catholic question box

2007-10-10T07:27:00.000-07:00

The Catholic Question Box

UPDATE:

This volume is now available in paperback or digital download at the following website:

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/taynia

You can also find info on upcoming releases from the author and Mt Tabor Publishing , as well as current contact info at the above link.

thank you!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOVEMBER 2004

Is a family member allowed last rites even if they're not catholic?
If I attend a penance service but don't go to the confessional are my sins still forgiven?
Could you name the statues in church?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DECEMBER 2004

How was God made?
It looked like the priest genuflected or kneeled during the creed on Christmas. Am I right? If so, do you know why?
Are more graces received if the Rosary is prayed privately or as a group?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JANUARY 2005 (part 1 of 3)

Why did God let evil come into the world?
When does the consecration of bread and wine take place?
What is higher, a Cardinal or a Bishop? What is an Auxiliary Bishop?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JANUARY 2005 (part 2 of 3)

Why can't women become priests? Isn't the Church being sexist when it comes to this? What does Rome (the pope) say about this? It's disappointing. How about married priests?
Why does the priest break a piece of the consecrated Host and drop it into the cup containing the Precious Blood?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JANUARY 2005 (part 3 of 3)

What is the Great Amen? Is this one of (three) elevations? What are they?
I know the elderly, the sick, and those who are in danger should ask to be anointed, but should young, healthy people who are not in immediate danger be routinely anointed?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FEBRUARY 2005

My friend say any form of yoga is false worship and forbidden by the Church. What is the correct view of yoga for exercise?
Explain Easter Duty.
What is Divine Mercy Sunday? What is a plenary indulgence?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MARCH 2005

What does the Catholic Church teach about the rapture?
Can a bishop just ordain willy-nilly a deacon, priest or another Bishop? What steps are required which he must follow?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

APRIL 2005 (part 1 of 2)

Who are the Franciscans?

Why do we use 15 Stations of the Cross and not just stop at 14 like we used to?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

APRIL 2005 (part 2 of 2)

Why didn't deacon just say Mass when Father was sick instead of having a communion service?

Why not have general absolution?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MAY 2005 (part 1 of 2)

When anyone is sad, do you think God cheers them up?

Why does Jesus get turned down three times?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MAY 2005 (part 2 of 2)

With the election of Benedict XVI, we've been hearing about anti-popes? What are(were) the anti-popes?

Why does the pope take a new name once he becomes pope?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI - no columns over summer

dates of new columns and brief info

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEPTEMBER 2005 (part 1 of 4)

What is your concept of God?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEPTEMBER 2005 (part 2 of 4)

Why, if someone believes that the Host is the Body of Christ, would they take it in their hands?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEPTEMBER 2005 (part 3 of 4)

What inspired you to become a priest?

Do you enjoy being a pastor?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEPTEMBER 2005 (part 4 of 4)

Why is Church so BORING?!?!

Why do we go top Church to "celebrate"? Sometimes I think Church sucks!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

VOLUME 2 - ISSUE 1

Why do some people hold hands during the Our Father and others don't? I don't really like to but they're always reaching over and taking my hand anyhow. What can I say?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

this page is still under construction so please be patient.
there are more backlogged posts from the archives still to come.....

also - new question submissions are welcome.
please use the EMAIL addresses you'll find listed in the sidebar to contact us.....

cheers!

PS - a number of you have written in with questions regarding the Tridentine Mass.....I am working on getting some answers for you! I freely admit I am not as familiar with the in's and out's of it as I may be the Novus Ordo mass we commonly have.

However - in the meantime here is a website with a good translation of the Apostolic Letter from Benedict regarding its usage and his reasons for addressing this matter for the Church.

the site contains some other links that may prove useful as well till I can get things squared away on my end.

thanks for your patience in this!

volume 2 - issue 1

2007-10-06T12:20:00.000-07:00

Q. - Why do some people hold hands during the Our Father and others don't? I don't really like to but they're always reaching over and taking my hand anyhow. What can I say?

A. - This is seen more and more at Mass these days.

In truth, it came into practice some time ago with converts to the faith who were used to this expression in their own liturgies from before. However, it wasn't a part of ours. The charismatic groups within the church picked it up during their prayer meetings and carried it over into mass and there you have, in a nutshell, how that particular horse got out of the barn.

More than likely a lack of basic catechesis among Catholics on why we do what we do (or what we don't do) helped it spread, along with the fact that it has a sort of universal appeal on the surface of things. The thought that it represents our unity with one another and underlines our familial relationship in the church has a certain draw that cannot be denied amongst parishioners and this is one of the most frequently stated reasons they give for doing it.

be that as it may, it is nowhere within the rubrics for the mass. One can look high and low and find many different gestures and postures prescribed for both the faithful as well as the priest, but you will not find the holding of hands during the Our Father addressed anywhere.

Now - some would like to springboard the issue forward by basing their reasons on an argument of silence. But that doesn't make a lot of sense. There are untold things that the rubrics are SILENT on but we don't introduce any of them as a practice. If we could think up a spiritual reason for rubbing our tummies and patting our heads during that prayer instead, would that be any more appropriate an innovation, just because there's nothing said regarding it?

of course not.

One can debate on whether or not a certain practice could, theoretically, be a beneficial addition to the liturgy but one cannot base its implementation on an argument of silence in the already prescribed rubrics.

moreover, this isn't the way to go about things. If changes need to be made there are methods that the bishops must go through to do it. Unless that happens though one isn't to arbitrarily change things. Even things that weren't addressed to begin with. "The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore, no one on personal authority may add, remove, or change anything in them" (Canon 826.1).

the priest's hands (as well as those of any concelebrants') are to be extended in prayer while the deacon is told to fold his. That's it. Does it address the faithful in the pew? No. It doesn't. But one can work from the point of common sense that it would seem odd, at best, for the laity to introduce a posture that even the deacon doesn't join in.

now - in some parishes it goes so far out of kilter that the priest and deacon both abandon the rubrics themselves and hold hands with the servers all lined up between them during the prayer. What can be said of this charitably but pray for them, yes? And if you have a calm temperament, perhaps address this with them in private. But don't expect too much. Once one takes the attitude that they, and not the Holy See, have the right to choreograph the liturgy as they see fit, obedience tends to fly out the stained glass window. And you'll simply agitate yourself trying to bend hard minds to reason.

Look - it boils down to several things.

1.) Rome alone makes the final decisions on how the liturgy plays out. (#22 - Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) (Canon 838 - Code of Canon Law.)

2.) any new innovations or changes to the liturgy have a method of approval already in the books: a two thirds majority vote of the bishop's conference and final approval form the Holy See. Not spontaneous, unapproved implementation on a personal or parish wide level.

3.) there are theological reasons for what we do (or don't do) during Mass. Perhaps time would be better spent catechizing the faithful to better understand the gestures already in place and what the meanings of them are so that we don't find groups making up their own. Often times people are unaware that the meaning and depth they are seeking to show is already to be found in what the Church has prescribed for them to do but they were simply never told of its purpose.

here is some brief background on this:
The Vatican as well as many bishops in the US frown on this sort of thing. For a variety of reasons. At the top of the list is that there is no precedence for it and that it makes zero sense theologically during the mass. It is distracting, overtly casual and is not symbolic as our sign of unity (although that is the stated purpose of doing). Our pinnacle of our unity and its corresponding sign is our reception of Holy Communion. That is the height and summit of both the mass and our union.

No one really has the right to introduce innovations to the liturgy. Not the laity, not even the priest.

Until and unless Rome makes some final decision regarding this one way or another, it would seem, at least on the surface, to be somewhat imprudent if not outrightly arrogant to persist in this practice if one has been informed of its background and status. However, most are not aware of it so don't bust your pewmate over the head on what has to be one of the lesser liturguical abuses out there. If this is all that is wrong at your parish, thank the Lord. Really. It's minor. And usually done in all innocence.

The bottom line though is that we are not at a "service". We are at Mass. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be more precise. The Divine Liturgy. This is not our show. This is God's. Mass is something he gives to us, not something we do for him, or God forbid, perform for ourselves and our own preferences and pleasures.

The Church has laid out the liturgy for this in all wisdom and with the guidance of the Spirit. She has two thousand years of spiritual practices to draw from and if she feels it is prudent to make changes she'll do so. Let's not jump the cart.

What you do in your private prayer life is just that, your private prayer life, but mass is to be a unified worship of the members of Christ's Body, the Church. It should spiritually and visually reflect that. If we are all hither and yon with our own ideas and preferences, what does that say about us? There are a lot of things that I myself would like to change - HOWEVER, apart from having no right to do so, I recognize that I am ignorant and lazy. Would not my adaptations reflect that? And if the Church is wise, and holy and preserved by the Spirit, hers will reflect that accordingly too.

On a side note:
another practice that has been much discussed by the bishops is that of giving the faithful the option to use that beautiful posture of 'orantes' during the Our Father (hands out and extended in prayer).

The Italian bishops petitioned Rome and received permission to do so. So their congregations have the option of folding their hands or extending them. Thereby eliminating the whole hand holding business, although it was never as popular overseas as it is here.

The US Bishops felt that they too could eliminate this by possibly offering or even mandating the 'orantes' posture during that prayer, but after much talk it never got up enough steam to get the two thirds majority vote. In other words, that practice has not been approved for use in Mass yet either.

Again, no one is usually aware of it, so don't get weird on people over something like that. And those who are in the know but like to encourage it anyhow tend to bristle at anything that has the slightest scent of submission, patience, or (dare we say it) obedience. So be careful how you put it to them too. Or at least don't be surprised when you're summarily dismissed as a fanatic.

recommended reading section will be up soon......

the rest of the issue will be up shortly.
these docs didn't transfer well so I have to retype all of them.

FYI - the other question in this issue includes genuflection vs bowing your head before you receive holy communion.
hopefully I can get it posted this week with thanksgiving coming up and all.

peace!

SEPTEMBER 2005 (part 4 0f 4)

2007-10-03T10:40:00.000-07:00

Q. - Why is Church so boring?

Q. - Why do we go to Church to "celebrate"? Sometimes I think Church sucks!!!

(both of these questions ^^^ will be answered together)

A. - Well – look at the things that do interest you and figure out why they’re not boring. Whether it’s a new video game or a certain sports team, or even a favorite musical artist…..why can you spend so many hours with these things and enjoy every bit?

It boils down to two things…..a knowledge and understanding of it and a love for it.

When you follow your favorite sports team, you know all about the sport and the team itself. All the players, stats, and rules of the game. Who’s good, who’s not, who should be traded…..

And you enjoy the hours you spend watching, discussing and learning more precisely because you love the game so. The more you learn and understand it, the more you love it…….and the more you love it, the more you interested in delving into it more. It’s an upward spiral.

Now – why isn’t that the case with church?

Most likely – you don’t know much about it. Not really. Seriously.

Oh, maybe you’ve heard the surface truths – Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead – but the man on the street who isn’t even Christian knows that much. Or you may be aware that you’re “obligated” to attend Mass on Sunday and that there are some readings, some preaching and then Communion…….but you don’t really know and understand the incredible truths of our Faith. Or the tremendous gift of the Mass.

And, really, that’s our fault. If you don’t know it, it means we’ve failed to teach it to you. You have to know something in order to love it. In order to have an interest.

It’s hard to say when a solid comprehension of the liturgy (let alone the Faith itself) slipped away. It seems more pronounced in the last 30 years or so.

Maybe it started when the liturgy was changed following Vatican II (which was a prudent thing to do).

It seems that while most people couldn’t tell you verbatim what the latin meant, they could tell you why things were done or said the way they were. Now with the new order of the mass (simple and elegant as it is) we usually can tell you what the words are but we (ironically) don’t know the reasons they’re said or the meaning of any number of things that go on.

Maybe we didn’t teach you well enough about the celebration of Mass because we weren’t sure ourselves why things were done as they are now.

But the liturgy of the Mass is so rich and FULL of meaning. It’s literally packed with deeper truths. Everything you see, hear, smell, taste and touch has a purpose. From the colors around you, to the readings….. from the prayers, to the different gestures and postures of both priest and faithful.

Did you know that our liturgy, though renewed from time to time, is as ancient as the Church itself?

In fact, parts were changed in the last century in order to make more visible its ancient roots and simplicity.

Since we are latin rite Catholics, our rite for Mass stems from both the Jewish prayers and liturgies as well as the Roman civil ceremonies. Obviously one can see why there would be a Jewish connection but some wonder at the Roman customs that were integrated (besides the latin language itself). But it makes sense that wherever the Church was it would use the culture and symbolism of the area to make itself clearer to the people.

