FIRST COMMUNION, WITHOUT POMP

FIRST COMMUNION, WITHOUT POMP

Rome, July 15, 2014 (Zenit.org) Father Edward McNamara, LC

Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: My great-niece was to receive her first Holy Communion and has been told she need not wear the traditional white dress, nor receive Communion with the other children who are also to receive their first Communion. She can attend any Mass and just go up and receive Communion. I have protested to the parish priest about this and have received a short reply stating that white dresses are too expensive for some mothers. No mention of the other questions I put to him. Has the parish priest the right to do this? -- D.S., Woy Woy, Australia

A: There are several levels to be dealt with in this question.

From a canonical standpoint we could say that, strictly speaking, the parish priest is within his rights in not organizing a special first Communion service. If he has ascertained that the child is sufficiently well prepared, and has made first confession, then he can authorize the child to receive Communion at any Mass with no special vesture or any special service.

This is in part because, unlike baptism or confirmation, first reception of Communion is not a distinct sacrament but rather participation in the holy Sacrifice as the culmination of the process

of initiation. In most Eastern Churches all three sacraments are given together to infants.

Nor does the missal have a special rite or Mass for first Communion, distinct from other Masses. Indeed since it is customary in many places to celebrate first Communion on Sundays of late April and May that often coincide with major solemnities.

At the same time, from a pastoral point of view, the practice of a special celebration for children receiving Communion for the first time is well established in the Latin Church and has proved its worth in many ways. Above all, when well prepared, it can be a very special experience in a child's life and can emphasize the importance of full participation in the Church's sacramental life. It can also be a good opportunity for the spiritual regeneration of a whole family.

It is true that, objectively speaking, receiving first Communion at a regular parish Mass rather than in a special celebration constitutes the same material act. Subjectively, however, it is likely that

without some external means of underlining its importance, its deeper meaning will be lost on most young children.

Admittedly, the external elements are not the heart of preparation for first Communion, which should be primarily doctrinal and spiritual, albeit adapted to 7-year-olds. Yet, we should neglect no means to help bring this deeper meaning home.

Because of this, while showing respect for the priest, in this case it would be good to inform the bishop of this particular pastoral practice, since he might have a different criterion as to its wisdom for the good of souls.

The priest, however, has brought to light a real pastoral difficulty. In certain societies, ostensibly spiritual moments such as baptisms and first Communions have sometimes degenerated into social events and given rise to unhealthy and un-Christian competition among families vying for prestige and show. Indeed, sometimes families have felt pressured into engaging in needless and ill-affordable expense on such occasions.

One solution to this problem is very common in Italy and some other countries. The parish either rents or sells to parents a standardized alblike habit that is set aside for children receiving first

Communion. It is usually the same for boys and girls, although in some cases girls wear a white headband. This solution eliminates any social distinctions and puts all the emphasis on the reception of Communion and not on superficial elements.

In the long term, when such a solution is practiced, parents end up preferring it as it frees them, not only from excessive expense, but also allows them to concentrate on the essential elements.

This is just one possible solution to a difficulty that is real in some places. There might be others also. It is important to seek solutions which overcome the difficulties while conserving and enhancing those elements which have proved their pastoral effectiveness.

We must recognize, however, that the older traditions of the special white dress for girls also had its advantages, especially when such clothing was carefully kept and used within families or was especially made by family members.

I know of at least one family in which the fabric of the mother's wedding dress was later transformed into the baptismal gowns and first Communion dresses of the children. This is a beautiful way of symbolizing the spiritual fruitfulness that also comes with marriage.

The difficulties arise when such traditions are lost, and there is more emphasis on outward appearances.

Source: - http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/first-communion-without-pomp

My friend said that Christ died once for all, so we don't need redemptive suffering souls. How should I respond?

My friend said that Christ died once for all, so we don't need redemptive suffering souls. How should I respond?

Answer

A Scripture verse to point your friend to is Colossians 1:24: "Now I [Paul] rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

Paul doesn’t mean that Christ’s death is insufficient for universal redemption. He is simply saying that his own incorporation into the mystical body of Christ (the Church) means that his sufferings can be helpful for other members of the body (the Colossian Christians to whom he is writing). They are helpful only because Paul is united to Christ in his Church and is offering his sufferings to Christ for the sake of the Church.

