Friday, May 31, 2013

Was the Baptist church kept "underground" by the Catholic Church until the Reformation?

Was the Baptist church kept "underground" by the Catholic Church until the Reformation?

Full Question

I have recently been talking, via e-mail, to a Baptist minister who claims that not only was St. Peter himself a Baptist preacher, but the original Church was Baptist. He claims that Baptists are not Protestant and never belonged to the "Roman Harlot." According to his revisionist account of history, the Baptists had been underground until the Reformation. How can I respond to this outrageous claim? I tried to show the minister that his claims contradict history, but he believes history to be "Roman propaganda."
Answer

You recognize that this minister's conclusions are not drawn from an examination of the record but from private prejudices. He knows, at least, that the Protestant churches are derived historically from the Catholic Church. His animus against the Church is so great that he refuses to have even the remotest connection with Catholicism. So what does he do? He falls back on the sorry notion that his Church wasn't founded by our Lord, but by John the Baptist. (Most Baptists don't believe this, but a few do.) But this causes a problem. In Matthew 16 our Lord says that he "will" (future tense) establish a Church, meaning that John the Baptist, by then dead, could not have established the Church of which Christ is the head. Conclusion? This Baptist minister isn't a member of the Church Christ founded and isn't a member of any church derived from it. Does this mean, by his own argument, that he isn't a Christian at all?

Answered by:  Karl Keating

Is it appropriate to empty the holy water fonts during Lent?

Is it appropriate to empty the holy water fonts during Lent?

Full Question

During Lent my parish removes all the holy water from the entrance fonts. The crucifix in the sanctuary has also been replaced with a shroud-draped cross. Is this the first step towards iconoclasm in my parish, or am I just overreacting to a legitimate tradition?
Answer

Emptying or covering holy water fonts during Lent is a modern innovation not found in the Church’s directives. Water is always kept in the holy water fonts until after Mass on Holy Thursday, when they are emptied of holy water and later refilled with the water blessed at the Easter Vigil (Paschales Solemnitatis 97).

Lent is a time when we need the spiritual benefits of holy water. Holy water is a protection from evil, a reminder of our baptism and of our commitment to live a Christ-centered life. Empty holy water fonts during Lent only deprive the faithful of spiritual benefits that are theirs by right.

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal requires a crucifix to be present during the celebration of the Mass. It may be possible to get away with replacing the main sanctuary crucifix with a cross if there is another crucifix present at least during the Mass (e.g., if an altar server or crucifer bears a crucifix into the sanctuary during the entrance). The covering of crosses is permitted during the last two weeks of Lent (approved by USCCB and Holy See, effective April 2002). The rubrics for the fifth Sunday of Lent state:

In the dioceses of the United States of America, crosses in the church may be covered from the conclusion of the Mass for Saturday of the fourth week of Lent until the end of the celebration of the Lord’s Passion on Good Friday. Images in the church may be covered from the conclusion of the Mass for Saturday of the Fourth Week of Lent until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why do we need the Church's rules when our conscience tells us what is right and wrong?


Why do we need the Church's rules when our conscience tells us what is right and wrong?

Full Question

I don't need your Church's rules. My conscience tells me what's right and what's wrong. All I have to do is follow my conscience.
Answer

Not exactly. Conscience is the faculty that warns you you’re doing something wrong or neglecting to do something you should be doing. But it doesn’t work in a vacuum. Your conscience first must be told what’s right and wrong—it starts out as an empty slate—and that’s a job for your intellect. If you learn that stealing is no sin, and if you really believe it, your conscience won’t bother you when you rob a bank. If you learn that fornication is not sinful, no warning bells will go off when you engage in it. In either case your conscience will have been formed improperly.

Although you have a duty to follow your conscience, you have a prior duty to form your conscience well. You do this through following the moral teaching of the Church, through prayer, and through close attention to Scripture. Neglect those, and you will end up with either an empty conscience, which won’t be able to guide you at all, or with a cramped conscience, which will see sin where there is no sin.

The former condition is called licentiousness, the latter scrupulosity. Those who suffer from licentiousness never seem to see any sin but the grossest (which only other people commit, of course). Those who suffer from scrupulosity see sin even in innocent things. Someone who is burdened by no guilt at all (I have met some people like that) or by much guilt (I have met that sort too) should see a good priest-confessor. These conditions are signs of spiritual malformation, and they can be corrected.

Answered by:  Karl Keating

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Are all Catholics bound to follow the new canon laws that came out a few years ago?


Are all Catholics bound to follow the new canon laws that came out a few years ago?