In fact, a Jewish woman (later a convert) came to a Catholic Mass once and she remarked that she had “just walked out of a Jewish service.” She said she was “shocked that we had taken all the Jewish prayers!” She was right, of course…..we had.

Among them being the prayers of blessing over the gifts of bread and wine at the offertory. They stem from the Jewish blessings offered before eating bread or drinking grape wine. In Hebrew the blessing over the bread goes like this:

ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם המוציא לחם מן הארץ

Transliteration: Barukh atah Adonai, Elohaynu, melech ha-olam ha-motzi lechem min ha-aretz. Translation: Blessed are you, Lord, our God, king of the universe who brings forth bread from the earth.

And for the grape wine:

ברוך אתה ה׳ אלהינו מלך העולם בורא פרי הגפן

Transliteration: Barukh atah Adonai, Elohaynu, melech ha-olam, borei p’riy ha-gafen. Translation: Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who creates the fruit of the vine. To which both are given a response blessing God forever.

You can hear the similarities with what the priest says when he raises each individually and proclaims: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness, we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life. Or again with the wine: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. To which we respond to both: Blessed be God forever.

As for the Roman civil ceremonies, did you know that when a Roman judge would leave the court, he would place a richly bound and decorated book (the code of civil law) on his cushioned seat? It was a sign that he would return and that the law was still in effect until he did, because the book embodied the imperial authority of the judge himself.

We regarded (and still do) the Gospels to embody and symbolize in a special way the presence of Christ, so the colored cloth we place the Book of Gospels on which drops over the front of the lectern is the last remaining sign of that cushion that was the judge’s seat.

In other words, Christ will return and His law is in effect till He does.

The early Christians felt that if a mere book of civil law was going to be treated that way then surely the Word of God was deserving of such as well (which, just as the Roman book of civil law, was also decorated and held high in procession with candles – like you still see done in some parishes). So the people understood the symbolism.

That is where we have our problem. So many of us no longer understand to any real extent anything about the liturgy. And so we’re bored. We want to liven things up, change things around, because we don’t see what we already have.

Sure, some books and videos could be recommended (as well, perhaps, as a parish wide catechesis on it) but if you learn nothing more than one thing it should be this:

Mass isn’t something we “do” or “get through”. It is rightly said that it is the “doorway” or “portal” to heaven.

Why?

Because heaven is the eternal, divine liturgy of communion and feast with Christ and all the angels and saints. We partake at Mass in that same liturgy in heaven. The thin veil that separates us from them and time from eternity is lifted. We step across the threshold into what is eternal.

How is that?

Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was done once, for all. But since He is God and God is eternal, then His sacrifice is eternal. When we say that the sacrifice on our altar is the same as that of Calvary, Christ isn’t being slain again. He is making present, through His priest, his original and eternal sacrifice in an unbloody fashion. When we participate at Mass we are standing at Calvary and, paradoxically, standing in heaven with the Risen Lord.

It is a mystery. And yet true.

And, on top of this, we receive this same Lord, who has done all these things, in communion.

If you can remember what you’re truly witnessing, what you’re actually present at and privileged to partake in, then maybe that will help to keep you engaged at mass and not so “bored”.

Recommended reading:

Expressions of the Catholic Faith (Kevin Orlin Johnson)

The “how-to” Book of the Mass (Michael DuBruiel)

The Incredible Catholic Mass (Fr. Martin von Cochem)

The Spirit of the Liturgy (Cardinal Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict)

The Mass of the Roman Rite (Rev. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J.)

Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 1135-1209 and 1322-1419)

SEPTEMBER 2005 (part 3 0f 4)

2007-10-03T10:30:00.000-07:00

Q.- What inspired you to become a priest?

Q.- Do you enjoy being a pastor?

A.- Please see the bulletin board in the hallway closest to the sacristy for a complete biography (to date) on Fr. James. Both of these questions are answered there better than could be in these inserts. Thanks!!

Catholic Question Box Answers will be published monthly in the bulletin. The Question Box can be located in the church breezeway next to the bookrack.

You can also send ?’s via e-mail at: catholicquestionbox@yahoo.com

SEPTEMBER 2005 (part 2 0f 4)

2007-10-03T10:16:00.000-07:00

Q - Why, if someone believes the Host is the Body of Christ, would they take it in their hands?

A. - This is a subject which still draws much debate, even to this day. But not always for the same reasons. Some feel that everyone should receive in the hand because it underscores for them their dignity as Christians and others want everyone to receive that way for hygienic reasons alone (which doesn’t make sense but it is still heard here and there). Others want communion only on the tongue because they feel that the US conference of Bishops fraudulently obtained the votes needed to request an indult from Rome. Others feel it’s a sacrilege to receive any other way or, at minimum, opens the door to irreverence.

That’s just to name a very few of the different views. And every one of them claims to have “texts”, “sources”, and “decrees”, even from early times to back them up. It can get quite heated. The attempt here is to cut through all the noise and give the facts of the current situation starting with:

1. The universal church law (even now) is to receive on the tongue. (startling – but true)

2. There are certain conferences of bishops around the world (including the US) who requested an indult from Rome to allow communion “in-the-hand”. This was to allow those communities where the practice was illicitly occurring to be granted permission for both manners of reception (with some conditions).

3. The history of how this came to be more or less goes like this:

There was a revamping of the liturgy following Vatican II. This was both legal and good, in and of itself. But it was a confusing time for many and here and there illicit practices popped up. One of which was communion-in-the-hand. So in ’69 the “Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion” (Memoriale Domini) was issued. It mentioned what had occurred in various places and that a small number of individual bishops and bishops’ conferences had requested that the Vatican make this method permissible in their territories. The Holy Father decided to ask all the bishops whether they felt it “opportune to introduce this rite”. The document stated the Holy See’s concerns being that “a change in a matter of such moment (importance) based on a most ancient and venerable tradition does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering Holy Communion: The danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine….” (Memoriale Domini)

Overwhelmingly, the majority bishops worldwide replied that they believed it best to keep the traditional manner of reception as it was and not introduce anything else in addition or instead of. And so the Pope decided to keep the method of communion on the tongue as law and emphatically urged everyone to obey it. But – at the end of the document, an exception was made. Bishops’ conferences, in those areas where an illicit practice was occurring, were to carefully examine the situation and make whatever decisions were needed in order to regulate matters, by a secret vote and 2/3 majority. Their decision was to be sent to Rome, along with a detailed account of the reasoning which led to their decision. These would be examined individually by the Holy See and, where appropriate, an indult would be granted (a concession to do something not permitted by canon law). There were conditions and norms sent out with the indult, however, that had to be met. The letter listing them follows:

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter "En response a la demande," to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.

In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist. The following norms must therefore be respected.

1. The new manner of giving communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful have the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

2. The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning within small, better prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

3. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it into their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ's Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord's body and blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

4. As to the way to carry out the new rite: one possible model is the traditional usage, which expresses the ministerial functions, by having the priest or deacon place the host in the hand of the communicant. [Alternatively, it is permissible to adopt a simpler procedure, namely, allowing the faithful themselves to take the host from the ciborium or paten. The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place; the minister's part will be brought out by use of the usual formulary, The body of Christ, to which the communicant replies: Amen.] [Note: Rome later rescinded the second option when it forbid the Communicant to take the Host themselves.]

5. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that there comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

6. In the case of communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the host that has been dipped in the Lord's blood.

7. Bishops allowing introduction of the new way of receiving communion are requested to send to this Congregation after six months a report on the result of its concession."

It could be legitimately argued, if one was inclined, as to whether or not the conditions were appropriately met. And some may even want to debate whether the bishops’ conference handled this in the right manner when voting on it.What isn’t arguable is the church’s authority to decide such matters.

Regardless of how it came to be approved – the bottom line consists in two things:

1. It was given an indult by the Holy See. So until or unless the Church decides to rescind that, it is permissible to receive either way.

2. It also is obvious that many haven’t been given the proper catechesis regarding the methods of receiving communion. Many of the fears that were first warned against have come true. Unfortunately.

Perhaps if one feels strongly about it, the best course of action would be to better educate others regarding any dangers the one method presents (ie, fragments left on the fingers; hosts left under pews/inside hymnals; those who would steal the sacred species to purposefully desecrate or use in occult practices; as well as the general “dumbing down” of doctrine and reverence that can happen after awhile, to name a few)

No one can dismiss your concerns as trivial because everyone knows that they are real and are occurring even to this day. The Church herself warns against all of this. That is why communion “in the hand” is the exception to the law. There are real drawbacks.

Please don’t criticize or judge those who choose to use this method however. They’re doing nothing wrong at all. (You can certainly encourage them - as does the church - to try the traditional method or to better inform them on the proper way to receive by hand at the very least.

Much more could be said on all this and the arguments used on both sides of the debate. And perhaps at a later date we will get into it more. For now, try reading some of the info below to educate yourselves a little better and remember: it is the Lord we are receiving. So no matter what method is used we should approach Him in a state of grace and with reverence, making sure we receive him with a ready heart inside and also with whatever appropriate outward gestures are prescribed (here in the US, it is a bow of the head). We shouldn’t let something like this divide the Church up even more though than it already is.

Recommended reading:

Memoriale Domini (Instruction on the Manner of distributing Holy Communion)

Immensae Caritatis (on Facilitating Reception of Communion in Certain Circumstances)

Redemptionis Sacramentum (on Certain Matters to be Observed or to be Avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist)

Expressions of the Catholic Faith (Kevin Orlin Johnson)

SEPTEMBER 2005 (part 1 0f 4)

2007-10-03T09:17:00.000-07:00

Q. - What is your concept of God?

A. - When I first read your question, it put me in a bit of a pickle, due to the fact that I’ve tried to go out of my way to never answer these questions in ‘first person’, and to leave out any personal opinions, bias, etc. Many things have been rewritten over this last year or so to avoid any use of “I”, “me” or “my” as well as the “I feels” and “in my opinions”. (like I am forced to use now!!)

How was I to be able to answer this without breaking my own unwritten rules?

So I decided to make an exception and give the question an honest look in the personal way you’re referring to. However – I soon came to realize that it’s a moot point. When trying to find the words to describe my concept of God, I found that, in truth, I don’t have one. No Catholic does really (at least they shouldn’t).

What’s meant by that?

A concept is something like a thought or opinion that man creates for himself. He may use his mental faculties to reason it out and apply what knowledge he has towards it, but in the end it is still his own conception. So you have political concepts, philosophical concepts, even in a broad generic sense, theological concepts.

But God is not a concept. He is a reality. An Absolute, Ultimate Reality who doesn’t force us to make Him up or fill in the blanks about Him. (think of the ancient roman/greek gods or even some religions – pagan and otherwise – where they recognize something of Him in the natural world but then make up the rest around that.) God, rather than being our concept, chooses to reveal Himself to us personally and plainly. “For thus says the Lord……’I am the Lord, and there is no other. I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob ‘seek me in chaos’. I the Lord speak the truth, I declare what is right.” (Isaiah 45:18-19)

Rather than listing what I conceive God to be I will enumerate some of the attributes God has chosen to reveal to us about Himself.

Firstly, we have what the Jewish people refer to as the 13 Attributes of Divine Mercy. They recite these as a prayer ( “Slichot”) to arouse God’s mercy from Rosh Hashana through Yom Kippur.

They are based on Ex 34:6-7 when after the sin of the Golden Calf, Moses asked God for forgiveness for the people and for Him to show Moses His glory. So the Lord passed before him and proclaimed His own name:

Here follows two translations:

Adonai (Yahweh)
Adonai (Yahweh)
God
full of compassion
gracious
slow to anger
abounding in kindness
and faithfulness
extending kindness to the thousandth generation
forgiving iniquity,transgression and sin
and granting pardon.

Merciful God
Merciful God
Powerful God
compassionate one
gracious
slow to anger
abundant in kindness
and truth
the preserver of kindness for thousands of generations.
forgiver of iniquity, willful sin and error
and Who cleanses.

All through the Scripture God reveals Himself. There are too many to enumerate here so what follows are only several attributes.