In the same way, suffering souls can similarly offer up their sufferings for the benefit of others.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How can I find instruction in the faith in a non-English-language country?

I've wanted to become Catholic for several years, but my attempts have been hindered because I live in the Netherlands, a non-English-speaking country, and my primary language is English. What can I do?

Answer

How wonderful that you wish to become Catholic! Here are some suggestions:

You might contact an English-speaking embassy in the Netherlands (e.g., American, British, Australian, Canadian) and ask if it has an English-speaking Catholic chaplain for the employees. That chaplain could help you enter the Church. If not, the embassy should at least be able to put you in contact with Catholics on the staff who can tell you where they go for English-speaking Catholic services.

You might also check with English departments of local universities (particularly Catholic universities, if there are any) to see if there are any Catholics on staff or if there is an English-speaking Catholic chaplain for the Catholic students.

If there are any religious orders with houses nearby, they may have English-speaking members in residence or can put you in touch with other English-speaking members in the country.

If you continue to have trouble finding an English-speaking priest or Catholic community in the Netherlands, please write back and we will try to find other avenues of assistance for you. God bless.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Hasn't the Church destroyed an entire continent by preaching against condoms for protection from AIDS?

How can you people look at yourselves in the mirror knowing that you have basically destroyed an entire continent by spreading your message that condoms don't protect against AIDS. What would God think of that?

Answer

First of all, sexual activity outside of marriage is nothing more than usury—people using each others’ bodies for selfish sexual gratification. Only within a permanent and exclusive commitment can sex be the total and unconditional self-giving that it is meant to be. Second, there is a growing body of evidence that condoms in fact have a significant failure rate in the prevention of venereal diseases (including AIDS). Our chastity speakers recently spoke in Michigan to 10,000 students. During each talk, they asked the students what the most common sexually transmitted disease was. Not one of the students knew the answer. It is human papillomavirus (HPV), which is now responsible for the deaths of more women every year than AIDS, because it causes 99 percent of all diagnosed cervical cancer. The media won’t talk about this because the condom is useless in preventing HPV. So much for "safe sex."

But even if they did succeed in the prevention of disease, we prefer to teach people that the best prevention against such horrific diseases is to be chaste—that is, to act appropriately according to one’s state in life regarding sexual behavior. The promulgation of the idea that condom use protects us is not only deceptive; it encourages a lifestyle that leads to sorrow and perhaps even death.

Had everyone reserved sex until marriage, and if spouses remained faithful, then we would not have an AIDS epidemic. Only a return to a chaste life can stop these diseases or, in the case of those already infected, contain them. Such chastity is within God’s plan for the human race. He designed us. He knows what is best for us in regard to our relationships and our health in mind and body. So we choose to tell the truth: One cannot commit sexual sin and not expect negative consequences. Chastity is the answer.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was St. Joseph a virgin or a widower with children?

Can you tell me if the Church teaches that Joseph was a virgin, or was he a widower with children who was quite older than Mary?

Answer

An early tradition has it that Joseph was a widower who married the Virgin Mary later in life (after already having a family with his first wife). A later tradition says that Joseph was a virgin and that the "brothers" of Jesus were other relatives, perhaps cousins. Because we simply don’t know, Catholics are free to believe either tradition. All that is required of us to believe is that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, including throughout her marriage to Joseph.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does Humanae Vitae state that birth control is only forbidden for married couples?

How can I convince my friend that contraception is forbidden not only within marriage but outside it? She says Humanae Vitae is against birth control only in marriage.

Answer

Humanae Vitae is explicit in its teaching against artificial birth control, and yes, the context is marriage. But Humanae Vitae itself answers the question:

Hence, one who reflects well must also recognize that a reciprocal act of love that jeopardizes the responsibility to transmit life that God the Creator, according to particular laws, inserted therein, is in contradiction with the design constitutive of marriage, and the will of the Author or life. To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God. (HV 13)

These two sentences teach that anything that destroys the meaning of the "reciprocal act of love"—in this case contraception—is contrary to God. The Catechism calls these actions "intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370), meaning that it is evil in and of itself: It is always objectively evil, regardless of the context (within marriage or outside of it) in which it is carried out.

