Were the books of the Hebrew canon established 50 years before Christ?

Were the books of the Hebrew canon established 50 years before Christ?

Full Question

An anti-Catholic I heard said we don't need the Church to let us know what belongs in the canon of Scripture because a Jewish believer 50 years before Christ knew that books like Isaiah and Jeremiah were in the canon even without an infallible source to tell him.

Answer

No, he didn't. A Jewish believer 50 years before Christ didn't infallibly know which books belong in the Bible unless he had access to an infallible source.

In his day this would have been a prophet or an inquiry of the Lord via the high priest's Urim and Thummim. They needed an infallible source to know with certainty which books belonged in Scripture then, just as we do now.

Your anti-Catholic friend is ducking the question of how he knows which books belong in Scripture by trying to shift the burden of proof onto you. Don't let him get away with it.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Are these Messianic Jewish baptisms valid?

Are these Messianic Jewish baptisms valid?

Full Question

Some Messianic Jewish congregations baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Ruach ha-Kodesh." Are these baptisms valid?

Answer

They probably are. Ruach ha-Kodesh is simply the Hebrew phrase for "the Holy Spirit" (Ruach = Spirit, ha-Kodesh = the Holy).

We already know that there is some flexibility in the translations of the terms used to refer to the Persons of the Trinity. For example, in English the Holy Spirit is often referred to as "the Holy Ghost" (especially in older works or in Traditional circles). It is valid to baptize using the term "Ghost" instead of "Spirit."

In Messianic Jewish congregations, a special sub-dialect of English is used in which Yiddish and Hebrew loan words are used as part of English speech. Thus if you were to attend a Messianic Jewish service, you probably would hear a sermon in English on Yeshua ha-Mashiach, which is Hebrew for "Jesus Christ."

As part of the daily speech they have been taught to use in church, many Messianic Jews naturally use Yeshua ha-Mashiach to refer to Jesus Christ and Ruach ha-Kodesh to refer to the Holy Spirit. It is part of their sub-dialect, just as "Holy Ghost" is part of a more traditional sub-dialect of ecclesiastical English and "Holy Spirit" is the mainstream usage within ecclesiastical English.

One can argue that Ruach ha-Kodesh is simply a term in an English sub-dialect, just as "Holy Ghost" is. English is a composite language made up of loan words from other languages in the first place. In fact, "Ghost" is from Old High German, while "Spirit" is a loan word from Latin, and "baptize" is itself a loan word from Greek.

Thus these baptisms are probably valid, even though, in the case of a Messianic Jew who becomes Catholic, a conditional baptism might be in order, just to make sure.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why doesn't the Greek word for "priest" in the Letter to the Romans appear in the Bible more often?

Why doesn't the Greek word for "priest" in the Letter to the Romans appear in the Bible more often?

Full Question

In your two-tape set "The Priesthood Debate," James Akin points out that Romans 15:16 applies the Greek term for priest (hiereus) to New Testament ministers, who are said to have "priestly duties." Why isn't this word applied to them more often in the Bible?

Answer

For the same reason it isn't applied more often to Jesus, the New Testament high priest--because most of these priests, like Jesus, were not from the tribe of Levi. In Jewish circles, the idea of a priest not being from Levi was absurd. Everyone knew God had given the priesthood to Aaron and his descendants (Ex 28:1, cf. Nm 16-17).

Most Christian presbyter-priests were not from Levi, much less the Aaronic line, and it would have posed apologetic difficulties for Christians in Jewish communities to refer to their ministers as "priests." An ordinary, first-century Jew would snort at that idea, saying, "Oh, yeah. Your ministers are priests. They aren't even Levites!"

The early Christians faced the same problem when it came to the fact that Jesus is the New Testament high priest. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi. A first-century Jew would scoff at that idea, too.

So when the Church was still largely Jewish, the priesthood of Jesus and his ministers was kept in the background, and the Greek word for "priest" was used for them only rarely. In that way non-Christian Jews would not automatically reject Christianity and could become familiar with it before being hit with the idea of non-Levitical priests.

Thus there is only one book--Hebrews--which directly refers to Jesus as a priest and only one book--Romans--which directly refers to his ministers as priests. Other books of the New Testament show Jesus and the presbyters doing jobs only priests can do, but the term hiereus is not used for them.

