Martin Luther
Question from on 08-06-2007:
Dear Doctor, Martin Luther was an intelligent man who should have been a lawyer or something other than a priest. He made an injudicious vow in a tense situation that he would join a monastery if he survived. This kind of vow is easliy dismissed in confession, but he proceded. He was influenced by questionable theology and was governed by scrupulosity. He was looking for an iron clad guarantee of salvation. He looked on the "selling" of indulgences that was happening in Germany to get money to build/rebuild a church as the epitomy of the problems in the Church. However, "selling" and "buying" indulgences are a matter of intent and just because one "pays" money, isn't a proof of it. One has only to actually read his 95 theses to see that he realy wasn't interested in reform. Many are heretical. If one wants to really learn about the man they should read his "Table Talks" They show him in a very different light in his own words.
Thank you, God bless you,
Frank
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-14-2007:
Dear Frank,
Thank you for the note. I agree with you that Martin Luther was not just looking for a reform of corrupt practices but had ideas from the beginning that did not fit the Catholic Faith. Many other Catholic besides Luther condemned the way the doctrine of indulgences was being uses. One can cry out against these abuses and still remain a Catholic. But Luther's protest went deeper, attacking many central points of Catholic belief. It was this protest that led him to be condemned by the Church.
Dr. Geraghty
Martin Luther
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
by Kenneth D. Whitehead
The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that — Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father's home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.
Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.
In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to these "non-Roman" rites of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council devoted a special document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly gives considerable attention to the distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern rites.
So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.
Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary "Christian denomination"—not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.
The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church. It is not ever called "the Christian Church," either. Although the prestigious Oxford University Press currently publishes a learned and rather useful reference book called "The Oxford Book of the Christian Church," the fact is that there has never been a major entity in history called by that name; the Oxford University Press has adopted a misnomer, for the Church of Christ has never been called the Christian Church.
There is, of course, a Protestant denomination in the United States which does call itself by that name, but that particular denomination is hardly what the Oxford University Press had in mind when assigning to its reference book the title that it did. The assignment of the title in question appears to have been one more method, of which there have been so many down through history, of declining to admit that there is, in fact, one—and only one—entity existing in the world today to which the designation "the Catholic Church" in the Creed might possibly apply.
The entity in question, of course, is just that: the very visible, worldwide Catholic Church, in which the 263rd successor of the Apostle Peter, Pope John Paul II, teaches, governs and sanctifies, along with some 3,000 other bishops around the world, who are successors of the apostles of Jesus Christ.
As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as "Christians" (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church." There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.
Very early in post-apostolic times, however, the Church did acquire a proper name—and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.
The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.
Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the "Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp "remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."
We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."
The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.
The term "catholic" simply means "universal," and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already "everywhere," as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.
The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.
Again, it was already understood that the Church was "catholic" because — to adopt a modern expression — she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be "universal" in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that "the powers of death shall not prevail" against her (Mt 16:18).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church: "The Church is catholic," the Catechism teaches, "[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is 'missionary of her very nature'" (no. 868).
So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.
It was still back in the fourth century that St. Cyril of Jerusalem aptly wrote, "Inquire not simply where the Lord's house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of all, which is the Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (Catecheses, xviii, 26).
The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history.
by Kenneth D. Whitehead
The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that — Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father's home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.
Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.
In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to these "non-Roman" rites of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council devoted a special document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly gives considerable attention to the distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern rites.
So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.
Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary "Christian denomination"—not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.
The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church. It is not ever called "the Christian Church," either. Although the prestigious Oxford University Press currently publishes a learned and rather useful reference book called "The Oxford Book of the Christian Church," the fact is that there has never been a major entity in history called by that name; the Oxford University Press has adopted a misnomer, for the Church of Christ has never been called the Christian Church.
There is, of course, a Protestant denomination in the United States which does call itself by that name, but that particular denomination is hardly what the Oxford University Press had in mind when assigning to its reference book the title that it did. The assignment of the title in question appears to have been one more method, of which there have been so many down through history, of declining to admit that there is, in fact, one—and only one—entity existing in the world today to which the designation "the Catholic Church" in the Creed might possibly apply.
The entity in question, of course, is just that: the very visible, worldwide Catholic Church, in which the 263rd successor of the Apostle Peter, Pope John Paul II, teaches, governs and sanctifies, along with some 3,000 other bishops around the world, who are successors of the apostles of Jesus Christ.
As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as "Christians" (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church." There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.
Very early in post-apostolic times, however, the Church did acquire a proper name—and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.
The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.
Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the "Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp "remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."
We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."
The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.
The term "catholic" simply means "universal," and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already "everywhere," as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.
The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.
Again, it was already understood that the Church was "catholic" because — to adopt a modern expression — she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be "universal" in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that "the powers of death shall not prevail" against her (Mt 16:18).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church: "The Church is catholic," the Catechism teaches, "[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is 'missionary of her very nature'" (no. 868).
So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.
It was still back in the fourth century that St. Cyril of Jerusalem aptly wrote, "Inquire not simply where the Lord's house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of all, which is the Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (Catecheses, xviii, 26).
The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history.
The Fallen Angels
The Fallen Angels
Question from on 08-11-2007:
Dear Father Levis, I have been listening to some CDs with lectures by the wonderful Bishop Fulton Sheen. He mentioned on a lecture on original sin the the angels had perfect forknowledge of the effects of all their actions and decisions. Now if this were true, would not Lucifer and the other fallen angels, seeing the despair of their future if they rebelled, have acted differently and not rebelled?
The only reason that I can think of that they continued in their rebellion is perhaps they were given forknowledge in everything except the decisions of God. Does the Church take a position on this? Thank you.
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 08-12-2007:
wayne, Pride was the major sin of the angels, the hope that they could be greater than God.Once they fell, they were hopelessly lost, which they foreknew would be their lot, anyway. Fr. Bob Levis
Communion of the Saints and the Holy Eucharist
Communion of the Saints and the Holy Eucharist
Question from on 08-12-2007:
Dear Fr. Levis, I have the question regarding the doctrine of the communion of saints, does it also mean that if we receive Christ in the Holy Communion we're also receiving the Communion of the Saints? If not, are we therefore only communing with Christ during the reception of the Holy Eucharist while we commune with the saint's all the time? Thank you for your reply and clarification.
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 08-13-2007:
Simon, Yes, in some way, while we receive Jesus eucharistically, we are in tune in touch with all members of Christ's Mystical Body. We all are one, in communion with each other to some extent. Fr. Bob Levis
mortal sin moment of death
mortal sin moment of death
Question from on 08-11-2007:
Dear Fr. Levis, I understand that the only way that a person can go to hell is if there is unrepented mortal sin at the last moment of his life. If lust is a capital sin and impurity in thought,word & deed can result in mortal sin I feel that the probability of going to hell is very high in cases of unexpected death when there is no possibility of confession & extreme unction. Apart from weekly confession,how can a person be with no unrepented mortal sins at all times when the chances that one is in mortal sin due to impurity in thought word & deed is always present ? Thanks, Joseph
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 08-12-2007:
Joseph, God is good but the danger of eternal personal loss is real too. The basic stance of a good believer is trust, confidence that the scenario you lay out will not happen to him. And of course it won't. As we live, so we die. If we live a life of faith, generally so we die, with confidence in the endless love of our Savior. Fr. Bob Levis
HOLY WATER
HOLY WATER
Question from on 08-10-2007:
FATHER LEVIS,
HELLO, I WATCH YOUR "WEB OF FAITH" WITH FATHER TRIGILIO AND IT IS A WONDERFUL PROGRAM. I HAVE A QUESTION. ARE RELIGIOUS ARTICLES BLESSED BY JUST PUTTING HOLY WATER ON THEM THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM OUR CATHOLIC CHURCH? I USUALLY HAVE SEVERAL BLESSED AT ONE TIME IF I AM AT A RETREAT OR VISITING HOLY GROUNDS. HOWEVER, IT IS HARD TO RUN TO OUR PRIEST TO BLESS A PICTURE, ROSARIES, ETC. - EVERYTIME I PURCHASE SOMETHING. I WAS TOLD THAT JUST APPLYING HOLY WATER TO THEM WILL BE FINE. IF SO, ARE GRACES APPLIED THE SAME AS IF WHEN A PRIEST DOES THE BLESSING? THANK YOU!
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 08-11-2007:
S. Pitts, No, holy water is good but it is not equal in value to the blessing of an ordained priest. Fr.Bob Levis
Question from on 08-10-2007:
FATHER LEVIS,
HELLO, I WATCH YOUR "WEB OF FAITH" WITH FATHER TRIGILIO AND IT IS A WONDERFUL PROGRAM. I HAVE A QUESTION. ARE RELIGIOUS ARTICLES BLESSED BY JUST PUTTING HOLY WATER ON THEM THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM OUR CATHOLIC CHURCH? I USUALLY HAVE SEVERAL BLESSED AT ONE TIME IF I AM AT A RETREAT OR VISITING HOLY GROUNDS. HOWEVER, IT IS HARD TO RUN TO OUR PRIEST TO BLESS A PICTURE, ROSARIES, ETC. - EVERYTIME I PURCHASE SOMETHING. I WAS TOLD THAT JUST APPLYING HOLY WATER TO THEM WILL BE FINE. IF SO, ARE GRACES APPLIED THE SAME AS IF WHEN A PRIEST DOES THE BLESSING? THANK YOU!