Answer

In January 1983, Pope John Paul II published a thoroughly revised Code of Canon Law, which became binding in the Roman Catholic Church on November 27, 1983. This 1983 Code, as it is commonly called, replaced an earlier set of canon laws, known as the 1917 Code. The passage of several eventful decades and, more important, the labors of the Second Vatican Council had rendered the 1917 Code, in some respects at least, out of date.

In October 1990, after a long consultation process, Pope John Paul II published a Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Churches; it went into effect on October 1, 1991. This Eastern Code replaced several smaller sets of Eastern canon law which were then in force.

Both the 1983 Code for Latin-rite Catholics and the 1990 Code for Eastern-rite Catholics are available to the general public in affordable vernacular translations, although Latin remains the only official language for both sets of laws.

Answered by:  Edward Peters

Was Jesus prevented from selecting women as apostles because of the Jewish blood taboo?

Was Jesus prevented from selecting women as apostles because of the Jewish blood taboo?

Full Question

A man in our parish who is pushing for women's ordination says that, because Jesus and the apostles were Jews, they did not ordain women since, because of the taboos about blood and menstruation, they would not have been able to preach in the ritually pure Temple and would have offended the Jews. He says that since such taboos do not hold today, we should ordain women.

Answer

Inform your friend that, if Jesus and the apostles were afraid of a blood taboo, they had a funny way of showing it: refusing to ordain women to celebrate the sacrament of drinking Christ’s blood. In fact, the Church’s reason for not ordaining women has nothing to do with some supposed impurity of women. Rather, women are not ordained because Christ and the apostles deliberately chose not to do so. The question is not and never has been "Are men purer than women?" In worth, man and woman are absolutely equal in the eyes of God. Rather, the question is: "What sort of symbol is a woman and what sort of symbol is a priest?" As symbols man and woman have different meanings. Women are not the appropriate image of Christ, the husband of the Church, just as men are inadequate symbols of Mary, the God-bearer.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Does the phrase "sins of the father" mean that the spiritual burdens of previous generations can be passed to succeeding ones?

Does the phrase "sins of the father" mean that the spiritual burdens of previous generations can be passed to succeeding ones?

Full Question

Does the phrase "sins of the father" mean that the spiritual or emotional burdens of previous generations, unknown to the recipient, can be passed down to succeeding generations?

Answer

No one can pass down to others their personal sins. We say that the original sin of Adam and Eve is passed down through the generations, but original sin is not the actual fault of the recipient. Rather, its effect is the privation of grace and the loss of original innocence that our first parents had.

Likewise, one can pass the effects of one’s sins through generations. Let’s say that someone is an alcoholic. His original choice to abuse alcohol could have disastrous effects on his family that can last for generations, including influencing his children and grandchildren to abuse alcohol. This is not because they are guilty of their father’s sin but because dependency on alcohol is the only way they learned to deal with problems. In that way one can say that the sin of the father has been passed down through generations. It is not the actual fault that is passed down but the consequences of the original sinful choice.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Do any other faiths believe in transubstantiation?

Do any other faiths believe in transubstantiation?

Full Question

Do any other faiths believe in transubstantiation-- Episcopalians, for example?

Answer

The Eastern non-Catholic Churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, also share the Church's faith in transubstantiation, though they do not call it that.

Typically Episcopalians do not believe in transubstantiation but in a concept of the Real Presence that would best be termed consubstantiation (though they don't use this term), since it holds that both Christ and bread and wine are present.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Friday, May 24, 2013

May I assist in the baptism of those I have helped bring into the Church?

Full Question

Under what conditions may I--a layman engaged in considerable private apologetic discussions--baptize those I am helping bring into the Church?
Answer

Under nearly none. Canon 861 states that the "ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, priest, or deacon." As a layman, you aren't any of these. Moreover, you do not claim to be "deputed for this function by the local ordinary" in case the ordinary minister of baptism happens to be impeded (also from CIC 861).

Indeed, canon 861 recognizes only one condition under which you may baptize licitly: "in case of necessity." But this is not nearly as wide-open as it might sound. "Necessity" is almost always described by canonical experts as being present chiefly in cases of mortal danger. Indeed, the Roman Ritual, in providing the text to be used for baptism conferred by non-ordained ministers, opens by noting that the so-called shortened rite is to be used only in cases of "imminent danger of death."

I won't cite here the long list of other canons likely violated by private baptism outside of danger-of-death situations (though the curious might wish to consult, among others, canons 851, 853, 856, 857, and 866). Nor will I spend much time observing that, however illicit such baptisms are, they are almost certainly valid, assuming the use of water and the Trinitarian formula.

Instead, I would simply note that, according to canon 878, "the minister of baptism, whoever it is, must inform the pastor of the parish in which the baptism was administered." The reasons for such a provision are obvious, but I would not relish being the one required to report an illicit baptism to a pastor.

