Was I wrong to take the host back to my pew?

Was I wrong to take the host back to my pew?

Full Question

I sit in the first row at Mass because I am hearing-impaired. When visiting a church recently, the usher gestured for me to go up for Communion before I felt prepared. I accepted the host in my hand and returned to the pew, where I continued my prayer before receiving. Now I am told that this is not permitted. Surely it would be irreverent to receive before one had prayed sufficiently?

Answer

It might be even more irreverent to ignore the instruction of the Church. The document Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, S.C.D.W., May 29, 1969, notes that "the communicant ought to consume the host before returning to his place" (4).

Editor’s note: It is perfectly all right to remain in one’s pew, despite the usher’s wishes, and to go up for Communion later.

Answered by: Mike Harrison

What if the vocations director says he doesn't believe in confession?

What if the vocations director says he doesn't believe in confession?

Full Question

I am 17 years old and about to enter the seminary. I just talked to my vocation director, and he told me that he does not believe in the sacrament of penance. I'm shocked! How could an orthodox Catholic priest, even a vocation director, say that? He said we could confess with our thoughts. Now, I don't have a problem refuting his claims, but I just want to say I am so horrified at that. Should I switch dioceses? Can this priest still call himself a Catholic?

Answer

First, I hope you will be sure you have not simply misunderstood this priest. The Church teaches, as I’m sure you know, that venial sins may be remitted through an act of contrition. We are encouraged to express repentance, too, for mortal sins as soon as we can, even if we can’t receive the sacrament of penance immediately. So before making any decision that will affect your life profoundly, you should raise your questions clearly and charitably with the priest. If he does hold a view contrary to Church teaching, you have a responsibility to advise your bishop of it. If this priest is robbing the diocese of potential vocations by giving scandal, the bishop will want to correct the situation.

About changing dioceses: I would do this only as a last resort. Your ordinary may be unaware that his vocation director is giving false teaching (if he is). He and the other priests of the diocese may be completely loyal to the magisterium.

If your understanding of the priest’s views are accurate, I can well believe your shock. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2088 and 2089, deals with sins against the faith, violations of the First Commandment. A denial of the efficacy of the sacraments is to heresy, which is "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith" (CIC 751).

Answered by: Terrye Newkirk

Did John Paul II excommunicate a lot of people?

Did John Paul II excommunicate a lot of people?

Full Question

How many people has John Paul II excommunicated? A friend of mine is trying to portray him as a fanatic who is excommunicating people left and right.

Answer

John Paul II has never excommunicated anyone during his reign as pope. There have been people during his reign who have incurred what is called a latae sententiae or automatic excommunication, such as the radical modernist Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, who committed heresy, and the radical traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who excommunicated himself by consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. Both of these offenses incur latae sententiae excommunication under canon law.

There has never been a case where John Paul II excommunicated anyone directly, but he has issued or approved notices that certain individuals, including the ones mentioned above, have themselves incurred latae sententiae excommunication by their actions.

Answered by:  Jimmy Akin

Are we really eating Jesus in the Eucharist, or is it only symbolic?

Are we really eating Jesus in the Eucharist, or is it only symbolic?

Full Question

Do we really "eat Jesus"? Don't the words of consecration call only for a symbolic interpretation of eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood instead of a literal one?

Answer

Not according to the understanding of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, and not according to the practice of Christianity for 1,500 years.

The New Testament Greek in Mark 14:22, Matthew 26:26, and Luke 22:19 reads this way—transliterated, of course, into English characters: " Touto estin to soma mou. " (The very earliest account of the words of consecration in 1 Corinthians 11:24 is slightly different. Paul has it as: " Touto mou estin to soma. " In either case, the translation (as opposed to transliteration) is "This is my body."

Philologists tell us that the verb estin can mean "is really" or "is figuratively." But Paul’s discussion of the Last Supper clearly reflects his belief that the Presence is real, not figurative. Paul’s discourse may antedate the earliest Gospels by as much as eight years. It is hardly likely, in view of that, that Matthew or Mark meant estin to be taken figuratively.

Furthermore, the Greek word for body used in John 6:52-58 is sarx, which means quite specifically and only "physical flesh." The Aramaic scholars I have spoken to tell me that sarx is as close as you can get in Greek to the Aramaic bisra, which Jesus himself used.