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 08-11-2007:
S. Pitts, No, holy water is good but it is not equal in value to the blessing of an ordained priest. Fr.Bob Levis
Purpose of Life
Purpose of Life
Question from on 08-06-2007:
My sister-in-law and I were returning from a bible study class on the Book of Job and she seemed to be concerned as to what her purpose in life was. She's a devoted wife, mother & grandparent. We are both in our middle sixties. I think as we age this question arises alot. I guess in our culture the terminology might be "Am I fulfilled"? How do we know the purpose of our lives? How do we know that we are doing what God wants of us?
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-11-2007:
Dear Paul,
That's a good question. When we come towards the end of the trail, we look back to the dreams we had when we were young and then look at the way things have worked out. And as you pointed out, we ask if we have been fulfilled. The answer is definitely "no" if we are asking whether all our youthful dreams have been fulfilled. Instead we discover that we have been plodding along like our parents and grandparents, doing the best we good by being faithful and dutiful. In one sense that seems to be a rather dull outcome from all the dreams we had. But in another mood we feel quite satisfied when we think about our children. But sometimes that can be painful. At this point we start thinking about heaven. At least I do. We were not meant to live out our whole life on this earth. We were meant to love as best we could and then enjoy the face of God for all eternity in heaven. So all those vague dreams we had of happiness when we were young does have a meaning. The meaning is that fulfillment will not happen on this earth. That is what heaven is for. Being dutiful and faithful are not the virtues valued very much by the young. They take them for granted when they look at their parents but still think the old folks are rather dull. Well, they have a lot to learn about life. My father used to say: "Life wasn't meant to be easy--and it isn't!" Being steadfast and dutiful is our glory here. Leaping about like stags or does in love is for heaven.
Dr. Geraghty
Question from on 08-06-2007:
My sister-in-law and I were returning from a bible study class on the Book of Job and she seemed to be concerned as to what her purpose in life was. She's a devoted wife, mother & grandparent. We are both in our middle sixties. I think as we age this question arises alot. I guess in our culture the terminology might be "Am I fulfilled"? How do we know the purpose of our lives? How do we know that we are doing what God wants of us?
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-11-2007:
Dear Paul,
That's a good question. When we come towards the end of the trail, we look back to the dreams we had when we were young and then look at the way things have worked out. And as you pointed out, we ask if we have been fulfilled. The answer is definitely "no" if we are asking whether all our youthful dreams have been fulfilled. Instead we discover that we have been plodding along like our parents and grandparents, doing the best we good by being faithful and dutiful. In one sense that seems to be a rather dull outcome from all the dreams we had. But in another mood we feel quite satisfied when we think about our children. But sometimes that can be painful. At this point we start thinking about heaven. At least I do. We were not meant to live out our whole life on this earth. We were meant to love as best we could and then enjoy the face of God for all eternity in heaven. So all those vague dreams we had of happiness when we were young does have a meaning. The meaning is that fulfillment will not happen on this earth. That is what heaven is for. Being dutiful and faithful are not the virtues valued very much by the young. They take them for granted when they look at their parents but still think the old folks are rather dull. Well, they have a lot to learn about life. My father used to say: "Life wasn't meant to be easy--and it isn't!" Being steadfast and dutiful is our glory here. Leaping about like stags or does in love is for heaven.
Dr. Geraghty
da vinci code
da vinci code
Question from on 07-09-2007:
Please give me your opinion on the da vinci code. Thnak you.
Answer by David Gregson on 08-07-2007:
It's historically inaccurate, and theologically confused. It's a decent adventure story but with an agenda, namely, to promote feminism and undermine the Catholic Church. See Critical Reviews of The Da Vinci Code in our document library.
Question from on 07-09-2007:
Please give me your opinion on the da vinci code. Thnak you.
Answer by David Gregson on 08-07-2007:
It's historically inaccurate, and theologically confused. It's a decent adventure story but with an agenda, namely, to promote feminism and undermine the Catholic Church. See Critical Reviews of The Da Vinci Code in our document library.
blood of christ
blood of christ
Question from on 08-05-2007:
I am a cradle catholic and I am not sure I know the answer to this. So here goes. The sacrament of confession is used to remove sin by confessing ones sins to a priest (really Jesus). Also we know that the blood of Christ washes away the sins of the world, so ...when one recieves the blood of Christ (via the Eucharist) are you removing your sins? But if you are not in a 'state of grace' or you have not been to confession and you recieve, then you are comitting a sin. I think I know the letter of the law, but am struck by the paradox that that receiving the Eucharist introduces a new sin. I am sure there is a simple explaination.
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-09-2007:
Dear Rolf,
To receive Holy Communion one has to be worthy. If one is in the state of mortal sin, one is in rebellion against God and so is doing wrong to invite Christ into a soul that has rejected him. That is a great insult to Christ the Redeemer. Thus a person has first to acknowledge that they are an enemy of God and repent in confession. Then the reception of Holy Communion will work to his salvation, not his damnation.
Dr. Geraghty
Question from on 08-05-2007:
I am a cradle catholic and I am not sure I know the answer to this. So here goes. The sacrament of confession is used to remove sin by confessing ones sins to a priest (really Jesus). Also we know that the blood of Christ washes away the sins of the world, so ...when one recieves the blood of Christ (via the Eucharist) are you removing your sins? But if you are not in a 'state of grace' or you have not been to confession and you recieve, then you are comitting a sin. I think I know the letter of the law, but am struck by the paradox that that receiving the Eucharist introduces a new sin. I am sure there is a simple explaination.
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-09-2007:
Dear Rolf,
To receive Holy Communion one has to be worthy. If one is in the state of mortal sin, one is in rebellion against God and so is doing wrong to invite Christ into a soul that has rejected him. That is a great insult to Christ the Redeemer. Thus a person has first to acknowledge that they are an enemy of God and repent in confession. Then the reception of Holy Communion will work to his salvation, not his damnation.
Dr. Geraghty
Sainthood
Sainthood
Question from on 08-02-2007:
Dear Dr.Geraghty, Recently a EWTN viewer placed a question to Fr. Bob Levis regarding her daughter Kristy's recent death and Kristy's journal entries prior to Kristy's knowledge that she was terminaly ill at age 21 about how Kristy wanted to be a saint. How does the church view this situation? Do miracles have to happen at Kristy's grave. What is the philosophical basis for sainthood in recent times? I am asking here instead of with Fr.Bob due to this more "philosophical" nature of my question. Thank you, Kasey F.
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-05-2007:
Dear Kasey,
There are many more saints in heaven than those canonized by the Church. What the Church does is to put those who have been especially good before us as good examples by asking God to perform miracles so that all can be sure that the people in question are in heaven.
Dr. Geraghty
Differences in holiness and evil
Differences in holiness and evil
Question from on 08-02-2007:
We know every single human being (except of course Jesus and the Virgin Mary) to be a sinner; we all have a sinful, fallen, weak human nature all because of Adam & Eve's disobedience in the Garden...
So, my question is basically: While most of us have varying levels of good and evil in us, why are some people so holy, pious and/or saintly or even "Godly"(one extreme) and other people so downright wicked (the other extreme)? Is it the differing factors in their physical life/physological make-up and/or upbringing that made them that way...or does God (for reasons known to Him?) distribute His graces to people in differing amounts, thus more abundant grace makes someone holier, while very little grace would cause someone to be more evil?
Why are there such holy saintly people and such evil wicked people (like terrorists), or perhaps those who "seem" like good people (in our eyes)but in reality are committing evil mortal sins...considering we're all the same creature (i.e. human) with the same sinful fallen nature inherited from Adam?
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-05-2007:
Dear Anon,
The reason why there are such a variety of characters is that each person has free will. Now free will is open to a wide variety of choices which form the character of people. Hence some form good characters so that the practice of virtue become a delight to them. So some evil characters so that doing evil gives them delight. Yes, there are people who delight in doing evil. They want to be that way.
Dr. Geraghty
Question from on 08-02-2007:
We know every single human being (except of course Jesus and the Virgin Mary) to be a sinner; we all have a sinful, fallen, weak human nature all because of Adam & Eve's disobedience in the Garden...
So, my question is basically: While most of us have varying levels of good and evil in us, why are some people so holy, pious and/or saintly or even "Godly"(one extreme) and other people so downright wicked (the other extreme)? Is it the differing factors in their physical life/physological make-up and/or upbringing that made them that way...or does God (for reasons known to Him?) distribute His graces to people in differing amounts, thus more abundant grace makes someone holier, while very little grace would cause someone to be more evil?
Why are there such holy saintly people and such evil wicked people (like terrorists), or perhaps those who "seem" like good people (in our eyes)but in reality are committing evil mortal sins...considering we're all the same creature (i.e. human) with the same sinful fallen nature inherited from Adam?
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-05-2007:
Dear Anon,
The reason why there are such a variety of characters is that each person has free will. Now free will is open to a wide variety of choices which form the character of people. Hence some form good characters so that the practice of virtue become a delight to them. So some evil characters so that doing evil gives them delight. Yes, there are people who delight in doing evil. They want to be that way.
Dr. Geraghty
Apostolic succession
Apostolic succession
Question from on 08-02-2007:
Why is so much importance placed on Apostolic Succession? The Apostles were in constant need of correction by Jesus. Peter even denied he knew Jesus. Jesus at one point called him Satan. The Apostles were actually quite cluless as to the nature of Christ's mission.