When Jesus' priesthood is directly stated, the author must go to great pains to justify the idea to Jews. Non-Christian Jews were arguing that Christianity could not possibly be true because Jesus could not be the high priest of the New Covenant. He was from the wrong tribe: He was not a Levite. To reclaim his Hebrew Christian readers, who were in danger of going back to Judaism, the author of Hebrews had to show that this fact did not matter.

That is the basic function of Hebrews chapter 7. It is okay for Jesus to be a high priest because he was not a priest of the order of Aaron but of the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20), an order which was older than the Aaronic one (7:1), which did not require a special genealogy (7:3), which was superior to the Aaronic order (7:4-10), which was prophesied to arise again one day (7:11, cf. Ps. 110:4), and which required "a change in the law as well ... For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests" (7:12-14).

The writer wanted to keep his readers from going back to Judaism, and so he had to prove that "it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath [Ps. 110:4], which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever" (7:26, 28).

Once the Church ceased to be mostly Jewish, this was no longer an apologetic problem. Gentiles did not have the idea that priests had to be from the tribe of Levi, so they could convert without this being an issue. Thus, after the Church became mostly Gentile, the priesthood of Christ and his ministers became more prominent.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Must I go through RCIA to join the Church if I am already baptized?

Must I go through RCIA to join the Church if I am already baptized?

Full Question

I was baptized a Catholic but not raised in the Church. I have been studying Catholic theology intensely and very much want to become a practicing Catholic. Do I need to go through the whole RCIA process before I can begin receiving the sacraments and practicing the faith into which I was born?

Answer

No, you do not. RCIA--the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults--is for those who have never been initiated into the Catholic Church. You have received your basic initiation by virtue of your Catholic baptism. What you need now is to learn the Church's teachings (which you are already doing) and make your first confession and First Communion and to be confirmed.

Under canon law, you as an adult do not need to undergo formal instruction in order to make your first confession or First Communion; informal instruction is sufficient. In fact, "Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to whose who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them" (CIC 843).

You must know, understand, and accept the Church's teachings concerning confession and the Holy Eucharist. The person who teaches these to you does not need to be a priest or catechist, just someone who knows and will give you the straight story concerning the Church's teachings on these sacraments as found, for example, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see numbers 1322-1498 in the Catechism, about 40 pages of material to study).

Once you understand and accept these teachings, you can go to confession--anonymously if you wish--and explain to the priest that you were raised outside the Church and that this is your first confession. You will need to confess all the post-baptismal mortal sins that you can remember, indicating to the degree possible the number of times or the frequency with which these were committed. This needs to be done before going to First Communion.

Because you will have learned and accepted the Church's teaching concerning the Eucharist, you can begin going to Communion like any other Catholic. No special permission is necessary. "Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to Holy Communion" (CIC 912). Basically, those forbidden by law are children who are too young, uninstructed, or improperly disposed (CIC 913-4), people under a penalty of excommunication or interdict (CIC 915), those who have committed a mortal sin since their last confession (CIC 916), those who have already received the Eucharist that day (unless they take an active part in a second Mass or if special circumstances apply [CIC 918, 921:2]), and those who have not fasted for an hour before going to Communion (CIC 919).

To receive confirmation, which you should do as soon as possible (CIC 890-1), you will need more instruction: "Apart from the danger of death, to receive confirmation lawfully a person who has the use of reason must be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises" (CIC 889:2). For this instruction your parish may put you in an RCIA class for the sake of convenience.

You do not need to receive confirmation before beginning to go to confession and beginning to receive the Eucharist. Nothing in canon law requires that, and you may begin practicing those parts of a Catholic's sacramental life as soon as you have understood and accepted the Church's teachings concerning them.

Welcome back!

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What can I do about my invalid marriage?

What can I do about my invalid marriage?

Full Question

I am a Catholic who was married outside the Church without a dispensation, so my marriage is invalid before God--a fact I very much want to correct. My non-Catholic spouse is unwilling to be married in the Catholic Church. Is there anything I can do?

Answer

Assuming that there is nothing like a previous, putative marriage that needs to be taken care of first (through a decree of nullity), and assuming that you both still have valid matrimonial consent, your marriage can be rendered valid using a canon law procedure known as radical sanation.

This term comes from the Latin phrase sanatio in radice, meaning "healing in the root." According to the Code of Canon Law, "The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent" (CIC 1161:1). This means you do not have to go through a new marriage ceremony.