Even more evidence from the very earliest Church comes from Ignatius of Antioch. I had to go back to my Greek version of him—somewhat more tattered than it was in 1953 when I first got it. Ignatius wrote about A.D. 110, 10 years or so after the death of John. He’s speaking here about "certain people" who were beginning to hold to "heterodox opinions" that he deemed "contrary to the mind of God"—strong language for the personal disciple of the last apostle. As nearly as I can come to it, Ignatius says: "These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2).

Ignatius was taught by John himself, and the apostolic succession in this case extends to more than the laying on of hands. I find it unlikely to the point of impossibility to believe that Ignatius would hold to a doctrine antithetical to what he had been taught by the Beloved Disciple.

Answered by: Fr. Hal Stockert

Which are the days of abstinence in Lent?

Which are the days of abstinence in Lent?

Full Question

Can you tell me what Catholic traditions are concerning Lent? My father goes without meat on Friday, my mother on Wednesday and Friday. Which one is right?

Answer

They both are. The Church nowadays requires abstinence from meat only on Fridays of Lent, so your father is obeying the current discipline. In the early centuries, Christians fasted and abstained on Wednesdays and Fridays—not only in Lent, but all year long. So your mother is honoring this ancient tradition.

The spirit of Lent is to do something more, something extra, to grow closer to Christ. The Church sets some guidelines as a minimum, but we are free to do more. Traditionally, the penances of Lent are fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. Each person, together with his confessor, decides on what practices will best prepare him for Easter.

Answered by: Terrye Newkirk

How do we refute the "soul sleep" argument?

How do we refute the "soul sleep" argument?

Full Question

Some groups, such as Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists, claim that we are not conscious between the time of our death and our resurrection but that our souls either cease to exist or are asleep. They cite verses that picture death as a sleep (e.g. Dan 12:2, 1 Cor 15:51). How can we refute this?

Answer

These verses use what is known as phenomenological language, the language of appearances. Phenomenological language occurs when we describe something as it looks, irrespective of how it is. The classic example of phenomenological language is talk of the sun rising and setting. The sun appears to rise and set , but this motion is actually due to the rotation of the earth rather than to motion of the sun around the earth.

Verses that speak of the dead sleeping use phenomenological language. For example, Daniel 12:2 states, "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." This image is of people getting up much as a sleeper rises in the morning. The sleep being discussed is phenomenological sleep, not literal sleep (Daniel is not talking about living people who sleep on the ground). Because dead people look like they are sleeping, especially when lying on their deathbeds (and notice that people often die on beds, enhancing the sleep analogy), the Bible often uses "sleep" as a euphemism for "death." In fact, this euphemism is common today.

There are two versions of the "soul sleep" theory.

The Jehovah's Witness claims that the soul ceases to exist at death and then is re-created by God at the resurrection. If their theory were true and there were no soul which survives death, it is difficult to see why the re-created "you" is not just a copy of you. It may have all your memories, but it is hard to see why it is not just a copy. If God had created this copy while you still existed, the fact it is a copy rather than the real you would be obvious.

If it is a copy, that causes problems of justice. Because you ceased to exist, you--the real you--were never punished for your sins or rewarded for your good deeds; you simply ceased to exist. Similarly, the copy of you which was created on the Last Day is then punished or rewarded for things it never did.

Once one has distinguished between the Jehovah's Witnesses' view and the view that claims that our souls simply sleep between death and resurrection, one can go on to refute these ideas by using the Bible. The following verses apply to both versions of the doctrine.

In Revelation 6:9-10, John writes, "When he [Christ] opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, 'O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?'"

Here John sees the disembodied souls of early Christian martyrs. The fact they are disembodied is known because they have been slain. Thus disembodied souls exist. The fact they are conscious is known because they cry out to God for vengeance. Unconscious people can't do that. Thus conscious, disembodied souls exist.

In Revelation 20:4 John sees these souls again: "Then I saw . . . the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God and who had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Here again we have disembodied souls (they had been beheaded). John sees them coming to life to reign with Christ--hence they are in a pre-resurrection state. Some scholars argue that this is a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one. Even if that were so, it would only strengthen the case for conscious, disembodied souls because, after having been beheaded, they would be reigning with Christ in heaven in a disembodied state.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

How can I refute this Watchtower Society argument about the rich man and Lazarus?

How can I refute this Watchtower Society argument about the rich man and Lazarus?