GOD IS ONE:

“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the First and the Last; besides me there is no god’.” (Isaiah 44:6)

“Hear O Israel: the Lord your God, the Lord is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)

“Learn then that I alone am God and there is no God beside me.” (Deuteronomy 32:39)

GOD IS CREATOR:

“Thus says the Lord your Redeemer who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, spread out the earth’…” (Isaiah 44:24)

“I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the Lord who do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)

“Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: ‘Will you question Me about my children, or command me concerning the works of My Hands? I made the earth and created man upon it; it was My Hand that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.” (Isaiah 45:11 12)

HOLY TRINITY:

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..” (Genesis 1:26)

“And the Lord appeared to him (Abraham) by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth, and said, ‘My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.’”(Genesis 18:1-3)

“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

“Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say ‘Show us The Father’?” (John 14:9)

“Do you say of Him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world ‘You are blaspheming’, because I said ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10:36-38)

“But the Counselor, The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

“When the Spirit of Truth comes , He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for He will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine….”(John 16:13-15)

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…” (Matthew 28:19)

God also reveals Himself by giving us His name which signifies His very nature and essence. When asked for His name by Moses He replied “I AM WHO AM.” (Ex 3:14) Jesus as well identified Himself with the same name on more than one occasion, signaling that He is one and the same God. “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58)

There are many mysterious meanings to be found in this name. One of which is that God alone IS. “God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from Him; but He alone is His very being, and He is of Himself everything that He is.” (Catechism #213)

Which brings us to another name, that of Jesus. Jesus is God’s complete revelation to us. There will be no new public revelation expected before the second coming of Christ. In Jesus, the word of God, the Lord has said everything.

Jesus is a name chosen by the Lord Himself for the Incarnate Son of God. “Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name which is above every other name…” (Philippians 2:9)

It was an angel who declared the name of Jesus not only to Mary but to Joseph as well when he said, “She will bear a son and you will call his name Jesus for he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken to the prophet: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name will be Emmanuel (which means, God with us).” (Matthew 1:21-23)

Therefore, on the simplest level, God’s revelation of Himself to us given through Christ, is that He who is God is with us and as God will save us from our sins.

Recommended reading:

Holy Bible (verses as quoted above)

Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s199-267 and 430-451)

no columns from june through august

2007-10-02T10:08:00.000-07:00

there are no columns from June through August of '05 as I took the summer off.
the next ones to be found start above with September.

MAY 2005 (part 2 of 2)

2007-10-02T09:09:00.000-07:00

Q. - With the election of Benedict XVI, we've been hearing about anti-popes. What are (were) the anti-popes?

A. - An anti-pope is a man who uncanonically (unlawfully) claims to be or to exercise the office of pope. The Church has had a number of them over her two millennia of existence.

Historically, the election of the successor of St. Peter has not always been easily defined and has changed over the years. Because of the sometimes lack of a clear electoral code there was occasionally confusion as to what the requirements were for a valid choice of Pontiff. Anti-popes have arisen from that unclarity. They’ve also emerged, however, from violent usurpation (Constantine II in 767 AD); by election following a prior selection of a pope which was falsely judged to be invalid (Clement VII in 1378 AD); from accession to the office of Peter after an unwarranted deposition or deportation of the still validly reigning Pope (Felix II in 355 AD); or even by double election (Anacletus II and Innocent II in 1130).

Honestly, it is impossible to figure out in certain cases whether some of the claimants were pope or anti-pope because of the deficiencies and even bias in the historical sources. That is why the actual number of them is still hotly debated. Bauner counts 33 with 3 others being bracketed with legitimate popes; Amanieu names 34; Fruatz calculates 36 plus 7 doubtful and 9 improperly designated; and Moroni counts 39. However, due to better and more accurate historical research in modern times, the Church has, since 1947, tended to agree with Mercati’s list of valid popes, which includes 37 anti-popes in the text. Any list is subject to reservations, though, and even Mercati’s catalogue of popes has drawn dissent from certain quarters.

Anti-popes are a complicated anomaly in the Church, which, while problematic and even harmful to some extent, did not always occur because of bad faith or evil intentions. While the definition of anti-pope seems straightforward, its application is not because guidelines as to what exactly constitutes an invalid claim have fluctuated over time.

For example:
Correct election is not a clear indicator of it because Innocent II (mentioned above earlier) was elected by a minority of cardinals in a secret meeting but he, and not Anacletus, is considered pope. Nor is personal sanctity a definitive factor. Hippolytus (217-235 AD) is both Saint and martyr, yet still is readily acknowledged as the first “anti-pope”. While a legitimate pope, John XII (955-64 AD) was actually excommunicated and deposed by a Roman synod for his gross immorality. So holiness doesn’t play into it either.

With the current codified rules of election (as well as the speed of mass communication theses days) the likelihood of an anti-pope has dropped down to a negligible percentage (although the possibility always exists).

It is nothing to be troubled over because Christ promised Peter (and us) that the Church would be preserved by the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 16: 18-19) There will always be, eventually, a valid pontiff and in those periods of interregnum (or even confusion and anti-popes) the Church is still protected by Christ Himself and will go on as always till He returns.

Recommended reading:

Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac 2003 (“antipope” – has the currently used list of 37 anti-popes)

The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (John Kelly or J.N.D. Kelly)

Popes Throughout the Ages (Joseph Brusher, S.J.)

New Catholic Encyclopedia (the Catholic University of
America Press – “anti-pope” )

Q.- Why does the pope take a new name once he becomes pope?

A. - Popes change their names upon election to the papacy based on a very old custom. Nowhere in canon law is it required, but every pope for the last 1,000 years has done so (with the exception of Adrian VI and Marcellus II). Before that time, some did and some didn’t. Those who did occasionally took one no other pope had used (an “original” name change) while others honored predecessors by taking their name for themselves (and became so-and-so the II, III, IV, and so on). The last “original “ name change was Lando in 913 AD. The 146 or so popes since then have used (and reused) only 32 names.

The history of it is this:
In 533 AD Mercurius was elected Pope. It was such an obviously pagan name that it didn’t seem right to have a Pope with the same name as the Roman god Mercury (the god of commerce, trade and profit), so he changed it to John II.

Octavianus, in 955 AD felt it better to change his name for similar reasons. “Octavianus” was the original name of Augustus Caesar, the first Roman Emperor (and, incidentally, the same one who ordered the census which caused Mary and Joseph to have to travel to Bethlehem). Even while alive he was worshipped as a god and as the son of a god, but upon his death he entered the Imperial Cult to which all good citizens had to offer sacrifice. This sacrifice to the deified Caesar became a litmus test to find out who was a Christian (by their refusal) so as to persecute them. Justifiably, the Pope thought it would be in poor taste to keep his birthname, so he changed it to John XII.

Later, in 983 AD, there came a man with the sainted name of Peter.But out of reverence for the first pope, he exchanged his baptismal name for John XIV.

After this there came popes from the other side of the alpine mountains whose names of Bruno (996 AD) and Gerbert (999) sounded too “barbarous” to the Roman population. In the past Italy had been invaded and even ruled over by Barbarians, Goths and Vandals ( yes - real groups of not-so-nice people, which is why those terms mean what they do today) and it left the Romans with a distaste for names that sounded like theirs. So they changed their names to Gregory V and Sylvester II, respectively.

By and by, another Peter popped up 1009 AD and he took the name Sergius IV. It is from his pontificate that the changing of one’s name has persisted consistently.

While it first started because names were of pagan origin or “barbarous” sounding (or even out of reverence for St. Peter), people soon enough came to interpret a change of name as a sign of placing oneself completely in the service of the new office. People had changed their names upon entering religious orders for a long time and by the 500’s it was simply custom to do so. So the idea wasn’t a strange notion to the faithful. When one left their old life for a new religious one they took a new name. Even today, we are baptized with at least one “Christian “ name.

But even more than that, throughout Scripture God has changed the names of people when He has a new mission for them. Abram became “Abraham” (Genesis 17:5) and his wife Sarai became “Sarah” (Gen 17:15). Jacob wrestled with an angel who afterwards told him his name would be “Israel” (Gen 32:28) and later God appeared and said so Himself (Gen 35:10). Simon confessed that he knew who Jesus truly was and Christ established him as the Rock on which He would build His Church and so renamed him ”Peter” (Matthew 16:15-19).

Popes now take names to honor their predecessors and to reflect the style and direction their pontificate will take. Our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI took his to honor both Benedict XV (a peacemaker) and St. Benedict for whom he has a special devotion both spiritually and due to their similar geographical background.

Recommended reading:

New Catholic Encyclopedia (The Catholic University of America Press
“popes, names of “)

Encyclopedia Britannica (Mercurius, Octavianus, Augustus Caesar, Goths, Vandals, and Barbarians)

The Holy Bible (Passages as marked above in text)

MAY 2005 (part 1 of 2)

2007-09-28T08:04:00.000-07:00

Q.- When anyone is sad, do you think God cheers them up?

A. - Sometimes God does cheer them up, of course. He may give them the grace to see it’s not really so bad or remind them of happier things. He may even send someone into their life (a parent or friend) just at that moment to comfort them. He wants us to be happy.

However- it doesn’t always work out that way. Not in this life. It’s important to keep some things in mind. One is that emotions are catalysts, really, and not the be-all and end-all of everything like society tries to make them out to be. Their importance lies in their purpose and not so much in the fact that we’re feeling them. They help us react to our environments and move through our lives and society in a healthy, balanced way.

For example, if someone threatens you, you’ll feel scared. But that feeling of fear is normal and appropriate. Moreover, it is a catalyst for you to protect yourself. It drives you to either hide or seek help, etc. Or if someone steals from you, you’ll more than likely be angry. But that anger is a normal response to injustice. It is, again, a catalyst to prompt you to seek justice (and even fair reparation), whether by involving the police to investigate or through the legal system with some sort of prosecution or lawsuit.

Well - it’s the same with sadness. Any number of things can make us sad. We should first examine what has brought this feeling on and if there’s anything we can do to change it. Has someone hurt your feelings? Can you go to them and tell them so? You may find they never meant to hurt you at all. Or maybe you’re in an argument with someone and your sadness can be the catalyst to make peace with them. You may even be lonely and that makes you sad, but that emotion can also drive you to be more social and make friends with new people. If after careful examination (even with someone helping you look at your life) there isn’t any reason at all to feel as you do, maybe the sadness will even prompt you to see a doctor in case you have a chemical imbalance. Sadness simply means that something, somewhere in your life may be wrong and it needs to be addressed.

We should always strive to keep in touch with our emotions and why we have them. God gave them to us in this life for a reason and it’s ok to feel all of them, even sadness.

We should never despair, though. That’s something totally different. It’s when we give up hope altogether. People tend to slip into despair when they see no way out of their suffering. Maybe they never bothered to see if they could do something to rectify their troubles. Or maybe they have looked but it’s one of those situations that can’t be changed (ie., permanent loss of health or the death of someone special). They feel there is nothing they or anyone can do to relieve the suffering. There’s no way out. No hope.

But there is hope. Hope in Christ. Hope in Heaven. Hope in eternal life. When we suffer (especially when we can’t change things) we are especially close to Christ (who is our Hope).

Suffering came into the world, along with death, as a result of the Fall of Adam. It had no real redemptive value, though. Not yet. It was just a consequence and a punishment brought onto ourselves, really. But Christ, by suffering, redeemed not only us, but suffering itself! It is no longer meaningless but has real value. So when we’re sad or grieving, we can offer ourselves and our suffering to Jesus, who unites it with His own and, in turn, offers it to the Father as a redemptive act. We can become, in fact, “co-redeemers”. We can hold fast to the hope of our salvation and resurrection in Christ when we’re sad and suffering and use our trials to help save souls (including our own). There’s no reason to ever despair. You may still have sadness, but the knowledge that it can be used to save others and yourself has to make you smile.

Q.- Why does Jesus get turned down 3 times?

A.- It’s not completely clear whether you mean why did Jesus fall 3 times or why was He denied by Peter 3 times, so both possibilities will be covered. If you meant something else altogether, please write back and clarify.

3 falls of Christ (as depicted in the stations):

It is commonly thought that the 3 falls we are familiar with are all that’s left of what used to be called the Seven Falls of Christ. The Way of the Cross was practiced differently in the past. The number of stations varied widely and the actual events depicted differed as well. It used to be, in some places, that there were 7 falls but 4 of them also coincided with other stations (Jesus Meets His Mother, Simon of Cyrene Helps Jesus to Carry His Cross, Veronica Wipes the Face of Jesus, and Jesus Speaks to the Women of Jerusalem). In all of them he was either falling or completely fallen. The mention of the falls in these 4 episodes dropped out after awhile and the only ones that survive now are the other 3 (the ones we’re familiar with) because nothing else happened (except for the falls themselves) to distinguish them from any other station.