Answered by:  Edward Peters

Is it true Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Michael the archangel and Jesus are the same person?

Is it true Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Michael the archangel and Jesus are the same person?
Answer

In a word, yes. The Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus was Michael the archangel prior to his coming to earth. They assert: "Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God's Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return" (Aid to Bible Understanding, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1971, 1152).

They arrive at this erroneous belief primarily through a misinterpretation of (1) Daniel 10:13, 21, where reference is made to a "great prince," Michael; and (2) First Thessalonians 4:16, where the Lord Jesus is described as descending from heaven at the sound of the archangel's voice. The JWs' own New World Translation of the Bible reads, " . . . the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice."

According to the JWs, Michael is the only angel other than Gabriel mentioned in the Bible, and Michael is the only one who is called an archangel. (The angel Raphael is mentioned in the book of Tobit, but since the Jehovah's Witnesses sprang from Protestantism, they use the Protestant canon of Scripture, which is missing this Old Testament book plus six others.)

Since the Lord Jesus descends from heaven "with an archangel's voice," the JWs understand this passage as "suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel" (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1152).

While there are several problems with this line of reasoning, two points in particular easily reveal its fallacy. First, the fact that the Lord Jesus descends "with an archangel's voice" does not automatically mean that it is his own voice spoken of. This passage simply says that an archangel's voice will accompany the Lord's descent from heaven, in the same manner that the bailiff's voice ("All rise!") accompanies the judge's entrance into the courtroom.

Second, Hebrews 1:5 says, "For example, to which of the angels did he [God] ever say: 'You are my son; I, today, I have become your father'?" (New World Translation). The answer to the question is, of course, "none."

Thus, if God never called an angel his Son, then Michael--who is an angel--cannot be the Son. The fact that Michael is an archangel does not change anything, as he is still an angel by nature. An archangel is simply a "higher order" of angel, but an angel nonetheless; "arch-" simply means "ruling" or "high ranking."

Do the Mormons forbid consumption of caffeinated soft drinks?

Do the Mormons forbid consumption of caffeinated soft drinks?

Full Question

I have a Mormon colleague who does not drink Coke or other soft drinks. He said his religion forbids it. Is this true?
Answer

Yes, by a circuitous route Mormonism has ended up forbidding all caffeinated drinks to its members, including the popular soft drinks.

On February 27, 1833, Joseph Smith reported a revelation known as "the Word of Wisdom," which is now enshrined in Mormon scripture as Doctrine and Covenants 89.

The elders of the early Mormon Church used to meet in a room over Joseph and Emma Smith's house in Kirtland, Ohio. After a good deal of pipe-smoking, they would take large chews of tobacco and spit all over the floor. Smith's wife was none too pleased with having to clean up the mess, and Smith quieted her by "inquiring of the Lord" (see Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses 12:157-158).

The resulting "revelation" allegedly was given "not by commandment or constraint," but as advice or counsel that henceforth members should not use tobacco, alcohol, or "hot drinks," interpreted as coffee and tea. Later prophets deemed this to refer also to cold coffee or tea and eventually extended to cover caffeinated colas as well.

Grains and vegetables were especially commended. According to the Word of Wisdom, meat was to be eaten sparingly, and then only in winter and times of famine. The "revelation" promised that those who followed it would "find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge."

Mormons tout the Word of Wisdom as a case of God protecting them from health problems stemming from alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine (all of which were already under attack for health reasons in 19th-century America). Yet the Mormon God was apparently not farsighted enough to inform his followers of the dangers of salt, fat, and cholesterol.

At first the "Word of Wisdom" was presented only as advice, not as having the force of law. But the "advice" from God soon took on the status of a commandment.

Observance of the Word of Wisdom was sporadic, even by Smith and other early leaders. By 1930, however, it had become more rigorously enforced. It is now enjoined "by . . . constraint" and not merely as advice. Prior to a candidate's baptism, he is interviewed by a senior missionary who asks him questions, including about his compliance with the Word of Wisdom. For example, has he refrained from all alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea? For decades now members have been asked in their yearly interviews with church authorities if they keep the Word of Wisdom. Failure to do so--except for the meat prohibition, which has silently fallen through the cracks--bars one from attending the temple and from church leadership positions.

In the Mormon view, this has grave consequences, for unless a Mormon does his "temple work" he is unable in the next life to achieve godhood. Joseph Smith may have been able to use alcohol, tobacco, and coffee, even after the "giving" of the Word of Wisdom, but no Mormon today can, on pain of becoming a second-class citizen in theafterlife.

