“Amen” holds significant theological and historical importance in the Catholic tradition, particularly during Holy Communion. Rooted in both scripture and tradition, the response “Amen” serves as a profound affirmation of faith and a communal bond among believers.

The term “Amen” finds its origins in Hebrew, meaning “so be it” or “truly.” Its usage dates back to the Old Testament, where it is often employed to express agreement or confirmation. In the context of Holy Communion, “Amen” signifies the individual’s solemn agreement with the words spoken by the priest during the consecration of the Eucharist.

During the celebration of the Mass, the pivotal moment arrives when the priest, acting in persona Christi, recites the words of institution over the bread and wine. These words echo Jesus Christ’s own words at the Last Supper, transforming the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. The congregation’s response of “Amen” is not merely a ritualistic utterance but a profound act of faith, acknowledging the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The theological significance of “Amen” during Holy Communion lies in its role as a personal and communal proclamation of belief in the mystery of transubstantiation. Catholics firmly uphold the doctrine that the consecrated bread and wine become the actual Body and Blood of Christ. By responding with “Amen,” the communicant publicly affirms their faith in this miraculous transformation, reinforcing the spiritual bond between the individual and Christ.

Historically, the use of “Amen” in the liturgy can be traced back to the early Christian communities. The Didache, a first-century Christian document, contains instructions on the celebration of the Eucharist, emphasizing the communal aspect of the response. Over centuries, the practice of responding with “Amen” became deeply ingrained in the Roman Catholic liturgy.

Throughout medieval and post-medieval times, the reception of the Eucharist became increasingly regulated, with the Church providing clearer guidelines. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) played a pivotal role in shaping the doctrine and liturgical practices of the Catholic Church, reaffirming the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The prescribed response of “Amen” during the distribution of the consecrated elements became a standardized expression of faith.

In contemporary Catholic worship, “Amen” retains its central role in the reception of the Eucharist. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) provides guidelines for the celebration of the Mass, emphasizing the importance of the congregation’s active participation and the faithful response of “Amen” as an integral part of the liturgy.

In summary, the response “Amen” during Holy Communion encapsulates a rich tapestry of theological depth and historical continuity within the Catholic tradition. Rooted in the biblical heritage of affirmation, it serves as a communal declaration of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, connecting believers across centuries and fostering a sense of unity within the Body of Christ.

The Catholic Church has a long and storied history, and, throughout the centuries, its views on various practices, including burial customs, have evolved. One significant shift in doctrine pertains to cremation, a practice that was once frowned upon but is now accepted under certain conditions. This article delves into the transformation of the Catholic Church's stance on cremation and explores the rules governing the care of cremated remains.

For much of its history, the Catholic Church was hesitant to endorse cremation, viewing it as inconsistent with the belief in the resurrection of the body. The preference for traditional burial was deeply rooted in the idea that the body, as the temple of the Holy Spirit, deserved to be treated with reverence and respect. Cremation was often associated with pagan rituals, leading to its disapproval within the Catholic community.

Vatican II and Doctrinal Changes: A pivotal moment in the Church's approach to cremation came during the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). The Council addressed numerous aspects of Catholic life and doctrine, and it initiated a reconsideration of the Church's stance on cremation. In 1963, the Congregation of the Holy Office (later known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued the instruction “Piam et Constantem,” which allowed Catholics to choose cremation as long as it did not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body.

Revised Canon Law: The shift in attitude towards cremation became more explicit with the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983. Canon 1176, §3, of the revised code states that cremation is permitted, provided it does not indicate a denial of faith in the resurrection. The key condition is that the ashes must be laid to rest in a sacred place, such as a cemetery or a columbarium within a cemetery.

Rules Regarding the Care of Cremated Remains

While the Church now allows cremation, it has established guidelines to ensure the proper handling and respectful disposition of cremated remains. Some of the essential rules include:

• Sacred Burial Grounds: The ashes must be interred in a sacred place, such as a Catholic cemetery or a designated area within a cemetery, normally niches in a columbarium.

• Respectful Containers: The ashes should be placed in a respectful container, typically an urn.

• Prohibition of Scattering: The Church prohibits the scattering of ashes or keeping them in places, such as private homes, that do not uphold the dignity and sacredness of the remains.

