the top of the altar rail was made of the same material as the altar, and it is most properly covered with a white linen cloth—just as the altar is—during the reception of Holy Communion.  As the Faithful would come and kneel at the altar rail to receive Communion with Christ physically coming to the kneeling communicants (as opposed to us going to Christ), the imagery of us kneeling at the table of the Lord and receiving was made more clear (as it would be impossible—and quite undesirable—for the whole congregation to gather physically around the altar). 



Receiving Communion at the altar rail in Trinidad.



The liturgical reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council brought about new norms regarding the reception of Holy Communion.  Rather than kneeling at an altar rail, “[t]he norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).” As a result, altar rails quickly fell out of use.  (This is not to say that they could not be used once again, as the documents only say that the norm is for people to stand, and not that they are required to stand in line in the aisle, as opposed to standing at the altar rail or the foot of the sanctuary.)



For some future priests, it's just natural!

Regarding the fate of altar rails, what has happened in terms of church renovations is largely unfortunate from an historical and architectural standpoint, not to mention in light of maintaining some semblance of liturgical continuity between the two forms of the Roman Rite.  It is true that they are no longer required for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (though still needed for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, or the Traditional Latin Mass), and it was in that spirit that they were removed from the majority of churches—at least those in which the historical integrity of the building was of less importance than more historic properties.

One thing must be made clear though: in no document of the Church, from the Second Vatican Council or otherwise, has it ever been stated, implicitly or explicitly, that altar rails must or should be removed from parishes.  The Church, mindful of the necessity of historical, liturgical, and cultural continuity has never been so brash as to make a formal call for the removal of altar rails.  In almost all cases in which altar rails were removed from parishes, the removal was instigated at the local—or possibly diocesan—level. 

Most recent official guidelines regarding the sanctuary, while maintaining the distinction between sanctuary and the rest of the church, no longer mention the Communion rail.

For example, the recent guidelines for church buildings published by the U.S. bishops' conference, "Built of Living Stones," recommends the following regarding the sanctuary in No. 54:

"The sanctuary is the space where the altar and the ambo stand, and 'where the priest, deacon and other ministers exercise their offices.' The special character of the sanctuary is emphasized and enhanced by the distinctiveness of its design and furnishings, or by its elevation. The challenge to those responsible for its design is to convey the unique quality of the actions that take place in this area while at the same time expressing the organic relationship between those actions and the prayer and actions of the entire liturgical assembly. The sanctuary must be spacious enough to accommodate the full celebration of the various rituals of word and Eucharist with their accompanying movement, as well as those of the other sacraments celebrated there."

That said, the above guidelines, and documents on the preservation of sacred art published by the Holy See, do suggest that great care must be taken before altering churches of certain historical value or even particular elements of a church that may have particular artistic merit.  (Fr. Edward McNamara, “Removal of Altar Rails,” Zenit Daily Dispatch, Feb. 1, 2005)

 As the sanctuary continues to be that space in which “the priest, deacon and other ministers exercise their offices,” it ought very clearly to remain in the minds of all the Faithful that the sanctuary is holy ground, a sacred space that deserves—nay, commands—the utmost reverence and respect.  Whether altar rails did—or could again—help to convey the sacredness of that space is unknown. 



Even our Protestant brothers and sisters,
in their own contemporary rites give communion at the altar rail!



What I can say from personal experience is that those sanctuaries that are most revered and treated as sacred are those in which the priest, deacons, and other ministers conduct themselves with reverence and dignity, and in which the Sacred Mysteries are celebrated in a fashion that is truly in keeping with the solemn, sublime dignity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

Ask Father... Masses for the Dead (A follow-up on Purgatory)

A few weeks ago, I posted rather extensively on the reality of Purgatory as a fundamental of Judeo-Christian belief.  There are manifold justifications for belief in Purgatory, and only one or two ill-interpreted sentences from St. Paul's writings that could be construed in such a way as to disagree.  Where the "rubber meets the road," however, is in interpreting Scripture in light of the belief of the Church, and not the other way around.  Christians are called to be a People of the Word, but not a People of the Book.  After all, if we get right down to it, in a sort of chicken-and-egg discussion, which came first, the Church or the Bible?  The Church!  The Church does not profess that which she believes because the Bible says so.  The Bible says what it says because it reflects the beliefs of the Church.  But I digress, as this is a whole other discussion to be had a later time.  