The Church also teaches that sex outside of marriage is contrary to the will of God and destroys the true purpose of the act (cf. CCC 2353). Therefore, if one uses birth control while engaging in sex outside of marriage, he is compounding one sin with another. 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was the Anglican schism brought about because Church officials told Henry VIII to have an affair when he requested an annulment?

An Anglican priest told me two reasons for the Anglican schism were that (1) when Henry VIII requested an annulment, he was told by Church officials to have an affair, and (2) Rome was overtaxing Europe and Henry couldn't pay the taxes demanded.

Answer

In response to the claim that Church officials ordered Henry to have an affair, it is reasonable to ask that credible documentation be provided to substantiate the claim. Lack of evidence not withstanding, Henry VIII was already having affairs by the time he became involved with Anne Boleyn. It is known, for example, that Henry had already had an affair with Anne’s sister Mary before turning his attention to Anne. Anne refused to have an affair with him. She was not interested in doing the right thing; she simply wanted Henry to marry her. (Had she been inclined to act rightly, she would have refused any involvement with a married man.) Even if it could be proven that Church officials told Henry to have an affair, that would have been a personal failing of theirs. It would not have justified Henry having an affair or going into schism when his request for an annulment was denied.

Although it is also the priest’s responsibility to prove his claim of unjust taxation, the question is also a non sequitur. Unjust taxation is not an excuse for schism from the Church founded by Jesus Christ. (But, as an aside, it is also noteworthy that Henry VIII was as notoriously lavish with money as his father, Henry VII, was frugal. In his lifetime he managed to work through the enormous treasury his father had hoarded.)

What all this boils down to is that the priest is resting his personal defense of the Anglican schism on the personal failings of fallible human beings. He should instead be asking himself which church is the Church that Christ founded. Perhaps he might find insight into that by reading the biography of Sir Thomas More, a contemporary of Henry VIII. Despite the personal failures of contemporary churchmen, More was willing to lay down his life for the Church rather than follow Henry VIII into schism.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was the Council of Trent inconsistent in its treatment of the deuterocanonical books?

I read in a Protestant book recently that the Council of Trent was inconsistent because it accepted some “apocryphal” books—such as 1 and 2 Maccabees—as canonical but did not accept others, such as 1 and 2 Esdras. How do you respond?

Answer

Trent simply reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first council recorded as dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which convened in A.D. 382 under Pope Damascus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438) reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.

At all these councils the canon that was proclaimed included the seven deuterocanonical books—1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach—and rejected 1 and 2 Esdras. Far from being inconsistent; Trent reaffirmed what the Church had taught since the earliest centuries.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What's the difference between the natural law and the laws of nature?

Catholic moral theologians talks about the natural law, and scientists talk about the laws of nature, but they don't seem to be talking about the same thing. What is the difference between natural law and the laws of nature?

Answer

Pope John Paul answered this question nicely in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. He said the natural law of moral theology "receives this name not because it refers to the nature of irrational things but because the reason which promulgates it is proper to human nature" (VS 42). The moral law is called natural law because it is based on our nature as rational beings. It is not based on the nature of irrational beings, such as animals, plants, or inanimate matter. When scientists refer to the laws of nature, they mean physical laws such as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

When it comes to chastity, where should an engaged couple draw the line ?

A priest told my fiancé that it is okay for my fiancé and me to touch intimately before we are married so long as we don't engage in intercourse. I'm a little uneasy about this interpretation of chastity. Is he correct?

Answer

No. Jesus stated in Matthew 5:28 that a person can commit sins of sexual impurity even in his thoughts: "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The same is true of fornication (premarital sex).

Looking at a woman (or man) to whom you are not married and indulging in lustful thoughts counts as committing fornication in your heart. If indulging yourself in mental lust for a man to whom you are not married counts as fornication, how much more so will intimate touching in which you partially act out the sexual desire you have for another?

Though some priests may not like to say so, fornication is a grave (mortal) sin. Paul says, "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness . . . and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:19-21). This is a severe teaching. It is one many unmarried people find hard to accept, but it is the clear teaching of Scripture, and we must hold to it.

Sometimes people rationalize extramarital sexual practices on the grounds that by committing a lesser sin one may avoid a greater one, such as fornication. There are two problems with this. First, as the Holy Father made clear in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, one may never do something intrinsically wrong in order to avoid a problem. We cannot do evil that good may come of it.