Of course, the Mormon prohibition on certain foods is in marked contrast to the biblical and Christian view. While Paul does urge moderation (Phil 4:5), and while periodic abstinence from foods can be a healthy spiritual discipline (Dn 10:2-3), the Bible stands fast in maintaining that all foods are to be received with thanksgiving: "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tm 4:4). Specifically, as a matter of Christian liberty, Paul commands us not to have food laws imposed on us on religious grounds: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink" (Col 2:16). This includes even alcohol, so long as moderation is observed. Rather than condemn the consumption of alcohol, for example, the Bible clearly permits and even advises it (1 Tm 3:8, 5:23; Ti 2:3; 1 Pt 4:3; also Dt 14:24-26; Prv 31:6-7).

Answered by: Isaiah Bennett

Can a cardinal tell a bishop what to do?


Can a cardinal tell a bishop what to do?
Answer

No. At least, not if you are asking whether a cardinal, simply because he is a cardinal, has authority over a diocesan bishop who does not happen to be cardinal.

It might be that the cardinal holds another office of authority in the Church (say, the head of a Vatican dicastery), and in that position he might have authority to direct a bishop's action in certain matters. But it is the office held that confers that authority on the cardinal, and not the status of being a cardinal.

Cardinals enjoy a certain prestige upon being named cardinals or "princes of the Church," as they are sometimes called, and they possess certain special faculties or privileges (for example, the right to hear sacramental confessions anywhere in the world [CIC 967]). But, aside from their most famous role as sole electors of the pope (CIC 332 et alia), cardinals are not authority figures in the Church.

Answered by:  Edward Peters

Monday, May 20, 2013

Did Jesus come to help us get in touch with our own divinity?


Did Jesus come to help us get in touch with our own divinity?

Full Question

I think that our suffering is created because of our failure to fully realize our own divinity. That is why I think Jesus came-to show us how to create an alternate reality by creating an inner reality of health and power.

Answer

This is an impossible and bizarre way of misunderstanding the message of Christ. First of all, Christ never said anything about us "realizing our divinity." That is a bunch of New Age nonsense. The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that we are not God. Second, not all suffering due to a person's sin. Just ask the crucified Christ who, though he is fully God (and fully realized it), hung upon the cross not for his sin, but for ours. Just ask the blind man of whom Jesus said neither he nor his parents sinned, yet he was born blind (Jn 9:3). Or just ask Paul, who begged three times to have the thorn in his flesh removed and was told by Christ, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor 12:9).

It places a crushing burden on the sick and suffering to say, "Just snap out of it. You're only hurting because you have no faith." Worse still, it places the soul of one who says such things in jeopardy, for we can easily find ourselves numbered among those to whom Christ says, "Woe to you! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers!" (Lk 11:46).

Should the Church be concerned about returning to abstinence on Fridays instead of helping people in need?


Should the Church be concerned about returning to abstinence on Fridays instead of helping people in need?

Full Question

I received a brochure in my church bulletin regarding the bishops' upcoming meeting. It was from a group of Catholics that wanted to urge the bishops to reinstate the practice of meatless Fridays. Why are we retreating into the past? There are many areas we could put this kind of energy to better use. How about the poor and the homeless? The shut-ins? The people of Haiti? How did this become an issue within the Church?

Answer

The purpose of the proposal to return to meatless Fridays is to do so as an act of penance for having allowed the culture of death to take over America, where between one and two million children are killed every year by abortion, where violence on the streets is rampant, and where we are on the verge of legalizing euthanasia.

The purpose of the restoration of the discipline would be to do penance in hopes that God will help us change our society and push back the culture of death. It also will serve to raise people's consciousness about the need to combat the culture of death rather than sitting back and doing nothing.

You are obviously in favor of helping people, and the goal of the restoration would be to help people by working to turn America back to the culture of life, where people are cherished and protected instead of callously killed whenever they are "inconvenient."

We should avoid being guilty of chronological snobbery in viewing the present as automatically superior to the past. We should have no fear of "retreating into the past" with our practices if doing so would help solve problems in the present.

Sociological studies have shown that the fewer demands a church makes of its members, the weaker their faith becomes, and eventually they end up doing nothing. Right now, the Church in America expects almost nothing of its members, and there has been a corresponding decline in activity on the part of the laity. If we want to see the homeless and shut-ins helped, nothing will do that better than helping Catholics builds their devotional lives, such as reawakening them to the fact that Friday is a day of penance (something which is true even now; the form of penance to be done being up to the individual).

Does the Bible teach that God rewards good deeds in heaven, or is heaven itself the reward?


Does the Bible teach that God rewards good deeds in heaven, or is heaven itself the reward?