For a radical sanation to take place, several conditions must apply. First and most basically, "A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties intend to persevere in conjugal life" (CIC 1161:3). If there is evidence the one or both of the parties intends anything less than a permanent marriage, radical sanation is ruled out.

Second, "A marriage cannot be radically sanated if consent is lacking in either or both of the parties" (CIC 1162:1). You and your spouse must have valid consent regarding your marriage, and this consent must exist simultaneously in the two of you. At some point you must have consented freely to the marriage in a way that did not exclude any of the essential properties of marriage (monogamy, fidelity, permanence, and openness to children). This consent is presumed to have been given in your marriage ceremony outside the Church unless there is evidence otherwise (CIC 1107), and the consent is presumed to exist at the present unless one party has indicated otherwise.

Third, any impediments that exist must be taken care of. Many of these can be resolved as part of the radical sanation itself. In general, "A marriage which is invalid due to an impediment or due to defect of legitimate form can be sanated provided the consent of each party continues to exist" (CIC 1163:1). This would apply in your case because your marriage was invalid due to a defect of form (you failed to get a dispensation for a marriage ceremony outside the Church).

Some impediments cannot be dispensed in this manner: "A marriage which is invalid due to an impediment of the natural law or of divine positive law can be sanated only after the impediment has ceased to exist" (CIC 1163:2). Examples of such impediments include having a previous marriage bond or total, permanent impotence (which is different from sterility). The first example can cease to exist if the previous spouse is dead or if one has obtained a decree of nullity to show that there never was a valid marriage in the first place.

If your spouse would have an extremely bad reaction to the sanation procedure, then, for the sake of domestic peace, he would not need to be told about it: "A sanation can be granted validly even when one or both of the parties are unaware of it, but it is not to be granted except for serious reason" (CIC 1164). The extreme reaction of your spouse could count as the serious reason needed for this.

Normally your local bishop would be the one granting the sanation: "In individual cases radical sanation can be granted by the diocesan bishop, even if several reasons for nullity exist in the same marriage, provided the conditions mentioned in canon 1125 concerning the sanation of a mixed marriage are fulfilled" (CIC 1165:2).

Chief among the latter is the condition that "the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church" (CIC 1125). In other words, you must promise to remain a Catholic and to do what you can to see that your children will be Catholics.

Call your parish priest or the marriage tribunal at your diocese to investigate obtaining a radical sanation.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does the Sunday observance begin on Saturday evening

Does the Sunday observance begin on Saturday evening, in imitation of the Jewish sabbath?

Full Question

In ancient Judaism the sabbath was from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. If Sunday is the Christian sabbath, should we celebrate it from sundown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday? Is this why attending an anticipatory Mass on Saturday evening fulfills our Sunday obligation?

Answer

The Sunday obligation applies to the modern Sunday, reckoned from midnight to midnight. This was established by canon 1246 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

The ancient Jews reckoned days from sundown to sundown, meaning that for them the first part of the day was evening. This is why Genesis 1 says things like, "And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day" (Gn 1:5). The same custom was observed by the ancient Phoenicians, Athenians, Arabs, Germans, and Gauls. Today Jews and other groups who keep the sabbath, such as the Seventh-day Adventists, continue to celebrate it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. This way of reckoning time was not the only one in the ancient world. For example, the Romans reckoned days from midnight to midnight--the system we use today.

The option of attending an anticipatory Mass on Saturday evening has nothing to do with the fact the sabbath began at sundown. This provision was originally introduced for Catholics who had to miss Sunday Mass for a good reason (for example, because they had to work). The 1983 Code of Canon Law simply states: "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day" (can. 1248, 1).

Sunday is often spoken of as "the Christian sabbath," but this is not a technical description. Sunday is not a strict replacement for the sabbath (which has been abolished), but a day the Church instituted to fulfill a parallel function. Thus Ignatius of Antioch, the earliest Church Father to address this question, states that Christian converts "have given up keeping the sabbath and now order their lives by the Lord's Day instead, the day when life first dawned for us, thanks to him [Christ] and his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 9 [A.D. 107]).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why do the U.S. bishops allow Dignity to propagate its teachings?

Why do the U.S. bishops allow Dignity to propagate its teachings within numerous Catholic parishes?

Full Question

Why do the U.S. bishops allow Dignity, a gay organization, to propagate its teachings within numerous Catholic parishes? I thought that Catholic bishops were supposed to follow the directives of the pope regarding teachings related to sexual morality?