God Bless.
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-05-2007:
Dear Luke,
One has to distinguish between the Apostles before the Holy Spirit came to them and after. After the Holy Spirit came, they behaved with much more insight and conviction than before. They became the foundations of the Church. Upon them was built the Bishops and Popes that came later. Without these foundations the present Bishops and Pope would be merely human beings without any divine power or commission to teach and sanctify the world.
Dr. Geraghty
Question from on 08-02-2007:
Why is so much importance placed on Apostolic Succession? The Apostles were in constant need of correction by Jesus. Peter even denied he knew Jesus. Jesus at one point called him Satan. The Apostles were actually quite cluless as to the nature of Christ's mission.
God Bless.
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-05-2007:
Dear Luke,
One has to distinguish between the Apostles before the Holy Spirit came to them and after. After the Holy Spirit came, they behaved with much more insight and conviction than before. They became the foundations of the Church. Upon them was built the Bishops and Popes that came later. Without these foundations the present Bishops and Pope would be merely human beings without any divine power or commission to teach and sanctify the world.
Dr. Geraghty
St. Joseph
St. Joseph Statue
Question from on 07-06-2007:
I am trying to sell my house and I planted St. Joseph in my front yard and I have been praying morning and night for a few months. I need to know if I plant St. Joseph the right way. He is facing the street face up - the house across the street is also for sale. I need to know if I have planted the statue facing the right direction and if I am praying too much. Also, do you have any hints or know if this really works.
Answer by David Gregson on 08-06-2007:
Burying a statue of St. Joseph to sell a house is one of those practices of popular piety that arose without Church authorization. If done in the right spirit, as a symbolic invocation of St. Joseph's aid, it can't do any harm and may be effective. If done with a superstitious spirit (akin to white magic), it won't be effective and may do harm. In other words, you shouldn't concern yourself about which way the statue is facing. It doesn't matter. You are asking for the Saint's help, not trying to force his hand by following an exact ritual.
About praying too much, it becomes too much when you're trying to talk God or one of His Saints into doing something you want, whether or not it's contrary to His will. I'd continue to pray for the sale of your house, but add to your prayer that you trust God to do what is best for you, in His own good time.
Question from on 07-06-2007:
I am trying to sell my house and I planted St. Joseph in my front yard and I have been praying morning and night for a few months. I need to know if I plant St. Joseph the right way. He is facing the street face up - the house across the street is also for sale. I need to know if I have planted the statue facing the right direction and if I am praying too much. Also, do you have any hints or know if this really works.
Answer by David Gregson on 08-06-2007:
Burying a statue of St. Joseph to sell a house is one of those practices of popular piety that arose without Church authorization. If done in the right spirit, as a symbolic invocation of St. Joseph's aid, it can't do any harm and may be effective. If done with a superstitious spirit (akin to white magic), it won't be effective and may do harm. In other words, you shouldn't concern yourself about which way the statue is facing. It doesn't matter. You are asking for the Saint's help, not trying to force his hand by following an exact ritual.
About praying too much, it becomes too much when you're trying to talk God or one of His Saints into doing something you want, whether or not it's contrary to His will. I'd continue to pray for the sale of your house, but add to your prayer that you trust God to do what is best for you, in His own good time.
Speaking in Tongues
Speaking in Tongues
Question from on 07-30-2007:
As a result of my spiritual search, I can now speak in tongues. I know this phenomenon, is non-denominational, and many Catholics have experienced being baptized in the Holy Spirit, but my few close relatives I have confided this to, aren't really informed. What does this mean for me? As a Catholic? What am I supposed to DO with this gift, and this information. It was a little scary the first time it actually happend. I'm becoming more used to this gift, I just don't know where I go from here. Help?:
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-05-2007:
Dear Pamella,
Usually there is a charismatic prayer group in a parish. They should be able to help you.
Dr. Geraghty
Question from on 07-30-2007:
As a result of my spiritual search, I can now speak in tongues. I know this phenomenon, is non-denominational, and many Catholics have experienced being baptized in the Holy Spirit, but my few close relatives I have confided this to, aren't really informed. What does this mean for me? As a Catholic? What am I supposed to DO with this gift, and this information. It was a little scary the first time it actually happend. I'm becoming more used to this gift, I just don't know where I go from here. Help?:
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-05-2007:
Dear Pamella,
Usually there is a charismatic prayer group in a parish. They should be able to help you.
Dr. Geraghty
Watching the Mass on television
Watching the Mass on television
Question from on 08-02-2007:
In a recent EWTN program, Fr. Mitch Pacwa answered a question concerning the viewing of the Mass on EWTN. He said that the only Mass that would "count" (as far attaining many graces) is the first Mass in the morning, since it is broadcast live. My Mother sometimes watches three Masses during the day. She is not looking to replace attending Mass with watching the Mass; however, she enjoys the experience of all three Masses during your broadcast day and is upset at the idea that, according to Fr. Pacwa, she may not attain many graces by viewing the re-broadcasts. Can you clarify, please? Thank you!
Answer by Catholic Answers on 08-03-2007:
Hi,
The first broadcast is live and viewers and listeners are praying with people in Irondale at the very same time. When the Mass is recorded they are praying with a recording. Yet even then--they are praying with all the other people who are praying with the recording. Praying with the live broadcast is the better. But the other times are good too. Being actually present in person for Mass is, of course, the best.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Question from on 08-02-2007:
In a recent EWTN program, Fr. Mitch Pacwa answered a question concerning the viewing of the Mass on EWTN. He said that the only Mass that would "count" (as far attaining many graces) is the first Mass in the morning, since it is broadcast live. My Mother sometimes watches three Masses during the day. She is not looking to replace attending Mass with watching the Mass; however, she enjoys the experience of all three Masses during your broadcast day and is upset at the idea that, according to Fr. Pacwa, she may not attain many graces by viewing the re-broadcasts. Can you clarify, please? Thank you!
Answer by Catholic Answers on 08-03-2007:
Hi,
The first broadcast is live and viewers and listeners are praying with people in Irondale at the very same time. When the Mass is recorded they are praying with a recording. Yet even then--they are praying with all the other people who are praying with the recording. Praying with the live broadcast is the better. But the other times are good too. Being actually present in person for Mass is, of course, the best.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Martin Luther
Martin Luther
Question from on 08-01-2007:
Recently I read a great book about Martin Luther. It seems like his vision was to get the catholic church lined up with the truths of Scripture. The church was definately headed down the wrong path. Why has he been so villianised by the church.
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-02-2007:
Dear Christian,
The great difference between Martin Luther and the Catholic Church concerns the authority of the Church. Was or was not the Pope and the Bishops the officials appointed by Christ to teach, rule and sanctify? That was the heart of the question. This is still the central question between Catholics and Protestants.
Dr. Geraghty
Question from on 08-01-2007:
Recently I read a great book about Martin Luther. It seems like his vision was to get the catholic church lined up with the truths of Scripture. The church was definately headed down the wrong path. Why has he been so villianised by the church.
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 08-02-2007:
Dear Christian,
The great difference between Martin Luther and the Catholic Church concerns the authority of the Church. Was or was not the Pope and the Bishops the officials appointed by Christ to teach, rule and sanctify? That was the heart of the question. This is still the central question between Catholics and Protestants.
Dr. Geraghty
Fasting before Holy Communion
Fasting before Holy Communion
Question from on 07-30-2007:
Dear Father,
Please could you clarify the use of flavored water for one hour before Holy Communion and whether or not one would be considered breaking their fast if they drank it? I was taught that water, and only water, was permitted for the one hour before Holy Communion but this was years ago before any other types of water were even marketed.
I frequently see people with sports water such as propel or fruit flavored, sugar free and calorie free water drinking it right before entering church for Holy Mass. Sometimes I see persons drinking coffee and/or other beverages, also chewing gum and/or mints/candy. I realize a cough drop may be required in an emergency if one has a vicious cough and can not get it under control and I have been told that is acceptable but not to be habit forming if at all possible. I do not wish to judge any other person's use of beverages or their use of gum, etc., and then their reception of Holy Communion but I did not think there had been any changes or further delineations to this rule and I simply wish to find out what the church teaches on this subject. Further, I would like to ask if a person would willingly and knowingly take anything other than plain water or a necessary cough drop would it be a matter for confession?
Thank you and God Bless, Marilyn
Answer by Fr. Jay Toborowsky on 08-01-2007:
I think the answer can be found on the ingredients label of the water. If it says anything besides water (eg - artificial flavoring, coloring, honey, ginsing, etc.), then to me it's not simply "water". Now, water and a cough drop can both do the same trick when it comes to a nasty cough, and also in the case of someone who takes medicine that requires food they would not be bound by the Communion fast. But you're correct that people largely ignore the rules for reception of Holy Communion nowadays. I mean, if they ignore the rules about being in a state of grace, do you think fasting will stop them?
Question from on 07-30-2007:
Dear Father,
Please could you clarify the use of flavored water for one hour before Holy Communion and whether or not one would be considered breaking their fast if they drank it? I was taught that water, and only water, was permitted for the one hour before Holy Communion but this was years ago before any other types of water were even marketed.