With regard to prayers for the dead, and most especially Masses for the dead, we take our queue from 2 Maccabees, in which Judas Maccabeus sends 12,000 pieces of silver to Jerusalem to the temple that an expiatory sacrifice be offered to free his fallen comrades from their sins.  He says that "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."  (12:43-46).  Indeed, Judas' justification for praying for the dead is closely linked to a belief in the resurrection of the dead: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.

This practice of praying for the dead, then, pre-exists Christianity, and remains a necessary teaching of the Christian Faith.  Our friends over at Fisheaters.com have this to say on the matter:

Those who've died in a state of grace are not truly "dead"; they are our beloved in Heaven or in Purgatory (on their way to Heaven) and will forever be, world without end, part of the Communion of Saints -- the Church Triumphant (the Saints in Heaven, whether or not they are beatified or canonized), the Church Suffering (the saints in Purgatory), and the Church Militant (the saints on earth).

Because we can't know, aside from those the Church has beatified or canonized, who is already in Heaven, who is in Purgatory for a time, or who is damned, we pray for the dead for the rest of our lives -- assuming they are in Purgatory, while hoping they are in Heaven and not damned. 

We also ask those who've died to pray for us. While those whom the Church has deemed to be of the Church Triumphant (the canonized Saints) are in Heaven for certain and are, therefore, in no need of our prayers for them, we've always asked for them to pray for us. As to the Church Suffering in Purgatory, Aquinas teaches that they are not able to know, by themselves, our prayers; however, it is piously believed, and taught by St. Alphonsus Liguori, that God makes our prayers known to them -- not directly, as they are deprived of the Beatific Vision until they enter Heaven, but by infusing this knowledge into their souls. St. Bellarmine teaches that because the Church Suffering is so close to God -- much closer than we are and having the great consolation of knowing they are saved -- their prayers for us are very effective. So, as you pray for your dead loved ones, ask them to pray for you, too!

As to the damned, there is no hope; no prayer can help them and we can't pray formally for those in Hell. The problem, of course, is that we can't know who is damned, and so we pray generally for "all the faithful departed." For those who've died outside of visible Communion with Christ's Church or for those Catholics who've died seemingly without repentance and in scandal, public prayer cannot be offered, but we can most certainly still pray privately with the hope that they've died in a state of grace (i.e., those who are denied a Catholic funeral can't be prayed for liturgically, publicly, but they can most definitely be prayed for -- and should be prayed for -- privately). Priests can even offer Masses for such people privately, without naming them.

 With regard to saying Masses for the Dead, the principle is the same.  Christ has given us no greater means of prayer than the sublime act of Divine Worship itself.  As the graces which flow from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are infinite, they do immeasurable good in expiating the sins of the faithful departed, the same as that sacrifice which Judas Maccabeus had offered for his fallen soldiers. 

So pray for the dead.  They need our prayers as much as we rely on their prayers.  If you have loved ones whom you wish to be prayed for by many people, I recommend enrolling them in the Rorate Caeli Purgatorial Society that is periodically updated and that has a number of priests offering weekly and monthly Masses for all the souls listed, as well as those who make the request. 

** Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eis.  Requiescant in pace. **

Ask Father... Communion in the Hand

Is Communion in the hand really a missed opportunity to stick your tongue out at the priest?! 

Well, I don't know about that.  Perhaps.  A parishioner recently commented to me what a shame it was that Communion was no longer distributed on the tongue, as she could remember the days when Catholics were explicitly told never, under any circumstances, to come into physical contact with the Sacred Species, and now people are grabbing it "like apples at a picnic."  