Answer

I have no idea (nor does anyone else I know who is in a position to state the case with any authority) why many bishops permit such activities in their dioceses, activities in direct conflict with and contrary to Catholic teachings on morals, as expressed in directives from the pope and the Sacred Congregations at the Vatican. Nor will I attempt to guess at the motives.

It might be instructive to write the specific bishops involved and ask them the reasons these things are permitted in their dioceses and under their aegis. Of course bishops are supposed to follow the directives of the Holy Father, but we all know this isn’t always the case in real life. Perhaps we need to do more deliberate praying and intentional sacrifice that our bishops once again find the courage and faith to lead their flocks and become faithful shepherds once again.

Editor’s note: Homosexual Catholics who wish to live in obedience to the Church’s moral teaching will find support in Courage, which has many local chapters. Contact them at http://couragerc.net.

Answered by: Fr. Hal Stockert

What's your take on the matter — are things getting better or worse in seminaries?

What's your take on the matter — are things getting better or worse in seminaries?

Full Question

What's your take on the matter — are things getting better or worse in seminaries?

Answer

I don’t have first-hand knowledge of enough seminaries to make a blanket statement, but the anecdotal evidence I have or that I have heard about leads me to think that the silly season is over. In April, for example, I spoke at a major seminary on the West Coast. I was impressed by the caliber of the students and by their attentiveness. My lecture included pointed opinions regarding things such as the dating of the books of the New Testament (I think they all were written prior to A.D. 70), Markan priority (unlikely to be true), and the existence of Q (purely legendary). The seminarians—and even some of the faculty—seemed to welcome the alternative viewpoint. Such a response, when coupled with the reverently celebrated (and well sung!) seminary Mass, confirms my sense that things are looking up.

Answered by:  Karl Keating

Do these converts need to have their marriage convalidated?

Do these converts need to have their marriage convalidated?

Full Question

Two of my friends are taking instructions to come into the Church. They are getting conflicting opinions as to whether they will need to "convalidate" their marriage after they become Catholic. Both of them are baptized Protestants, and both were previously married to other Protestants before getting divorces and marrying each other. They have applied for annulments of their earlier marriages. Assuming both annulment petitions are granted, will they still need to have their marriage to each other blessed in the Church?

Answer

I’m not surprised your friends are getting conflicting opinions on this question, because even many pastors, let alone other parish staffers, don’t understand Church law on this point. The confusion arises because the rules in these cases seem to differ for parties who are Catholic from those which apply to parties who are not.

In brief, if the facts are as you describe them, your friends will not need to have their marriage to each other convalidated by Church authorities upon becoming Catholic. As soon as both annulment petitions are formally granted (assuming this is done and assuming there were no other unusual factors present—your letter suggests none), your friends’ marriage to each other will automatically be recognized by the Church and will be presumed to be both valid and sacramental.

Here’s why: At the time your friends married each other, the only canonical obstacle to their wedding was ligamen, the fact of their prior marriage bonds (canon 1085). But if annulments are declared for both prior marriages, that means that, at the time of their marriage to each other, your friends were canonically free to contract marriage, and the manner in which they chose to marry would have been lawful for them at the time. Thus, their second marriage could be recognized without any further qualifications.

How would this question differ for Catholics, thus giving rise to the confusion? Well, if two Catholics, previously married to others and subsequently divorced, sought to marry in the Church, virtually any priest would have told them "No way, not without an annulment" (canon 1085 again). Unfortunately, such Catholics not infrequently then turn to civil magistrates for their wedding. That kind of wedding ceremony would be a violation of the requirement of canonical form which binds most Catholics (canons 1108 and 1117), meaning that, without an annulment followed by "convalidation" (canon 1160), such a second marriage would not be recognized in the Church.

Answered by:  Edward Peters

Is it wrong to study the I Ching?

Is it wrong to study the I Ching?

Full Question

I can understand the Church’s condemnation of fortune-telling and astrology, but isn’t the I Ching all right? I mean, it’s a Taoist holy book.

Answer

While study of Taoism or other religions can be worthwhile, one must draw the line at practicing them, especially when such practice directly violates Church teaching. And divination, such as using the I Ching as an oracle, is always forbidden.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead, or other practices falsely supposed to ‘unveil’ the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums ["channelers"] all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. (CCC 2116)

If you examine your motives for consulting the I Ching, you will notice that you employ it during times of anxiety or uncertainty. It is at just those times that we need to call upon the Lord, as the Catechism says, "putting ourselves confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it" (CCC 2115). 