Peter denies Jesus 3 times:

In Matthew we read, “Then Jesus said to them, ‘You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.’ Peter declared to Him, ‘Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.’ Peter said, ‘Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you.’ (Matthew 26:31-35)

We can find in all 4 Gospels that Peter did, in fact, deny Christ and upon realizing it, went out and wept bitterly.

But why 3 times? There could be numerous reasons. The number 3, biblically, has a good deal of significance. You can find “three’s” all through Scripture. Symbolically it is used to denote different things, some of which are: the divine nature or divinity itself (ex: the Trinity, see Genesis 18:2), the completeness or totality of a thing (the completeness of physical creation: land, sea and sky --- height, depth and width --- past, present and future, etc), to show the veracity or truth of something (ex: someone who is dead 3 days is truly dead ----testimony of three witnesses is accepted as truth, etc).

There are lots of thoughts regarding the significance of the number of times He was denied. They can be found in documents and bible commentaries and are, for the most part, pious meditations on the issue. One isn’t more right than another, necessarily.

Some are listed below:

Peter’s error was threefold, so his denial reflects that. When Jesus said you will all fall away Peter 1.) in effect told Christ that He was wrong and contradicted Him, when he should’ve already known that God only speaks the truth. 2.) Peter rated himself as superior to the other disciples in his love and commitment because he claimed that, “though they all fall away, I will never fall away. 3.) And finally, Peter relied on his own strength and not God’s grace. He said he would die with Christ rather than abandon him, but was unable to do so of his own fortitude. As Jesus said to him, “the spirit is indeed willing but the flesh is weak.” (Mark 14:38) To stick with Jesus requires God’s help. In later years, with God’s grace, Peter, in fact, made good on his promise to die for Jesus rather than abandon Him, but couldn’t back then strictly of his own passionate claim.

In the beginning of creation, man did not believe the Word of God spoken to him concerning the tree in the Garden of Eden. He denied it was true. So the first sin of Adam brought about a threefold rupture in the order of things. There was a rupture between God and man, between man and woman and within man himself. Peter’s denial was also threefold in reflection of the first rejection of the Word of God.

There were 3 denials of even knowing Christ to show the completeness and totality of the rejection, not just by Peter but by all of us. “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world knew Him not. He came into His own home, and His own people received Him not.” (John 1:10-11) Peter, as head of the apostles, represents them (and us) in the denial and completely disowns and distances himself from Jesus. It is the total rejection of Christ by everyone, for selfish reasons. The good news being, the mercy shown to Peter as he confesses his love for Christ (John 21:15-17) mirrors the mercy we too receive. Jesus enables him, by grace, to confess his “complete” faith and love and he receives “complete” forgiveness.

Recommended reading:

New advent. Org (stations of the cross)

Ignatius Bible Commentary (Navarre Bible Commentary)

Expressions of the Catholic Faith (Kevin Orlin Johnson –chapter 35 “The Numbers Game)

April 2005 (part 2 of 2)

2007-09-10T08:14:00.000-07:00

Q.- Why didn't Deacon just say mass when Father was sick instead of having a communion service?

A.- Deacon didn’t celebrate mass because he can’t. While it is true that he has received the sacrament of Holy Orders (as do priests), his receiving of it was to a different degree.

There are 3 degrees of Holy Orders: EPISCOPAL (bishops), PRESBYTERAL (priests) DIACONAL (deacons), but only the episcopacy and the presbyterate are “degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ.” (cathechism 1554) The diaconate is not.

“At the lower level of the hierarchy are to be found the deacons, who receive the imposition of hands ‘not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry.’ “ (Lumen Gentium, 29) “The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the “deacon” or servant of all.” (Catechism #1570)

So deacons, according to their very name “diakonia” (greek for servant), are intended to help and serve the bishops and priests, but not share in the ministry of the priesthood of Christ, but rather in His ministry of service.

Pope Paul VI, in his Apostolic Letter concerning deacons, listed their functions as defined from Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church (lumen gentium) as:

1. To assist the bishop and the priest during liturgical actions in all things which the rituals of the different orders assign to him;

2. To administer baptism solemnly and to supply the ceremonies which may have been omitted when conferring it on children or adults;

3. To reserve the Eucharist and to distribute it to himself and to others, to bring it as Viaticum to the dying and to impart to the people benediction with the Blessed Sacrament with the scared ciborium;

4.In the absence of a priest,to assist at and bless marriages in the name of the Church by delegation from the bishop or pastor observing the rest of the requirements which are in the Code of Canon Law [8] with Canon 1098 remaining firm and where what is said in regard to the priest is also to be understood in regard to the deacon; (note: the numbers for the canons in the new code are different) ,

5. To administer sacramentals and to officiate at funeral and burial services;

6. To read the sacred books of Scripture to the faithful and to instruct and exhort the people;

7 . To preside at the worship and prayers of the people when a priest is not present;

8. To direct the liturgy of the word, particularly in the absence of a priest;

9. To carry out, in the name of the hierarchy, the duties of charity and of administration as well as works of social assistance;

10. to guide legitimately, in the name of the parish priest and of the bishop, remote Christian communities;

11. To promote and sustain the apostolic activities of laymen.

All of these functions must be carried out in perfect communion with the bishop and with his presbytery, that is to say, under the authority of the bishop and of the priest who are in charge of the care of souls in that place. (Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem 21-23)

So while the deacons have certain powers from ordination, they do not have the special power to consecrate the bread and wine and change them into the Eucharist at a mass. Only a priest has that ability.

Recommended reading:

Catholic Encyclopedia (deacon)

Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 1536-1600)

Lumen Gentium (Constitution On The Church) (29)

Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem (General Norms For Restoring the Permanent Diaconate in the Latin Church (Apostolic Letter of Pope Paul VI)

Q. - Why not have general absolution?

A.- In the last 15-20 years, more and more parishes seemed to have communal penance services where “general absolution” was given. (not so much these days) Sometimes the faithful that gathered for this were asked to do rather peculiar things. There were parishes where they’d write down all their sins and burn the slips of paper or just write their “biggest” sin and put in a bowl where it would be prayed over. Some were actually told by their pastors that the Church “doesn’t do confession anymore.”

In short….there was lots of innovation, but no sacrament. Whether it was done in ignorance or with an agenda… who’s to say? But it led to a general undercurrent of thinking amongst the laity that, even when individual confessions were held at legitimate communal penance services, they felt it was unnecessary.

This topic was covered in some detail in the November 2004 insert. The question at the time was slightly different than yours, but the subject (and answer) would apply here quite well, so it is included in its entirety below:

November 2004

Q.- If I attend a penance service but don’t go to the confessional, are my sins still forgiven?

A.- This is actually a question that comes up a lot, but in two different ways. Not being sure which way you mean, I’ll try to answer both. So bear with me.

*** One way is that a lot of people in recent years feel that there is available to them through these communal penance services a general absolution, which there is not.

General absolution is when penitents would not have to confess individually but are absolved from their sins right along with everyone else’s. It is a rare thing indeed and is really only available by judgment of the bishop if there is a grave necessity for it. Imminent danger of death where there isn’t enough time for priests to hear individual confessions would be a reason (picture a plane that is going to crash or those directly affected in acts of war or terror where you might not come out alive). Or another reason for it is when the number of penitents is so great that there are not enough confessors to hear them properly in a reasonable time and the penitents would be deprived of sacramental grace or Holy Communion FOR A LONG TIME. (You could picture 3^rd world or mission countries perhaps where you have priests who travel about and they might not be back for a year or so.) A large gathering of the faithful for major feasts or pilgrimages (or the seasonal penance services) DOES NOT constitute a grave reason. (catechism #1483)

Even when general absolution is given, the penitent is obliged to seek out sacramental confession as soon as possible, presuming they don’t die before they can do so. So if you had grave sin that was absolved you would still have to go anyways as soon as you could.

So if you mean “does the communal penance service take the place of confession” the answer would be no. There is no substitute for a Sacrament. Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession.” (catechism 1484)

****Now- the other way people sometimes ask this question is regarding whether they’d be forgiven if they’ve only committed venial sins. And the answer would be yes. However- forgiveness for venial sins can come in many forms. A heart felt act of contrition, a rosary, making the Sign of the Cross with Holy Water, reading Sacred Scripture, attending a Mass….. The list goes on and on.

The fact that you would attend a penance service must mean that you seek something more than a private act of contrition. That something can only be found within the Sacrament of Penance. An individual, private confession.

If you’ve committed mortal sins the answer is absolutely not. There is one ordinary means of forgiveness for mortal sin and that is sacramental confession. It is still a command of the Church that “after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation to confess serious sins at least once a year.” (Catechism #1457)

HOWEVER- “without being strictly necessary, confession of every day faults (venial sins) is strongly recommended by the Church.” (canon 988-paragraph 2)

There are reasons for this:

· Regular, frequent confession is good for you. The more you have to examine your conscience, the better you can see where your faults lie. Many people never take stock of things really well unless they are about to confess. Which is too bad.

· Ironically, the longer it’s been the less evil you think you behave. The dirtier our souls are, even with venial sin, the blinder we are to the truth about our state. We could be in mortal sin and recognize it, but after a while we justify things or forget them or tell ourselves that it wasn’t so terrible after all.

· Not only do you receive forgiveness in the Sacrament but UNTOLD GRACES to help you fight your evil tendencies. That happens precisely because it is a sacrament. Who doesn’t want to have more grace!?!

· You receive a form a penance from the priest in order to make satisfaction for your sins. Jesus wants to not only forgive you but heal you. There must be some justice done and amendments made to be spiritually healthy.

· It is a gift from Jesus himself. Remember that Christ never did anything unnecessary. He gave us a sacramental church and instituted this Sacrament for a reason. To reconcile us back to him in a special way. You are not confessing to a priest so much as to Jesus himself and He is waiting patiently for you to come to Him so He can fix things.

This day in age we have forgotten the gift of confession. It is undervalued, distrusted and deemed unnecessary. But truly- the miracle that Christ perfoms in that room is unspeakable.

When Lazarus died Christ went to his tomb and wept for him. He called him out and Lazarus rose from the dead. And many of the Jews were smart enough to see what a powerful miracle that was and believed in Christ.

Now - Jesus has wept for us too and He waits for us in the “tomb” of the confessional because if your soul has lost its grace and life from grave sin then truly, you are dead. But the miracle he works in this sacrament is greater than raising a man from his grave for he brings your immortal soul to life again. To union with Him again. Believe me- if the angels rejoice over a repentant sinner, they gasp at this.

It’s too bad those of us who see this don’t recognize the gift and power of God like the Jews did with Lazarus.

Christmas is coming. Let’s all go to confession this year.

Recommended reading:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 1420-1498)

The Code of Canon Law (cann. 959-997)

The Little Catechism on Confession (by Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz)

Pardon and Peace (by Alfred Wilson, C.P.)

format

2007-08-31T10:26:00.000-07:00

(8/31/07)
sorry about the formatting problems.....blogger is a pain when it comes to pasting word docs even though they have the little blogger tool you can download. I can fix the issues if I go back and play with the html...which I'm not inclined to do at the moment out of sheer laziness. These were never meant to be read like this anyhow!

BUT - they are available in PDF form from Acrobat if you need to read them before I can fix the bugs....they are much more legible that way.

You can email me at the catholic question box address listed to the side and I will send you the copy of what you need. Or if you're in a rush email me at trasberry111@yahoo.com and put catholic question box in the subject line so I don't delete you without ever looking.

cheers!

(the rest of the two years of columns will be up shortly at which point we will then be current. We are working on the new submissions as we speak.....)

April 2005 (part 1 of 2)

2007-08-31T08:13:00.000-07:00

Q. - Who are the Franciscans?

A. - The Franciscans is the popular name given to those men and women who are members of religious orders which follow the Rule of Life of St. Francis of Assisi. The Franciscans are divided into First, Second, and Third Orders.