I frequently see people with sports water such as propel or fruit flavored, sugar free and calorie free water drinking it right before entering church for Holy Mass. Sometimes I see persons drinking coffee and/or other beverages, also chewing gum and/or mints/candy. I realize a cough drop may be required in an emergency if one has a vicious cough and can not get it under control and I have been told that is acceptable but not to be habit forming if at all possible. I do not wish to judge any other person's use of beverages or their use of gum, etc., and then their reception of Holy Communion but I did not think there had been any changes or further delineations to this rule and I simply wish to find out what the church teaches on this subject. Further, I would like to ask if a person would willingly and knowingly take anything other than plain water or a necessary cough drop would it be a matter for confession?
Thank you and God Bless, Marilyn
Answer by Fr. Jay Toborowsky on 08-01-2007:
I think the answer can be found on the ingredients label of the water. If it says anything besides water (eg - artificial flavoring, coloring, honey, ginsing, etc.), then to me it's not simply "water". Now, water and a cough drop can both do the same trick when it comes to a nasty cough, and also in the case of someone who takes medicine that requires food they would not be bound by the Communion fast. But you're correct that people largely ignore the rules for reception of Holy Communion nowadays. I mean, if they ignore the rules about being in a state of grace, do you think fasting will stop them?
Pope appeals for Korean hostages in Afghanistan
Pope appeals for Korean hostages in Afghanistan
Castel Gandolfo, Aug. 1, 2007 (CWNews.com) - During his Sunday Angelus audience on July 29, Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) issued a plea for the release of 22 Korean hostages being held in Afghanistan. The Pope also deplored the increasingly frequent occurrence of kidnapping by rebels and militia groups.
"There is a growing practice among armed groups to use innocent people to achieve their own particular ends," Pope Benedict observed. "This is a serious violation of human dignity that contrasts with all elemental norms of civility and legality and represents a grave offence to divine law."
The Holy Father called upon the kidnappers to "desist from the evil they do and to release their victims unharmed."
The Korean hostages were abducted in Afghanistan on July 19.
The Roman Breviary
The Roman Breviary
Question from on 07-31-2007:
I know that Summorum Pontificum gives priests the option of using the 1962 Breviarium Romanum to satisfy their Divine Office requirements, but does that also limit the laity.
Would it be licit for the laity to recite the Hours publicly according to the '62 Breviary (I am asking because I was thinking of suggesting it for a Young Adults retreat I'm participating in this Sept.). Would it be okay to use to the St. Pius V Breviary in private because of the Benedictine psalter.
I own a copy of the Anglican Breviary, which is essentially the 1911 Breviarium Romanum with certain interpolations from the Sarum and Dominican Uses, because it's the closest thing to the old Breviary that I have seen in print. Do you know of anywhere else I could obtain a reprint of the old Breviary in English, considering I don't read Latin?
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 08-01-2007:
Since there are now recognized to be two forms, an ordinary form and an extraordinary form of the Latin Rite, one of those two forms must be used. The extraordinary form is the Missal and other elements of the Roman Ritual and breviary in place in 1962, and of the ordinary form, that of today. The Missal, Ritual and Breviary of 1962 represents organic litrugical development to that day, and so reversion to an earlier version would not seem to be legitimate, but chaotic. Is every missal ever used in the Roman Rite now approved for use? Certainly not. Similarly, the current misaal is that of 2002. Presumably priests are not free to use the features of the 1970 Missal, or the 1975 Missal, if the 2002 Missal prescribes something different rubrically or textually. Only necessity - unavailability of the new Missal in impoverished or persecuted areas could justify such use.
Since the laity have no obligation, there would not seem to be any prohibition of using earlier Catholic breviaries to pray with privately, but at the same time, I would hesitate to call it anything but private prayer. The idea of unity with the living Church through her approved liturgical prayer
Question from on 07-31-2007:
I know that Summorum Pontificum gives priests the option of using the 1962 Breviarium Romanum to satisfy their Divine Office requirements, but does that also limit the laity.
Would it be licit for the laity to recite the Hours publicly according to the '62 Breviary (I am asking because I was thinking of suggesting it for a Young Adults retreat I'm participating in this Sept.). Would it be okay to use to the St. Pius V Breviary in private because of the Benedictine psalter.
I own a copy of the Anglican Breviary, which is essentially the 1911 Breviarium Romanum with certain interpolations from the Sarum and Dominican Uses, because it's the closest thing to the old Breviary that I have seen in print. Do you know of anywhere else I could obtain a reprint of the old Breviary in English, considering I don't read Latin?
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 08-01-2007:
Since there are now recognized to be two forms, an ordinary form and an extraordinary form of the Latin Rite, one of those two forms must be used. The extraordinary form is the Missal and other elements of the Roman Ritual and breviary in place in 1962, and of the ordinary form, that of today. The Missal, Ritual and Breviary of 1962 represents organic litrugical development to that day, and so reversion to an earlier version would not seem to be legitimate, but chaotic. Is every missal ever used in the Roman Rite now approved for use? Certainly not. Similarly, the current misaal is that of 2002. Presumably priests are not free to use the features of the 1970 Missal, or the 1975 Missal, if the 2002 Missal prescribes something different rubrically or textually. Only necessity - unavailability of the new Missal in impoverished or persecuted areas could justify such use.
Since the laity have no obligation, there would not seem to be any prohibition of using earlier Catholic breviaries to pray with privately, but at the same time, I would hesitate to call it anything but private prayer. The idea of unity with the living Church through her approved liturgical prayer
Five Holy Days Of Obligations
Five Holy Days Of Obligations!
Question from on 07-31-2007:
Greetings,
My daughter is preparing for her Confirmation at Our Lady Of Angels and she has not been able to find the answer to: "What Are The Five Holy Days Of Obligations and The Dates?
Tony King
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 08-02-2007:
In the U.S., the six holy days of obligation are January 1 (Mary, Mother of Holy), Ascension (40 days after Easter), August 15 (Assumption), November 1 (All Saints), December 8 (Immaculate Conception), and December 25 (Christmas).
Unfortunately, that varies from region to region in the U.S. and depends on whether it falls on a Monday or Saturday and other rules that make it impossible for most people to keep straight.
Deposing popes
Deposing popes
Question from on 08-02-2007:
Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV didn't get along. Gregory excommunicated Henry and claimed he was no longer emperor ,who, in turn, convened a Church council which deposed Gregory and elected a new pope who, predictably (re)crowned Henry as emperor.
My question is does canon law now prohibit councils from deposing a pope, or is it possible that this could occur again?
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 08-02-2007:
Canons 338-341 prohibits any functioning of an ecumenical council without the pope. In fact, if a pope has convoked a council and then dies, the council is automatically suspended by the law itself.
Question from on 08-02-2007:
Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV didn't get along. Gregory excommunicated Henry and claimed he was no longer emperor ,who, in turn, convened a Church council which deposed Gregory and elected a new pope who, predictably (re)crowned Henry as emperor.
My question is does canon law now prohibit councils from deposing a pope, or is it possible that this could occur again?
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 08-02-2007:
Canons 338-341 prohibits any functioning of an ecumenical council without the pope. In fact, if a pope has convoked a council and then dies, the council is automatically suspended by the law itself.
extreme unction
extreme unction
Question from on 07-31-2007:
Hi --
I hope I have the right forum.
Question: On our deathbeds when receiving the sacrament of extreme unction, must we make another general (comprehensive) confession, in effect, repeating sins already previously confessed?
Thank you,
LJA
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 08-02-2007:
The term used by the Second Vatican Council is "the anointing of the sick," emphasizing that the sacrament is not just intended for the dying.
In case of danger of death, it is appropriate to go to confession and also receive Holy Communion. With regard to confession, only the sins committed since the last confession need to be confessed. There is no requirement of some sort of comprehensive repeated confession of sins.
Question from on 07-31-2007:
Hi --
I hope I have the right forum.
Question: On our deathbeds when receiving the sacrament of extreme unction, must we make another general (comprehensive) confession, in effect, repeating sins already previously confessed?
Thank you,
LJA
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 08-02-2007:
The term used by the Second Vatican Council is "the anointing of the sick," emphasizing that the sacrament is not just intended for the dying.
In case of danger of death, it is appropriate to go to confession and also receive Holy Communion. With regard to confession, only the sins committed since the last confession need to be confessed. There is no requirement of some sort of comprehensive repeated confession of sins.
Women and Men in Heaven
Women and Men in Heaven
Question from on 06-27-2007:
Hello,
I think that St. Therese has said that many more women love God than do men. I have heard of other saints saying much the same. Does this mean that more women than men will be in Heaven?
Thank you for your time.
Answer by David Gregson on 08-02-2007:
I don't know if St. Therese said that. In any case, she wasn't infallible. But even if it is the case that, in Therese's time, and perhaps today, more women than men have loved God, that doesn't mean it was always the case. The population of heaven will be made up of women and men of all times. Of course, since men and women won't marry in heaven, it won't matter in that regard if one sex outnumbers the other.
However, there is another consideration. Fathers and Doctors of the Church (e.g., St. Anselm) have taught that the number of the elect is perfect. That is, it won't be just any number who are saved, but the perfect number, whatever that is. So there are grounds for supposing that the number of women and men will also be perfect, which, at least on the face of it, suggests an equality in their numbers.
Question from on 06-27-2007:
Hello,
I think that St. Therese has said that many more women love God than do men. I have heard of other saints saying much the same. Does this mean that more women than men will be in Heaven?
Thank you for your time.