Answered by: Terrye Newkirk

What about the Seventh-day Adventist claim that the sabbath shouldn't have been changed to Sunday?

What about the Seventh-day Adventist claim that the sabbath shouldn't have been changed to Sunday?

Full Question

Seventh-day Adventists insist that the Catholic Church has no scriptural warrant for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Is this true?

Answer

Not by a long shot. This question has been addressed by This Rock before, but perhaps I, as a convert to the Catholic Church from Seventh-day Adventism, can offer a fresh perspective on the matter.

While it is true that there is no New Testament record of a voice from the heavens instructing the infant Church, "Thou shalt change the day of thy worship and rest from Saturday to Sunday," Adventists are mistaken in their belief that there is no New Testament evidence that supports such a change by the Catholic Church. Quite apart from the biblical proof of the apostolic Church’s authority to teach in God’s name (Mt 16:18–19, 18:17–18, Lk 10:16) and of God’s guarantee that this teaching would never fall into error (Mt 28:19–20, Lk 22:32, Jn 16:13), there is an impressive amount of evidence from Scripture that Christ and the apostles changed their day of corporate worship from Saturday to Sunday.

The Old Testament Sabbath commandment contains two elements. The primary element, and the one that binds Christians as it does Jews, is the moral obligation to set aside adequate time for the purpose of divine worship. This could never be abrogated, as it is rooted in the natural law.

The secondary element was ceremonial and therefore could be abolished—and was abolished by Jesus’ death on the cross (Col 2:12–17). This secondary, ceremonial element was that the particular day chosen to meet the moral obligation of the law was Saturday, so that the Jews would remember and memorialize the creation of the earth.

Jesus, during his earthly ministry, began to prepare the way for changing Sabbath worship from "the letter of the law" to "the spirit of the law." Remember that one of his greatest arguments with the Pharisees concerned Sabbath worship. He constantly rebuked them for placing the rigid observance of mere details above the spirit of setting aside a day to rest from unnecessary servile work and to worship God. By this Jesus made it clear that the Sabbath may be changed to meet the needs of man. By effecting these changes as "the Son of Man," Jesus used his human authority to show us that he is "Lord even of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28).

As Frs. Rumble and Carty point out in Radio Replies, special honor is shown to Sunday throughout the New Testament. Christ rose from the dead on Sunday, and he first appeared to his disciples that Easter Sunday evening (Jn 20:19). One week later—and from the context we can see that this meant the following Sunday—Jesus appeared to them again when Thomas was present (John 20:26). Luke records that Sunday was observed by the Christian community from the very beginning: "On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread" (Acts 20:7). To "break bread" refers to the celebration of the Eucharist (Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22). Paul ordered the Corinthians to gather their offertory collections on Sunday (1 Cor 16:2); that set the scriptural precedent we follow today of gathering our offerings on Sunday during Mass. John records in Rev. 1:10 that he was granted a vision of heaven’s own worship while he was at worship ("caught up in spirit") on "the Lord’s day." John’s disciple Ignatius of Antioch tells us in his Letter to the Magnesians that "the Lord’s day" is not the ancient Sabbath; therefore, "the Lord’s day" must refer to Sunday. (See This Rock, September 1994, "The Fathers Know Best.")

Put this question to your Seventh-day Adventist friends: Jesus, being God, knew whether or not his Church would apostatize by changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. If Adventists are correct that Christians are still obliged to keep Saturday as their day of corporate worship, isn’t it strange that Jesus underscored exactly the opposite by appearing to his disciples after his Resurrection nearly exclusively on Sunday?

Answered by:  Michelle Arnold

Should I help this convert straighten out his beliefs?

Should I help this convert straighten out his beliefs?

Full Question

A few years ago a friend of mine came into the Church. He now informs me that he has taken "private vows" and has founded a religious order with a few members. He has also announced as one of his "ministries" being an apologist on the Internet where, among other things, he called for the abolition of Halloween. As one might imagine, this provoked a lot of Catholic-bashing. I urged him to put a disclaimer on his materials to the effect that he is not an official spokesman for the Church, but so far he has refused, citing Catholic Answers as an example. I don't know whether I should approach him on this again, but, if I do, I would appreciate some hard data before going ahead.