Full Question

I know there are Bible verses that teach that God "rewards" believers for their good deeds in the next life, but doesn't this refer to some sort of special gifts or honor in heaven and not to heaven itself? Isn't it true that eternal life is a gift of grace and our good deeds cannot in any way contribute to it?

Answer

It is true that there are rewards above and beyond eternal life and that eternal life is a gift of grace, but Scripture plainly teaches that eternal life itself is a reward or fruit of our good deeds.

One passage which spells this out is Galatians 6:7-10: "Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. So let us not grow weary in well-doing [Gk, "working good"], for in due season we will reap, if we do not lose heart. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good [Gk, "work good"] to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."

In this passage Paul states that "eternal life"--not just unspecified "rewards"--is the harvest "reaped" as a result of "sowing to the Spirit" through "well-doing" or "doing good to all men."

One might press the analogy by pointing out that the harvest is still a "gift" of God, since the act of sowing does not make the seed alive or cause it to grow. The act of sowing undeniably leads to the harvest, and the same is true of our good deeds and eternal life.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Did the Church declare that St. Christopher is a myth?

Did the Church declare that St. Christopher is a myth?

Full Question

I heard that the Church has decided that St. Christopher never existed. Is that true, and how does it square with canonizations of saints being infallible?

Answered by Catholic Answers Staff

First of all, it's not true. The Church never issued any kind of decree saying that Christopher never existed. Furthermore, competent hagiographers, including Protestant ones, tell us that there was a Christopher, but we just don't know as much about him as some of the legends that grew up around him would suggest.

Second, it would not matter even if there were no Christopher. Papal infallibility applies only to those canonizations that a pope has done. Christopher was recognized as a saint in the period before popes became involved in the process, meaning his canonization is not subject to papal infallibility.

The confusion over Christopher's status comes from the 1969 reform of the Roman Calendar. This reform had been mandated by Vatican II in Sacrosanctum Concilium, its constitution on the liturgy. Because the Roman Calendar was getting crowded, especially with saints with local rather than universal followings, the Council declared: "Lest the feasts of the saints take precedence over the feasts commemorating the very mysteries of salvation, many of them should be left to be celebrated by a particular Church or nation or religious family; those only should be extended to the universal Church that commemorate saints of truly universal significance" (SC 111).

A revision of the Calendar was undertaken after the Council, and on February 14, 1969, Pope Paul VI issued a motu proprio with the unwieldy title "Approval of the Genera Norms for the Liturgical Year and the New General Roman Calendar" (AGN). In this document, which is found in standard sacramentaries, the Pope explained:

With the passage of centuries, it must be admitted, the faithful have become accustomed to so many special religious devotions that the principal mysteries of the redemption have lost their proper place. This was partly due to the increased number of vigils, holy days, and octaves, partly to the gradual overlapping of various seasons in the liturgical year.

The purpose of the reordering of the liturgical year and of the norms accomplishing its reform, therefore, is that through faith, hope, and love the faithful may share more deeply in the whole mystery of Christ as it unfolds throughout the year. (AGN 1)

To put [the] decrees of the Council into effect, the names of some saints have been deleted from the General Calendar, and permission was granted to restore the memorials and veneration of other saints in those areas with which they have been traditionally associated. The removal of certain lesser-known saints from the Roman Calendar has allowed the addition of the names of martyrs from regions where the Gospel spread later in history. (AGN 2)

In the Calendar that this document serves to implement, Christopher's name is omitted. One can question whether Christopher should have omitted. The devotions to him were broad-based enough that they would seem to make him a saint of "universal significance." Nevertheless, nowhere in this reform is it implied that he did not exist or that he was not a saint.

How can I talk my friend out of joining a schismatic branch of Catholicism?

How can I talk my friend out of joining a schismatic branch of Catholicism?

Full Question

I have a friend who is flirting with a radical form of Catholic traditionalism. Sometimes he talks about modernist heretics taking over the magisterium and betraying Catholic tradition. He has canned arguments about things like religious freedom and dialogue, universalism, liturgical norms, and so forth. He says he can't be in schism since he's just clinging to Catholic tradition. What can I say to him?

Answered by Catholic Answers Staff

Point out that his claim about "clinging to tradition" is precisely what is claimed by all schismatics--Orthodox, Donatists, even, in their own way, Protestants, who say they believe only what was "handed down" by the apostles in Scripture.

Everyone says that what he is clinging to (as against Rome) is "tradition." But when you ask these people how they know that their views rather than Rome's represent the true tradition, they all fall back on private judgment: "Look how this Romanist practice or decree contradicts this earlier council or text of Scripture! Clearly our view--not Rome's--represents tradition (or biblical teaching)."