Answer by David Gregson on 08-02-2007:
I don't know if St. Therese said that. In any case, she wasn't infallible. But even if it is the case that, in Therese's time, and perhaps today, more women than men have loved God, that doesn't mean it was always the case. The population of heaven will be made up of women and men of all times. Of course, since men and women won't marry in heaven, it won't matter in that regard if one sex outnumbers the other.
However, there is another consideration. Fathers and Doctors of the Church (e.g., St. Anselm) have taught that the number of the elect is perfect. That is, it won't be just any number who are saved, but the perfect number, whatever that is. So there are grounds for supposing that the number of women and men will also be perfect, which, at least on the face of it, suggests an equality in their numbers.
Breaking of the bread into the cup
Breaking of the bread into the cup
Question from on 07-30-2007:
I was told this practice started a long time ago when after the bishop had his Mass the piece of the host would be brought to parishes and it would be mingled with the priest's wine to symbolize the unity of the sacrifice. Is this true? A young Jesuit informed me of this and I think he said it only happened in Rome.
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 08-01-2007:
Yes, this was the practice in Rome in the early centuries. It probably derived from the sharing of the Afikomen, a particle of the Passover bread. We may have an artifact of the practice in the mingling of a particle of the Host in the Chalice, now given the symbolic meaning of the union in the resurrected Christ of His Body and Blood.
Question from on 07-30-2007:
I was told this practice started a long time ago when after the bishop had his Mass the piece of the host would be brought to parishes and it would be mingled with the priest's wine to symbolize the unity of the sacrifice. Is this true? A young Jesuit informed me of this and I think he said it only happened in Rome.
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 08-01-2007:
Yes, this was the practice in Rome in the early centuries. It probably derived from the sharing of the Afikomen, a particle of the Passover bread. We may have an artifact of the practice in the mingling of a particle of the Host in the Chalice, now given the symbolic meaning of the union in the resurrected Christ of His Body and Blood.
The Trinity and the Passion of Jesus
The Trinity and the Passion of Jesus
Question from on 07-29-2007:
Hello Dr. Geraghty, My eight year son, Philip asked my wife and I a question today that we weren't sure how to answer. We thought you could help. He asked if all three Persons in the Trinity felt pain when Jesus was on the cross. Thanks in advance for your help. Rob
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 07-31-2007:
Dear Philip,
On Christ felt pain. He could feel fail because he is the second person of the Blessed Trinity who has both a divine and human nature. I did not feel pain in his divine nature because that is impossible. But he did feel pain because he was the only one of the three person who possessed a human nature.
Dr. Geraghty
Question from on 07-29-2007:
Hello Dr. Geraghty, My eight year son, Philip asked my wife and I a question today that we weren't sure how to answer. We thought you could help. He asked if all three Persons in the Trinity felt pain when Jesus was on the cross. Thanks in advance for your help. Rob
Answer by Richard Geraghty on 07-31-2007:
Dear Philip,
On Christ felt pain. He could feel fail because he is the second person of the Blessed Trinity who has both a divine and human nature. I did not feel pain in his divine nature because that is impossible. But he did feel pain because he was the only one of the three person who possessed a human nature.
Dr. Geraghty
Anglican Eucharist
Anglican Eucharist
Question from on 07-30-2007:
Why is the Anglican/Episcopal eucharist or mass of the Book of Common Prayer considered defective or invalid by the Catholic Church? Can a Catholic priest say Mass using the Book of Common Prayer?
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 08-01-2007:
When Henry VIII died, who for all his moral faults had no intention of changing the Catholic sacraments, his 9 year old son Edward became king and fell under the sway of the Protestantizing Archbishop Cranmer. The Edwardian Ordinal by which Anglican clergy were henceforth ordained was missing the true Catholic idea of the Priesthood as sacrificing. This Protestant direction of the Anglican Church was confirmed by the 39 articles of religion approved during Elizabeth I's reign (1572). Concerning the Mass article 31 states,
XXXI. Of the one oblation of Christe finished uppon the Crosse. The offering of Christ once made, is the perfect redemption, propiciation, satisfaction for sinne, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priestes did offer Christe for the quicke and the dead; to haue remission of payne or gylt, were biasphemous fables, and daungerous deceites.
Furthermore, article 37 confirms and imposes the Protestant ordination rites of Edward and Cranmer on Anglicanism, stating,
XXXVI. Of consecration of Bishops and ministers. The booke of Consecration of Archbyshops, and Byshops, and orderyng of Priestes and Deacons, lately set foorth in the time of Edwarde the sixt, and confyrmed at the same tyme by aucthoritie of Parliament, doth conteyne all thinges necessarie to suche consecration and orderyng: neyther hath it any thing, that of it selfe is superstitious or vngodly. And therefore, whosoeuer are consecrate or ordered accordyng to the rites of that booke, sence the seconde yere of the aforenamed king Edwarde, vnto this time, or hereafter shalbe consecrated or ordered accordyng to the same rites, we decree all such to be ryghtly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.
In today's book of common prayer you will not find the same polemical language, but the repudiation of Catholic doctrine is clear, as the current version of article 28 shows,
28. Of the Lord's Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the mutual love that Christians ought to have among themselves. Rather, it is a sacrament of our redemption through Christ's death. To those who rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and similarly the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (the change of the substance of the bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved from holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain teaching of Scripture. It overthrows the nature of a sacrament and has given rise to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only in a heavenly and spiritual manner. The means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is by faith.
Hence, the Catholic Church judges Angelican Orders to be defective, and Catholics may not use Anglican rites. There is an Anglican use liturgy for convert clergy who have been ordained to the Catholic Church, but it has been corrected of such errors by Rome in order to accord with Catholic teaching.
Anglican Eucharist
Anglican Eucharist
Question from on 07-30-2007:
Why is the Anglican/Episcopal eucharist or mass of the Book of Common Prayer considered defective or invalid by the Catholic Church? Can a Catholic priest say Mass using the Book of Common Prayer?
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 08-01-2007:
When Henry VIII died, who for all his moral faults had no intention of changing the Catholic sacraments, his 9 year old son Edward became king and fell under the sway of the Protestantizing Archbishop Cranmer. The Edwardian Ordinal by which Anglican clergy were henceforth ordained was missing the true Catholic idea of the Priesthood as sacrificing. This Protestant direction of the Anglican Church was confirmed by the 39 articles of religion approved during Elizabeth I's reign (1572). Concerning the Mass article 31 states,
XXXI. Of the one oblation of Christe finished uppon the Crosse. The offering of Christ once made, is the perfect redemption, propiciation, satisfaction for sinne, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priestes did offer Christe for the quicke and the dead; to haue remission of payne or gylt, were biasphemous fables, and daungerous deceites.
Furthermore, article 37 confirms and imposes the Protestant ordination rites of Edward and Cranmer on Anglicanism, stating,
XXXVI. Of consecration of Bishops and ministers. The booke of Consecration of Archbyshops, and Byshops, and orderyng of Priestes and Deacons, lately set foorth in the time of Edwarde the sixt, and confyrmed at the same tyme by aucthoritie of Parliament, doth conteyne all thinges necessarie to suche consecration and orderyng: neyther hath it any thing, that of it selfe is superstitious or vngodly. And therefore, whosoeuer are consecrate or ordered accordyng to the rites of that booke, sence the seconde yere of the aforenamed king Edwarde, vnto this time, or hereafter shalbe consecrated or ordered accordyng to the same rites, we decree all such to be ryghtly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.
In today's book of common prayer you will not find the same polemical language, but the repudiation of Catholic doctrine is clear, as the current version of article 28 shows,
28. Of the Lord's Supper. The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the mutual love that Christians ought to have among themselves. Rather, it is a sacrament of our redemption through Christ's death. To those who rightly, worthily, and with faith receive it, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and similarly the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (the change of the substance of the bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved from holy Scripture, but is repugnant to the plain teaching of Scripture. It overthrows the nature of a sacrament and has given rise to many superstitions. The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only in a heavenly and spiritual manner. The means by which the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is by faith.
Hence, the Catholic Church judges Angelican Orders to be defective, and Catholics may not use Anglican rites. There is an Anglican use liturgy for convert clergy who have been ordained to the Catholic Church, but it has been corrected of such errors by Rome in order to accord with Catholic teaching.
Latin prayers at Mass
Latin prayers at Mass
Question from on 07-31-2007:
Is it true that the Pope recently said that at least the Creed and Our Father should be said in Latin at Mass -- even if the old Tridentine Mass is not celebrated?
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 08-01-2007:
No, not in the sense that at every Mass this must be so. But unless it is done sometimes, what the Popes have asked cannot be fulfilled
The 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal has this to say:
41. All other things being equal, Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other types of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.
Since faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is fitting that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Creed and the Lord's Prayer, set to the simpler melodies.
Perfect Contrition
Perfect Contrition
Question from on 07-31-2007:
Mr. Donovan. In a recent answer, probably at your other forum, you quoted Canon 916, below. This Canon says for a person to "... be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition..." Please describe HOW a person makes an act of perfect contrition. Thank you.
Canon 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 08-01-2007:
The will we should have is expressed in the words of the act of contrition which states,
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because of thy just punishments, but most of all because they offend Thee my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy Grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen. (alternate ending, especially in confession: I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy Grace, to to sin no more and to avoid the near occasions of sin. Amen.)
If we can say that prayer, with its emphasis on sorrow because of having offended such a good God, and mean it, then we have perfect contrition. We should do so as soon as we repent, in any case, going to confession as soon after as we are able. Perfect Contrition restores us to grace, then all we must do is comply with Christ's ordinance given through the apostles, who must forgive or retain the sins of those who confess.