Answer

Let’s try to take your points in the order you presented them.

1. Congratulations on helping to bring someone into the Church. Having done so, though, you probably do have something more than an ordinary duty to correct a misguided soul, particularly if you accepted the role of sponsor at your friend’s baptism or confirmation (see canons 872 and 892).

2. Church law recognizes something called "private vows," but these are not private religious vows (see canons 1191–1198 on private vows, as distinguished from Canons 575 and 654 on religious vows). Almost certainly, the most your friend could have would be termed canonically private, simple vows (canon 1192), which, even though they might bind an individual in conscience to perform some specific good, confer on such individuals no ecclesiastical status, authority, power, or prerogatives.

3. The right of members of the faithful to come together in groups for certain ecclesiastical purposes is recognized in several canons, notably 215, 299, and 321. But only competent ecclesiastical authority, not individual persons, can establish "institutes of consecrated life," known popularly as religious orders (canons 576 and 589). By the way, the works in which religious engage as religious are generally referred to in canon law as "apostolates," not "ministries" (see canons 673–683). Your friend’s terminology here suggests confusion on the point.

4. While it is true that every member of the faithful is bound "to work . . . so that the divine message of salvation becomes known and accepted throughout the world" and that every lay person is bound "by a special duty to imbue and perfect the order of temporal affairs with the spirit of the Gospel" (canon 225), it is also true that "they are to avoid proposing their own opinion as the teaching of the Church in questions which are open to various opinions" (canon 227). Query, therefore, whether your friend crossed the line between personally calling for the abolition (whatever that means) of Halloween and claiming that the Church is calling for the abolition of Halloween. Catholic Answers, I might add, certainly accepts the value behind canon 227 and strives to live by it.

Answered by:  Edward Peters

Did Pope John Paul have his head anointed by a Hindu priestess?

Did Pope John Paul have his head anointed by a Hindu priestess?

Full Question

Someone in the schismatic group the Society of St. Pius X told me that when the pope was in India he had his forehead anointed by a Hindu "priestess of Shiva" and that there is a photo to prove it. Is this true?

Answer

There is a photo of the Pope having his forehead anointed by an Indian woman, but she was a Catholic, not a Hindu priestess! She was giving the Pope a traditional Indian form of greeting known as Aarti, which has no more religious significance than a handshake does in Western culture.

A letter dated November 22, 1994, from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications explains the custom and its role in Indian society:

Indian Catholics . . . use Aarti when a child returns home after receiving First Holy Communion and when a newly married couple are received by their respective families. Nowadays, Aarti is often performed to greet the principal celebrant at an important liturgical event, as it was on the occasion shown in the photograph. On such occasions, Aarti is usually offered by a Catholic married lady and certainly not by a "priestess of Shiva" as has been alleged.

The letter, by Archbishop John P. Foley, went on to note: "Use of the Aarti ceremonial by Indian Catholics is no more the worship of a heathen deity than is the decoration of a Christmas tree by American Christians a return to the pagan rituals of Northern Europe."

Your friend in the Society of St. Pius X should check his facts before spreading such malicious gossip about the Holy Father (cf. Acts 23:1-5). 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Isn't gambling a sin?

Isn't gambling a sin? How can you Catholics justify playing bingo in church?

Full Question

Isn't gambling a sin? How then can you Catholics justify playing bingo?--and in church yet!

Answer

First of all, the stereotype of bingo-playing Catholics is really overblown. The vast majority of parishes don't even have a bingo night. Second, gambling is not in and of itself wrong. Read your Bible and you will not find gambling condemned anywhere in it.

The average gambler loses money, but the process is entertaining, so what gambling amounts to is paying money to be entertained, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Gambling becomes sinful only when one pays too much money for the entertainment. A person in a casino spending thousands of dollars that his family needs is committing a sin, and the Church is very firm about this (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2413). It would likewise be sinful for a person to spend thousands of dollars his family needed on other forms of entertainment, too, like limited edition books, movies, collector's items, or whatever.

However, if you can afford it, there is nothing wrong with spending a few dollars for an evening of entertainment, whether it is bingo, the movies, or something else. In fact, spending a few dollars on an evening playing bingo in a church basement with a bunch of fellow Christians is probably a more wholesome activity than spending the same amount of money going to see a typical movie--or for that matter staying home and watching TV for free.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is "liturgical dancing" permitted at Mass?