In practice, schismatics do not receive their church's teaching on their church's authority; they accept their church's authority because their church agrees with their preferred beliefs. They don't accept the message at the word of the messenger; they choose the messenger based on the message.

Ask your friend who is the arbiter of what does or does not constitute tradition: the individual or the magisterium? Either the Church is our judge or we are its judge. Either we judge our ideas by the teaching of the Church or we judge the teaching of the Church by our ideas. And that includes our ideas about tradition.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

What are Mass cards?

What are Mass cards?


Full Question

Would you be able to tell me what Mass cards are? Also, why do we preface each Mass with "This Mass is being offered in memory of so-and-so" ?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Mass cards are sent to people to inform them that a Mass will be said for their intentions (prayer concerns).

If a Mass is being celebrated for a specific individual--either for the intentions of a living person or for the repose of the soul of a person who has died--it is often announced at the beginning of the Mass or at another suitable point.

Why was John Paul II considered a "great" pope?

Why was John Paul II considered a "great" pope?


Full Question

My wife asked me what Pope John Paul II has done specifically that makes him so great. Your help is appreciated because as my evangelizing about the faith is starting to make headway, and an intelligent answer will sway her.


Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

Among the things that are most commonly cited in praise of John Paul II:

1. He has provided an extraordinarily large body of orthodox, articulate, intellectually rigorous teaching in his encyclicals and other documents.

2. He helped reestablish stability in many Catholic circles during the turbulence following Vatican II. (There is generally a period of turbulence following each ecumenical council as its directives are implemented.)

3. He promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law (for the Western rite) and the 1990 Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches (for the Eastern rites), the latter being the first time that the Eastern Catholic churches have had a complete code of canon law.

4. He promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first catechism of its kind since the Roman Catechism in the 1500s.

5. He personally helped bring about the fall of Communism and the destruction of the Iron Curtain.

6. He has served as a staunch pro-life, pro-family advocate--among other ways, by standing up to attempts made at the Beijing Women's Conference and the Cairo Population Conference (both by the United Nations) to force anti-family, anti-child policies on the nations of the world.

7. He is remarkably holy and a man of deep prayer who sets a great example for others.

Why aren't parishes more careful about encouraging Catholics to send their children to Protestant vacation Bible schools?


Why aren't parishes more careful about encouraging Catholics to send their children to Protestant vacation Bible schools?

Full Question

I've had some "issues" with the Church, and I can trace them back to the Protestant vacation Bible schools that we went to as children. It didn't seem serious at the time, but it rewally is. Why do you think parishes don't pay much attention to the dangers from Protestant churches?


Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

It is unfortunate, but individuals at parishes often do not realize the seriousness of the problem of anti-Catholicism in this country. This may be due to the fact that many parish officials travel in mostly Catholic circles and do not often encounter anti-Catholicism in daily life. It may also be that anti-Catholics tend to tone down their rhetoric when they're talking to a priest. Because of their background, parish workers may see through anti-Catholic arguments more quickly or take them less seriously. Whatever the causes, many parish officials seem to be less aware than they could be of the extent to which ordinary lay people encounter anti-Catholicism and how much it disturbs them. It is an issue on which greater awareness would benefit many priests, deacons, directors of religious education, and other parish workers.

Why use the word "apologetic" if you aren't apologizing for anything?

Why use the word "apologetic" if you aren't apologizing for anything?


Full Question

Is there some reason why you have to use the word "apologetics" to describe defending the faith, when our English language has thousands of other words that don't sound like you're sorry for something? I'm a Catholic defender, not an apologist.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

One can certainly sympathize with your reaction. It's a tricky call sometimes when trying to figure out whether to fish or cut bait on using a particular term. If there's no good synonym, sometimes you have to stick with what you have and try to popularize an awareness of what it does signify.

In the present environment, the alternatives to apologist are problematic. Defender makes it sound like you have a chip on your shoulder. Controversialist makes you sound quarrelsome. And evidencer isn't a real word.

Fortunately, the term apologetics seems to be gaining in popular currency. In the last couple of years it has been cropping up--of all places--on political commentary shows, where it is being used in a secular context (e.g., calling someone an apologist for thus-and-such political position). Perhaps if people learn what it means in a secular context, they'll be more prepared when they encounter it in a religious one.

What should we do about those who receive the Eucharist without believing in it?

What should we do about those who receive the Eucharist without believing in it?


Full Question

If it is a sacrilege to receive Communion without believing, what are we to do about friends and relatives who receive as a ritual without regard for the true meaning of the Eucharist? What would be the best way to bring this up? Is it uncharitable to assume that they are sinning? There are so many communicants who don't go to confession, for example, that I wonder if they are somehow protected from the sin of sacrilege by ignorance.


Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

It is objectively sinful to receive Communion without believing that one is really, truly, and substantially receiving Christ. However, those who are innocently ignorant of this fact will not be held accountable for it. Those who are culpably ignorant, on the other hand, are sinning in such a way that they are liable to judgment. They are committing either a venial or a mortal sin depending on the level of culpability for their disbelief.

It is uncharitable to assume that people are sinning. Paul tells us to reckon that others are better than ourselves (Phil 2:3). A good way to bring the subject up would be to talk with people about how much Christ's Presence in the Eucharist means to you and what a profound and wonderful teaching of the faith it is.

What difference does it make what religion you are, as long as you live like Christ?

What difference does it make what religion you are, as long as you live like Christ?


Full Question

If Christ is the way to salvation, why does it matter what religion you are as long as you live as Christ did? In other words, why would God condemn someone who does everything Jesus called him to do just because he worships differently?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

First, nobody lives as Christ did. Christ was sinless; we are sinners. That's the point behind why he came--to save us from our sins.

If someone does everything Jesus calls him to do, then he will--among other things--believe in Jesus and join his Church. Christ set up one Church for his believers to join. In Matthew 16:18, he says "I will build my Church," not "I will build my churches."

Of course, if you sincerely don't know that Jesus said to believe in him and join his Church, then God will not hold you accountable for failing to do so. However, if you should know or do know that Jesus commanded these things and yet you refuse to do them, then you are not living in accord with the gospel and will not receive its benefit of salvation.

Worship and religious affiliation are part of what Jesus commanded his followers, and so what religion you belong to does matter.

Does the Catholic Church in Haiti approve of voodoo?


Does the Catholic Church in Haiti approve of voodoo?

Full Question

I was told by my father-in-law, who is Methodist, that their missionaries in Haiti are reporting that the Catholic Church there condones the practice of voodoo. True?


Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Voodoo is a non-Christian religion that is incompatible with the Catholic faith, and the Catholic Church in Haiti does not tolerate voodoo.

It is no more fair for a Protestant missionary to go to Haiti and return declaring that the Catholic Church in Haiti condones voodoo than it would be for a Catholic missionary from Haiti to come to the U.S. and return declaring that the Protestant churches in America condone the New Age movement.

How can I defend pilgrimages to non-Catholics?


How can I defend pilgrimages to non-Catholics?

Full Question

I have some Protestant friends who are opposed to the idea of pilgrimages. They reproached me, saying I didn't have to go far to be with God. What should I do or say to back up my faith?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

While it is true that God can be worshiped from anywhere, it is also true that he manifests his presence in a special way in certain places. It is profitable to visit these places as a way of signifying one's desire to commemorate what God has done and to draw closer to him in one's heart.

The custom of setting up memorials at places where God has specially manifested his presence goes back to the book of Genesis. Jacob set up a stone memorial of God's appearance to him in a dream at the place that came to be known as Beth-EI ("House of God"). This is just one example of many. The greatest Old Testament example of a memorial of God's presence is the Temple in Jerusalem.

After memorials of God's presence and deeds are established, we see them being visited by God's people. Indeed, such visits could even be required. Thus, for example, all the men of ancient Israel were required as part of their religious duties to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year for certain feasts.

While we are no longer under the Old Testament Law and are not required to go on pilgrimages, human nature has not changed. The same impulse that made pilgrimages profitable for people then still operates in our hearts today, for it was God who built the impulse into our hearts.

Ask your friends this: "If you could visit the Tomb of Christ or visit Golgotha, would you? Would it be spiritually profitable for you to see these places and honor God's saving deeds? Would you feel closer to God as a result?" If they answer yes, then they have just endorsed the idea of a pilgrimage. If they say no, something is wrong in their hearts.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Is it appropriate to empty the holy water fonts during Lent?


Is it appropriate to empty the holy water fonts during Lent?


Full Question

During Lent my parish removes all the holy water from the entrance fonts. The crucifix in the sanctuary has also been replaced with a shroud-draped cross. Is this the first step towards iconoclasm in my parish, or am I just overreacting to a legitimate tradition?

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff 

Emptying or covering holy water fonts during Lent is a modern innovation not found in the Church’s directives. Water is always kept in the holy water fonts until after Mass on Holy Thursday, when they are emptied of holy water and later refilled with the water blessed at the Easter Vigil (Paschales Solemnitatis 97).

Lent is a time when we need the spiritual benefits of holy water. Holy water is a protection from evil, a reminder of our baptism and of our commitment to live a Christ-centered life. Empty holy water fonts during Lent only deprive the faithful of spiritual benefits that are theirs by right.