This prayer, therefore, contains a reference to the Sacrament of Confession. The impossibility of going to Confession, but the willingness to do so at the first opportunity, along with a grave reason for celebrating or receiving the Eucharist, are the conditions of the canon and also of the moral use of this privaledge. A Catholic, priest or lay, must not be seeking to evade individual confession, in other words. To do so would itself be mortally sinful. Hence sorrow could NOT be perfect, merely convenient.
As I alluded in my previous answer, the laity would almost never be able to take advantage of this, as our opportunities for confession are extensive and the obligation to receive Communion generally not present. Of course, it is a blessing to know that if we face death without the physical possibility of confessing, that our perfect sorrow is sufficient.
Another example often cited for the laity falls under moral impossibility. A mother would not be obliged to confess mortal sin to her son-priest if no other was available and not going to Holy Communion would be tantamount to a public confession of being in the state of mortal sin. You might argue it would be humble for her to do so, even heroic, but the Church being a Mother understands the horror some women might experience at this possibility. Such a shame would be different from the ordinary shame we all feel confessing our sins, and which does NOT justify using this privaledge.
Questionable Songs
Questionable Songs
Question from on 07-13-2007:
I am a choir member at our parish and we use the Gather Hymnal. I believe many of the songs we use are not liturgically correct. Recently we sang "Let Us Be Bread" with words, "Let us be bread, blessed by the Lord, broken and shared, life for the world." "Let us be wine, etc." Is this hymn O.K., or is it liturgically incorrect? Thank you.
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 07-31-2007:
While there is an authentic sense by which having become one with the One Bread who came down from heaven, Jesus Christ, we are to be christs to others, unless this is part of repertoire of hymns that reflect the fullness of Church teaching on the Eucharist, it suggests the wrong-headed, "We are Church, We are Eucharist" mentality. In some quarters Catholic Eucharistic faith has been replaced by faith in the assembly. If that seems to be the case, then such hymns are pastorally unjust and uncharitable for the incomplete teaching they communicate.
Independent Traditionalist Chapels
Independent Traditionalist Chapels
Question from on 07-31-2007:
Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos has said the SSPX is not in schism several times in the past two years, but I'd like to know about the Independent Traditionalist Chapels that operate separate from the local diocese.
The traditionalists are telling people they are "private oratories," but would they be considered schismatic for illicitly holding Tridentine Masses without the bishop's authority? or for refusing to submit to the local bishop?
I have an independent chapel outside of Washington, D.C., in mind, because the priest there supposedly is a runaway priest of the Archdiocese of Baltimore who has setup shop in the Diocese of Arlington.
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 07-31-2007:
No priest is permitted to set up his own little church and do whatever he wants. He must be under the authority of the local diocesan bishop as well as the pope or else it is not truly a Catholic celebration.
Hopefully, with the new norms promulgated by the pope with regard to celebrating the 1962 Roman Missal, the need for such illicit celebrations will diminish greatly.
Frequency of Confession
Frequency of Confession for daily communicants
Question from on 07-31-2007:
I know the Church desires that people go to confession frequently - as in monthly, and I agree -- it's ideal. I also know that the "rules" say once a year is sufficient.
Is there a different rule for people who are daily communicants? Are they supposed to go to confession more often? Is it ok to go to daily communion if you don't go to confession more than every 8 weeks or so?
Thanks!
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 07-31-2007:
I don't know if I would say that once a year is sufficient but rather once a year for grave sins is the absolute minimum.
There is no requirement that those who go to daily Mass go to confession more often. However, often those growing in holiness do make frequent use of the sacrament as they often see its great benefits.
sign of the cross
sign of the cross
Question from on 07-31-2007:
Dear Father, First thank you for answering my past questions. I am wondering why do some people make the sign of the cross and then blow into their hands? They might not be blowing, maybe kissing? I sometimes see this after reception of Holy Communion. Thank you, Debbie
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 07-31-2007:
There is no liturgical requirement of making the sign of the cross after receiving Holy Communion, even if this is a common custom.
It is common for people in some cultures to kiss their hand/thumb after making the sign of the cross. It is not part of the official manner of making the sign of the cross.
Catholic writers Question
Catholic writers
Question from on 07-30-2007:
I like to listen to Charles Stanley and Billy Graham every once and a while. They explain Christian thoughts, beliefs and such in such easy to understand formats. I have not read very many Catholic writers. Are there any that compare or are similar to these men for my faith and beliefs?
I ask because I know that both of the mentioned Protestant writers are not always on-point with Catholic beliefs and teachings and wanted to know if there was any writers who are that I won't need the Cathecism and a dictionary to follow.
Answer by Catholic Answers on 07-31-2007:
Hope--
I recommend giving Peter Kreeft and Ronda Chervin a try.
Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers
Religious songs vs traditional church hymns
Religious songs vs traditional church hymns
Question from on 07-09-2007:
Are religious songs that sounds more like pop or romantic songs (eg. songs by Haugen and Haas) really appropriate in the liturgy? If not, then why are such songs being allowed to be included in hymnals that have imprimaturs in it?
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 07-31-2007:
The governing document on Sacred Music is Musicam Sacram. In addition to Gregorian chant and other clearly sacred music, it allows popular religious music if two conditiosn are met:
1) it is created for worship, and
2) it is endowed with a certain holy sincerity of form.
Thus, popular religious music such as you describe could theoretically qualify if both conditions were met. The Church's norms also require that they be doctrinally correct. The main issues usually raised against contemporary hymns and songs is bland music, banal lyrics and indifferent theology. Such msuic should not be used in the liturgy, especially if they water-down Catholic teaching.
symbols allowed on the altar
symbols allowed on the altar
Question from on 07-10-2007:
I have been asked to make lace for an altar cloth at my parish. Along with many other symbols, I have been asked to include the Maria Regina symbol.
My devotion to Our Lady is extremely strong, however, I am concerned that her symbol, though welcome in other places, should not be included on the altar.
I have asked and searched for an answer, to no avail. Any advice you could give would be greatly appreciated!
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 07-31-2007:
I assume you are refering to the "drop" which hangs down in front, or the sides, as opposed to the mensa (surface of the altar).
The drop usually has symbols of Christ or the Eucharist, but I don't think it would be out of place to include, among others and in a secondary way, a symbol of Our Lady, who after all was at Calvary. This would hold especially if the church was dedicated to Our Lady, or it was a season like Advent or Christmas.
Covering of Blessed Sacrament during Mass
Covering of Blessed Sacrament during Mass
Question from on 07-12-2007:
I've noticed on EWTN's Daily Mass with the Friars that, when Mass is going on, there's a cover over the Blessed Sacrament. It's removed when Mass ends. What's the purpose of this cover?
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 07-31-2007:
The Church forbids exposition during the Mass, so exposition is paused before Mass and resumed after Mass. This veil is called an umbraculum, and is more known in monasteries than parishes.
EWTN's chapel was the monastic chapel of Mother Angelica's community before they moved to Hanceville. The Friars and the Network employees continue the exposition begun by the nuns during the day, except during Mass, hence the veil.
Bowing before receiving Holy Communion
Bowing before receiving Holy Communion
Question from on 07-13-2007:
Dear Mr. Donovan,
When should the bow take place before receiving Holy Communion? Should it happen before you have approached the minister (ie when one person is receiving before you) or while you are directly in front of the minister?
Thanks!
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 07-30-2007:
It should be when the person in front of you is receiving, so as not to delay the distribution of Communion or endanger the Eucharist, by accidentally coming up under the ciborium or chalice.
cursillo movement
cursillo movement
Question from on 06-20-2007:
please provide me information concerning this movement Thank You John B
Answer by Fr. Jay Toborowsky on 07-30-2007:
check out http://www.natl-cursillo.org/
confession
confession and St. Maria Faustina
Question from on 07-30-2007:
Dear Fr.
I have a question about a book I am reading, the diary of St. Maria Faustina Kowalska and I was hoping you could clarify something for me.
St. Maria Faustina wrote about a soul that is striving for sancity and how to benefit from confession. She said there were three things necessary: complete sincerity and openness, humility and lastly obedience. I understand the first 2 but not about being obedient. I don't know if you are familar with the book but it states that a confessor would be no help whatsoever to a disobedient soul.
I thought we are all disobedient souls and that is why we go to confession because we sin and we ask for forgiveness then get up again and strive for perfection.
St. Faustina says 'God lavished His graces most generously upon the soul, but it must be an obedient soul.'
Can you help explain her thoughts on this?
Much thanks and may God bless you abundantly! Marianne
Answer by Fr. Jay Toborowsky on 07-30-2007:
Dear Marianne, I do not know all the details of St. Faustina's book, and you may want to e-mail someone at the National Shrine of Divine Mercy to see if they can help with the details of her thoughts. Yes, our fallen nature means that we have souls that are more disposed to be disobedient rather than obedient, but that's the struggle in the spiritual life, to be obedient to the confesor's directives and help in living the moral life.
Question from on 07-30-2007:
Dear Fr.
I have a question about a book I am reading, the diary of St. Maria Faustina Kowalska and I was hoping you could clarify something for me.