(First Order) The name of the First Order is actually The Order of Friars Minor, which is a literal translation of the latin “fratres minores” (lesser brothers). It was called such because St. Francis wished that humility and poverty be their distinctive features. It began as a small group of 12 men, who were followers of St. Francis, living according to a simple Rule (which was a re-statement of the Gospel counsels of perfection). Their numbers grew exponentially and a new rule (which was confirmed by the pope in 1223) had to made accordingly. Serious differences arose as to the possession of communal property. Francis forbid his friars to accept any money or own property, but this was made difficult due to the growth of the order. Some friars insisted on a literal interpretation of the Rule of Poverty but the majority believed that the good of the Order required common ownership of their houses or convents. Eventually there were 2 groups: Observants, and Conventuals. Later there was added to them the Capuchins. In general, the Friars Minor and the Friars Minor Capuchin now follow the Rule of 1223. The Friars Minor Conventual follow the same Rule but with some modifications concerning property (which Pope Urban VIII approved in 1628). Each branch is noted for preaching and missionary work. Some of the devotions they have spread worldwide are the Angelus and The Stations of the Cross.

(Second Order) These are nuns who have taken solemn vows and live in a cloister. They are noted for the outstanding austerity in their lives. Commonly they are known as “Poor Clares”. This Order was founded by St. Francis and St. Clare in 1212.

(Third Order) This order is subdivided into 2 sections. The first consists of communities of religious (men or women) who take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience and are engaged in teaching, in care of the sick, in foreign missions or other apostolic works. The second are lay men and women who seek perfection under the guidance of Franciscan priests and by living according to the spirit of St. Francis (even though they are living in the world). They tend to devote themselves to charity and social work.

Recommended reading:

Catholic Encyclopedia

The Perfect Joy of St. Francis (by Felix Timmermans)

Q. Why do we use 15 Stations of the Cross and not just stop at 14 like we used to?

A. - When the Stations of the Cross were first being practiced outside of Jerusalem (in various European churches) the number ranged from 7 to even 39 stations. Later on the number was fixed at 14, with 9 of them commemorating events related from the Gospels and 5 based on very early tradition. More recently, we’ve sometimes seen in practice the number go to 15 (or even 16). It’s not required but here’s why you occasionally see it done.

The thought at the time (when we first saw the “extra” station being added) was that it completes
the paschal mystery because it represents the Resurrection. (The stations would otherwise end at the 14^th with Jesus being laid in the tomb.) The idea behind it was to remind everyone that the story doesn’t end there. He rose again. But for that same token, one can stretch that theory out to where we have the 16^th station (the Ascension) because the salvific plan doesn’t end with Christ’s Resurrection either. If He had not ascended the Holy Spirit would not have come to the Church. So adding stations could go on quite a bit if one really wanted to try.

As far as any official church document regarding 15 (or 16) stations rather than 14, there isn’t any.
Officially, the number is fixed at 14. The rest is extra and not necessary if one is seeking also to gain an indulgence by practicing the devotion.

Also, while there is a normal list of stations, you do not have to meditate on the station in front of you. You can meditate on any episode from His Passion and Death. Some years back, Pope John Paul ll revised the stations and made a version that was scripturally-based. There were still 14 but not all of them matched up with what we typically practice as the Way of the Cross. Instead of the First Station being Jesus Is Condemned To Death, his starts with the Agony in the Garden. This shows that you are not limited by the “particular” station depicted on the wall but are free to use your head and heart to meditate on His Passion and Death.

To make the Way of the Cross, several things are required though. One is that they are legitimately erected (typically by Franciscans), that each station has a small wooden cross by it, and that there are 14 stations, (no fewer). It is allowed to have images or statues added to each station but not necessary. It is the cross at each that is important (and indulgenced). In addition, you need to meditate on the Lord’s Passion And Death and to move from one station to the next. (Unless, during a public celebration the whole group cannot easily do so. Then the one who guides the stations moves for the others). There are usually sacred readings and some vocal prayers which may be added but the meditation is all that is required.

In closing, some parishes do 15 stations but some (really most) still do 14. Even amongst those groups though, the stations that are actually practiced will vary. Some parishes will do the traditional Way of the Cross and some will do the revised scriptural version (to which you may find they add the resurrection at the end of both of them!!). This really shouldn’t bother people too much. While no official church documents were found on the subject at this time, if something is found later you will find an update to this question at that time.

Recommended reading:

Handbook of Indulgences: norms and grants (catholic book publishing, co)

John Paul II's Way of the Cross (by John Paul II)

March 2005

2007-08-31T07:32:00.000-07:00

Q.- What does the Catholic Church teach about the rapture?

A.- The Catholic Church has never, in 2000 years, taught or believed in the “rapture”. In fact, Protestant churches, which only emerged in the 1500’s never preached it either. It was unheard of (so much so, that if you search through the Catechism from front to back, you won’t find it anywhere.)

The Rapture is actually a relatively new idea having only been invented in the 1830’s by John Nelson Darby, who founded Dispensationalism. He left the Anglican priesthood to join the Plymouth Brethren, a non-denominational group that denounced mainline Christianity. They practiced strict and literal interpretation of the Bible and engaged in private interpretation of biblical prophecies. It was with them that Darby started to teach that the “true church” would need to be removed from the earth in order to make way for the completion of God’s dealings with the Jews. He called this secret removal of the church the “rapture” and based it largely on St. Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thes 4:17) where the latin word “raptiere” (which means “to sieze” or “to be caught up”) is used. (although he denounced the latin translation of the Bible!)

Darby created a timeline that divided all of history into 7 “dispensations” or “ages”. According to him, we live in the “Dispensation (or Age) of the Church” which comes between those of the “Gentiles” and the “Kingdom”. It is necessary in his plan that the “church” be removed so the kingdom can come.

Dispensationalism spread through non-denominational groups in America but met with a ton of criticism from the mainline Christian Churches. It finally really caught on in the early 1900’s when Cyrus Scofield, a lawyer (with no theological training of any sort), created a study Bible to explain (and try to prove) the “dispensations.” The only way around the criticism that they were twisting scripture passages out of context was to say that not all of the Bible passages apply to the present moment. According to Dispensationalists, the Bible is not the history of God’s plan of salvation for the whole human race and for all times but rather certain parts are for certain “dispensations”. In other words, some passages are for the Church Age (and no other), some only for the Kingdom Age, some for the Innocence Age, and so on. That way, the scripture that would disprove their ideas could be rendered irrelevant because it didn’t apply to the present “dispensation of the church“. So according to Scofield, the Sermon on the Mount is really for the future “kingdom dispensation” and we should ignore it!! This flies in the face of our belief, as St. Paul writes, that “all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness….” ( 2 Tim 3:16)

Summed up, the Dispensationalist Rapture goes like this: The true believers will be “secretly removed” (raptured) by a “secret coming of Jesus”. No one will see Him but those to be raptured. They hold this coming as distinct from the Second Coming. After this, the Antichrist will rise up and implement the “mark of the beast” during 7 years of Tribulation for the wicked left on earth. At the end of the 7 years there will be the Second Coming of Christ and Armageddon (the great and final battle between good and evil). After the Second Coming, they believe Christ will set up an earthly, physical kingdom in Jerusalem where all the Jews will believe and worship Him and He will re-instate the sacrificial system of the Mosaic covenant (including animal sacrifice in the Temple!). This kingdom will, according to them, literally last 1,000 years, at the end of which Satan will be tossed into a pool of fire.

There have been debates, revisions and changes to the above notion, right up to the present time, as the rapture idea has spread outside of its original Dispensationalist beginnings. Some believe in “pre”-tribulation rapture (as above), some “mid”, some “post”. Some discard the “dispensations” altogether, but still hold onto the “rapture” idea, believing it is a biblically based teaching (never knowing that apart from the Dispensational teachings it simply had never existed before).

As Catholics, we believe in the Second Coming of Christ (often called the Parousia- a Greek word for a “presence” or an “arrival/revealing”), but we do not believe there will be a “secret coming” prior to it. The good will not escape the Tribulation by being secretly “raptured” but, in fact, “before the Second Coming, the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers”. (Catechism #675) “The Church will enter the glory of the Kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in His death and resurrection.” (Catechism #677)

After the tribulation and “final cosmic upheaval of this passing world”, (Catechism #677) the triumph of God will come with the Last Judgment. (Note that the triumph of God is at the end of all time and history – the Great Tribulation is followed by the Last Judgment, not an earthly 1,000 year reign in a Jewish Temple) With the Last Judgment there will be the resurrection of the dead and Christ’s coming in glory to judge all mankind. This is distinct from our particular judgment we receive when we die. The Last Judgment will reveal to everyone else why your eternal destiny is what it is, so that God’s mercy and justice may be known to all.

After the judgment, the blessed will enter, with their glorified bodies, the new heavens and earth prepared for them. The entire cosmos and “visible universe will be transformed, ‘so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just’ sharing their glorification in the Risen Jesus.” (Catechism #1047)

There is no 1,000 year reign in a Jewish Temple with animal sacrifice or anything like that. No escaping for Christians of the final tribulation. No Bible where the passages only apply to certain people at certain times.

This is what happens when people break off from the Church and interpret Scripture and prophecy all by themselves. They can become very lost. And, unfortunately, take others with them. It is even sadder that many who now believe in the Rapture these days think it’s biblically-based when it’s not. They have no idea that it began in the Dispensationalist movement in the 1800’s. They usually haven’t even heard of Dispensationalism.

St. Peter, our first pope, warned the faithful concerning such things, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

(2 Peter 1:20) For the meaning of prophecies is given by the same Spirit who gave the prophecy to begin with and who speaks and moves through the teaching and preaching of the Church.

Interestingly enough, St. Peter also wrote concerning the very same Thessalonian letters of St. Paul that the Dispensationalists try to base the Rapture on. He warns us not to do likewise and dream up false meanings. He writes, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this (the end times) as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

He goes on to advise, “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, BEWARE, lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen”

Recommended reading:

Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 668-682, 988-1004, and 1038-1060)

Will Catholics be “Left Behind”? (Carl E. Olson)

The Rapture Trap: a Catholic response to the“End times” fever (Dr. Paul Thigpen)

Q.- Can a bishop just ordain willy-nilly a deacon, priest or another Bishop? What steps are required which he must follow?

A.- A bishop has the authority to ordain those he feels are appropriate to the priesthood and diaconate. It isn’t willy-nilly, though, given the fact that the men must meet certain standards and he (the bishop) must ascertain that they, indeed, have the qualities required.

In the Code of Canon Law you find, “In order to lawfully confer the orders of priesthood or diaconate, it must have been established in accordance with the proofs laid down by law, that in the judgment of the proper Bishop, or competent major Superior, the candidate possesses the requisite qualities, that he is free from any irregularity or impediment and that he has fulfilled the requirements set out in can. 1033-1039. Moreover, the documents mentioned in can.1050 must be to hand, and the investigation mentioned in can. 1051 must have been carried out.” (Canon 1025 paragraph 1)

“It is further required that, in the judgment of the same lawful Superior, the candidate is considered to be beneficial to the ministry.” (Canon 1025 paragraph 2)

Some of the requisite qualities mentioned above are set out in can.1029 as “sound faith, motivated by right intention, endowed with the requisite knowledge, enjoy a good reputation and have moral probity, proven virtue and the other physical and psychological qualities appropriate to the order to be received.”

Typically, the rector of the diocesan seminary is responsible for helping the Bishop to ascertain the qualities of the candidates. The weight of the judgment falls on the bishop, though. It is his responsibility to make sure, as best he can, the appropriateness of the man concerned. All of the seminaries are currently being reviewed by the Holy See to make sure they’re all on the same page with Rome so that a candidates’ formations will be consistent, thorough and orthodox everywhere.

As far as a Bishop consecrating another Bishop, it is never his decision to make. He does so only if the Pope tells him to because the final judgment as to who will be a Bishop belongs solely to the Pope. Names of suitable candidates are brought forward to him by the other bishops but, in the end, it is his final choice.

It is a serious offense if one consecrates another Bishop of his own volition. “Both the Bishop who, without a papal mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” (Code of Canon Law #1382) In other words an immediate excommunication is incurred by the very act of breaking the law (no trial or judgments need to be made) and the only one who can absolve the excommunication is the Pope himself.

This happened with Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 when he consecrated 4 bishops as part of his schismatic St. Pius Society when he was told explicitly not to do so. They and he were excommunicated.

There are quite a few details as to what kind of man can (or can’t) receive Holy Orders, different requirements, impediments, etc. It’s worthwhile to read the particular sections regarding these
things in the Code of Canon Law. If you can’t get a hold of it (it’s a little pricey) or can’t get online to view it, write back and the details can be spelled out another time.

