Jul06
Some folks who have been away for a while have questions and concerns to express. (Even Catholics who have never been away have many questions!) Please feel free to use the comments section below to ask questions and state concerns.
All of us who contribute to this blog are pleased to answer questions and address your concerns. Your questions will help this blog to get its wings and really fly. Ask and ye shall be answered!
What is an encyclical, and why do Popes put this out from time to time?
Sorry for the delay in responding. Our bad!
An encyclical is a papal document, written to the Bishops on a matter of importance to the Church. It is called an “encyclical letter” because it expresses the mind of the pope on a specific topic. When a Pope wants the Bishops and the people of God to pray and reflect on a particular topic, he will write an encyclical. Think of it in the tradition of Paul’s letters to the communities in which preached and visited.
The Church’s teaching authority is the Pope and the Bishops (The Magisterium) and so one can also think of an encyclical like a class lecture. Pope Benedict XVI is a natural teacher and loves to teach and so I think he will use the encyclical tradition often.
I want to know that, too. And, who reads 50 page documents? Is there a Clif notes version?
Susan, indeed, help is on the way. if you Email me via the ADW website, I am happy to send along cliff notes! I am Susan Timoney.
tonypetroneiii@yahoo.com
I wish I knew her name but I do not. Her home page at youtube is here: http://www.youtube.com/user/ririkuku
I suppose young ladies are wise to not publish their names. It looks as though she lives in Geneva Switzerland. She is surely a wonderful organist and her interpretation of Bach is always very pure and energetic. The Fugue in D major (532) is one of my favorites and she plays it so well!
I have a question about the perspective of our faith. As Catholics, we don’t seem to hear a lot about the ‘end of the world’ and that sort of thing. Recently in my reading I’ve come across some ‘end of days’-type opinions from Catholic authors, and I have to confess it just terrifies me! My question is, can we still consider ourselves good Catholics if we turn a deaf ear to the perspective that ‘the end is near’? Perhaps that point of view works well to inspire faith in some, but if it does not, and if for that reason you keep away from that perspective. . is that wrong?
I think you are right, we don’t place the same emphasis on the end-times (eschatology) scenarios that the Evangelicals do. Perhaps it is due to the fact that the Catholic Church has been around a long time and we’ve seen extreme interpretations of such things come and go. As for the Lord coming “soon” remember that for the Lord 1000 years as as a watch in the night. We do not know the day or the hour. Groups that try to present definitive arguments that these are the last days may at times violate that norm. However, Lynn, it remains true that you and I are on the edge of an abyss!
That is to say, tomorrow is not promised. In fact our next heartbeat is not promised. Whether or not the end times are imminent, one thing is clear, we are not far from our own end, it’s just one heartbeat away. I am 48 and even if I live to be 88 those years with ebb quickly. We are more well advised to have our own end in mind rather than engage in lengthy speculation about the second coming etc. Even if I could demonstrate that it is next week, you and I are not guaranteed to make it to next week. You and I are going to die. What are we doing to get ready to see God? Being terrified is seldom a good plan. We ought to be sober about the end, but panic and terror are not a good plan. Hence we should ask God for a certain sobriety and also a joyful expectation of his Second coming and/or our death that faith can give us. If you are really bothered by fear I might encourage you to speak with a parish priest about this. Sobriety is the real goal here. Sobriety implies a reverence of the fact that I am going to die. Hence I am going to stop playing around and be serious about my preparation to meet the Lord. However Sobriety implies also that I am not in a panic, I have a plan, God’s plan to be ready: repentance, faith, prayer, sacraments, Scripture. Then I’ll be as ready as I can be.
Being only a two year old catholic, I grew up in a Assembly of God church and the end of times was preached and talked about plenty. Growing up I was always paranoid that I would be left behind. As a teen there were times when I would come home and find the house empty, thinking there should be family home, and get scared that the rapture had taken place and I was left.
Thank God this fear is gone. I try to live a Holy life and attend Mass weekly. I thank the church for helping me understand there is only one more return of Jesus. I try to live like today is my last day because only God knows about tomorrow.
I like the picture of Moses you have on this link.
http://blog.adw.org/2009/06/a-parable-on-the-paradox-of-perfect-power/
I have printed it out twice and put it on my wall. The first time I had it on my wall I could see another face in the picture when I first woke up with the morning light shining on it. Every day. Same face.
Anyway I was hoping you had a better copy of the photo. So I could print out a poster size photo. Or maybe just the painters name or painting name.
Thank you,
John-David Feldman
I wish I knew where the original came from. The Title of the painting is I think, “Moses Blessing” You can search the image library at google and find multiple files of it but none of them in my quick look say who the artist is or where printed copies can be found. The highest resolution I found is here: http://felsefehayat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/moses_blessing.jpg I this info will help you on your search! Thanks for reading
I am wondering about the Kyrie. In “The Mass in Slow Motion – The Kyrie (Lord Have Mercy)”, at the following link:
http://blog.adw.org/2009/05/the-mass-in-slow-motion-the-kyrie-lord-have-mercy/
Msgr. Charles Pope says, “In fact, it should be remembered that the response “Kyrie Eleison” may in fact be made instead of “Lord hear our prayer.” More will be said of this later on.” That was the end of that blog entry and I was unable to find anything further about the translation. On Wikipedia at the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrie
It says, “This is a key to fully understanding the Greek Kýrie, eléison, for while Latin is mostly a static language (Lord HAVE mercy!) Greek (in this case particularly) is an active language. Thus, “Lord Have Mercy”, the static plea, is more properly translated “The Lord is BEING merciful” in the active Greek[citation needed]. In this respect, the prayer is simultaneously a petition and a prayer of thanksgiving; an acknowledgment of what God has done, what God is doing, and what God will continue to do.” I noticed that a citation was requested for the statement about the translation. Looking for a further description of the translation from the Greek I found your blog and your description of the Kyrie.
What are your thoughts on the translation? Is “The Lord be merciful” an accurate translation (if not in the greatest English) that captures a double meaning? Is the Wikipedia statement accurate?
Thank you for your work and thoughts,
Jennifer
P.S. I also loved the musical examples at the bottom of the page and wondered what each was specifically (f you know) because I would like to find and purchase the music.
Working backward through your questions: The Three Kyries are these: The Poly phonic one is by Josquin des Prez from a Mass called Missa L’Homme arme; the Gregorian Kyrie is setting # 9 (Miss cum jubilo) in the Liber Usualis also called the Kyrie cum jubilo, a Mass set aside for Masses in honor of Mary. THe Taize Kyrie is the Zagreb Kyrie. The Taize collection has more than a dozen settings of the kyrie.
As for the question of the Translation of Kyrie Eleison to “the Lord is being merciful” I am not a Greek scholar. I know just enough to be dangreous. However I have my doubts about your translation only because this Greek phrase has always and everywhere been translated “Lord have mercy.” I also see that “Kyrie” is in the vocative:”Lord!” not as you suggest in the nominative Kyrios, “The Lord” I suspect the widesread and consistent translation “Lord Have mercy!” is safest. I am not licensed to comment any further on the potential meanings of Greek here.
As for my “more will be said reference, I indicated in the later post on the prayer of the faithful the possible use of Kyrie Elesion instead of Lord hear our prayer and referred once again to the original place of the prayer of the faithful at the beginning of the Mass here: http://blog.adw.org/2009/06/the-mass-in-slow-motion-the-prayer-of-the-faithful/
Hope this helps
I’ve a question-
My friend’s husband likes to get into it about religion. He’s Protestant and I’m Catholic. He says that Catholics aren’t Christians, and I say the were the firsts. I also say that Protestants were Catholics who protested the Catholic teachings. If we aren’t Christians than neither are they. However, I am confused as to why there is this line of thinking that there are Catholics and then there are Christians. Why do even some Catholics think we are not Christians?
Not sure where Catholics get the idea that we aren’t Christians. SOme have simply accepted Protestant labels. As it is we are Catholic Christians. As you point out we’re the original model. As for your husband’s friend, it is astonishing to me that some Protestants say we aren’t Chrisitan. History is very clear that the Catholic Church goes all the way back to Christ and the apostles. This is simple history not even theology. It is also dripping with irony that, While claiming to be Christian, a person flippantly dismisses you from the rank of Christians. Hardly a Christian sort of attitude. If we Catholics officially denied the Trinity, or the divinity of Christ, or his resurrection, or his Lordship, or some other Christian dogma I could accept the judgment that we had departed Christianity. As it is we have held to the apostolic faith for more that 2000 years, at least 1500 years longer than any Protestant denomination. Hence, lacking evidence of the Catholic Church renouncing Christian dogma, your husbands friend, while claiming to be the Christian, is acting in a way far from Christianity. Ugly, divisive remarks don’t match well with Christianity.
I heard the “scrupulosity” and, in the context of the conversation, was kind of perplexed by what the person using it was trying to say. So, I looked up the term and am unsure of what exactly it means in the context of spirituality. Would you please explain?
Scrupulosity is an extreme obsession about moral issues and sin along with a pathological sense of guilt. In its true form it is a very serious mental disorder since the person cannot extract themselves from a compulsive worry about the possibility of sin and the punishments that will follow. WHile sorrow for sin is a gift of God that draws us to repentance, scrupulosity is a serious mental issue which often feeds upon itself. The person will obessively think themselves gulity of sin and then consider that such a self preoccupation is also sin, which makes them more guilty and the cycle spirals downward into a kind of obsessive rumination about sin that is difficult to break free from. Confession can help but often does not. If the confessor is not experienced in dealing with the scrupulous, he can unwittingly contribute to the malady. The scrupulous pentitnet will gone on for a long while describe sins they have or may have committed. During this very time of confession the penitent may in fact think he has committed sins during the very act of confessing perhaps by not being sorry enough, or have mentioned a sin in a certain way and not another, or perhaos they had dirty thoughts as they were confessing, or perhaps the very fact they obsess over sin is a sin they are comitting at that very moment. It is a very problematic affliction and difficult to treat. SOme OCD meds seem to work but not always. The confessor must often be very firm with such a penitent and insist they strictly adhere to a confession schedule. Otherwise they are back day after day, even multiple times within an hour long period of Saturday confessions.
SOmetimes the word scrupulosity is used in a non-clincal sense merely to refer to a person with a sensitive conscience or to one who is noted for their careful observance of moral norms. In this case the word is used non-clinically. But clinical and literal scruplosity is a serious mental disorder and a painful affliction not only for the one who has it but for others around him who must try to reassure, often unsucessfully since the patient is often quite unconsolable.
Thank you, Father. You completely shed the light on the conversation I heard, and some things about this person are a little clearer.
I’ve another point of dispute with my Protestant friend. He says that transubstantiation became part of the Mass after the Reformation, but I don’t see how that can be. When Christ said, “This is my Body,” I would think it was so (His Real Presence in the bread) from then and then on when the first Apostles broke bread, and then through succession. Am I wrong?
Btw- he isn’t obnoxious when he states his beliefs, and it’s interesting to talk to him. I like hearing what others think- just don’t think he’s right sometimes and am not always sure if I am.
In re-reading this, I could have been clearer- I thought that the Last Supper was when the Sacraments of the Mass and the Eucharist were instituted. So I was a little thrown about what he had to say about the Reformation.
The word “transubstantiation” came to be used at Trent to describe the teaching of the Church and Scriptures that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. THey cease to be the substance we call bread and wine and become the substance we call the Body, Blood, Soul and DIvintity of Jesus. So the while the word is from the time of Trent (Reformation), the teaching is biblical and thus goes back to the last supper. Note Christ says this IS my body. He does not say his body is in the bread, or along with the bread. He says the bread is (now) his body, the wine IS his blood. That is, the substance, what it actually is, is his Body, is his blood. Do not be discouraged that the word came later. So did words like Trinity and incarnation. These are words the Church came to use to describe ancient teachings not to start a new teaching. It is this way with the word transsubstantiation. You are right to be thrown by what the reformation did. It threw out of lot of ancient, long standing apostolic teachings. You are correct in being surprised that someone in the 16th century thought they knew better than 1500 years of Christians before them, including the apostles who all believed and wrote that the Eucharist is no mere symbol but is if fact and substance the very body and blood of Christ. The Protestant leaders of that time disguarded centuries of clear teaching not onlyin Sacred Tradition, but also the Scriptures themselves. You ought to be confused and more than a little “thrown” I am too.
I didn’t mention that the Protestant of whom I speak has a daughter who is studying to become a minister. Obviously, I don’t know very much about other faiths, because I did not know that Protestants ordained (don’t even know if that’s the correct word) women clergy. Which brings me to another question- addressing clergy of different faiths-
I was at a funeral mass for a family member who was Methodist, and my husband kept referring to the celebrant as “Father.” I’m one of those people who like to know how to properly address people, and when I’m unsure, I use the title Reverend, which just seems most appropriate when unsure. I know it’s a silly question, but if this man’s daughter (or any other woman whose faith recognizes them as “priests”) is ordained would the proper title be Mother? Is that how I am to properly address her?
Yes. many of the Protestant Denominations do have women in the ranks of thier clergy. Some of them refer to their clergy as being “ordained” others do not. However, none (except the Episcopals) refer to their ministers as priests and none (except some of the higher Church Episcopalians) call them “Father.” Normally Protestant clergy go by “Pastor Jones” or “Reverend Jones.” It is more usual with Methodists to go by the title “Rev. Jones”
As for a woman “priest” in the Episcopal Church I have never heard them called “Mother” Obviosuly “Father” won’t do. The ones I know simply go by “Reverend Jones.”
In watching coverage about the Red Mass, a question came to mind.
In Jeffrey Toobin’s 2007 book about the Supreme Court, “The Nine,” he wrote about Justice Kennedy:
“Kennedy was a serious Catholic who went to Mass every Sunday and prayed in the old-fashioned manner, hands clasped before him. Abortion repelled him. He fully adopted his church’s teachings on the subject. But Kennedy knew the difference between his duties as a judge and his convictions as a Catholic.”
So, when Kennedy votes to uphold Roe v Wade, how does the Church view that action and others like it? How does the Church view the record and words of the newest justice, and will the Church offer her communion anyway?
Also,I was a little conflicted in watching coverage of the Ted Kennedy funeral. A letter from Kennedy himself was read that did not address his regret that he supported abortion. I mean, even my 13 year old (who is actively pro-life) asked why he was having his funeral in a Catholic church. I told her that we must assume that he confessed his sins and was sorry- but that letter…. it said nothing.
In watching how the Church sometimes interacts with our leaders, I can see how some Catholics might be confused as to the importance of making abortion a vital issue when choosing our representatives.
An you explain the obligation Catholics in office and on the bar have regarding abortion?
I suppose there is a difference between what judges and legislators have to do. Judges are called upon to interpret and apply existing law in the light of jurisprudence. I suppose a Catholic judge could therefore struggle to apply their Catholic faith to every decision since civil law is their main and required reference. I am puzzled however as to Justice Kennedy’s incapacity to find legal reason to overthrow Roe. It is such obviously bad and flimsy law (pnumbras and eminations? Please!). But my main point here is that Justices may have less room to maneuver that a legislator. Legislators craft law and, though they must repect the Constituttion they have a lot of room to act. I consider them more responsible especially if they vote to fund abortion. As for Senator Kennedy I blogged a good bit on this back at the time of his funeral. I thought the funeral was poorly celebrated and that a more prayerful attitude for the repose of his soul was necessary. Sen. was not an exemplary Catholic as he was made out to be. However, I would be very slow to deny a funeral for anyone. We all need prayer, especially at death and I have no doubt that Sen K. needed it. It is my hope that the Sen has attained to heaven, probably via purgatory (which will be the likely side stop for most of us). There perhaps the Lord can teach the Senator how seriously wrong he was. That is my hope, but the Senator’s final judgement remains between him and God for now. We ought to pray. As for denying a funeral, it is a judgment call that must be made by the bishop and there are many factors to consider. Scandal is one of them but so is conferring too much of a celebrity or martyr status on the one denied. I cannot sit in the palce of a bishop. In the end I agree with you, the Church sent very unclear signals to the faithful in this whole matter. The funeral should have been much more carefully handled. NO funeral should ever be as Eulogistic as that one was. The fact that the senator was proud of his pro-abortion record should have given an open door to the pastor or others to state plainly the Senators opposition to Catholic teaching and repectfully ask prayers on this account. It could have been done respectfully, also noting some of Kennedy’s better qualities as well. That it was not done cause scandal and sorrow for many faithful Catholics
I’ve a question about ordination and the belief that “once a priest always a priest.” Holy Orders is a sacrament, as is marriage; however, the sacrament marriage is nullified for a number of different reasons. My understanding is that, regarding marriage, given certain conditions, a covenant would never have been established to begin with. Other sacraments can be nullified as well if found to be illicit. But the same isn’t true for the priesthood, is it? And that confuses me. If one were to enter the priesthood without pure intentions to maintain his vows, than how could one say that the sacrament is valid? Also, if one has inclinations and desires that render him sick of mind, it confuses me to think that the Holy Spirit would seal one such as that forever to the priesthood.
Some of your questions hinge on Canon (Church) Law which is kind of a murkey world to me but let me try to answer as best I know.
It is true – once a priest always a priest. THis is in accord with scripture which says in the 110th psalm you are priest forever in the line of Melchizedek.
Now as for anulments, they are a decalration the a valid marriage never took place in the first place for demonstrable reasons and hence the person is free to marry because they have never been actually married. We do not speak of other scaraments as being nullified, rather they may be illicit (illegally celebrated) or invald (not truly conferred do to some major flaw).
It is true that a priest could be invalidly ordained if the bishop committed some major flaw or if the bishop were not himself validly ordained. Orders can also be conferred illicitly if it is done without proper permission etc.
Now as for the possible that a man did not bring the proper intention to the ordination, I am less clear how and when that might invalidate, a canon lawyer might better answer here. But if one were to lie about a significant matter, such as their gender, marital state, actual identitiy or some major impediment they would not be validly ordained. As for dispositions, maturity etc. there does not seem to be much of a focus on this. If a man petitions to be later released from priestly service it is not usually handled like a marriage case where things like that are investigated. Rather, he is simply laicized. He is still a priest, but is prevented from exercising his priestly ministry. I suppose one might apply the the logic of marriage tribunals to ordination questions ex post facto but it isn’t usually the way these matter are handled. SInce the man is not being decalred “never ordained” it is not necessary. He is simply being permitted to live in the lay state, but remains a priest.
I’ll ask a canon lawyer friend of mine to weigh in if possible.
Here’s a topic that has kept me wondering for many years. God became human in order to save humanity. Thus, dogs aren’t saved, cats aren’t saved, trees aren’t saved, etc. We always refer to salvation for men and women.
Now, let’s assume there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. How does that life play into God’s plan of salvation? Should we go ahead and evangelize them? Does God-become-man also save them, or are they more like other species that aren’t saved? If they’re to be saved, could we assume that God had to become one of them also and similarly die for their sins?
When in doubt evangelize! Boethius defined a person as an individual substance of a rational nature. Hence I think that we should share the message of Jesus with every person we meet. Dogs and cats don’t seem have a ratioanl nature so its pretty hard to convince them of the message of Jesus. If aliens are individual substances of a rational nature I think we should share the gospel and scarament with them. It is true, Chirst took a human nature and whether aliens need to be saved is speculative, we won’t know till we meet them. But if they did it might be the case that just as salvation came from the Jews to all the gentiles, so now salvation woulf come from humanity to all aliens
That’s my best stab at it.
By the way I’d like to think I’ll see my pets it the parousia! Not sure if God will raise them up, but if He’s gonna make all things new I’d like to think my pets will be near at hand in the world made new. This doesn’t bespeak “salvation” for them just a share in the “all things made new” category.
I guess that makes sense. Does the Church have an official position on this?
Can cats and/or dogs sin? OK, cats probably can, but I’m not sure about dogs. So, if they cannot sin, do they need to be “saved”? In any event, if God wants dogs in heaven, there are dogs in heaven. Whether they are or not does not impact the question of the salvation of humanity one bit.
Hi. Why do animals suffer? It is apparent that nature has always been “red in tooth and claw” in nature even before the Fall of man. (Therefore, I don’t see how the Fall could explain why animals suffer.) So, why do animals suffer? Or do they not suffer? Please help. An atheist wants to know, and I don’t have a good response!
If one were to simply argue from the Book of Genesis then the answer is that death, violence and chaos in nature all resulted from Original Sin. Not only were Adam and Eve affected by what they did but so was all creation. Adam was told by God, “Cursed be the ground because of you….” In other words, paradise is no longer, now death has entered the world. Isaiah in the 11th chapter dreamed of a world when it was restored by God where the lion would lie down with the lamb. Paul in the 8th cahpter of Romans teaches that craetion did not become rebellious becuase it willed it but becuase of Him who once made it son on account of our sin. But even now Paul goes on to say, creation is groaning and waiting for the number of the elect to be complete that it (creation) will then share in the glorious freedom of the Children of God. Finally in Revelation 21 and 22, Christ speaks of a time when we will make all things new. THis is the strict Biblical answer. However as you note we are left with a bit of a problem in that our scientific evidence more than suggests that long before Man and thus long before original sin there were great upheavals in creation and that animals such as dinosaurs killed eachother for food and that there was death in the world, even mass extictions. THus we are cautioned in using the Bibles poetic genre as a strict scientific account. Many more fundamentalist Christians try to turn the Scripture’s allegorical and poetic genre into science. It is not. The scriptures do clearly link the suffering and upheaval of creation to sin, but it is not necessary a one for one connection to Original sin. For example, there could be a connection to the fall of the angels as well, long before man. Another theory is that the garden in which Adam and Eve were placed was a garden set apart and that in that garden there would have been no death or suffering. Hence the Greek root of the word paradise can come from para (meaning beside, and daezo meaning “wall.’ Another root analysis of the word is from the Greek root pairi meaning park and daezo meaning wall. Either way “paradise” means a place set apart (by a wall) from the rest. The theory then is that although the circle of life and other unheaval might continue outside paradise but within would be exempt from all that. So the Scriptures may not be incorrect in their poetry that something happened which thrust us from a paradise into the harsher world in which we now live and that somehow our sin intensified the chaos of creation, but was not its only cause. Finally to your fundamental question. Why do animals suffer. Let us presume that, as science seems to show, suffering, death and chaos have been here from the start. Why does it have to be this way. Fundamentally I don’t know, it is impossible to speculate that things could have been some other way or should be. But consider that there is a circle of life that seems apt for the world. God fashions and refashions using this cycle. Last years leaves serve as nutrients in the soil for this years growth. Old trees die to give way for new. Forest fires clear undergrowth. Hurricanes help distribute heat from the equator toward the poles. Animals feed upon each other but also keep their populations in proper balance. There is a genius in the system that must be appreciated even if it shocks some of our sensibilities and feelings. Do animals suffer? It seems clear that they do suffer physical pain and expereince fear. But I think a lot of the suffering we impute to them may be a bit of a projection. It does not seem that most animlas have a sophisticated “inner life” that would substanitally add to suffering. For example, I may know that I exist and am about to die. That surely intensifies my suffering. An animal does not necessarily go through all this. It may have no concept of “i” or of death. They may simply instictually respond to danger and have little or no feelings at all. It is hard to say. As for physical pain, I can say from expereince from broken bones and other serious injury that the body has a defense mechanism. I have broken a bone and felt little pain until 20 to 30 minutes later. Hence in the throws of death an animal may not suffer as much pain as we might think.
Sorry for the randon nature of this response but I had to type it quickly.
I realize this is a legal question but it is also a moral, as most matters of law are, but maybe someone can help me understand….
UMD banned prayer at graduation, but did allow “independent groups” to show a XXX film (and even justified its value with a safe sex speech from Planned Parenthood following its showing). Now, were a student to hang a noose on campus, that would be a hate crime. So, how is the promulgation of hate an offense to the 1st Amendment but the exploitation of women upholds it? Omt – the UK banned “extreme pornography,” but how does one define those terms (it’s a rhetorical question)? When one views the norms of human sexual behavior, shouldn’t all pornography be seen as extreme?
I am not entirely sure I follow all of what you are saying. I can only affirm that there is a double standard about all other speach and religious speech. The First Ammendment does not limit the influence of the Church it limits the religious power of the State. But most most people today think of the “seperation of Church and State” (A phrase NOT in the Constitution) as quite absolute. THis is wrong Here is what the Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” OK so no official State religion. But note the second half emphsizes the feel exercise of religion, NOT all the restrictions of today.
I have a rather difficult question. Is Hell a physical place or a state of being? If it is a physical place how can Satan and his demons be confined when they are pure spirit? If it is a state of being how can the resurrected bodies of the damn be just in a state of being?
I belong to a recovery group that meets weekly. Sometimes the discussion gets rather heavy, especially between me and another who is agnostic. Recovery requires a spiritual connection (I believe) and this person likes to poke at my beliefs, which is fine- he hasn’t quite realized that this gives me the opportunity to evangelize. Anyway, he told me that what I call spiritual gifts, he calls talents that are either innate or learned. He went on to talk about people who he knows who don’t believe in God who are compassionate, charitable, etc. How do you make the distinction between the gifts and talents and aren’t non-believers also given gifts of spirit?
We distinguish between different kinds of grace. The first kind is Sanctifying grace (gratia gratum faciens). This is the grace that makes us holy and pleasing to God. One who is unbaptized does not have this sort of grace. Another grace is the charisms (gratia gratis data). Now this sort of grace describes gifts that God gives individuals primarily for the good of the community, or others. While it is true that using our gifts can increase our holiness (if we have faith and baptism) the main purpose of the charisms is for the sake of others. Now charisms can be given by God to unbelievers. An atheist for example could play the pipe organ in Church and thereby inspire faith and joy in others. An atheist could design beautiful churches etc. Now where a talent is distinguished from a charism is a matter of some definition but it seems to me that a talent would be a gift oriented to a merely worldly purpose whereas a charism would be linked to faith and the things of God. Perhaps your friend would like to use the term talent only since he is secular however we who are Christian make distinctions. Finally I might wonder if your friend does not violate some aspect of 12 steps in poking fun at your beliefs. Recovery programs respect belief and avoid conflict over them. Some criticize the term “higher power” but it is an attempt to affirm spirituality while avoiding sectarian disputes. It seems possible and helpful that in recovery programs such divisions can and should be avoided to aid a proper focus on recovery and group cohesion in what amounts to a form of group therapy. As you know I would heartily defend sectarina discussions in other settings but 12 step programs are not one of them.
Thanks for writing, this is a very important question. The philosphers speak of virtues both in a religious sense and a secular sense, virtues are good habits and we can think that though the indiviudal who is a non-beliver may not know it, the impulse to do the good is implanted in the human heart by God, a way that God uses to draw the person to him. In many Church documents we talk of people of “good will,” who have not come to know God but act from a heart that is pure and responding to the good that God has created. Another term people use is to say they are anonymous Christians!
Thank you, Susan. I am of the belief that all that is good ultimately comes from God, but I had never heard the term “anonymous Christian” before. I meet a good number of wonderful and helpful people in recovery who cannot bring themselves to use the word “God.” I often find myself thinking about how much they are missing in not understanding the God is at the root of that goodness inside of them. Some of those same people often talk about their struggles in feeling alone and isolated. Our interactions make for some good 12th step work.
Msgr Pope,
Last night at our parish we had a discussion on Eternal Destiny. On Sept 27th you published a blog on the Mystery of Time that I have been contemplating ever since. The discussion came around to the subject of Purgatory. I asked our Pastoral Associate (he has a master in Divinity and Theology) if when we die and go to Purgatory (if it is Gods will) will we live in serial time. Or will we live in the fullness of time. The later opens all kinds of additional questions. The pastoral Associate did not give an answer and he him hawed to the next subject.
To answer the queation of whether we live in serial time in purgatory is not absolutely possible. However, if time is defined as a measure of change then i suppose some passage of time there may be necessary. How that time is expereinced is anther matter. Even here on earth, as I pointed out in the article on time, time is not absolutely unvarying. This is probably the best we can do in speculating on time in purgatory. By the way the old indulgence indicators like “300 days” did not refer to 300 days in purgatory. They were ancient indicators going all the way back to the 4th Century of the relative value of a certain prayer or action. The “days” of those indulgences referred to the reduction of penances that sinners were required to undergo. In the early Church confession of sin was a rigorous procedure that often resulted in lengthy penances and certain prayers or pious practices were a way to reduce the number of days of that penance. Well after the 4th century the system of measures just sort of “stuck” as a way to indicate the relative value of something. In the 1960s the indication of “days” was set aside and replaced by a simple “partial” or “plenary” indulgence indication.
fyi: The link for the Maybe It’s God website (Favorite Links) does not work.
Thanks. I removed the link since there is not Maybe its God website!
Are angels perfect? My reasoning is that they’re not (only God is perfect), but in that case, how are they not perfect?
There are two kinds of angels: The Angels of God and Fallen Angels (Demons). Angels have free will but as I was taught they make a decision once and for all. Hence the good angels are perfect since they have chosen for God, once and for all. The fallen angels of course are less than perfect
in fact they are riddled with imperfections caused by the privation of sin!
By the way, your notion that only God is perfect is not completely incorrect. If the angels and saints in haeven are perfect, they have that perfection only due to God and becuase they share his perfection. Hence Jesus says, “You must be perfect as the heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt 5)
Interesting answers. Thanks!
Dear Msgr Pope,
How do you crank out so much good stuff? Is it your only job? Do you have a staff? Regardless, keep it up. Your columns are my favorites.
Thanks. I guess the way I do it is a lot of late nights. Sleep is over-rated!
Dear Rev Msgr Pope,
I am a Roman Catholic from Mumbai, India and am a recent member to your blog. I have a deep desire to increase my knowledge of my faith and find your articles very fulfilling & enriching, thank you for them.
I have a question which has been bothering me, recently i was at a Confirmation class as an animator & we were discussing the 10 commandments, during the session the Priest in charge showed a presentation showing all religions as equal to reaching God. I was very upset with this & objected to this approach as i believe that ours is the one true religion and as per the rule of ‘indifferentism’ all religions cannot be the same, However the Priest refused to accept this line of thinking saying we cannot say we are superior to others or belittle other religions especially since we live in a Hindu dominated country. While i kept quiet there as he didn’t want an argument in front of the kids i was very disturbed as it is our duty to teach these very children the beauty & uniqueness of our religion. While i appreciate we cannot belittle any religion i also cannot accept that all religions will lead to salvation, else what is unique about our faith.
I tried to find out what the church has to say on this but without success because while we want to be politically correct to other religions there is no clear stand which says that Christianity or Catholicism is the true way to Salvation. Can you please share your views on this (dogmas if any) so that while we appreciate the good of other religions( as per Vatican ii) we cannot deny the fact that ours is the true faith.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
Kind regards
adrian
You are right in being troubled by a video that shows all religions as equal etc. Jesus was quite clear that he was the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). Likewise the scriptures teach that thre is no other name given to us by which we may be saved than Jesus (Acts 4:12). Hence the Catholic faith is the one true faith established by God in Jesus Christ by which we are saved. Now, that said this does not mean that all non-Catholics will go to hell. The position of the Church is somewhat nuanced but clear enough. Namely that only Jesus can save us. However, many people through various reasons do not or cannot know and understand this. It is our belief that they will be judged based on what they did know or could reasonably have known. As for other religions, the Church is respectful of those traditions for what they positively offer and to the extent that their teachings overlaps with ours they contain elements of the truth that can genuinely help people who cannot realistically find their way to the Catholic CHurch. However these religions also contain errors and/or fail to contain the whole truth. Thus we cannot simply slide into indifferentism and just say it is OK that someone belongs to these religions. We ought to strive to draw all people to the fulness of the truth contained in our Holy Catholic Faith. For a rather thorough discussion of the Church teaching in this regard I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 830-856
Dear Rev Msgr Pope,
Your reply encouraged me and as usual was spiritually enriching. Today i would like to put forward a more theological issue that has been troubling me and look forward to you helping me to clear my confusion.
My issue is two fold, Firstly we believe that Jesus our Lord & Saviour died for us and conquered death that we may have eternal life and may achieve salvation, so does this mean that all the holy people of God like Noah, Abraham, Issac, Moses etc etc would never go to heaven if it were not for Jesus’ death ?? Could it be possible that the prophets who spoke to God personally and experienced his presence would not be taken into heaven ?? There are two instances in scripture that i would like to quote 1) The transfiguration on Mt Tabor where Jesus is conversing with Moses and Elijah 2) The parable of Lazarus and the rich man where Lazarus is in Abraham’s bosom with the angels (presumably heaven), both these examples illustrate that Holy people did go to heaven before Jesus’s sacrifice for mankind. So was his death necessary for us to achieve heaven??
Secondly when are we likely to be judged ? when we die or when it is time for the final judgement??
If we are judged now that what will happen during the final judgement and if it is later then what will be that state of our souls for the interim period??
Hope to hear from you Soon and Wish you a Happy Christmas in Advance.
Kind regards
Adrian
Can you tell me how Catholic churches are named? If there is a new parish, who decides which saint’s name to give it?
Thank you.
It really depends. Sometimes it is the parish community that proposes a name to the Bishop who must approve it but the process does vary from place to place and even from parish to parish. Soemtimes the Bishop already has a name when he proposes the erection of a new parish. Sometimes it happens that in a growing area a parish will establish a mission or a satelite location for mass (with the bishops permission) . Eventually that community becomes a distinct parish and the people would probably propose to the Bishop a name. But the bottom line is that no parish can simply name itself without consultation with the bishop.
Thank you, Monsignor.
is there a curse on the catholics for not observing tithes?
Anna, The Catholic Church has never had a tradition of mandatory tithing, though it has a long tradition of asking that people give of their time, talent and treasure so when I think about my contribution to the Church, I include all three in my “calculation.” There is no curse though we will be asked to account for how we contributed to the building up of the kingdom of God.
I’m interested in your use of the word “tradition” regarding tithing. My pastor uses the word moral obligation in his calculations of what/how people should give. For instance, he says it is our moral obligation to give the difference between what we pay “in parish” for tuition at our school and the “out of parish” amount. In addition, if we receive a sibling discount, it is also our moral obligation to put the amount of the savings in the offertory as well. Our tuition payment has doubled since my daughter began kindergarten, and we simply cannot do that. Instead, I work very hard fundraising for the school and have raised a lot of money. But, if I understand him correctly, I am not meeting my moral obligation the same way I would with a personal check, even though my means added many more zeros to the offering. Truth be told, I’ve discounted his assessment as non-sensical in this and have discarded the notices from the rectory regarding our offertory amounts. I know I’m doing what I can and I do believe I am working to building up treasure in ways that matter.
My own take on this is to first agree with Susan that we have no mandate in the catholic Church that requires Tithing (i.e. giving 10% of ones income to the Church). However, I do preach Biblical tithing as God’s plan for us. It is not a burden but rather a belssing for God promises many blessings to those who tithe. Jesus commended tithing and hence every Catholic ought to tithe, nat as a mandate of the Church but simply because Scripture presents it as God’s plan for us.
Mal 3:10 says 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit,” says the LORD Almighty. 12 “Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land,” says the LORD Almighty. (Mal 3:10-12)
Jesus too says that we ought not neglect to tithe:
Matt 23:23″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You tithe your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
So we ought to tithe even though the Church’s mandate to support the parish is not that specific. THere IS however a precept of the Church that obliges us to support our parishes.
I have enjoyed Msgr Pope’s blog entries. They have really touched me. I do have a spiritual question. Not sure if you can answer this, though. I am a convert to the Church. Came in during the late 80’s when I was a teen. In the beginning, I was on cloud-nine; felt so close to God. For several years now, I’ve struggled with feeling guilty and inadequate all the time regarding my state of soul. I never know if I’m in the state of grace or not. Because of this constant nagging, I have grown to find going to Mass difficult because I am just reminded of my sinful state. I used to love Mass, love contemplating the mysteries of the Eucharist, but now I dread going to Mass. If the roads are icy and I can’t make it, I’m happy to stay home. I have five little children who need to learn the Faith from me (my spouse is not Catholic), so I feel a bad example to them.
On the whole, I love the Faith and I love the Church. I consider myself a faithful Catholic but I do admit that this fear of not knowing my state of soul is terrible. I never feared dying before but now I do. How can I convey the love of the Church and the beauty of Jesus to my children when I struggle in this manner myself? I am sure they can sense it. When I do get to stay home from Mass, the kids now rejoice. They don’t have the desire to go to Mass either (more because of the example of their father who does not go to church, they obviously get mixed messages due to this). I pray all the time that I am a good mother but I know I lack greatly in the spiritual sense.
Sounds like you’re struggling with a bit of scrupulosity. I would encourage you to speak with a parish priest aout it. There is a healthy sorrow for sin that comes from the Lord but there is also a guilt that is fear-based and unhealthy which is a taunt of the devil. St. Paul distinguishes between these two in the Second Letter to the Corinthians:
Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. (2 Cor 7:10)
You will know something from its fruits and the fruits of this concern about your sin is largely bad. It keeps you away from God rather than running toward him. It causes fear that doubts God’s mercy and offends against hope. Hence I would encourage you to see this guilt as not from God but rather a ruse, a temptation of the Devil.
Again, I encourage that you consult a parish priest on this matter. God bless you and may you richly experience God’s mercy and love for you.
Hi:
What is he possibility of incorporating a search engine in your web site?
I just spent an inordinate amount of time hunting for Msgr. Pope’s article on the third principle of Catholic Social Justice. I enjoyed it when it came out and in light of today’s Gospel reading I wanted to reread it and suggest it to friends.
Can there be a way other than trudging chronologically back to find old blogs?
Thank you.
Hey Brian,
I think we do have a search engine. On the upper right of the page is a tab marked search. I use it a lot and it seems to work. Let me know if it is not sophisticated enough but as far as I can tell it is what you are looking for.
Good morning,
We have a question concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. A local priest presented a study on Mark and stated that we had three choices when it came to Mary’s perpetual virginity; believe Jesus’ brothers were sons of St. Joseph; believe they were His cousins or believe they were His brothers by Mary. He concluded these comments by asking if it made any difference whether Mary was a perpetual virgin or not. He stated it did not and most of those in attendance agreed with the priest that it did not make any difference.
Knowing these choices are not the teaching of the Church I’m deeply concerned about these types of presentations and find myself not having a very good answer to the question; Why is Mary’s perpetual virginity so important to the Church’s teachings?.
I am familiar with the proof text of Ezek 44: 1-2 and Luke 1:34 but I’m looking for more. I’m hoping you can direct me to, or provide, additional material.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Domenic
As a Catholic it is possible to beleive that the “brothers” of Jesus we either cousins or “Step brothers” by Joseph. However it is not possible for us to beleive that they were brothers of Jesus by Mary. The Tradition is clear on this matter as is defined doctrine. The early Church was not ignorant of references to “brothers” of Jesus but they had enough sophistication to know that brother could mean cousin or other close relative. Many today lack such sophistication thinking the ancient world uses the word brother just like we do. They did not.
Why does Mary’s perpetual viginity “make any difference” ? Well, first of all, simply because we are taught to accept both scripture AND tradition. Secondly because the actual fact if known to us as it is, is important to affirm. One could ask, “What difference does it make that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Maybe not a lot ot us in modern America, but it is important to Biblical prophecy and it was a fact that the ancients thought important enough to hand on to us. We ought to reverence what they told and not flippantly say, “What difference does it make” Thirdly, We can argue that it is important as a teaching which is fitting. You quote Ez 44:1-2 which says, “Then the angel brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it.” I would hardly be fitting for the womb which carried the eternal God to then carry an ordinary child. This is not because sex is bad or children are bad but rather that the Best outranks the good. For example, I have chalices over in Church that are used only for the precious blood at Mass. It would be wrong for me to bring them to the rectory and drink beer from them. Now there is nothing wrong or evil about beer (beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy!) I like beer. But the chalices have a higher purpose. Mary’s puprose was to carry the eternal God. It is unfitting that even the good, should eccplise the best. Thus it does “make a difference” from the standpoint of fittingness. However, we moderns seem to have become so casual about everything that it is difficult for many to understand the “argument from fittingness” Nevertheless it is still an argument that ought to be made.
Good Morning Msgr,
I was reading your article about funerals, and I was just apart of one about a month back. My question is why a priest will wear white for a funeral? I have several reasons that I think a priest should wear violet or black. One being All Saints and All Souls days, they are right next to each other and anyone who goes to those two Mass may associate the souls we are praying for as Saints if the priest wears white on both days. Another reason I see is that people never wear white to a funeral, so why should/does the priest? I know that the General Instruction of the Roman Rite allows it, but logically just does not make since to me
Thanks Msgr,
Tim Neubauer
White is allowed as a color for funerals. As you may know the oligatory clor in the past was black. In the late 1960s many thought the old requiem mass was too heavy and “negative” and did not emphasize the resurrection enough. Hence the Dies Irae was dropped and the prayers that pleaded God’s mercy on behalf of the deceased were largely replaced by prayers that were more “paschal” in nature. My own impression is that we over-corrected and now we get rather presumptuous things said at funerals. that make little reference to death or judgment. Purple is naother option that I often use at funerals as well though I am easing back into more use of black vestments. People are not offended by black, in fact most of them like it alot and find the vestments beautiful. Poco a poco. Or as Fr. Z puts it, brick by brick
Thank you Msgr.
Though words give me hope and courage because like you, I think they did over correct and I would love to see a priest in black vestments again. I have seen it a few times when I was helping with the extraordinary form of the Mass.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves for threatening to take away services for the poor if Gays in DC get equal rights.
You have no idea what God or Jesus would say because long ago you turned away from God.
Shame on you! May God have mercy on such ugly and evil people as you.
Your remarks show that you are not familiar with the facts. It is the DC government that is threatening to de-certify us. We could no longer qualify for city money. We will still serve the poor as best as we are able using the money we can get from donors or other sources. But it is the new city law that is the problem, not us.
Please avoid calling people evil. First of all it isn’t nice. Secondly it is not a judgement you are able to make, only God can make that call, thirdly you haven’t even met most of the people you condem. As for being ugly, I can only speak for myself, I am not extremely handsome, but I am not ugly either. Some people say I have a nice smile!