• No Division of Ashes: The ashes of a deceased person should not be divided among family members but should be kept together and interred as a whole.

The Catholic Church's changing views on cremation reflect a willingness to adapt to contemporary practices while upholding core beliefs. The acknowledgment of cremation as a valid option for Catholics comes with the responsibility to ensure that the remains are treated with the utmost respect and reverence. The rules established by the Church regarding the care of cremated remains emphasize the importance of maintaining the sacredness of the burial process while accommodating the diverse preferences of the faithful.

Holy Mount Cemetery, located off California Road, has a beautiful Columbarium with a total of 1,600 niches, both indoor and outdoor, for those who are interested.

May I share with you an article written on social media by Fr. Ranhilio Aquino: Philosopher, Lawyer, Priest, and Dean of the Graduate School of Law at San Beda University, Manila.

“In the primaries for the presidential elections in the US, it seems that abortion is the shibboleth! Candidates win or lose on the basis of their disposition towards abortion – and most Americans, it seems, want abortion recognized as a RIGHT!

The typical argument: My body - my choice! The problem is therefore clear: the refusal to recognize the embryo-zygote-fetus as a human being. For if one did, then one would clearly realize that abortion is a decision not only about one's body but about another's life!

But here is the logic! If it is not human at the time of fertilization and the genetic code of a new organism is complete, when does it become human? 15 weeks, 20 weeks, 40 weeks? Then we become arbitrary. If it is not human at the very beginning – and the beginning is fertilization, which is when a diploid cell that, unless hindered, of its own mitotically divides until differentiation occurs – then it never becomes the titulary of the rights of a human person.

One commentator who obviously favored abortion argued about what she labelled ‘the cruelty’ of compelling a woman who had been raped to carry the pregnancy to full term. Rape is despicable, and the rapist is a criminal who should be punished. The child conceived is neither a criminal nor culpable in any way, and its mother can give him or her up for adoption when born. And, certainly, it has done nothing to deserve being killed!

I read one attempted philosophical argument in defense of abortion. It likened the fetus to an animal or even another person who clings and affixes itself to one's body. Would one then, it is argued, not be justified in ridding oneself of this unwelcome attachment? The problem with this argument is that it rests on an analogy that limps very badly. The unwelcome organism that attaches itself has done so in violation of the integrity of one's person or personal autonomy. Conception, even if it comes about as the result of rape, results in the emergence of human life that did not cooperate in any way at all in what may have been the wrongfulness of the circumstances of its origins!

A zygote may not look like a human being – but entitlement to rights is never based on looks, because one who has figured in a terrible car crash that leaves one misshapen, or one deformed by one [of many] debilitating disease[s] does not look like a human being either.

In the end, it is a matter of our resoluteness about defending the rights of those incapable of asserting them – or suing for their protection. These will include the aged, the weak, those at the margins of society who can afford neither lawyers nor litigation fees – and fetuses! There is nothing more perverse than for a profession that evolved as a service to life to now place its expertise at the administration of death and the termination of human life. The trend is clear: abortion now, euthanasia later. They are related issues – because they all have to do with people playing God: determining who may live and who may die.

Life is endowed with what I characterize as a ‘moral magnitude.’ It is something no human power can produce. The sexual act is its physical condition – but not its cause, since many sexual acts do not result in pregnancies. And when it has run its course, not even the most sophisticated of science can keep death at bay or restore life where it has been lost. We find ourselves in existence, and therefore we experience it fundamentally as a ‘gift.’ And even if one is not a theist, one recognizes that life is not at one's free disposal – otherwise we all become potential victims of those who believe themselves powerful enough to determine who live or die. In its givenness, we experience it as something not subject to our dominion. It is not something we own – and therefore it is not ours to decide to do away with or to terminate, hence, the moral unacceptability both of suicide and of euthanasia. Where palliative care has attained very high levels of sophistication, the argument [based on] the suffering of the terminally ill loses much of its convincing power, although it never was a sound argument in the first place!

The terrible loss of life in the Holy Land is deplorable and is a tragedy for all of humankind – but more threatening a tragedy is the hubris by which persons convince themselves that it is within their power to terminate life and to dispose of it!”