Second, this strategy simply doesn’t work. If you find it difficult to restrain yourself sexually, following this priest’s advice will not make it easier to control yourself—quite the opposite.

By the way, you might want to ask this priest yourself and not rely on your fiancé to interpret the priest’s remarks.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What is the appropriate means to dispose of an old Bible?

What is the appropriate means to dispose of an old Bible?

Answer

There is no specifically mandated means of disposing of old Bibles. Some Catholics follow a custom of disposing of religious articles that have been blessed either by burying or burning them, but even that is not mandated by law. If the Bible has been blessed you might choose to follow that custom. If not, dispose of it as you would any other book. If it’s still in fair condition, you might put it on a book donation table to benefit someone else.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

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

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.

Answer

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.)

-Catholic Answer-

In what language was the Bible first written?

 In what language was the Bible first written?

(Pictures of The Dead Sea Scrolls - The first Bible)

 

  

The first human author to write down the biblical record was Moses. He was commanded by God to take on this task, for Exodus 34:27 records God's words to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." And what language did he use? He wrote in his native language, called Hebrew.

Hebrew is one of a group of languages known as the Semitic languages which were spoken throughout that part of the world, then called Mesopotamia, located today mainly in Iraq. Their alphabet consisted of 22 letters, all consonants. (Imagine having an alphabet with no vowels! Much later they did add vowels.)

During the thousand years of its composition, almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages. Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus' time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament.

The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.

So the New Testament authors wrote in Greek. They did not, however, use really high-class or classical Greek, but a very common and everyday type of Greek. For many years some scholars ridiculed the Greek of the New Testament because many of its words were strange to those who read the writings of the great Greek classical authors such as Plato and Aristotle. But later many records were uncovered of ordinary people, and amazingly there were the same common terms used in everyday speech! The ridicule dried up accordingly.

The earliest copies of parts of the Hebrew Old Testament were discovered in 1947. They are part of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls and actually date back to the first century BC. Even though they are at least 900 years older than any parts of the Bible we had before this, they are not the originals. They are copies. The originals have all been lost or destroyed. But we are not at all doubtful that we may not have the original text. Copying by scribes was done with great care in those days and because the text was regarded as sacred, the copyists were extremely painstaking. Today some 5000 hand-copied documents exist of all or part of the Bible, and they agree in 98% of the text! No other ancient writing has this amount of underlying support with such amazing agreement as to the text.

Yes, we do have what God wanted us to have! By way of translation, we now have His revelation in our own language and in 2300 other languages, too. Today we have the very Bible that comes to us from the three languages used in the original. Truly we can say, "God speaks my language, too!"

Do you know of any resources that shed light on Jesus' life before his ministry began?

My friend's son, a high school sophomore, is doing a research paper and has to explain the missing years between the finding of Jesus in the Temple at age twelve and his ministry beginning at thirty. Do you have any sources you can refer us to on Jesus' life during that time?

Answer

We simply don’t know what Jesus did during his youth and young adulthood, besides traveling to Jerusalem yearly with his parents for the pilgrimage feasts (cf. Lk 2:41) and living with his parents in Nazareth (cf. Lk 2:51–52). Given human curiosity, it is natural to want to know more about that hidden time, but transcribing the details was unimportant to the Gospel writers.

Perhaps you could suggest an alternative project: Since one of the points of the hidden years was to live an ordinary human life, thus sanctifying the human family and human work, perhaps this teen could research what life was like for an ordinary working-class first-century Palestinian Jewish family. That would give some idea of what Jesus’ hidden years entailed.

A good place to start research would be with the book Daily Life in the Time of Jesus by Henri Daniel-Rops. The book is currently out of print but can be located through interlibrary loan.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was Jesus' feeding of the 5,000 really a miracle of sharing?

My pastor said in a homily that the biblical account of Jesus feeding the five thousand was not a miracle; instead it was a "miracle of sharing." Is this true?

Answer

The feeding of the five thousand was a genuine, supernatural miracle that could not have been accomplished by any natural means whatsoever. It was not a "miracle of sharing" or anything similar to that. It was a supernatural event. The Gospels tell us that there were five loaves of bread and two fish, but after Jesus blessed the food, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples who in turn gave them to the crowds, more than enough bread had been supernaturally generated (cf. Mt 14:15–21; 15:32–39).