Recommended reading:

Code of Canon Law (#’s 232-293, 368-430, 1008-1054)

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_INDEX.HTM (online version)

Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s1536-1600)

February 2005

2007-08-30T08:05:00.000-07:00

Q. -My friend says any form of yoga is false worship and forbidden by the Church. What is the correct view of yoga for exercise?

A.- Yoga is a spiritual practice from Hinduism that aims to unite the body, mind and spirit and attain a state of “enlightenment” or “oneness” with the universe.

There are many forms of yoga but the one we are most familiar with in the west is Hatha Yoga, which is the “physical” path to such “enlightenment” and uses breathing techniques (pranayama) and postures (asanas) to attain it.

Yoga is erroneous on many levels and incompatible theologically with Christian beliefs. Not least of which is its philosophy which claims that God is an intelligent but impersonal field of energy that is manifested and expressed in all creation, including man, but we need to strip away the illusion that we’re not God (through yoga). In other words, everything and everyone is God! Just in this thought alone you have two heresies. That of “monism” (in which everything is one) and that of “pantheism” (in which everything is God). Another problem attached to this is that in this pantheistic view even evil is God, which, really, is blasphemous in itself.

If one is doing yoga for the physical exercise itself there is no prohibition from the Church against it. However- prudence would demand that one be knowledgeable and strong in their Faith so as to not be drawn into false ideologies. Keep in mind – the postures of yoga were never meant or designed to be exercise but were to serve as stable positions for prolonged meditation and, more importantly, to “open” the energy channels, charkas and psychic centers believed to be in people (and supposedly everything else too!) Some people feel that if they skip the mantras, meditations and philosophy that it’s alright to practice yoga. And it is. But all you’re left with is some stretching poses that weren’t meant to keep you fit. If one wants isometric exercise that keeps you stretched, flexible and fit and is easy on the joints, they could always try pilates (which was designed for fitness).

As far as relaxation and meditation, there are numerous devotions and prayers within the Church, not the least of which is the Rosary.

Recommended reading:

Jesus Christ, The Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian Reflection on the New Age (by Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue)

Catholics and the New Age (Mitch Pacwa, S.J.)

Inside the New Age Nightmare (Randall N. Baer)

Q.- Explain Easter Duty.

A.- “Easter Duty” refers to some of the commandments of the Church to “confess one’s sins at least once a year” and “ to humbly receive your Creator in Holy Communion at least during the Easter season”. The Easter season is the period from the beginning of Lent until Trinity Sunday (the first Sunday after Pentecost).

While they are two separate precepts, they get rolled into one (as Easter Duty) because you cannot receive Holy Communion if you are not in state of grace and therefore to fulfill the one commandment you need to fulfill the other.

Other precepts (or commandments) of the Church are:

· You shall attend Mass on Sundays and Holy days of Obligation.

· You shall keep holy the days of holy obligation

· You shall observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence.

The faithful also have a duty to provide for the material needs of the Church, each according to his abilities.

Recommended reading:

Code of Canon Law (number 920 sections 1 and 2)

Catechism of the Catholic Church (numbers 2041-2043 & 2048)

Q.- 1) What is Divine Mercy Sunday? 2) What is a plenary indulgence?

A.- 1) Divine Mercy Sunday is the Sunday immediately following Easter. Back in the 1930’s, Saint Faustina, a polish nun, claimed to have visions of Jesus in which He said that He wanted His infinite and Divine Mercy made better known to the world. To do this, He wanted her to establish a devotion to His Mercy (the Divine Mercy Chaplet) and have the Church proclaim the Sunday after Easter as Divine Mercy Sunday. He showed her an image that He wanted painted and solemnly blessed and venerated on that day. Jesus promised “unfathomable graces and mercy” to those who would confess their sins and receive Holy Communion that day in honor of His Divine Mercy. He said that all their sins and punishment would be forgiven them. He also wanted everyone to perform acts of mercy out of love for Him.

On May 23, 2000 the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments stated that, “throughout the world, the second Sunday of Easter will receive the name Divine Mercy Sunday, a perennial invitation to the Christian world to face, with confidence in divine benevolence, the difficulties and trials that mankind will experience in the years to come.”

On June 29, 2002 the Apostolic Penitentiary issued a decree of indulgence for the feast of Mercy. It states, “ that the Supreme Pontiff, motivated by an ardent desire to foster in Christians this devotion to Divine Mercy as much as possible in the hope of offering great spiritual fruit to the faithful granted the following Indulgences:

· 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.” Also granted were means for those who were sick or could not legitimately attend mass to obtain the indulgence.

The decree goes on to state:
“Duty of Priest: inform parishioners, hear confessions, lead prayers
Priests who exercise pastoral ministry, especially parish priests, should inform the faithful in the most suitable way of the Church’s salutary provision. They should promptly and generously be willing to hear confessions. On Divine Mercy Sunday, after celebrating Mass or Vespers, or during devotions in honour of Divine Mercy, with the dignity that is in accord with the rite, they should lead the recitation of the prayers that have been given above. Finally, when they instruct their people, priests should gently encourage the faithful to practice works of charity or mercy as often as they can, following the example and command of Jesus Christ.”

Some feel that you must have an image to venerate as the Lord requested from St. Faustina. It is very nice but not necessary in order to receive the graces or indulgence. Some also feel that the novena of Divine Mercy starting on Good Friday is required but it is not (although one could pray it as an act of mercy for others). Confession can be within 20 days of Divine Mercy Sunday, it doesn’t need to be on the day before or Sunday itself. If, for some reason, there are no devotions being held at all, one can go to Church early and pray the prayers listed above and still receive the indulgence.

2) To briefly answer the question on plenary indulgence. “An indulgence 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 which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies the treasury of the satisfactions of the saints. A plenary indulgence removes all the temporal punishment due to sin.”(catechism #1471)

In other words, sin is mortal or venial. Mortal sin makes us incapable of eternal life. That would be damnation or eternal punishment. Venial sin does not damn us but still has a temporal (ie. not eternal) punishment attached to it which must be undergone, either here or after death in Purgatory. So a plenary (or full) indulgence wipes away all temporal punishment due to venial or sacramentally confessed mortal sins. It’s all gone. If you died right then, you’d go straight to heaven. No purgatory. It is a gift (indulgence) of the Church given to the faithful who do certain pious acts with contrition and repentance in order to help them pay whatever debt is owed. Christ’s infinite merits are applied to the soul to pay the dues for what would otherwise take time and suffering. A plenary indulgence gained can be applied to those who have already passed away to relieve their debt as well, which is an act of mercy in itself.

Recommended reading:

Divine Mercy in my Soul – The Diary of Sister Faustina (Saint Faustina)

www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/mercy/index.htm

www.divinemercysunday.com

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (numbers1471-1479)

January 2005 (part 3 of 3)

2007-08-30T07:21:00.000-07:00

Q.- 1.) What is the Great Amen? 2. Is this one of the (three) elevations? 3. What are they?

A.- The Great Amen is the response of the faithful to the to the entire Eucharistic prayer prayed by the priest on their behalf and to the sacrifice of Jesus offered to the Father. It occurs after the Doxology (prior to the Our Father) where the priest raises the Body and Blood of Christ to the Father and says “Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours Almighty Father, forever and ever.” We then say AMEN !! It is called the Great Amen because there should be a robust assent given to this prayer and sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Due to this fact, it is usually sung (in order to get a fuller response from the faithful.)

The Great Amen is one of several elevations during the mass. You could say there are two elevations of offering and two of showing. 1) The first is at the Preparation of the Gifts where the bread and wine are slightly raised during the prayer “Blessed are You, Lord God of all creation……”. The host is left on the paten as a sign that it is offered to God that it may become the Body and Blood of Christ. 2) The next is at the consecration where there is a solemn showing to the people. The Host and the Precious Blood are elevated that the faithful may see and adore. 3) The third elevation is at the doxology (and during the great amen) where there is a significant and solemn offering to God of the Body and Blood of Jesus. Again the Host is left on the paten because it is not to be seen by us but offered to God. 4) The last elevation, if you will, is prior to Communion where the priest lifts up the broken Host over the Chalice of Precious Blood and shows to the people the Savior who is sacrificed for them. He says, “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper.” The first part of this prayer comes from John the Baptist’s exclamation “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” (John 1:29) The second part comes from the Book of Revelation: “And the Angel said to me, ‘Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’ “ (Rev 19:9)

Recommended reading:

The How-To Book of the Mass (Michael Dubruiel)

Q.- I know the elderly, sick or those who are in danger should ask to be anointed, but should young, healthy people who are not in immediate danger be routinely anointed?
A.- The short answer to this is no......young, healthy people who are in no immediate danger of death should not be anointed, routinely or otherwise. Reason being this: it’s the Anointing of the Sick. There really wouldn’t be a reason for them to seek healing physically/spiritually if they are not seriously ill.

That being said, one does find an inordinate number of seemingly young and or healthy Catholics receiving it. There are some parishes that have a Mass every month at which the faithful can come forward to be anointed and it seems everybody comes up for it. Some things to keep in mind though: 1) sometimes you cannot see one’s illness – they may look well to you but could really be gravely ill and doing their best to bear their cross cheerfully and not let it show to everyone. 2) the vast majority of people who receive an anointing improperly do so at one of the healing masses (where it seems the whole church comes forward) and do so out of ignorance and not wanting to be the only one left in the pew. They are not being malcontent but simply don’t know they shouldn’t receive. Often, if they are asked about it later, they’ll tell you they didn’t even know that it was a SACRAMENT but equate it with sacramentals like receiving ashes or getting their throat blessed. The answer to this, fortunately, is rather easy. A very short explanation could be given prior to the sacrament that would clear up any misunderstandings. Those who aren’t receiving could feel content to stay where they are and devote themselves to praying those who do need healing and strengthening.

The catechism states: “The special grace of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects:

- the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;

- the strengthening, peace and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;

- the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to attain it through the Sacrament

of Penance;

- the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul;

- the preparation for passing over to eternal life. ( catechism #1532)

Recommended reading:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (numbers 1499-1532)

January 2005 (part 2 of 3)

2006-05-23T08:08:00.001-07:00

Q.- -1. Why can’t women become priests? - 2. Isn’t the church being sexist when it comes to this? - 3. What does Rome (the pope) say? It's disappointing. - 4. How about married priests?

A.- 1 & 2 There are various reasons why women cannot become priests. Given the limited space of this forum and the need to answer also your follow-up questions, it cannot be recommended enough that you read the church documents and letters you asked about for yourself to have the best grasp on the issues. They are not overly long or difficult and the Church enumerates all the ins and outs of the subject. They will be listed at the bottom in the recommended reading section. The Library often will order any of the books or documents you see listed there for FREE if they do not already have them on the shelves. If not, and you need to purchase them yourself, the church documents are only a couple dollars at a local Catholic bookstore (there are stores in Racine, Kenosha and Milwaukee). Or else you can view/print them online free of charge at www.vatican.va. Regardless, a few reasons will be addressed here on the topic.

We live in an age particularly sensitive to civil, human and women’s rights - even animal rights which is very good and how it should be.So when some people hear that women cannot be priests they are affronted and feel it is chauvinistic and a violation of equality and such.But the Church is not trying to be sexist.Sexism would be judging someone’s worth or denying them their rights based on gender.Neither of these is the case.

The Church has always, on the contrary (and against the social customs of different periods) upheld the dignity and worth of women because Christ did so Himself. Christ was (and is) revolutionary when it comes to the rights of women. But this is not about someone’s worth or rights. The priesthood is about neither. It is not a right to be gained because no one is worthy and no one has the right to it. It is for those chosen by Christ for that role and function. And Christ chose the Twelve. Not Mary Magdalene or Martha and her sister Mary, nor any of the many women who served and followed Him. Not even His mother Mary, who could’ve, with more truth, said then any of the Twelve, “This is my Body, this is my Blood.”

Why didn’t He? It wasn’t due to social norms or customs. God simply doesn’t withhold truth to a “more open-minded or appropriate time” when He thinks it’ll be better accepted. Jesus shattered a lot of ideas about women, at some risk to them and Himself. He gave them back their value and dignity, so if He wanted to ordain them to the priesthood He would have. But He didn’t do that. He lost a lot of followers over various things He said ( see John 6:52-66) and He didn’t back down from His words to get them back. This would’ve been one more case.

Instead in His plan for the Church, everyone has a role and function to take part in. They are not lesser or greater, just different. (see Romans 12:3-8) There isn’t anything wrong with a function or role in ministry belonging to some and not to others, for everyone has a vocation and ministry from God. It should fit God’s plan then. All would agree that it is no trampling of men’s rights that God did not ordain them to be able to conceive or bear children. Who would say otherwise? He gave that gift to women alone. As the Spirit gives certain gifts/ministries to some and different ones to others.