First, a quick Catholic Mythbusters moment.  It is not now, nor has it ever been forbidden for a Catholic to receive communion on the tongue.  In fact, receiving in this manner is the universal norm.  Only in the United States and a few other countries is that different--countries where the Bishops' Conferences have had to receive a special indult (permission) from the Holy See to allow it.  Catholics are always free to receive communion on the tongue.  It was never suppressed.  Punto.  Basta.  End of story.

Now, in light of that, I pass along a story I just came across this morning.  I reprint it here in its entirety.  The original may be found here at Offerimus Tibi Domine--a blog I highly recommend.

Communion in the Hand is a Calvinist Novelty

I was fortunate enough to meet Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently and he is one of those people who make an impression. Not through his physical presence - he is not a tall man. Not through force - he is quietly spoken and gentle. But when explaining the Faith, he doesn't give away much ground - none at all, in fact. He is kindly and interested when you speak to him but I wouldn't like to skim over anything in the Confessional - the kindly eyes might look intensely at you and you'd feel the need to tell the full story! In other words, whether he has special gifts in the Confessional or not, he is a holy man. Something in his presence tells you so and demands attention. Hence, I am very interested in what he says. The following was picked up from the Eponymous Flower.

I've posted about Bishop Schneider before here.

Cardinal Canizares has also become an eloquent speaker for the more widespread return of this practice. He recommends that Catholics “receive Communion on the tongue and while kneeling.” See here.

Auxiliary Bishop Says Communion In the Hand is a Calvinist Novelty

Not Even Martin Luther Would Have Done It

Bishop Athanasius Schneider

In the last century the Old Liberal Bishops promoted hand Communion. They used a historical lie toward this end.
Present day Communion in the Hand has no roots in the early Church.

This was stressed by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana in Kazakhstan on the 19th July on the radio station 'Radio Maria Südtirol'. Mgr Schneider is a Patristic expert.

Hand Communion was contrived "all new" from the Second Vatican Council -- the Auxiliary Bishop firmly said. The ancient Church had practiced a completely different form for the reception of Communion. In that period the hand in which Communion was received was purified before and after.

Additionally, the faithful would take the Body of the Lord from their hand in a disposition of prayer with his tongue. "If anything it was more of an oral reception of Communion than in the hand". After Communion, the communicant had to lick their hands with their tongues, so that even the smallest particle should not be lost. A Deacon supervised the purification.

The Auxiliary Bishop cotinued: "This concern and care stands in direct opposition to indifference and carelessness with which so called Communion in the hand is dispensed." Women never held Communion simply on the flat of the hand. They spread a white cloth, a manner of corporal over their hand. Then, they would receive Communion directly to their mouth from the linen cloth.

"That is a tremendous contrast to the present form of Communion in the hand" -- insisted Mgr Schneider. The ancient faithful never took Communion with their fingers: "the gesture of hand Communion was completely unknown in the Church."

The Antique Form of Giving Communion Was Impractical in the Final Analysis

In the course of the centuries the Church developed a form of giving Communion which "surely came from the Holy Ghost". Msgr Schneider explained that the Eastern Church had already completed this step by the 5th Century, the West somewhat later. The transition took place worldwide, organically, instinctively and peacefully. The Bishop reports that Pope Gregory the Great († 604), gave Communion on the tongue. French and Spanish Synods of the 8th and 9th Centuries sanctioned against touching the Host with excommunication: "If a Synod can make such a strict threat, this form will be forbidden in a short time."

Communion in the Hand Comes from the Calvinists

According to the Bishop, communion in the hand comes from the Dutch Calvinists of the 17th Century. Calvinism denies the real presence of Christ in the Host. Communion in the hand wasn't even practiced by the Lutherans: "The Lutherans have until quite recently, and till today in Scandinavian lands, preserved communion kneeling and on the tongue."

Ask Father...: "Libera Nos...": The Life and Times of an Embolism

"Father, where did the prayer after the Lord's Prayer during Mass come from?  I don't ever remember it from before."