Full Question

I've used the story Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) to show consciousness between death and resurrection, but Jehovah's Witnesses argue that it is just a parable and thus does not tell us anything about the real world. How can I respond to this?

Answer

Point out that Jesus' parables tell us much about the real world. He takes common elements of human experience--sons and fathers, judges and kings, the rich and the poor, buying and selling, planting and harvesting, fishing and wine-making--and uses these elements to teach theological points.

In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man Jesus uses human experiences of life and human experiences of death to teach that one's life affects one's fate, that one's fate is sealed at death, and that those who will not listen to God's word will not take heed of his own Resurrection either.

Point out that if his other parables reflect human experience when they talk about comfort and suffering in this life then this parable reflects human experience when it talks about comfort and suffering in the afterlife between death and resurrection.

To press the issue more sharply, point out that the second half of the parable (where the two are dead) reflects human experience as much as the first half (where the two are alive) reflects human experience. If there were rich men and beggars in Jerusalem in Jesus' day, then, when they died, they went to hell or Abraham's bosom in Jesus' day.

They went to hell if unrighteous (the Catechism of the Catholic Church, following the historic Christian interpretation, cites the rich man as an example of one who has died in mortal sin [CCC 1859]) or to Abraham's bosom if righteous (today the state of the righteous dead is even more glorious since the gates of heaven have been opened and the righteous, after purification if needed, now go to be with God (CCC 1026).

Note that some argue this isn't a parable at all but a historical account. Nothing in the text says it is a parable, and it is different from other parables in that Jesus names one of the characters--Lazarus. If it is a parable, it is the only parable where that happens.

A few last points. When the rich man suggests Lazarus be sent back from the dead, Abraham does not say that he won't go back, but that if he does go back those who will not hear the Law and the prophets will not take heed of Lazarus's rising either. In John's Gospel we read that Jesus has a friend named Lazarus who dies and comes back from the dead (Jn 11), and when he does so those who do not listen to God's word do not heed his raising either (Jn 11:45-53); they even plan to kill Lazarus because of the evidence his raising provides for Jesus' messianic claims (Jn 12:9-11)!

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did John Paul II write that everyone would be saved?

Did John Paul II write that everyone would be saved?

Full Question

Is it true that in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, the pope said that everybody will be saved and no one will go to hell?

Answer

Absolutely not. In fact, the pope states that one problem in the modern Church is that priests do not preach enough about hell. The pope states, "To a certain degree man does get lost; so too do preachers, catechists, teachers; and as a result, they no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell. And perhaps even those who listen to them have stopped being afraid of hell. In fact, people of our time have become insensitive to the Last Things" (183).

Concerning the reality of hell, John Paul II says,

The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Mikhail Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Baltha-sar. In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the "final apokatastasis," according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction and every creature would be saved, a theory which abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. (185-186)

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does a person returning to the Church need to go through RCIA?

Does a person returning to the Church need to go through RCIA?

Full Question

If a Catholic is returning to the active practice of the faith after having been a member of a different religion, say, Fundamentalism, is he obliged to go through RCIA first or just go to confession?

Answer

It depends on the person's state at the time he left the Catholic Church. If he had been catechized and had received all the sacraments of initiation--baptism, confirmation, Eucharist--then he will normally be able to return by going to confession, mentioning the fact he had joined another church, and being absolved.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Did the Church change its position on the punishment of heretics?

Did the Church change its position on the punishment of heretics?

Full Question

An anti-Catholic claims that the Church at the Fourth Lateran Council said heretics should be exterminated, but now the Church denies that they should be. What should we make of this?

Answer

Not much. First, the issue Lateran IV (1215) addressed was not the "extermination" of heretics in the sense of killing them. Anti-Catholics have been confused by the use of the Latin extermino in the Council's decree and have assumed the word means the same as the English verb "exterminate." It does not.

For example, the (non-Catholic) Cassell's Latin Dictionary points out that extermino is derived from ex (from or out of) and terminus (boundary). In English it has come to mean pushing beyond the boundary of life, but it doesn't have that meaning in Latin. Cassell's defines extermino as "to drive beyond the boundaries; hence lit[eral meaning], to drive out, expel, banish . . . transf[erred meaning] to put aside, remove." Cassell's does not list "kill," "exterminate," or any equivalent as a definition.

Thus the relevant passage of Lateran IV reads, "Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion ["extermination"] of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and be strengthened by the same holy privilege as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy land" (Constitution 3).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff