How often can you receive Communion at Mass on the same day?

How often can you receive Communion at Mass on the same day?

Answer

The Code of Canon Law allows you to receive Communion up to two times in one day (CIC 917). The first time you receive Communion may be at a Mass at which one is assisting (worshiping) or it may be at a Mass where you happen to be in the church at Communion time or it may be outside of a Mass (e.g., at a Communion service). However, the second time you receive Communion it must be at a Mass at which you are assisting (worshiping).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does the Church condemn those who disagree with its teachings?

Does the Church condemn those who disagree with its teachings?

Full Question

Why does the Catholic Church pronounce anathemas upon those who disagree with its teachings? This was done, for example, at the Council of Trent. Isn't it presumptuous of the Catholic Church to "damn to hell" someone who refuses to submit to its doctrines?

Answer

The Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone to hell (that, of course, is each individual's unique prerogative - if you go to hell, you choose to go there), and the term anathema sit does not mean "let him be damned to hell," but "let him be cut off." There is a great difference.

First, let's examine the biblical meaning of the Greek word anathema. It literally means to be suspended, placed on high, or set aside. In the Bible the term is sometimes used in the positive sense of being to something which is dedicated to God.

For example, in Judith 16:23, "Judith dedicated as a votive offering [anathema] to God all the things of Holofernes that the people had given her, as well as the canopy that she herself had taken from his bedroom."

In an act of desperation as he saw God's wrath being kindled against him, the evil King Antiochus "vowed to the Lord, who would no longer have mercy on him, that he would set free the holy city, toward which he had been hurrying with the intention of leveling it to the ground and making it a common graveyard. . . [and that] he would adorn with the finest offerings [anathemata] the temple which he had previously despoiled" (2 Mc 9:13-14, 16). Luke describes the Temple as being, "adorned with costly stones and votive offerings [anathemata]" (Lk 21:5).

In other instances anathema is used in sense of being cursed or cut off. Paul says, "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and separated [anathema] from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kin, according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3). He also warns us, "If anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed [anathema]!" (Gal 1:9, see also 1 Cor 16:22).

When the Catholic Church uses the term, such as at the Council of Trent and in its official documents, it is in the sense of excommunication or being cut off from the life-giving unity of the Church. If someone knowingly and publicly denies a defined (de fidei definita) doctrine of the Catholic Church, he can be formally declared to be excommunicated, meaning that he no longer enjoys unity with the Catholic Church.

That's why, for example, the Council of Trent said, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (session VI, can. 9). This use of the term anathema has a very precise meaning: Let him be cut off from the Church, not let him be damned to hell. And this is done by the Church in her wisdom as a way of trying to bring the one in error to his senses - before it's too late and he is damned to hell by virtue of his obstinacy.

An anathema or excommunication is designed to remind the sinner of his eventual fate if he doesn't repent. That's why the Church is always ready to absolve and receive back the repentant sinner. That's why those who willingly disobey the Church's teachings may be anathematized - so that they will recognize the grave danger of such a course and be willing to return to the fold. And, of course, the Lord himself taught that excommunication is the Church's most severe method of dealing with members who sin grievously (heresy, schism, willingly procuring or helping someone to procure an abortion, illicitly ordaining bishops, and apostasy) when he said,

If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that "every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses" [Dt 19:15]. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile o r a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt 18:15-18)

Paul expands on the theme of excommunication:

It is widely reported that there is immorality among you and immorality of a kind not found even among the pagans. . . The one who did this should be expelled from your midst. I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus: When you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. . . Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough? Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough. . . . Purge the evil person from your midst. (1 Cor 5:1-7, 13)

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does Romans 5:1 mean we can never lose our salvation--that peace with God is permanent?

Does Romans 5:1 mean we can never lose our salvation--that peace with God is permanent?

Full Question

I heard a former Catholic, now an Evangelical, insist Romans 5:1 ("since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God") means that we can never lose our salvation. He says the biblical concept of peace is robust and doesn't mean just a temporary cease-fire. What's your reply?

Answer

That apologist is clearly trying to milk the verse for far more than he can possibly get out of it. First, the best manuscripts of Romans do not say "we have peace" but "let us have peace," making it an exhortation to have peace with God, or, more properly, to continue in the peace we were given in justification.

This leads to the second point, which is that anyone in a state of justification does have peace with God. But the fact that one has peace now doesn't mean that peace can't be broken. If one commits mortal sin, one breaks one's peace with God by turning away from him, and one loses the peace and justification one had.