In a few of your recent posts, you reminded us to pray for the dead. I’ve wondered about that. God’s understanding and mercy are perfect and He needs no reminders about forgiveness or lessons on the good in another human being. I guess I’m confused when someone says, “Pray for the dead,” for I don’t see how that helps them. Either they are in purgatory and will be going to Heaven; they’re in Heaven or in Hell. What does prayer do to change that? As I see it, praying for a loved one who has departed seems like it does more for me than them.
Hi,
I’m teaching a class at my parish on the Creed. We have come to the clause “was crucified also for us.” I wanted to use this opportunity to expose my class to some of the varied theories on the atonement and what exactly it means that Christ was crucified FOR us. Along those lines, I’m curious how the Church views the Penal-Substitonary theory-that Christ is punished because he is bearing our sins. It seems to make sense since it satisfied God’s justice and allows him to forgive us sinners without comprimising his holiness.
But I know this view is slightly different than the Satisfaction theory which best I can tell was first promulgated by St. Anselm. Could you help clarify what the differences might be, and which the Church thinks is better?
Msgr Pope,
The other night at our dinner table my family and I had a discussion about converts. My wife and kids are all cradle Catholics; I on the other hand was baptized and confirmed this past Easter. Before I always believed, but failed to commit to a specific religious practice. In my 22 years as a Marine I simply put no preference for a religious designator. The Wife and kids say I’m a convert but I don’t like the connotation that comes from all cradle Catholics. I know I’m worthy but at 52 years of age I also realize I’m slow to act sometimes. Am I a convert?
Dear Msgr,
I found your site at Amy Wellborn’s where both of our blogs are listed. Mine also is relatively new.
I’m unapologetically Catholic, faithful to the Magisterium, and am using my doctorate in Molecular Biology in the service of the pro-life movement. Jill Stanek actually prevailed upon me to start my own blog, and gave mine an introduction on her blog on Christmas Eve. Come over and take a look around. I’ve added your blog to my blogroll.
A few series that I’m doing:
The link between breast cancer, abortion and BC pills.
Of Cardinals, Cathedrals, Condoms, and Cretins-defense of the Bishops
Margaret Sanger’s racism and eugenics.
I’ve has pretty good traffic so far.
If you leave a comment, I’ll have your email address and can contact you with ideas about getting the word out about your blog.
Thank you Msgr., for your Priesthood, for all that you do for our Church.
God Bless,
Gerard Nadal
Leaving my address would have been helpful.
gerardnadal.com
God Bless.
Msg C. Pope on Jan 20 wrote a piece about Gods commanding the Israelites to commit genocide. I have wrestled with this for years and the short answer is NO.m
Archology tells us that (Re: Joshua) the cities of Jeraco and Ai were abandoned when Joshua came by.
They also tell us that the Exoda was a group of a dozen or less Israelites.
St. John of the Cross, tells us that the word ‘ban’ means to think only of God and ban other thoughts or as in 1Samuel15, to ban any contact with the pagans.
Matt 13 tells us that Jesus spoke only in parables,
Psalm 78 tells us that the early Jewish history is all in parables.
Psalm 17 tells us that the sun revolved around the earth – a parable
St. Augustine says that the true meaning of Scripture is hidden.
St. Andrew of Crete tells us that the Lawgiver changed the letter of the law to the spirit of love.
I could go on. George ocds
Msg C. Pope on Jan 20 wrote a piece about Gods commanding the Israelites to commit genocide. I have wrestled with this for years and the short answer is NO.
Archology tells us that (Re: Joshua) the cities of Jeraco and Ai were abandoned when Joshua came by.
They also tell us that the Exodus was a group of a dozen or less Israelites.
St. John of the Cross, tells us that the word ‘ban’ means to think only of God and ban other thoughts or as in 1Samuel15, to ban any contact with the pagans.
Matt 13 tells us that Jesus spoke only in parables,
Psalm 78 tells us that the early Jewish history is all in parables.
Psalm 17 tells us that the sun revolved around the earth – a parable
St. Augustine says that the true meaning of Scripture is hidden.
St. Andrew of Crete tells us that the Lawgiver changed the letter of the law to the spirit of love.
I could go on. George ocds
Hi. First let me say that I am grateful for the response to my question on animal suffering. The answer from Msgr. Charles Pope was very satisfying. Thank you.
I have a question on hell. Does hell really consist of literal, material fires? If so, then it would seem as if hell is not only an intrinsic consequence of sin but an external punishment inflicted by God. The Catechism says in #1472 that the punishments of sin “must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.”
Concerning hell, the Catechism says that the primary punishment is the privation of God, but it doesn’t say anything about physical fires in hell.
However, in the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on hell, it says, “According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct.”
This troubles me deeply.
A reply or recommendation of any kind would be appreciated!
I am not an authority on the issue, but perhaps I can help. The times that Hell is described in the Bible it is given different descriptions such as unquenchable fire, but also outer darkness. Now I suppose Hell could be such a supernaturally awful place that fire and darkness can coincide, but generally speaking I think one of those statements (at least) might be figurative.
But whether the fires of Hell are material is relatively unimportant. (not trying to downplay your concerns.) But the fact of the matter is that privation from God means to be cut off from the source of love, joy, hope, peace, and grace. In a word “misery.” The material fires of hell would not compare to the eternal actualization of the hatred that has fillled the sinner’s soul.
Nevertheless, even as I write this, I’m reminded of the the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. Yes, it is a parable, but the fires of Hell seemed rather real and intense in that story.
May I reprint this article to share with my college class?
Disability or Different Ability?
By: Msgr. Charles Pope
I would place just the link for fellow students but they really need to read the whole thing and I fear if I just put a small excerpt, it will not have the same impact.
Yes, Please feel free to reprint and thank you for your interest.
Dear Rev Msgr Pope,
I had put up a question some time back but i guess you might have been busy. Can i request you to please help me on my quest to find the answers i would appreciate it greatly, My issue is two fold, Firstly we believe that Jesus our Lord & Saviour died for us and conquered death that we may have eternal life and may achieve salvation, so does this mean that all the holy people of God like Noah, Abraham, Issac, Moses etc etc would never go to heaven if it were not for Jesus’ death ?? Could it be possible that the prophets who spoke to God personally and experienced his presence would not be taken into heaven ?? There are two instances in scripture that i would like to quote 1) The transfiguration on Mt Tabor where Jesus is conversing with Moses and Elijah 2) The parable of Lazarus and the rich man where Lazarus is in Abraham’s bosom with the angels (presumably heaven), both these examples illustrate that Holy people did go to heaven before Jesus’s sacrifice for mankind. So was his death necessary for us to achieve heaven??
Secondly when are we likely to be judged ? when we die or when it is time for the final judgement??
If we are judged now that what will happen during the final judgement and if it is later then what will be that state of our souls for the interim period??