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal requires a crucifix to be present during the celebration of the Mass. It may be possible to get away with replacing the main sanctuary crucifix with a cross if there is another crucifix present at least during the Mass (e.g., if an altar server or crucifer bears a crucifix into the sanctuary during the entrance). The covering of crosses is permitted during the last two weeks of Lent (approved by USCCB and Holy See, effective April 2002). The rubrics for the fifth Sunday of Lent state:

In the dioceses of the United States of America, crosses in the church may be covered from the conclusion of the Mass for Saturday of the fourth week of Lent until the end of the celebration of the Lord’s Passion on Good Friday. Images in the church may be covered from the conclusion of the Mass for Saturday of the Fourth Week of Lent until the beginning of the Easter Vigil.

Is it OK to pray to Old Testament heroes the same way we pray to Christian saints?



Is it OK to pray to Old Testament heroes the same way we pray to Christian saints?

Full Question

Can Catholics pray to Old Testament heroes like Abraham, Moses, David, and Elijah as one would pray to Christian saints like Peter or Francis?



Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Certainly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us, "The patriarchs, prophets, and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions" (CCC 61). Statues of such Old Testament figures as Moses, David, and Elijah can be found in some Catholic churches, a reminder to ask the intercessions of these saints.

Many Old Testament saints offer compelling examples of faith, perseverance, and heroic virtue and are as worthy of our devotion and prayers as the angels named in the Old Testament—Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.

A prayer called the Litany to Old Testament Saints can be found online; it includes invocations of holy patriarchs, kings, women, prophets, and martyrs, both as individuals (e.g., Abraham, David, Sarah, Elijah, Abel) and as groups.

Of course, whether praying to Old Testament saints or Christian saints, we are always asking their intercession, not praying to them as we do to God.

Why do some Protestant denominations not consider Catholics to be Christians, and how do you refute them?



Why do some Protestant denominations not consider Catholics to be Christians, and how do you refute them?

Full Question

Why do some Protestant denominations not consider Catholics to be Christians? How do you refute someone who tells you this?



Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

The confusion is cased by the fact that different groups define the term Christian differently. A Catholic would define a Christian as anyone who professes faith in Christ and who has been validly baptized (water baptism).

Many Protestants do not use the term Christian in this way. Different denominations have different criteria for determining who is a Christian—e.g., Christians are those who have "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior" or those who profess to be saved "by faith alone." Since Catholics don’t generally use this language, they classify Catholics as non-Christians (though many are willing to concede that some Catholics are Christians even though they don’t use this language).

For those who approach you with this issue, point out several things to them: (1) Catholics are Christians; (2) the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus started and which he said would never pass away (Mt 16:18); (3) when Scripture speaks of Christians it speaks of every church member as a Christian, no matter what his "walk with God" may be like; and (4) Christians throughout history have always recognized baptism as the method by which one becomes a Christian. It was not until after the Protestant Reformation was underway that people denied this.

Is it proper to wear a cross or must it be a crucifix?


Is it proper to wear a cross or must it be a crucifix?


Full Question

What is the proper crucifix to have or to wear? I was told that a cross is not the same as a crucifix. I was told also that a cross represents that Jesus has risen and is proper to wear.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Some Protestants suggest that because Catholics often depict Jesus on the cross it means that they believe he has not risen. This is, of course, nonsense. Catholics are adamant about the Resurrection of Christ. That’s why it is written into the creed that we say every Sunday.

Depicting the cross bare is not an especially good symbol of the resurrection since the cross probably never stood bare. When Jesus was taken down from it, the crossbeam that his arms were nailed to was probably removed. It is doubtful that after he rose from the dead anyone bothered putting the crossbeam back up.

From a Catholic perspective there is little theological significance for items of personal jewelry whether or not the cross is bare. In a wide variety of art forms, Christians throughout the ages have depicted both Jesus on the cross and the bare cross depending not on theological considerations but on other factors, such as whether the medium they were working in could accommodate the human form easily and whether they had the artistic skill or craftsmanship to fashion a corpus.

Traditionally there has been a preference for showing the corpus when possible, as this is a more vivid reminder of the crucifixion (the crucifixion is the whole point of a cross, after all). However, this is not a theological mandate.

Bottom line: Wear whichever one you prefer. (Though know that most people will identify you as a Catholic if you wear one with a corpus.)



23-DEC-'24, Monday of the Fourth Week of Advent

Monday of the Fourth Week of Advent Lectionary: 199 Reading 1 Malachi 3:1-4, 23-24 Thus says the Lord GOD: Lo, I am sending my messenger to ...