St. Maria Faustina wrote about a soul that is striving for sancity and how to benefit from confession. She said there were three things necessary: complete sincerity and openness, humility and lastly obedience. I understand the first 2 but not about being obedient. I don't know if you are familar with the book but it states that a confessor would be no help whatsoever to a disobedient soul.
I thought we are all disobedient souls and that is why we go to confession because we sin and we ask for forgiveness then get up again and strive for perfection.
St. Faustina says 'God lavished His graces most generously upon the soul, but it must be an obedient soul.'
Can you help explain her thoughts on this?
Much thanks and may God bless you abundantly! Marianne
Answer by Fr. Jay Toborowsky on 07-30-2007:
Dear Marianne, I do not know all the details of St. Faustina's book, and you may want to e-mail someone at the National Shrine of Divine Mercy to see if they can help with the details of her thoughts. Yes, our fallen nature means that we have souls that are more disposed to be disobedient rather than obedient, but that's the struggle in the spiritual life, to be obedient to the confesor's directives and help in living the moral life.
History of Latin Mass
History of Latin Mass
Question from on 07-10-2007:
Can you please give me a very comprehensive and well explained background history of how did the Latin Mass started, what does it mean to celebrate Mass in Latin. Does the Latin Mass have a direct connection to Jesus, or it is just a tradition.
Why bring Latin to rejuvenate the church when changes can be made but without the Latin, priest don't have knowledge of Latin or have forgotten and many people who follows the prayers while the priest is celebrating the mass will be lost and quiet just observing. What kinds of benefits will the church have if Latin mass is back again, is it necessary for the Latin words to say at mass. Jesus has never spoke to his followers in Latin, any other language or dialect that his followers could not understand. I will appreciate your complete description about the Latin history and its tradition.
Thank you, Nancy
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 07-30-2007:
We do not know in what language the Mass in Rome was originally celebrated. Was it in Hebrew, because the first converts in Rome were Jews? Was it in Latin, because gentiles in Rome spoke Latin? Was it in Greek, because Greek, more than Latin, was the lingua franca of the first century Mediterranean world, as English is the universal language today?
What we do know is that in the early fourth century (300s), the Mass in Rome was celebrated in Greek, but by the late fourth century it was being celebrated in Latin. For the next seven hundred years of the first millenium Latin was the common language of Europe, although local languages existed alongside it, and then in the second millenium the vernacular languages we know today began to arise. Even before the reformation (1500s) the vernacular languages had replaced Latin in everyday use, although the educated classes still used it, as medicine, the law and science continues to do today. The Church never stopped using it, because its meaning was fixed and was, therefore, a particularly apt language for expressing divine truths in human language. Even today, the normative version of the ordinary form of the liturgy, as Pope Benedict calls the rites according to the post-Vatican II liturgical books, is a Latin text. The Latin text is the official version of the documents of Vatican II and all Vatican documents since, including liturgical books. So, although Vatican II authorized the use of the vernacular in the Mass, and Pope Paul VI made this a reality by approving translations of his entire missal into the vernacular, Latin remains the universal language of the universal Church. Its use is important, lest we begin to think of ourselves as the American Catholic Church and the French Catholic Church etc., rather than the Catholic Church in America, in France and so on.
Four charged in vandalism
Four charged in vandalism, theft of statues at church
By Larry Wahl
7/30/2007
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)
MOBILE, Ala. (CNS) – After two statues were desecrated and a third was stolen from the grounds of a Catholic church in the Mobile Archdiocese, police arrested two men and two women July 24 and charged them with third-degree theft of property.
PRIEST LOOKS OVER VANDALIZED HEADLESS STATUE OUTSIDE CHURCH – Father Frank Sofie, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church in Tillman's Corner, Ala., looks over the headless statue of Our Lady of Grace July 23. Another statue, one of parish patron St. Vincent de Paul, stands headless in the background near the entrance of the church. Both statues were vandalized and a third statue, also of Our Lady of Grace, was stolen sometime prior to a morning Communion service. Four suspects were apprehended July 24 and charged with third-degree theft of property, with the possibility of other charges pending investigation. (CNS/The Catholic Week)
PRIEST LOOKS OVER VANDALIZED HEADLESS STATUE OUTSIDE CHURCH – Father Frank Sofie, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church in Tillman's Corner, Ala., looks over the headless statue of Our Lady of Grace July 23. Another statue, one of parish patron St. Vincent de Paul, stands headless in the background near the entrance of the church. Both statues were vandalized and a third statue, also of Our Lady of Grace, was stolen sometime prior to a morning Communion service. Four suspects were apprehended July 24 and charged with third-degree theft of property, with the possibility of other charges pending investigation. (CNS/The Catholic Week)
At St. Vincent de Paul Church in Tillman's Corner, a suburban area just west of Mobile, two life-size statues, one of the parish's patron and one of Our Lady of Grace, were desecrated. A smaller statue of Our Lady of Grace was stolen.
The crimes occurred sometime between the afternoon of July 22 and the morning of July 23.
"I'm mystified," said the pastor of St. Vincent de Paul, Father Frank Sofie, as he talked with reporters outside the church. "As Catholics we see these statues as much more than church property, but as sacred images of revered saints."
"I'm praying for those who did this and also for reparation for the sin of sacrilege," he added.
The vandalism was first discovered by Deacon Robert Nouwen as he was preparing for a morning Communion service July 23.
The St. Vincent de Paul statue near the entrance of the church was left headless and mutilated. The culprits apparently did the damage with a wooden sawhorse used to direct cars in the parking lot. The statue's head was nowhere to be found.
Parishioners noticed that the life-size statue of Our Lady of Grace, located on the lawn a few hundred feet from the church, had been tipped over. Its head had been removed as well.
A full inspection of the grounds around the church and school led to the discovery that another smaller statue of Our Lady of Grace, which was located just outside the entrance of the school building, had been stolen.
The St. Vincent de Paul statue was made in Italy of fine Carrera marble from the Italian Alps; its estimated value is $15,000. The two statues of Our Lady of Grace, the larger made of molded concrete and the smaller made of plaster, had an estimated combined value of $400.
The missing statue heads had not been found and police were still investigating.
In comments to reporters, one of the four charged by police, Chandler Marston, 19, described damaging the statues as a prank. The other three charged were Lisa Moseley, 19, Alex White, 18, and Shawn Killingsworth, 21. All four are from Mobile.
By Larry Wahl
7/30/2007
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com)
MOBILE, Ala. (CNS) – After two statues were desecrated and a third was stolen from the grounds of a Catholic church in the Mobile Archdiocese, police arrested two men and two women July 24 and charged them with third-degree theft of property.
PRIEST LOOKS OVER VANDALIZED HEADLESS STATUE OUTSIDE CHURCH – Father Frank Sofie, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church in Tillman's Corner, Ala., looks over the headless statue of Our Lady of Grace July 23. Another statue, one of parish patron St. Vincent de Paul, stands headless in the background near the entrance of the church. Both statues were vandalized and a third statue, also of Our Lady of Grace, was stolen sometime prior to a morning Communion service. Four suspects were apprehended July 24 and charged with third-degree theft of property, with the possibility of other charges pending investigation. (CNS/The Catholic Week)
PRIEST LOOKS OVER VANDALIZED HEADLESS STATUE OUTSIDE CHURCH – Father Frank Sofie, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Church in Tillman's Corner, Ala., looks over the headless statue of Our Lady of Grace July 23. Another statue, one of parish patron St. Vincent de Paul, stands headless in the background near the entrance of the church. Both statues were vandalized and a third statue, also of Our Lady of Grace, was stolen sometime prior to a morning Communion service. Four suspects were apprehended July 24 and charged with third-degree theft of property, with the possibility of other charges pending investigation. (CNS/The Catholic Week)
At St. Vincent de Paul Church in Tillman's Corner, a suburban area just west of Mobile, two life-size statues, one of the parish's patron and one of Our Lady of Grace, were desecrated. A smaller statue of Our Lady of Grace was stolen.
The crimes occurred sometime between the afternoon of July 22 and the morning of July 23.
"I'm mystified," said the pastor of St. Vincent de Paul, Father Frank Sofie, as he talked with reporters outside the church. "As Catholics we see these statues as much more than church property, but as sacred images of revered saints."
"I'm praying for those who did this and also for reparation for the sin of sacrilege," he added.
The vandalism was first discovered by Deacon Robert Nouwen as he was preparing for a morning Communion service July 23.
The St. Vincent de Paul statue near the entrance of the church was left headless and mutilated. The culprits apparently did the damage with a wooden sawhorse used to direct cars in the parking lot. The statue's head was nowhere to be found.
Parishioners noticed that the life-size statue of Our Lady of Grace, located on the lawn a few hundred feet from the church, had been tipped over. Its head had been removed as well.
A full inspection of the grounds around the church and school led to the discovery that another smaller statue of Our Lady of Grace, which was located just outside the entrance of the school building, had been stolen.
The St. Vincent de Paul statue was made in Italy of fine Carrera marble from the Italian Alps; its estimated value is $15,000. The two statues of Our Lady of Grace, the larger made of molded concrete and the smaller made of plaster, had an estimated combined value of $400.
The missing statue heads had not been found and police were still investigating.
In comments to reporters, one of the four charged by police, Chandler Marston, 19, described damaging the statues as a prank. The other three charged were Lisa Moseley, 19, Alex White, 18, and Shawn Killingsworth, 21. All four are from Mobile.