This questioner is obviously asking about the Libera Nos, the embolism (insertion) which in the New Order of Mass (1970) is said aloud by the priest.  In the Traditional form of Mass, the Libera Nos was said quietly by the priest as he prepared for the fraction of the Sacred Species (except at the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday, when it was said aloud).  To begin with, let's look at the text itself:

"Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ."  (trans., ICEL 2010)

The more traditional form, which was said up until the Missal of Paul VI said:

Deliver us, O Lord, we beseech Thee, from all evils, past, present, and to come; and through the intercession of the glorious and blessed Mary, ever Virgin, Mother of God, together with They blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Andrew, and all the Saints, grant of Thy goodness peace in our days, that aided by the riches of Thy mercy, we may be always free from sin, and safe from all disquiet.  Through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the union of the Holy Ghost, God.  World without end.  Amen.  (trans. by Rev. J. Rea, 1961)

 [Those who know me can probably tell just from this which prayer I would prefer to say, but I digress.]

Not having a wide range of liturgical reference books at my disposal, I am limited in the explanation that I can give.  No doubt some of my liturgically-inclined friends might be able to shed more light on the origin and development of this prayer. Both Jungmann and Fortescue make reference to this embolism as being extremely ancient.  There is probably enough evidence to support an assertion that this prayer was in existence by the time of, if not before, Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604).  Little is said of its purpose or of its particular origin.  However, it seems to be a very logical prayer following the last words of the Lord's Prayer, "But deliver us from evil."  In all the Eastern rites, and in the rites at Paris (prior to the 20th century reform), the Lord's Prayer was said by the whole congregation, as it is today in the modern Roman Rite.  In the ancient Roman Rite, however, only that final phrase, "But deliver us from evil," was said by the people.  The rest of the prayer was said alone by the priest.  

As I said, it seems a logical following that the prayer immediately after "But deliver us from evil" should carry on that petition of deliverance from evil and expand it to invoking the intercession of Mary and the Saints.  The saints mentioned naturally varied from place to place.  It seems logical that the Mass at Rome would invoke Peter, Paul, and Andrew.  In Milan, Ambrose is added.  Fortescue mentions that "in the middle ages, the celebrant was expressly allowed to add any Saints he liked..." (The Mass, 364).

In our modern rites, this prayer is far more pronounced, namely because it is said aloud by the priest.  Although, most scholars would lament the shortened form, it still carries with it that continuation of a plea for deliverance from the trials and tribulations of this life.  What makes it a bit bizarre in the modern context, however, is the addition of the traditionally Protestant appendage to the Lord's Prayer, "For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever."  Both its placement and its very insertion into the Roman Rite is rather jarring, and it seems to take a great deal away from the significance of the Libera Nos.  

I'm sure this doesn't come close to answering the question that was posed.  But, as I said, the liturgical resources at my disposal are rather meager at the moment, so I'm making due with what I've got!  In any event, the Libera Nos (even in its present, shortened form) is indeed ancient, and it remains a part of Catholic patrimony that has (more or less) stood the test of time.

Ask Father... Preview of Things to Come

Just to whet your appetites, a brief preview of upcoming "Ask Father..." segments:

• "Communion in the Hand: A Missed Opportunity to Stick your Tongue out at the Priest?"
• "The Truth about Altar Rails"
• "Masses for the Dead: Purgatory, part II"
• "Libera Nos: the Life and Times of an Embolism"

And for those who won't be at the 5:30 p.m. anticipated Mass at St. Anthony's in Follansbee this weekend, my sermon will be posted hopefully by Monday evening, if not before.  Until then, I have two words for you:  PRO MULTIS.  That should keep you in suspense! ;-)

Ask Father...: Purgatory!