This miraculous feeding is a foreshadowing of the miraculous feeding of the Eucharist. We read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that "the miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist" (CCC 1335). We also see a connection between the miraculous feeding of the five thousand and the Eucharist in John 6, where we read that Jesus gave his first public teaching on the Lord’s Supper immediately after the feeding of the five thousand. This supernatural event prefigured the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, in which "all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him" (CCC 1329).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why was it necessary for Jesus to have been born of a woman?

Why was it necessary for Jesus to have been born of a woman?

Answer

Vatican II responds:

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined Mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. This is preeminently true of the Mother of Jesus, who gave to the world the Life that renews all things, and who was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role. (Lumen Gentium 56)

She is the virgin woman whom the prophet Isaiah said would conceive and bear a son (cf. Is 7:14; Mt 1:23). And she is Mary, who, being immaculately conceived, remained sinless. It was through her consent—and her humility as handmaid of the Lord—that she gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us.

Pope John Paul II wrote in Mulieris Dignitatem:

"When the time had fully come, God sent forth his son, born of woman." With these words of his Letter to the Galatians (4:4), the apostle Paul links together the principal moments that essentially determine the fulfillment of the mystery "pre-determined in God" (cf. Eph 1:9). The Son, the Word, one in substance with the Father, becomes man, born of a woman, at "the fullness of time." This event leads to the turning point of man’s history on earth, understood as salvation history. It is significant that St. Paul does not call the Mother of Christ by her own name "Mary," but calls her "woman": This coincides with the words of the Protoevangelium in the book of Genesis (cf. 3:15). She is that "woman" who is present in the central salvific event, which marks the "fullness of time": this event is realized in her and through her. (MD 3) 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

A Protestant friend said that Augustine did not believe in transubstantiation. Is this true?

A Protestant friend said that Augustine did not believe in transubstantiation. Is this true?

Answer

Augustine wrote about the symbolic character of the Eucharist as a sign of unity, but this does not discount the Real Presence.

Augustine clearly believed in transubstantiation. Here are some things he wrote about the Eucharist:

"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table. . . . That bread that you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

"Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it" (Explanation of the Psalms 99).

"He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. . . . We do sin by not adoring" (ibid).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Am I correct in believing that the precious blood should not be in a chalice that is used for a grape juice ceremony?

Am I correct in believing that the precious blood should not be in a chalice that is used for a grape juice ceremony? Is there an official rule on this?

Answer

You are correct. "The chalice and paten in which wine and bread are offered, consecrated, and received, since they are intended solely and permanently for the celebration of the Eucharist, become ‘sacred vessels’" (Book of Blessings, 1360).

Eucharist here means the valid Eucharist, consecrated by one who has the power to consecrate the bread and wine. This certainly rules out its use with grape juice.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Are there any guidelines from the Church regarding bringing children to Mass?

Are there any guidelines from the Church regarding bringing children to Mass?

Answer

The Church gives us guidelines indirectly. The Code of Canon Law says, "Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age" (CIC 11).

So there is no obligation on the child’s part to go until completion of his seventh year.

But, by their baptism, children also have certain rights: "Since they are called by baptism to lead a life in keeping with the teaching of the gospel, the Christian faithful have the right to a Christian education by which they are to be instructed properly to strive for the maturity of the human person and at the same time to know and live the mystery of salvation" (CIC 217).

"According to their own vocation, those who live in the marital state are bound by a special duty to work through marriage and the family to build up the people of God. Since they have given life to their children, parents have a most grave obligation and possess the right to educate them. Therefore, it is for Christian parents particularly to take care of the Christian education of their children according to the doctrine handed on by the Church" (CIC 226).

So it is the primary obligation of the parents to educate their children in the faith and prepare them for a eucharistic life, and it is the children’s right to receive this education. Obviously, before the Sunday obligation takes effect for the child, he already should be participating regularly in the eucharistic celebration to the extent that he is able. How this is accomplished in each family will vary.

From an early age—especially from the time they are baptized—it is appropriate that children be included in the eucharistic celebration. Yet not all children are ready or willing. In the meantime, the parents hopefully will be praying for and with their children and preparing them for regular Mass attendance.

Many parents with infants find it very difficult to bring them to Mass, especially if a toddler is also in tow. A single parent will find this especially difficult. But the goal is to get them coming as soon as they are able, and if they are not able yet, get them ready by familiarizing them with the church, maybe by going for short visits and gradually extending those visits. Going to church should be a privilege and something they want to do.

While children cannot fully understand all that goes on at Mass, they can participate in some ways. They can learn to genuflect and bow. They can place the envelope in the basket. They can sing, and the family can practice songs at home. If the Our Father is said regularly at home, then they will look forward to saying it. The same holds true for the sign of peace.

The Congregation for Divine Worship’s Directory for Masses with Children states: "By reason of the duty in conscience freely accepted at the baptism of their children, parents are bound to teach them gradually how to pray. This they do by praying with them each day and by introducing them to prayers said privately. If children, prepared in this way even from their early years, take part in the Mass with their family when they wish, they will easily begin to sing and to pray in the liturgical community and indeed will already have some initial idea of the eucharistic mystery. . . .Infants who as yet are unable or unwilling to take part in the Mass may be brought in at the end of Mass to be blessed together with the rest of the community. This may be done, for example, if parish helpers have been taking care of them in separate areas" (DMC 10, 16).

The goal is to help our children to participate fully in the eucharistic life. Choose a way to get them there that works best for your family.

At ordination, why is obedience made to the bishop instead of the pope?

At ordination, why is obedience made to the bishop instead of the pope?

Answer

The ordained man understands that his obedience to the bishop is in concert with the bishop’s obedience to the Holy Father. The pope’s authority covers the whole Church, including bishops and priests. Practically speaking, though, each priest is accountable on a daily basis to his bishop (and religious superior if he belongs to a religious order). The pope cannot oversee the behavior and ministry of every priest in the Church. Each local ordinary (bishop), though accountable to the pope, has a certain freedom to minister in the way he determines is most effective given the unique needs of his diocese. His priests are expected to cooperate with him in this, so they promise to obey him.

If Earth is the only inhabited planet, why is the universe so big?

If Earth is the only inhabited planet, why is the universe so big?

Answer

We don’t know whether Earth is the only inhabited planet. It is possible that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Whether such life-forms have spiritual, rational souls subject to the need for salvation would be an entirely different question that the Church then would have to ponder.

Assuming that Earth is the only inhabited planet, one can speculate about why God chose to create a massive universe and populate only a single small planet. Perhaps the difference in size between the universe and our own planet is a symbol of the difference between God and his creation, between the infinite and the finite.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How can I defend the Church against the inquisition?

My son has left the Church and is attacking it for having had the inquisition. What can I say to respond?

Answer

Point out that the Inquisition was intended not to convert people, but to find people who were outwardly claiming to be Christian but secretly practiced another religion, such as people who had become Christian outwardly, but who were still secretly practicing anti-Messianic Judaism, Islam, or Albigensianism, this last being a religion claiming that there are two gods, one good and one evil. The inquisition was thus an attempt to protect the purity of the Christian community.

Also point out that the Protestants had a counter-inquisition that killed Catholics. Thousands of Catholics were killed in England alone after the Reformation struck there. The same thing was true in Ireland and other areas where the Reformation came. John Calvin, for instance, was known for burning people at the stake.

In addition, Protestants were the big witch-burners. Witch burning never caught on in Catholic countries. When the Spanish Inquisition examined the cases of reported witches, it almost invariably concluded that the charges were false and the accused were not guilty. But tens of thousands of supposed witches were burned at the stake, hanged, or drowned in Protestant countries, including the American colonies.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How is Mary's title Ark of the Covenant connected to "Raiders of the Lost Ark"?

In the Litany of the Blessed Virgin, why is Mary given the title "Ark of the Covenant"? Does it have anything to do with the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Answer

Not really, though it is related to the movie in a certain way in that in the litany (traditionally said after reciting the rosary) the Blessed Mother is compared to the Ark of the Covenant, which was being sought by Indiana Jones.

In the Old Testament (Ex 25:10ff) the Ark was a gold-covered box which bore three things: the written word of God on the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments; the budded rod of Aaron, signifying his role as high priest; and a pot of manna, the mysterious "bread from heaven" which God gave to the Jews in the wilderness.