Four Priests Arrested in China
Four Priests Arrested in China
XIWANZI, China, JULY 29, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Four priests have been arrested and detained for refusing to join the Patriotic Association, the government body that oversees religious practice in the country.
Three of the priests were arrested July 24, at the home of Catholic faithful in the Ximeng region of Inner Mongolia, the Cardinal Kung Foundation reported.
Father Liang Aijun, 35, Father Wang Zhong, 41, and Father Gao Jinbao, 34, were hiding in order to avoid arrest, but were finally caught by eight plainclothes men.
During the initial phase of the arrest, the priests were locked up in a cage, prohibited from talking to anyone and refused water. They have now been transferred to an undisclosed location.
The fourth priest, Father Cui Tai, 50, of Shuangshu Village, Zhuolu County, was detained after a minor motorcycle accident in early July. He has been detained at the public security and religious bureau since the accident.
Father Cui, of the Diocese of Xuanhua, Hebei, has also refused to register with the Patriotic Association.
According to the Cardinal Kung Foundation, at least five bishops are in jail and others are under house arrest and surveillance. About 15 priests and an unknown number of laypeople are also jailed.
Mass for the Dead
Mass for the Dead
Question from on 07-09-2007:
Recently I attended a funeral Mass where the cremated remains were not present in the Church but out in the parking lot in a regular car from the funeral home. When I made my funeral plans 10 years ago I was told the Catholic Church requires the body to be present during the Mass. Therefore, I would have to "rent" a casket so my body would be there before cremation; where is it after cremation? When did the Catholic Church approve cremation & what are the "rules"? A friend of mine's is still paying the funderal home "rent" for her dad's ashes, as she can't afford to bury him! Humbly in Christ Jesus+ Bridget A. Trail
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 07-30-2007:
The Church has allowed cremation in some countries in recent years, provided that no denial of the doctrine of the resurrection was intended. Burial has always been the normal Christian practice, as the catacombs illustrate. By burial we place the body in the ground, as a sign of our hope in the bodily resurrection. The body disintegrates, nonetheless, so it is a sign, not a necessity, for the resurrection. God will restore our bodies to us, not the exact same carbon, oxygen and other molecules we had when we died. That is not what the doctrine is saying. Those change constantly anyway.
After the Enlightnement of the 1790s it become fashionable to cremate as a repudiation of religious doctrines. Hence the Church forbid. However, cremation was never considered wrong, per se, only as a conformity to the opinions of the world. During times of plague, bodies need to be burned to prevent the spread of disease, for example.
Today, the Church permits cremation provided the reason is not to reject the resurrection of the dead. no false reason motivates it. In such a case, the ashes may be present or not present, and both possibilities are in the funeral ritual. However, the ashes must be buried, and in blessed ground, as befitting a Christian who partook of the Eucharist during life. Your friend is under obligation to do this, as soon as possible, by means of the rite which the Church provides.
Don't Look Away
Darfur: Don't Look Away
Recent Articles:
The Edge
Lord, Please Don’t Hear This Prayer: A Reprise
A New Breed of Women Challenges Feminist Orthodoxy
Grilling the Youth Pastor
The Demonic Abortion Industry
Salvaging the Iraq War
>>See more The Edge articles
July 29, 2007
Falling refrigerators dropped from planes plus old car chassis and kegs of nails raining down on innocent civilians during aerial bombardments are cited as some of the Sudanese government's weird war tactics in the "Unity Statement" of Save Darfur, a coalition of over 100 groups including the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The bizarre bombings coupled with the more horrifying stratagems of razing villages, raping women, murdering boys, and attacking food and water supplies describe the atrocities perpetrated on villagers by government troops and their shadow military partners known as the Janjaweed. Yet again, the world watches in horror. This time Darfur approaches a tragic genocide similar to Rwanda's a decade earlier.
The quick facts: over 400,000 Darfurian civilians have died — an estimated 150,000 from violent attacks and 250,000 from disease and starvation. About 2.8 million have been displaced within Sudan, and another 250,000 have fled abroad, mainly to Chad where they face further violence. Ninety percent of the villages of Darfur's targeted ethnic groups have been destroyed. Approximately 3.6 million people are dependent on international humanitarian assistance, but a third of those in need are beyond the reach of humanitarian workers.
The bloodletting began in 2003 when rebels from Darfur challenged the government for genuine political representation, investment in their impoverished region and a share of potential oil revenues. Sudan's government, widely considered one of the most repressive regimes in the world, responded by arming and supporting the Janjaweed to fight on its side against the rebel insurgents. The Janjaweed — a colloquialism translated as "horsemen with guns," or "evil horsemen" that represents a mob of armed thugs more than a militia — has rampaged through villages and towns killing and raping. Drawn mainly from pastoral peoples of different tribes, the Janjaweed are attacking the farmers in the Darfur region to gain access to land and water for their herds. The government for its part promotes regional instability to maintain its grip on power and its eye on oil reserves.
The international community raises largely ceremonial protests while jealously guarding its individual self-interests. The world community has indeed supplied humanitarian aid, but has stopped short of exerting substantive political clout. Critics charge that although the United States has labeled the situation "genocide," behind the scenes it avoids spoiling relationships with Khartoum because it wants useful information about terrorists in the region.
China, on the other hand, derives fully 10 percent of its oil from Sudan. In terms of trade, Sudan represents China's third largest trading partner in Africa and, since the 1990s, China has sold arms and weapons to Sudan. Human rights organizations have reported sighting Chinese-made small arms weapons and military trucks used by government and Janjaweed forces in Darfur.
The enormity of the suffering in Darfur staggers the mind, but Martin Luther King Jr. warns us against "the paralysis of analysis." Save Darfur suggests a few doable steps: 1) send money to appropriate humanitarian relief organizations; 2) divest of companies investing in Sudan; and 3) petition Congress to call on China to pressure the Khartoum government to end the violence.
For people of faith, charity demands we help the victims of Darfur immediately, yet justice beckons us to step back and develop greater foresight to prevent future Darfurs. What are the humanitarian principles that should trigger economic and political responses before a crisis develops, even at the expense of our own self-interest? How can we utilize the International Criminal Court to deter genocide and war crimes? How can we stop looking away when the crisis is not in our own backyard?
Recent Articles:
The Edge
Lord, Please Don’t Hear This Prayer: A Reprise
A New Breed of Women Challenges Feminist Orthodoxy
Grilling the Youth Pastor
The Demonic Abortion Industry
Salvaging the Iraq War
>>See more The Edge articles
July 29, 2007
Falling refrigerators dropped from planes plus old car chassis and kegs of nails raining down on innocent civilians during aerial bombardments are cited as some of the Sudanese government's weird war tactics in the "Unity Statement" of Save Darfur, a coalition of over 100 groups including the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The bizarre bombings coupled with the more horrifying stratagems of razing villages, raping women, murdering boys, and attacking food and water supplies describe the atrocities perpetrated on villagers by government troops and their shadow military partners known as the Janjaweed. Yet again, the world watches in horror. This time Darfur approaches a tragic genocide similar to Rwanda's a decade earlier.
The quick facts: over 400,000 Darfurian civilians have died — an estimated 150,000 from violent attacks and 250,000 from disease and starvation. About 2.8 million have been displaced within Sudan, and another 250,000 have fled abroad, mainly to Chad where they face further violence. Ninety percent of the villages of Darfur's targeted ethnic groups have been destroyed. Approximately 3.6 million people are dependent on international humanitarian assistance, but a third of those in need are beyond the reach of humanitarian workers.
The bloodletting began in 2003 when rebels from Darfur challenged the government for genuine political representation, investment in their impoverished region and a share of potential oil revenues. Sudan's government, widely considered one of the most repressive regimes in the world, responded by arming and supporting the Janjaweed to fight on its side against the rebel insurgents. The Janjaweed — a colloquialism translated as "horsemen with guns," or "evil horsemen" that represents a mob of armed thugs more than a militia — has rampaged through villages and towns killing and raping. Drawn mainly from pastoral peoples of different tribes, the Janjaweed are attacking the farmers in the Darfur region to gain access to land and water for their herds. The government for its part promotes regional instability to maintain its grip on power and its eye on oil reserves.
The international community raises largely ceremonial protests while jealously guarding its individual self-interests. The world community has indeed supplied humanitarian aid, but has stopped short of exerting substantive political clout. Critics charge that although the United States has labeled the situation "genocide," behind the scenes it avoids spoiling relationships with Khartoum because it wants useful information about terrorists in the region.
China, on the other hand, derives fully 10 percent of its oil from Sudan. In terms of trade, Sudan represents China's third largest trading partner in Africa and, since the 1990s, China has sold arms and weapons to Sudan. Human rights organizations have reported sighting Chinese-made small arms weapons and military trucks used by government and Janjaweed forces in Darfur.
The enormity of the suffering in Darfur staggers the mind, but Martin Luther King Jr. warns us against "the paralysis of analysis." Save Darfur suggests a few doable steps: 1) send money to appropriate humanitarian relief organizations; 2) divest of companies investing in Sudan; and 3) petition Congress to call on China to pressure the Khartoum government to end the violence.
For people of faith, charity demands we help the victims of Darfur immediately, yet justice beckons us to step back and develop greater foresight to prevent future Darfurs. What are the humanitarian principles that should trigger economic and political responses before a crisis develops, even at the expense of our own self-interest? How can we utilize the International Criminal Court to deter genocide and war crimes? How can we stop looking away when the crisis is not in our own backyard?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)