Recently I was asked by a parishioner why I wear black vestments at for Funeral Masses (more on that later).  Her thinking was that we should wear white because we are celebrating the person's entry into Heaven, and it's a joyful occasion.  I explained to her that we have no way of knowing that a person is in Heaven, except when the Church formally investigates the life of the individual and makes a formal proclamation declaring such to be the case, known as Canonization.  Our best bet is to presume that the person is in Purgatory, being purged of the temporal punishments accumulated through those sins they committed during their life.  So it's not inappropriate that we mourn for the deceased.  It is, however, rather inappropriate that we be overly joyful.  Then came the bombshell...

But Father, I didn't think the Church believed in Purgatory anymore!

Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather.  But, the truth is, there has been so much confusion about the Faith of the Church in the past 50 years, that it was no wonder that this elderly, lifelong Catholic could be mistaken about a rather fundamental (and de fide, by the way!!) teaching.

I explained--I thought, quite rationally--that if we believed people went straight to Heaven, why do we bother having Masses said for them?!  Right there...the belief is evident by our praxis!  

Rather than re-inventing the wheel, I quote for you from an excellent Catholic website, www.fisheaters.com:

First, a definition is in order: what is Purgatory?

Purgatory is not Hell minus a few torments and degrees Fahrenheit; it's not Heaven minus joy. It's not a "Third Final Destination" of souls. Purgatory is simply the place where already saved souls are cleansed of the temporal effects of sin before they are allowed to see the holy face of Almighty God. Revelation 21:27 tells us that "...nothing unclean will enter [Heaven]."

That there are temporal effects of sin is obvious when one considers that even those who have been baptized, who have a deep and intimate relationshp with Jesus, who are the "elect" or "the saved/being saved," or what have you, are subject to pain, work, death and sickness[...]

[...]Nota bene: Purgatory is His way of ensuring that Revelation 21:27 is true and that nothing unclean will see Heaven. It is only through Christ's sacrifice that we are shown this mercy! It is Christ and Christ alone Who allows us access to the Father.

OK, so where's the word "Purgatory" in the Bible? It's isn't in the Bible, but neither are the words "Trinity," "abortion," "lesbianism," and "cloning" (or "Rapture," for that matter), and it doesn't matter whether you call the process of purgation "purgatory" or the "Final Theosis": the concept of a "final cleansing" or "purgation" for those who require it is very evident in the Bible, in the writings of the early Church Fathers, and in the Old Testament religion whence Christianity sprang.

Daniel 12:2, Matthew 12:32, 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, 2 Timothy 1:16-18, Hebrews 12:14, Hebrews 12:22-23, 1 Peter 4:6 and Revelation 21:10, 27 all speak of Purgatory in their telling of the need for purification, prayers for the dead, Christ's preaching to the dead, or how nothing unclean will see God.

Tertullian comes right out and says in The Crown 3:3, dated A.D. 211, "We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries". Cyprian of Carthage writes in A.D. 253:

It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.

From St. John Chrysostom in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:5, A.D. 392:

Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

to St. Augustine's A.D. 419. City of God:

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment"

the Church Fathers speak of purgation.

Archaeology also indicates the antiquity of the Christian belief in Purgatory/the Final Theosis: the tombs of the ancient Christians were inscribed with words of petition for peace and for rest, and at the anniversaries of deaths, the faithful gathered at the graves of the departed to make intercession for those who'd gone before.

Orthodox Jewish practices, which branched off from the Old Testament religion, to this day reflect belief in this "place" of final purification which they call Gehenom: when an Orthodox Jewish person dies, a ritual called the taharah is performed by the "Chevra kaddisha -- gmilat khessed shel emet," the "Holy Society" or "Burial Society" of Jews knowledgeable in these traditional duties. They cleanse and prepare the physical body and recite the required prayers (Chevra Kadisha) which ask God for forgiveness for any sins the departed may have committed, and beg Him to guard and grant eternal peace to the departed. For eleven months after the death of a loved one certain members of the family pray a prayer called the Mourner's Qaddish (or Kaddish) for their loved one's purification.

Even the The Talmud¹ speaks of Purgatory:

Sabbath 33b:
"The judgment of the wicked in purgatory is twelve months." Rosh HaShanah 16b-17a:
"It has been taught that the school of Shammai says: "There will be three groups on Judgment Day (yom haDin):
  (1) one that is completely righteous,
  (2) one that is completely wicked,
  (3) and one that is in between."