Mary is considered a symbol of the Ark because she, like the Ark, bore within her the Word of God (Jn 1:14), the true Bread from Heaven (Jn 6:33-35), and the High Priest of the New Testament (Heb 2:17).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is a priest obligated to baptize a baby even if the parents are not married?

Is a priest obligated to baptize a baby even if the parents are not married or are not practicing the Catholic faith?

Answer

If there is no reasonable assurance that after baptism the child will be raised in the faith, the priest has valid grounds for delaying the sacrament--or even refusing baptism altogether, if it is certain that the child will not receive a Catholic upbringing, something which is required by the sacrament itself. "The Church must have a well-founded hope that the baptism will bear fruit" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Infant Baptism, 1980).

The Church does not take the matter of refusal of the first and most important sacrament lightly. The priest is obligated to keep in contact with the family and to attempt to secure sufficient assurances necessary for the celebration of the sacrament. Once the priest is satisfied that assurances are met, such as the choice of godparents who will be diligent in seeing that the child is raised in the faith, he cannot refuse to celebrate the sacrament without delay.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Do Catholics emphasize Mary too much?

Aren't Protestants justified in talking about Catholic excesses in honoring Mary to the exclusion of Jesus? I just watched a video entitled Catholicism: Crisis of Faith. One scene shows a statue Mary, instead of Jesus, crucified on the cross behind the altar. Who was it that died for our Redemption anyway, Jesus or Mary?

Answer

Jesus died for our Redemption. Scripture tells us, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Heb. 4:12).

Protestants (and Catholics!) are justified in criticizing instances in which some Catholics honor Mary to the exclusion of Jesus (see This Rock, May 1994), but this isn't one of those instances. The video you mention sets a new low for anti-Catholic rhetoric, and this scene is typical.

The statue of the woman on the cross is real, but it isn't a statue of the Blessed Mother. Located in a monastery in Quito, Ecuador, the statue is of a saint known as Santa Liberata or "she who received the liberation." It is said that her father, a Portuguese prince, wanted her to marry a non-Christian and corrupt prince. When she refused her fathers wishes, he ordered her crucified.

This is not an instance of "Mariolatry" but rather a fitting tribute to young martyr who would rather die than betray her Savior. For her fidelity to Christ, she shared in the same kind of death he did, as have numerous other martyrs throughout Christian history (such as many of the Japanese martyrs).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did Vatican II require that the tabernacle be placed in a side chapel?

During a recent meeting on proposed renovations in our church, it was stated that Vatican II mandated moving the tabernacle out of the main body of the church and into a separate chapel. Is this correct and in what document of the council is this stated?

Answer

This is not correct. The documents issued by the Second Vatican Council do not mandate changes in the placement of the tabernacle. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy grants power to national conferences of bishops to adapt sacred furnishings to the needs and customs of their respective regions (Sacrosanctum Concilium 128).

The document referred to was the Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharist Mystery (Eucharisticum Mysterium), a post-conciliar document, issued by the Vatican following the Council. After recommending that the Blessed Sacrament ought to be reserved in a truly prominent location and one suitable for private prayer and devotion, the instruction states, "It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures" (53).

It goes on to say, "The Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a side altar, but in a truly prominent place. Alternatively, according to legitimate customs and in individual cases to be decided by the local ordinary, it may be placed in some other part of the church which is really worthy and properly equipped" (54).

The Code of Canon Law states, "The tabernacle in which the Blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in the church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer" (CIC 938:2).

Many church renovations are undertaken under the "authority" of a document titled Environment and Art in Catholic Worship. This document, promoted widely by "liturgical experts," was passed by the American bishops' committee on the liturgy in 1977, but it was never brought before the entire body of bishops for a vote, presumably because its backers realized that it would be voted down.

It has been published anyway in book form, giving many the idea that its recommendations are of binding authority; in fact, it has no authority at all and can be ignored.

In an eyebrow-raising move, the book's editors added an appendix of photographs that showcase renovations even more radical than the text promotes. As Thomas Day, author of Where Have You Gone, Michelangelo?, has noted, the "presider's chair" in the photographs isn't a chair at all--it's a gigantic concrete throne.

Through poor liturgical art and architecture and through a jettisoning of traditional symbols--all advanced by Environment and Art in Catholic Worship--the focus of the Mass shifts from the altar to the priest. (Needless to say, in the photographs tabernacles are well hidden.)