Is "liturgical dancing" permitted at Mass?

Full Question

Is "liturgical dancing" permitted at Mass? I've seen it once or twice, and it looks silly and irreverent to me, like some kind of pseudo-interpretive ballet in which one person gets up and slowly dances while everyone else just sits and stares, feeling uncomfortable.

Answer

You have put your finger on one of the key reasons why liturgical dance is not permitted during liturgies in the West.

In 1975, the Vatican's Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship issued Dance in the Liturgy, which it declared is to be treated as "an authoritative point of reference for every discussion on the matter."

The document noted that although there are cultures in which dance retains a religious character and could be permitted in liturgy, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture. Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses. . . For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: That would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements, and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.

The document went on to note concerning the pseudo-ballet you mention, "Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which [only] one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation [by all]."

This remains the law today. In 1994 the same Vatican congregation ruled:

Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by hand-clapping, rhythmic swaying, and dance movements on the part of the participants. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not simply a performance. (Instruction on Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy, 42; italics added)

What you are referring to was a performance, whether done by one or a few performers.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What's the rule for fasting after Communion?

What's the rule for fasting after Communion?

Full Question

I was always taught to fast for one-half hour after receiving Communion, yet I see many parishioners heading for the coffee and doughnuts as soon as Mass is over. What is the rule?

Answer

Current canon law requires a one-hour fast before receiving Communion (canon 919): "One who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion." The Eucharistic fast was mitigated by Pope Pius XII from a complete fast after midnight to a fast of three hours (1957); then Pope Paul VI further reduced the requirement to one hour (1964). These changes were intended to encourage Catholics to receive Communion more frequently.

There is no present requirement for fasting after Communion, but many books have recommended, as an act of reverence, not eating or drinking for 15 minutes after receiving -- about as long as the sacred Species remains intact. If one remains at Mass until the closing blessing, one likely observes this recommendation even without realizing it.

In some cultures, the faithful follow the pious practice of drinking a glass of plain water before taking any nourishment after Communion. Such acts, while praiseworthy expressions of reverence, are voluntary and are matters of custom, not legislation.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Have the Jehovah's Witnesses changed their position on blood transfusions?

Have the Jehovah's Witnesses changed their position on blood transfusions?

Full Question

Is it true that the Watchtower Society, the parent organization for the Jehovah's Witnesses, has made a change in its long-standing policy on prohibiting blood transfusions?

Answer

Yes, and the implications for Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) are staggering. For those who may not know, JW's believe that blood transfusions are expressly forbidden by God and that to receive one is akin to committing spiritual suicide. They would rather die--or even allow a family member to die--than receive one. Their belief comes from an erroneous understanding of the Old Testament prohibitions against eating blood (cf. Gn 9:4, Lv 17:10-14; notice that it's animal blood being spoken of) and the New Testament admonition to abstain from blood for the sake of not offending another's conscience (cf. Acts 15:29).

The policy change occurred in 1998 for JWs in Bulgaria, where their status as a religion was threatened because of their prohibition against transfusions. With an earlier law in mind, the Bulgarian government viewed this prohibition as a danger to public health and threatened to deny their status as a religion. The JWs reacted by taking the Bulgarian government before the European Human Rights Commission (EHRC). In a communique issued by the EHRC Secretary, the JW leadership in Bulgaria claimed that JWs have "free choice in the matter" and--more importantly--that there are "no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusions" (emphasis added).

This alleged lack of sanctions is a 180-degree turn by the WTS, since its longstanding policy was articulated as follows:

According to the law of Moses, which set forth shadows of things to come, the receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshiping. . . As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshiping. (The Watchtower, January 15, 1961, p. 64)

It should be noted that disfellowshiping for a JW means a complete shunning by all other JW's, including family members. He or she effectively becomes totally cut off from all religious and even social ties, as the majority of a JW's friends and associates typically are fellow JW's.

As a result of this change in doctrine, one can only conclude that (a) the WTS has different standards for its members, depending on where they live (a similar change does not apply for JWs elsewhere), (b) the WTS intentionally misrepresented its policy to circumvent the difficulty with the Bulgarian government, or (c) this change is yet another example of mutating doctrines of the WTS. Any way you view it, this change is clearly problematic.

29 images of mother mary