Peace with God is something other than a temporary cease-fire, but that doesn't mean it can't be broken. By any standard, the United States and England have more than a cease-fire between them and currently enjoy a deep and long-lasting peace between them. Yet that doesn't mean it is impossible for them ever to go to war.

The biblical idea of peace clearly did not indicate a peace which was totally unbreakable. King David would have been shocked by the suggestion that, when God gave him peace (shalom) with his enemies, this meant they would never, ever, under any circumstances go to war with Israel again.

Thus in the divine sphere: Peace with God can be broken, but one must do something grave (something with the grave matter of mortal sin) to break one's peace with God and become his enemy. That is why mortal sins break peace with God, but venial sins don't.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Can I enter the Church privately to avoid upsetting my family?

Can I enter the Church privately to avoid upsetting my family?

Full Question

I am convinced in my heart that I must become a Catholic, but my family is troubled, and my becoming Catholic could lead to divorce. I wish the priest at the local church could let me quietly enter the Catholic faith so that this could be avoided.

Answer

If necessary, your local priest can receive you into the Church privately. That is often done for those who are in situations where a public reception would pose a grave familial or financial problem for the person. However, he would want to be assured that the stakes really are high and that waiting a reasonable length of time would not change them.

If waiting a reasonable length of time to be received could prevent grave sins from being committed by others, then waiting could be permitted. However, it could not alter the basic decision to convert, since we are bound by divine law on that point, and it would be a grave sin for a person who has recognized the truth of the Catholic faith not to join the Church.

The fact that you have recognized the truth of the faith thus settles the question of whether to convert, but the circumstances of one's life help settle when and how the reception into the Church is to be done (immediately or after a period, at Easter or at some other time, publicly or privately, etc.).

What counts as a reasonable length of time also varies according to a person's situation. What is a reasonable length of time for someone in a normal situation is not the same as a reasonable length of time for one on his deathbed.

However, a "reasonable length of time" is not an indefinite period that can stretch on for years with no end in sight. Once a reasonable period has elapsed, one is bound to go ahead and enter the Church, whether this is done publicly or privately.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Should I buy Fr. Richard McBrien's book?

Should I buy Fr. Richard McBrien's book?

Full Question

I am considering becoming a Catholic. A priest told me that I should get a copy of a book called Catholicism, by Fr. Richard McBrien. The book is very expensive, and I was wondering if it is really worth getting.

Answer

Don't waste your money. Although Fr. McBrien was once the head of the Catholic Theological Society of America, his views on theology--today at any rate--are way out of line with the Church's official teaching. The book you mention by him is highly erroneous and an unreliable guide to the Church's teachings.

This conclusion was recently announced by an official Church doctrinal review panel here in America, the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices, which studied Catholicism for fifteen years.

Among other things, the book claims that Catholics may, in good conscience, believe that Jesus could have sinned, that Mary may not have given birth as a virgin, and that issues such as women's ordination, homosexuality, and contraception are open for discussion. None of this is true. In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome recently ruled that the fact women cannot be ordained to the priesthood is an infallibly defined doctrine.

Fr. Augustine DiNoia, executive director of the American secretariat, said the bishops rarely condemn a book, but in this case it was important for them to act publicly because the book is used as an introductory text for Catholics. He explained, "It's like a book review, only it's a book review authorized by the bishops."

Thus, regardless of what some priest may have told you, the bishops have officially declared the book to be an unsound guide to Church teaching and an inappropriate book to use as an introduction to the Catholic faith.

If you would like a truly reliable guide to the Church's teachings, you can get a much less expensive and much more authoritative one in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Can a person baptize himself ?

Can a person baptize himself if there is no one else available or willing to do it and if not, why not?

Full Question

Can a person baptize himself if there is no one else available or willing to do it and if not, why not?

Answer

No one can baptize himself. Self-baptisms (also known as "auto-baptisms") are automatically invalid, and anyone who was initially baptized in this way would have to be baptized (unconditionally) by someone else (Denzinger 413 [DS 788]).

Another person must administer the sacrament to symbolize the fact that the person cannot reach up and bring down God's grace upon himself. God's grace must be given to a person; it cannot be taken from God.

However, for someone in a situation where no one is available or willing to baptize him, God will not hold that against him. He will count his desire for baptism in place of the baptism itself and give him the grace anyway. This is because God loves us and wants us to have his grace, even when the normal method of communicating it is unavailable.

Thus God wants the communication of his grace properly symbolized (in the normal rite by which it is communicated) but wants it to be communicated even when this symbolism is not possible (when the normal rite is not available). Thus the Council of Trent taught that "justification . . . cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it" (Decree on Justification 4).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

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