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why did Mary Magdalene and the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus?

Why did Mary Magdalene and the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when he appeared to them after the Resurrection? Will we too have trouble recognizing our loved ones after we have been resurrected?

Answer

Of the four Gospel accounts, only Luke and John mention anyone having difficulty recognizing Jesus after he had risen from the dead.

Luke (24:13-35) recounts the episode of two disciples on the road to the village of Emmaus on the day of the Resurrection. It wasn't a case of them not recognizing Jesus because his appearance had somehow changed. We are told "their eyes were kept from recognizing him" until he had explained how the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah were fulfilled by him.

In the Gospel of John, the apostles have trouble recognizing Jesus when they are fishing near the Sea of Tiberias and Christ is standing on the shore (Jn 21:1-14). But we're told that the boat is at least 100 yards off shore, so it's not surprising that they didn't recognize him at once.

Similarly, Mary Magdalene didn't recognize Jesus immediately outside the tomb until he called her by name (Jn 20:14-16). Perhaps in this instance he was some distance away also. More than likely she was so intent on finding his dead body ("Tell me where you have laid him and I will take him away") that his risen body escaped her recognition. Mourning, she also may have not looked Jesus in the face until he said her name, and her eyes were full of tears in any event (20:13). And she might have been supernaturally prevented from recognizing him, just as the disciples on the road to Emmaus had been.

Thomas was able to identify Jesus' body (Jn 20:24-29), and the rich man had no trouble recognizing Lazarus and Abraham even without their bodies (Lk 16:20-24), so we will have no trouble recognizing our loved ones--provided we end up in the same place.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

What is the difference between the Torah and the Old Testament in the Catholic Bible?

What is the difference between the Torah and the Old Testament in the Catholic Bible?

Answer

Torah comes from the Hebrew word for "law" and refers to the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy—also known as the Pentateuch. The word torah is used also to refer to the scroll of parchment on which the Pentateuch is written. The scroll is considered a sacred liturgical object in synagogues and is often richly decorated and given other marks of respect. In Orthodox Judaism, the Torah also can refer to the entirety of the law, both in written form (Scripture and other sacred writings) and in oral Tradition.

When we as Catholics refer to the Old Testament, we are referring to all forty-six books of the Bible written before Christ, including the first five that the Jews call the Torah.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Should Catholics circumcise their sons?

Should Catholics circumcise their sons?

Answer

The Church is neutral on the question of whether Christians should circumcise their sons. If, after due consideration, a Christian feels that circumcision is in the best interest of his son, he is acting within his parental rights.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Is the story of Jonah and the whale a myth?

Is the story of Jonah and the whale a myth?

Answer

Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or as didactic fiction. In Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating writes:

"The Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, readers being allowed to accept one of several understandings. Take, as an example, Jonah’s escapade at sea, which readers often find disturbing. Ronald Knox said that ‘no defender of the sense of Scripture ever pretended, surely, that this was a natural event. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle; and not to my mind a more startling miracle than the raising of Lazarus, in which I take it Catholics are certainly bound to believe. Surely what puts one off the story of Jonah is the element of the grotesque that is present in it’ (Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, Difficulties, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 109).

"The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a ‘great fish’ is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point. Catholics are perfectly free to take this or a more literal view. . . .

"Strictly literal interpretations of what happened to Jonah actually come in two forms. One relies on the fact that people apparently have been swallowed by whales and lived to talk about it. In 1891 a seaman, James Bartley, from a ship named the Star of the East, was found missing after an eighty-foot sperm whale had been caught. He was presumed drowned. The next day, when the crew cut up the whale, Bartley was discovered alive inside. If Jonah’s three days in the whale were counted like Christ’s three days in the tomb, after the Semitic fashion—that is, parts of three distinct days, but perhaps only slightly more than twenty-four hours total—then it is possible that Jonah could have been coughed up by that great fish just as his story says. This would be a purely natural explanation of the episode.

"The other literal interpretation is that Jonah indeed underwent what the story, read as straight history, says he did but survived only because of a positive miracle, and several different sorts of miracles have been suggested, such as suspended animation on Jonah’s part or a fish with a remarkably large air supply and decidedly mild gastric juices" (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius Press, 129–30).