The completely righteous will be recorded and sealed at once for eternal life. The completely wicked will be recorded and doomed at once to Gehinnom, as it says: "And many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall rise up, some to eternal life and some to shame and eternal rejection" [Daniel 12:2]. Those in between will go down to Gehinnom and cry out and rise up, as it says: "And I will bring the third part through the fire and refine them as silver is refined and test them as gold is tested. They will call on my name and I will answer them" [Zechariah 13:9]

Rabbi Shammai (50 BC - AD 30), one of the two main teachers of early rabbinical Judaism, also is on record as having interpreted Zechariah 13:9 as referring to a state of purification after death. Isaiah 66:15-16 and Malachi 3:2-3 were also interpreted in rabbinic literature as referring to the purgatorial process, and the same theme is reflected in Wisdom 3:1-7 and II Maccabees 12:43-45, both contained in the Deuterocanonical books that Protestants refer to as "The Apocrypha."

Jews, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have always proclaimed the reality of the final purification for those who need it. It was not until the Protestant Reformers came in the 1500s that any Christians denied the idea of a final purgation before seeing the face of God.

The link to the particular page is here, where you can find supporting passages from Scripture, as well as a couple of other helpful links.  Check it out!

Ask Father...: 'Catholic' vs. 'Apostolic,' anyone?

Two weeks ago, in place of my regular Sunday homily, I gave a brief catechesis on the new translation of the Nicene Creed, which is to take effect on the First Sunday of Advent, November 27, 2011.  Hopefully most people's questions were answered.  However, one parishioner asked the following question:

What is the difference between "Catholic" and "Apostolic"?

In order to get a little context, let's look at the full phrase:

I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

 These four qualities--one, holy, catholic, and apostolic--are commonly known as the four "marks" of the Church.  We call them "marks" because they define the Church, and because a Church, in the truest definition of the word, is easily identifiable insofar as it conforms to these four marks.  They are effectively the standard by which true churches (and not ecclesial communities) are defined.  Let's look at all four of them.

One

Jesus giving the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, by Perugino

The Church is "one" because all her members are united in the one Faith, which they all profess.  We have the same sacrifice, which is the Mass, and the same Sacraments, and we are united under the same head of the Church, Jesus Christ, whose singular vicar on earth is the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI.  The Church is "one" because at her founding Jesus willed it to be so: "...that they all may be one..." (John 17:21).

Holy

The Church is holy because she was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is all-holy.  The Church continues in holiness because her teachings are those of Christ himself.  Those teachings, combined with the great Sacraments of the Church, are the means to leading a holy life and thus produce holy members in every age!

Now to the question at hand.... Catholic vs. Apostolic

"Catholic" comes from the Greek katholikos, which means "universal."  The Baltimore Catechism (still valid and still very much in need of being read by a great many Catholics) states that the Church is universal "because, destined to last for all time, it never fails to fulfill the divine commandment to teach all nations all the truths revealed by God."

"Apostolic," on the other hand, refers to the fact that the Church is founded upon the Apostles, who, following Our Lord's command to "teach all nations," spread the one true Faith to the ends of the earth.  According to Christ's Divine Will, His Apostles and their successors (the bishops) are the guardians and teachers of the Faith of the Church.  Insofar as the line of succession of the Sacraments and Doctrine of the Church may be traced back to the Apostles themselves--and in particular to St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, whose successor is the Vicar of Christ on earth, the "rock" on whom the Church would be built (cf. Mt. 16:18)--the Church is "Apostolic."

What is most important in all of this is to remember that ONLY those communities which bear the four marks may be considered to be "Churches" in the proper sense of the word.  All other religious factions and denominations are more appropriately called "ecclesial communities" because they lack one (if not all) of the fundamental, constitutive elements required to be considered a Church (see here for the Vatican's most recent explanation).