Hope to hear from you Soon
Kind regards
Adrian
Yes, it is true that Noah, Abraham, Isaac Moses et al. depend on Jesus to get them to heaven. To say that they saw God does not mean that they necessarily had the beatific vision. As to Elijah and Enoch and possibly Moses being taken into the heavens it is not clear what “heavens” means here. If it is absolute beatitude with God it was still granted them based on What Jesus would one day do. To be in the bosom of Abraham is also a disputed concept. Perhaps it is a place of natural happiness but not supernatural. Perhaps too if it is absolute heave it too is on account of what Jesus would bring about. As to our final judgement it is not clear othe rthatn as scripture says we must render and account. I suppose that one might expereince a thorough assement pf one’s life without any admixture of excuse making etc. Only truth, pure and simple. It we are in purgatory for at time I suspect it is a time of letting go and watching God remove the deeper things of this is world
I am studying disabilities in class right now and have wondered how the Church views a seriously disabled person (say they are wheelchair bound, barely able to move their limbs properly) who may wish to marry either another disabled person or a non-disabled person. I found online a resource that said the Church does consider a marriage valid even if they do NOT consummate their marriage, however that the Church has the right to dissolve the marriage should one of the spouses seek to end it. The resource was speaking of individuals who wish to practice chastity, however I wonder if this applies to disabled persons as well, since some may not be able to consummate the marriage and/or have children due to their physical disability.
I guess I’m sad to say that in 20 years a priest I have never had this issue come up. I’ll have to jet this question off to the canon lawyers I knwo and see what surfaces.
Msgr.
It is very common nowadays to see live broadcasts of Holy Mass on TV or computer web-sites; more and more catholic churches are using the Media in this way, even the Pope himself! My query is: what is the liturgical status of a Mass broadcast? For instance, can I fulfill my obligation to hear Mass on a Sunday or Holyday of Obligation by viewing Mass through the Media? Or again: if I were housebound and unable to attend Mass would I receive the same ” sacramental”? blessings from viewing Mass on the media as I would from physically attending? I realize I would not be able to participate in Communion but I could make a spiritual communion, as I would do even if I were physically present but did not feel disposed to receive communion for whatever reason? My problem is: if the Mass broadcast has no Liturgical status then it is no different really from any other form of entertainment, albeit religious! And if it has only entertainment value is it right to use the Holy Mass in this way ??
The Obligaton to attend Sunday Mass is not fulfilled in the case of a TV Mass. The purpose of the TV is to give the home bound some connection to the Sacred Liturgy. THey do not fulfill their obligation however since, strictly speaking they do not have an obligation to attend mass due to ill health or advanced age that limtis mobility significantly. As for those who watch it is surely salutary to make a spiritual communion, that is never a bad idea. However the home bound should be receiving Holy COmmunion regularly by the visit of a preist or Extraordinary minister. Finally blessings are not conferred through TV medium. However, I think the Holy See ocassionally issued a decree that those who watch a Mass by the Pope on TV can receive the blessing IF they are watching it live. Taped re-runs would not confer the blessing.
Mass is never mere entertainment. The reason for its appearance on TV is a pastoral one, namely, an outreach to the home bound.
Many thanks for a very well considered and well framed reply. God bless you!
This question is primarily for Msgr. Pope, but anyone is welcome to read and respond.
I’m very interested in the “Mass in Slow Motion” series of blog posts, and I’ve been using it as a research source. I’ve recently written a book on the new English translation of the Mass (‘Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the People’) and I am working on a second book (‘Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest’). I was curious if the contributors to this blog would be interested in receiving one complimentary copy. Much like the “Mass in Slow Motion” series, my books seek to explain the Mass step-by-step, unveiling the meaning and origins behind the words and actions we say and make during the Mass.
For more information, please contact me by email or visit http://www.PrayingTheMass.com
Thanks for the excellent blog.
I wanted to reply to Monsignor Pope’s suggestion that we start referring to marriage as ‘Holy Matrimony”, I think it’s a great suggestion!
Do you ynderstand that DC had no authority to pass the same sex mariage law?…and that Congress has no authority under the DC Home Rule Act to approve it by inaction?
The new District of Columbia SAME-SEX “Marriage” Law is Invalid and Meaningless.
The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) removed the ability to construe the phrase “all rightful subjects of legislation” in the DC Home Rule Act to mean the DC Home Rule Act delegated legislative power to pass an ordinance on a subject of legislation that defines “marriage” to mean anything other than a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
The DOMA specifically states: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, . . . the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” It is noted that DOMA does not say “In determining the meaning of the word marriage as used in any Act of Congress”. Rather, the scope of DOMA is plenary and extends to every provision of any Act of Congress.
So, let’s turn to an Act of Congress called the DC Home Rule Act the enactment of which preceded DOMA. Section 302 of DC Home Rule Act specifically states: “Except as provided in sections 601, 602, and 603, the legislative power of the District shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation.” Hence, no meaning may be given to such phrase that construes it to extend legislative power to the District to pass an ordinance on a legislative subject that provides “marriage” means anything other than a legal union between one man and one woman as husband.
While the DC Home Rule Act’s use of the phrase “all rightful subjects of legislation” could perhaps have been construed, when originally enacted, to encompass same sex marriages inasmuch as sections 601, 602, and 603 did not then exclude legislation on that subject; the DOMA, upon passage, reached back into time and repealed by implication any part of the DC Home Rule Act that conceivably may have held any meaning inconsistent with the meaning subsequently decreed by DOMA that any Act of Congress may mean. This includes any provision of the DC Home Rule Act, to include Section 302 granting DC legislative powers, which section cannot, by reason of DOMA, be construed to mean legislative power is granted to the District to pass an ordinance permitting same sex marriages.
Furthermore, SEC. 602 (3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act provides that the District of Columbia has no authority to “enact any act, or enact any act to amend or repeal any Act of Congress, which concerns the functions or property of the United States or which is not restricted in its application exclusively in or to the District.” It is obvious that the application of DOMA is not restricted exclusively in or to the District. Therefore DC has no authority to amend or repeal the DOMA and, in turn, Congress has no authority under DC Home Rule Act to amend or repeal DOMA by approving (by inaction) DC’s unauthorized ordinance.
The new District of Columbia SAME-SEX “Marriage” Law is Invalid and Meaningless
I am hoping one of you will address the situation in Denver where two students have been denied admission because their parents are a lesbian couple. The pastor involved has a blog at http://www.fatherbillsblog.com/heart/
Please explain why the church does not re-baptise a person with a new name who was baptised as a Catholic as a 1-month old baby. The baby was very dangerously sickly. At the advice of elders and grandparents, the baby was given a new name and the government agency for registering legal names has granted the license to use the new name. The baby was also then baptised when he was 3 years old using the new name according to Roman Catholic rites by a Catholic layperson. This was done to save the young boy from being very sickly.
After 20 years, the parents however want their adult son to be re-baptised with his new name since he was 3 years old. But the Catholic parish priest decline and he only wanted the license to change name be submitted to the parish office to make a notation on the baptisimal records.
Why is the re-baptism with the new name declined by the Catholic Church? What is the basis for this decision?
What if the person became a Muslim or a Jehovah’s Witness, or a confessed aethist and disavow his Catholic faith and then later on after years become converted back to Catholic Church?
What is wrong with re-baptism with a new name? What sin is committed? Is it not better to receive this sacrament several times during one’s life just like getting the sacrament of reconciliation/penance and the Eucharist several times?
Please explain. Because, I do not see logic and understand why it is bad to baptise a Catholic with a new name. Is it not better to have more of a sacrament twice than only once?