3. To briefly excerpt some quotes from the documents you asked about:

“The priesthood is therefore of a sacramental nature: the priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible and which the faithful must be able to recognize with ease. The whole sacramental economy is, in fact, based upon natural signs, on symbols imprinted on the human psychology: ‘Sacramental signs,’ says St. Thomas, ‘represent what they signify by natural resemblance.’ The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this ‘natural resemblance’ which must exist between Christ and His minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ Himself was and remains a man.” (Inter Insigniores section 5, paragraph 3)

John Paul II writes:

“Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgement that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a mere disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry in confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgement is to be held definitively by all the Church’s faithful.” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis section 4, paragraphs 1 &2)

4. Now- moving on to married priests. The Catholic Church, in fact, has married priests. People tend to overlook this fact. They are in the Eastern rites of our Church (For example the Maronites, Chaldeans, or Melkites to name a few.) The Eastern rites hold celibacy in great esteem as well, though, because both east and west maintain the tradition that it is impossible for a priest to marry. In other words – in the Eastern rites, if he is ordained while single he must remain celibate. He can only be bound by matrimony and ordained if the marriage took place prior to ordination and he may not remarry if his wife dies. In the Latin rite it means that he may not marry at all (before or after ordination). Also in the east, the traditional discipline for them is that a man may not be made a bishop unless he is already a celibate priest. (eastern code of canon law – canon #’s 180 and 227, art.2)

But we are in the Latin Rite, which does not admit married men, as a rule, to the priesthood but holds celibacy as the greater gift of self Christ called some of His Apostles (and thereafter other disciples as well) to. When He chose the Twelve Apostles, we know that some of them (Peter for example) were married. But some were not. In Matthew, we read of a discussion on whether it is better to marry or not in view of Christ’s teaching on divorce. Up till that point celibacy wasn’t the topic. Jesus brought it into the conversation Himself. “The disciples said to Him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.’ But He said to them, ‘Not all men can receive this precept, (a life of celibacy) but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs (have renounced marriage) for the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Mat 19:10-12) In another passage Jesus tells about the recompense for those who have renounced all things (including wives) for His kingdom. “Peter said, ‘Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.’ And He said, ‘Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come.” (Lk 18:28-30)

You could equate celibacy, in a sense, with fasting, which teaches control of bodily appetites and demonstrates love for God. The fast and sacrifice of celibacy brings special gifts of grace to those called to it, so as to best accomplish Christ’s work of spreading the Gospel and serving His Bride the Church single-heartedly as Jesus did, with as much concentration to the will of God as possible.

Celibacy is not a requirement for valid ordination in and of itself but is a long maintained and esteemed tradition in the east and the west which allows a man to serve the kingdom of God and the Church with an undivided heart. It removes from priesthood the potential distractions of married life, the responsibility of raising children and the financial burden of maintaining a family. For as we read in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians “An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided…..So then the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.” (1 Cor 7:32-38)

Pope Paul VI says in his Encyclical On The Celibacy Of The Priest, “Virginity undoubtedly, as the Second Vatican Council declared, is not, of course, required by the nature of the priesthood itself. This is clear from the practice of the early Church and the traditions of the Eastern Churches. But at the same time the Council did not hesitate to confirm solemnly the ancient, sacred and providential present law of priestly celibacy.”

The only exception right now to celibacy in the Latin rite are those priests, mostly from the Anglican Church, who under the Pastoral Provision of 1980 are allowed to convert to Catholicism as a priest. It may be more accurate to say they are allowed to keep the ministry and vocation to which they were called while a Protestant and are re-ordained in order to have valid Holy Orders within the Church. This is a rare exception but those who do “come over” tend to bring a number of former parishioners with them. They are granted a special Anglican Use Liturgy in an Anglican Use Parish so their Mass is as close to how they formerly worshipped as is theologically possible. They may never be bishop and if their wife dies they may not remarry. Also, any men from the newly formed parish who were not Anglican priests when they all converted may not receive Holy Orders unless celibate. These situations are all judged on a case-by-case basis. It’s not carte-blanche for all who apply for it. Nor is it a relaxing of the rules for priests of the Latin Rite.

Unlike the ordination of women, which affects the very nature of the sacrament and the priesthood itself, “celibacy is a discipline which is imposed by the authority of the Church and will remain in effect as long as the fruits of the discipline are visible within Christ’s ministry to the world.” (Scriptural Catholicism pg.106)

JANUARY 2005 (part 1 of 3)

2006-05-19T11:13:00.000-07:00

Q.- Why did God let evil come into the world?

A.- That is a question often pondered at one time or another by most people. Probably all people.

If God is all-holy and all-powerful, then how does one explain evil? If He made it, doesn’t that mean that He isn’t as holy as we’ve been told? Or if He allows it, wouldn’t that mean He’s not as almighty and in control of everything as we’d like to think?

And those are fair questions for one to ask, really, when we look around and see the evil we’re capable of. But the answers, ultimately, are revealed in the light of faith and God’s revelation to us.

Firstly, we have to examine what “evil” really is. Evil would best be defined as an “absence of perfection” (in something, someone, an action or a choice). So, in regards as to whether God “made” evil, no, He didn’t. God made all things, visible and invisible. But evil isn’t a thing at all but a lacking or absence of perfection in it. Morally, our choices and actions can be evil but it doesn’t become a thing of its own self.

Now if you look in Scripture you’ll see in the story of creation that God (repeatedly) sees what He has made and proclaims it good. And after He created man He “saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31) His creation is made in complete goodness because He is Himself all-good, all-holy. Plainly, things started out well. So what happened? Did God lose control of His creation? Or make it just to ignore it and let things spiral downward?

To answer why there is evil, you have to look at what God did make, and why He made it that way. Out of all creation, there are two creatures revealed to us to possess intelligence and free will. Angels and Man. They can know God and themselves and can choose to love and serve Him or reject Him. As His highest creations God gave us that freedom to choose Him because love is a choice. It cannot be forced. He freely loves us and created us in such dignity that He wishes us to choose Him in return and He respects the free will He endowed us with. The problem (of evil) then is that we’ve used our free will to reject Him. Even though “man was destined to be fully ‘divinized’ by God in glory…. he wanted to ‘be like God’, but ‘without God, before God and not in accordance with God’.” (catechism #398)

But He has not abandoned us to our choice. In our rejection of Him, we fell from the original state of happiness and holiness God gave us. We were immune from pain, suffering, and death. We had superior knowledge and perfect harmony with creation, as well as in ourselves, with each other and with God. When we fell it was disastrous. But God knew that in giving us free will this would happen. So why did He do it?

God has a mysterious plan that we won’t fully see and know in all its intricacies until Judgement Day, but we do know that He allows evil to occur now, so as to, in the end, bring greater good out of it. As only God is capable of doing! As great as our original state was, our redeemed and glorified state will be better! In sending Jesus to save us from our sins, He not only restores us to what we were but He raises us even higher! And yet, our free will is still respected to freely choose Him or not, as is only just. Some will and some won’t. It is up to the person to decide. “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)Those who choose to love and serve God, despite their weakness, sins and failings, will find forgiveness and salvation through Jesus and not only have their nature restored to its original holiness but raised up to become children of God. For “the Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”. (catechism #460)

This is, perhaps, a greater mystery than why He allows us to choose such evil.
The mystery of how or why God would give such a marvelous and undeserved gift as that.
But we only see the evil and suffering that surrounds us and we cannot imagine what can await the one who chooses God and not himself. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, it has not so much as entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him”. (1 Corinthians, 2:9)

We, despite having the freedom to choose evil, have the opportunity to more than we were originally destined to have. This is why, if you attend the Easter Vigil this year, you will hear a beautiful Easter Proclamation (more often referred to as the Exsultet) sung by the deacon in which heaven, earth and the church are invited to rejoice in the feast of Easter joy. One of the strangest (and most lovely) lines goes like this:

O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Recommended reading:

Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 302-421)

Why Does God Permit Evil? (Dom Bruno Webb)

Q.- When does the consecration of bread and wine take place?

A.- The consecration takes place while the priest recites the words of the institution of the Eucharist. The Church teaches “in the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s Body and Blood, His sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.” (catechism #1353)

The institution narrative takes place during the Eucharistic Prayer. Just prior to it you will see the Priest stretch his hands over the bread and wine on the altar and invoke God to send His Holy Spirit (or His blessing) upon the gifts so that they may become the Body and
Blood of Jesus Christ. This part is called the epiclesis (which is a Greek word which means to “invoke upon”). You then will see him make the sign of the cross over them. After this, you will hear the priest move in to the actual consecratory words when you see him take the bread in his hands and say “Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.” He then elevates the Host for all to see and adore. He does the same with the chalice after saying, “Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood………….” This is the consecration of the Latin rite. The Eastern Catholic rites believe the consecration takes place at the epiclesis, which in their liturgy follows after the institutional narrative. Both forms are valid (in their own rite and liturgy) and show the richness and mystery of the workings of the Holy Spirit.

But in our rite, as stated, the focus is on the consecratory words. In the past, sometimes the priest elevated the bread and wine during the consecration or even just prior to it, which confused some of the faithful who reverenced it the instant they saw it whether it was consecrated or not. This led to some regulations at that time (around1210 AD) that ordered them to hold the host chest level and only elevate it higher so all could see after the consecration “lest” (as a London synod put it) “a creature be adored instead of the Creator.”

Also- in our Latin rite mass each element is consecrated separately (i.e. the bread separately from the wine) in a double consecration. So the wine is not consecrated until the consecratory words are spoken over it. This is symbolic of when the Body and Blood of Jesus were separated from each other in His passion and death. (Keeping in mind though that the consecrated Host and the Precious Blood each contain the whole Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.)

Recommended reading:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 1322-1419)

The Mass of the Roman Rite (Rev. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J.)

The How-To Book of the Mass (Michael Dubruiel)

Q.- What is higher, a Cardinal or a Bishop? What is an Auxiliary Bishop?

A.- By law, a cardinal is a bishop, actually, who has been given an ecclesial office. As a rule, if he is not already a bishop when he is created a cardinal he must be immediately made one. Although, there have been exceptions to this where a dispensation has been given to remain a priest. An example being Cardinal Dulles, a Jesuit priest, who petitioned the Holy Father in 2001 to allow him, out of humility and advanced age (he was 85 at the time), to be dispensed from episcopal consecration, which was granted. As far as rank, cardinals are second in hierarchy only to the pope. They actually have the same dignitary rank as a royal prince would and that is why they are often referred to as the princes of the church.

Cardinals have the right to advise the pope either individually or as a group and on solemn occasions serve as his legates (clergy appointed by the pope to represent him and vested with his authority in temporal matters). It is exclusively the College of Cardinals who elect the next pope when they enter the conclave.

The college is divided into three orders: Cardinal-bishop, Cardinal-priest, and Cardinal-deacon (none of which have anything to do anymore with what they really are but shows their rank within the college itself).

A candidate for Cardinal must be at least a priest and outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters. When one is nominated as such it is said they are “created” a cardinal to signify the fact that the office is an ecclesiastical institution only and could be abolished if the Church chose to do so. Whereas the office of bishop is divinely instituted and could never be changed or gotten rid of. (catechism #’s 860-62, 880)

An auxiliary Bishop is a bishop appointed by the Holy See to help the diocesan bishop carry out the work of his diocese. His bishopric is titular only because he has no real jurisdiction over the area. In other words, he is dependent on the authority and decisions of the diocesan bishop and must submit his resignation by the age of 75. Upon the diocesan bishop’s death, retirement or reassignment he has no right to take his place unless, by special privilege, the Holy See decides to make him the diocesan bishop. You can see now why Bishop Sklba, the auxiliary bishop for Milwaukee did not replace Archbishop Weakland when he resigned, but instead continues to serve as auxiliary to Archbishop Dolan.

Recommended reading:

The Catholic Encyclopedia

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 857-896)

December 2004

2006-05-19T08:57:00.000-07:00

Q. - How was God made?
A.- Well, God wasn’t made. If He were, it would imply that He had a beginning, but God had no beginning: He always was, He is, He always will be.

God even reveals this about Himself when He speaks to Moses at the Burning Bush. If you remember, Moses said to God: “But when I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you’ if they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ what am I to tell them?” God replied, “I AM WHO AM”. Then He added, “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.” (Exodus 3:13-14)

By this the Lord reveals that His essence is subsistent being (real being, real existence) itself. That He does not depend on any being for His existence, but subsists in His own right. He is the absolute and necessary Being. Everything (and I mean everything) else has but a borrowed and unnecessary being; that is, everything and everyone else, the whole universe and all of creation (visible and invisible) depends on Him for their existence.

So - if God does not take His being from anyone or anything else, then He was not made
and must always have been. He is truly eternal.

The Psalmist says, “Before the mountains were born, the earth and the world brought forth, from eternity to eternity Thou art God.” (Ps 89:2) And Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity says of Himself, “Amen, Amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” (John 8:58)

It is hard for people to wrap their minds around someone or something having no beginning.

It doesn’t make sense to us. For example, we can picture ourselves starting at conception but even if we think (erroneously) that when we died we ceased to exist, we still couldn’t picture the rest of the world not going on. Can you really imagine a point where it all ends?

When there is nothing more of anything? That’s not easy to do, but it speaks of our nature, not God’s. We have a beginning but no end. We will exist for eternity. Our very nature then makes it hard to see God not having a beginning, not having been made, because it’s seen through the lens of our own being. But God, in truth, has no start point and was not made.

Actually, the fact that we have a ”beginning” when we were “made” and took on existence depends on having been created by Someone who “IS” all by Himself.

I don’t know how in depth an answer you need. If you want to go further than this, write again and we can touch on different writings and teachings of philosophers and theologians which prove the existence and nature of God. Hope this helped for now.

Recommended reading:

The Holy Bible (the entire Bible reveals God to us through His Word)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 2, chapters 1-3)

This is the Faith: a complete explanation of the Catholic Faith (Canon Francis Ripley)

Q.- It looked like the priest genuflected or kneeled during the creed on Christmas. Am I right? If so, do you know why?

A.- You are right! And very observant. Good for you!

Actually, every Sunday or solemnity, the priest and all the faithful are to bow deeply during the Profession of Faith (Creed) at the words “by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.”

Except- on Christmas and the Feast of the Annunciation the faithful are supposed to genuflect at those words instead of bowing. It is done out of reverence and gratitude for the Incarnation, to better respect how Christ humbled himself to come down from Heaven and share in our humanity.

Most people don’t know this or don’t remember so it gets overlooked and may have seemed more noticeable to you because there weren’t too many who did. But now you
know! :)

Thanks for asking!

Recommended reading:

General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Chapter 4 #137)

Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite (#265)

The Incredible Catholic Mass (Fr. Martin von Cochem)

Mass Confusion (James Akin)

Q.- Are more graces received if the rosary is prayed privately or in a group?

A.- Actually, as far as graces are concerned a brief overview might be in order for others who may read your question and not understand.

Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to His call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. (catechism #1996) Whether sanctifying grace, charisms or actual graces, they are free gifts of the Holy Spirit to us. After the initial grace of forgiveness and justification (which cannot be merited but is God’s own initiative) at the beginning of our conversion, we can then merit the graces we need for ourselves and others because we are united to Christ in active love.

So – as far as public or private recitation of the Rosary there is not more or less grace one way or another….. How much grace is merited by prayer depends firstly on God’s free gift of it and secondly your collaboration with it. (catechism #2010)

HOWEVER – there are more indulgences attached to public recitation of the Rosary than private.

An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven…. It can be partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the punishment due…. It can be applied to the living or the dead. (catechism #1471)

The Rosary has a plenary (complete remission) indulgence attached to it when it is
recited in a church or oratory or when it is recited in a family, religious community or a
pious association. (under usual conditions) It is a partial indulgence in all other
circumstances. (handbook of indulgences #48)

Either way the Rosary is a fabulous prayer that combines vocal recitation with meditation
on the various mysteries and is loaded with grace regardless of whether you take
advantage of the indulgences or not. The point is to pray it.

Pope St. Pius X said it best: “of all the prayers, the Rosary is the most beautiful and
richest in graces; of all, it is the one most pleasing to Mary, the Virgin Most Holy.
Therefore, love the Rosary and recite it every day with devotion; this is the
testament which I leave unto you that you may remember me by it.”

Recommended reading:

Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 1987-2029, 1471-1479)

Handbook of Indulgences, norms and grants (published by Catholic Book Publishing Co)

The Secret of the Rosary (St. Louis de Montfort)

November 2004

2006-05-19T06:30:00.000-07:00

Q.- Is a family member allowed last rites even if they are not Catholic?

A. - When you say “last rites” you must mean the family member is at the point of death soon, when the Anointing of the Sick is preceded typically by the Sacrament of Penance (if possible) and followed by the Eucharist offered as viaticum. All of which are sacraments of the Catholic Church.

As a rule non-catholics may not partake of the sacramental life of the Church.
(canon 844, Paragraph 1 – Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the Sacraments only to Catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may receive them only from Catholic ministers…)

HOWEVER- “when in the Ordinary’s (Bishop’s) judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.” (Catechism 1401)

Essentially, you’re really looking at a sort of deathbed conversion if they are already a Christian but of the Protestant variety. If they are of the Eastern Churches the situation is somewhat more relaxed since their Church’s own sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick are deemed valid by the Holy See, which is the not the case with denominations that sprang from the reformation.

It’s not out of the realm of possibility though. Many people do embrace Christ’s salvation when faced by their own mortality. But it has to be their choice. God has given them free will and we need to respect that. We cannot ask it for them for our own comfort but must do our best to encourage them to accept the grace of Christ on their own. And God willing, before it comes to such a point as death.

Interestingly enough, George Washington, to whom the Blessed Virgin allegedly appeared, did just that. His Methodist forebears left England because their religious practices were persecuted there as being “too catholic” for Methodism. When he was on his deathbed he received the “last rites” from a Jesuit priest named Fr. Neale and accepted baptism. Thereafter he confessed and received the final Anointing with Holy Oil and the Blessed Sacrament.

We must pray hard that everyone has the grace of a holy death and then leave it in God’s Hands. He is always merciful and compassionate.

Recommended reading:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 1401 and 1499-1532)

Code of Canon Law (canon 844 paragraph 1-5)

Preparation for Death (by Saint Alfonso de Liguori)

Faith of Our Founding Father (by Janice T Connell)

Q.- If I attend a penance service but don’t go to the
confessional, are my sins still forgiven?

A.- This is actually a question that comes up a lot, but in two different ways. Not being sure
which way you mean, I’ll try to answer both. So bear with me.

*** One way is that a lot of people in recent years feel that there is available to them through these communal penance services a general absolution, which there is not.

Imminent danger of death, where there isn’t enough time for priests to hear individual confessions, would be a reason (picture a plane that is going to crash or those directly affected in acts of war or terror where you might not come out alive). Or another reason for it is when the number of penitents is so great that there are not enough confessors to hear them properly in a reasonable time and the penitents would be deprived of sacramental grace or Holy Communion FOR A LONG TIME. (You could picture 3^rd world or mission countries perhaps where you have priests who travel about and they might not be back for a year or so.) A large gathering of the faithful for major feasts or pilgrimages (or the seasonal penance services) DOES NOT constitute a grave reason. (catechism #1483)

So if you mean “does the communal penance service take the place of confession” the
answer would be no.

There is no substitute for a Sacrament.

“Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession.” (catechism 1484)

*** Now- the other way people sometimes ask this question is regarding whether they’d be forgiven if they’ve only committed venial sins. And the answer would be yes. However- forgiveness for venial sins can come in many forms. A heart felt act of contrition, a rosary, making the Sign of the Cross with Holy Water, reading Sacred Scripture, attending a Mass….. The list goes on and on.

HOWEVER- “without being strictly necessary, confession of every day faults (venial sins) is strongly recommended by the Church.” (canon 988-paragraph 2)

There are reasons for this:
· Regular, frequent confession is good for you. The more you have to examine
your conscience, the better you can see where your faults lie. Many people never take stock of
things really well unless they are about to confess. Which is too bad.

· Ironically, the longer it’s been the less evil you think you behave. The dirtier our souls are,
even with venial sin, the blinder we are to the truth about our state. We could be in mortal sin
and recognize it, but after a while we justify things or forget them or tell ourselves that it wasn’t so
terrible after all.

· Not only do you receive forgiveness in the Sacrament but UNTOLD GRACES to help you fight your evil tendencies. That happens precisely because it is a sacrament. Who doesn’t want to have more grace!?!

· You receive a form a penance from the priest in order to make satisfaction for your sins. Jesus wants to not only forgive you but heal you. There must be some justice done and amendments made to be spiritually healthy.

· It is a gift from Jesus himself. Remember that Christ never did anything unnecessary. He gave us a sacramental church and instituted this Sacrament for a reason. To reconcile us back to him in a special way. You are not confessing to a priest so much as to Jesus himself and He is waiting patiently for you to come to Him so He can fix things.

This day in age we have forgotten the gift of confession. It is undervalued, distrusted and deemed unnecessary. But truly- the miracle that Christ perfoms in that room is unspeakable.

When Lazarus died Christ went to his tomb and wept for him. He called him out and Lazarus rose from the dead. And many of the Jews were smart enough to see what a powerful miracle that was and believed in Christ.

Now Jesus has wept for us too and He waits for us in the “tomb” of the confessional because - if your soul has lost its grace and life from grave sin - then truly you are dead. But the miracle he works in this sacrament is greater than raising a man from his grave for he brings your immortal soul to life again. To union with Him again. Believe me - if the angels rejoice over a repentant sinner, they gasp at this.

It’s too bad those of us who see this don’t recognize the gift and power of God like the Jews did with Lazarus.

Christmas is coming. Let’s all go to confession this year.

Recommended reading:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#’s 1420-1498)

The Code of Canon Law (cann. 959-997)

The Little Catechism on Confession (by Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz)

Pardon and Peace (by Alfred Wilson, C.P.)

Q.- Could you name the statues in Church?

A.- What a fun question!! I will certainly try.

While facing the altar and large crucifix behind it, head to the left. In the little alcove behind the choir stand is a statue of St. Anthony of Padua holding the child Jesus. Originally an
Augustinian, he is a great Saint of the Franciscan Order who was so eloquent and inspired
a preacher that, upon opening his tomb years after his death, his tongue remained perfectly intact and preserved. It now is in a golden reliquary in the basilica in Padua on constant display. St Anthony is known as the Wonder Worker for his many miraculous deeds and is the patron saint of the poor, the outcast, lovers, communication and coalminers to name a few. His feast day is June 13^th.

Now moving along the wall towards the organ there is Saint Joseph of Nazareth, foster father of Jesus. He is the Patron Saint of the Universal Church, of fathers, carpenters and workers. His feast day is March 19 as Patron of the Universal Church and May 1 as St Joseph the Worker.

At this point we are at the first half of the Stations of the Cross which runs along the wall to the back of church.

The next statue you will see will be our parish patron, St. Sebastian. Sebastian was a soldier and captain in the Roman Army. When he was found to be a Christian he was ordered to be executed and was shot with arrows and left for dead. Friends found him and nursed him back to health. He immediately went out and denounced the Emperor for his cruelty to Christians and was beheaded for it. He is the patron saint of archers, athletes, soldiers and is invoked for protection against plagues. His feast day is January 20^th.

Moving to the other side of church, near the back is a statue of the Holy Family. Devotion to the Holy Family became popular in the 1600’s. Today we celebrate the feast day of the Holy Family on the first Sunday after Christmas, unless Christmas itself falls on a Sunday.

Then the celebration is moved to December 30. The Holy family is looked upon as the ideal family that we can pattern ourselves after.

Next we run into the second half of the Stations of the Cross which ends by the Statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mary is the Immaculate Conception, Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and Earth. She was raised from the dead and was assumed into Heaven where she lives body and soul like Jesus. She has many titles and feast days because she is the mother of the Redeemer and of us, His Church.

The last statue I can think of is further towards the front, past Mary, in the little alcove behind the altar. It is a statue of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Devotion to the Sacred Heart developed from meditation on the blood and water that issued from his side at the crucifixion in the earliest years to adoration of his Heart beginning in the 11^th or 12^th centuries. It received popularity and propagation from Margaret Mary Alacoque in the 1600’s and is still popular today. Boiled down it really is a devotion to the love of Jesus for which you return your love. The feast day of the Sacred Heart is June 18^th, the Friday after Corpus Christi.

Hope I got them all. If I missed something let me know.