The Voice of Telekisi and Satan

Does the Jewish religion still have a priesthood today? Is it
Levitical? Do its priests still offer sacrifice?

No, there is no Jewish priesthood today. According to the Old
Testament, the only place from which it was appropriate to offer
animal sacrifices to God was the Temple in Jerusalem. In A.D. 70 the
Temple was destroyed, meaning Jewish priests no longer had a place to
offer sacrifice. Since the Temple is still in ruins today, there is
currently no place for sacrifice. Therefore, there is no active
priesthood in Judaism.

This does not mean that there are not people who could be called upon
to be priests were the Temple rebuilt. Unlike the other tribes of
Israel, the tribe of Levi is not thought to have completely lost its
identity. Many Jewish people, with names such as Levit, Levin, and
Levine, are thought to be of the tribe of Levi. They are given special
roles to fill in Jewish synagogue worship because of their priestly
heritage. Those with names such as Cohen, Kahan, and sometimes Katz
are thought to come from the priestly family within the tribe of Levi.

In recent years there has been discussion of rebuilding the Temple,
and much of the discussion has centered around whether it would be
possible to rebuild the Temple without destroying the Dome of the
Rock, a Muslim Shrine built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Recent archaeological evidence has suggested that the Holy of
Holies--the most important chamber of the Temple and the place where
the Ark of the Covenant was kept--lay outside the Dome of the Rock,
meaning it would be possible to rebuild the Temple, including the site
of the Holy of Holies, without disturbing the Dome of the Rock.

Stories have circulated about Jewish men of Levitical descent training
in Israel for active service in a restored priesthood. Last year one
group of ultra-orthodox Jews even tried to lay a foundation stone for
a new Temple.

Not all Jews support the movement to rebuild the Temple. Some have
aired concern that if it were rebuilt, they would have to face the
problem whether or not to bring back animal sacrifices--an issue many
Jews don't want to wrestle with.

I heard that we get our guardian angels at baptism. Is this true, and
does it mean that the babies of non-Christians do not have guardian
angels?

The idea that we get our guardian angels at baptism is a speculation,
not a teaching of the Church. The common opinion among Catholic
theologians is that all people, regardless of whether they are
baptized, have guardian angels at least from the time of their birth
(see Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [Rockford: TAN, 1974],
120); some have suggested that prior to birth babies are taken care of
by their mother's guardian angels.

The view that everyone has a guardian angel seems well founded in
Scripture. In Matthew 18:10 Jesus states, "See that you do not despise
one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels
always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven." He said this
before the Crucifixion and was speaking about Jewish children. It
would therefore seem that non-Christian, not just Christian (baptized)
children have guardian angels.

Notice that Jesus says their angels always behold the face of his
Father. This is not merely a declaration that they continually stand
in the presence of God, but an affirmation that they have continual
access to the Father. If one of their wards is in trouble, they can
serve as the child's advocate before God.

The view that all people have guardian angels is found in the Church
Fathers, notably in Basil and Jerome, and it is also the view of
Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I:113:4).

How can Christian theologians say that God is both just and merciful?
To be just means to give someone what he deserves, but to be merciful
means to give him better than he deserves. Given those definitions, a
person could not be just without being unmerciful.

The problem here comes from a confusion about what is meant by the
word "just." To do justice to a person, in this context, means to give
him at least what he deserves. Thus if I owe a person a favor, it
satisfies justice for me to repay him the favor, but this does not
stop me from going beyond what justice alone requires and doing him an
additional favor.

This has been the standard answer to this question for centuries.
Thomas Aquinas said, "God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against
his justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who
pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one
hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or
mercifully.

The case is the same with one who pardons an offense committed against
him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the
apostle [Paul] calls remission a forgiving: 'Forgive one another, as
Christ has forgiven you' [Eph. 4:32]. Hence it is clear that mercy
does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. Thus
it is said, 'Mercy exalts itself above judgment' [Jas. 2:13]" (Summa
Theologiae I:21:3 ad 2).

How can Christian theologians say that God is perfectly merciful if he
still punishes some people? Wouldn't he be more perfectly merciful if
he forgave every one?

No. The word "perfect" can be taken in different senses. Sometimes it
means "completely" or "in every case." If this were the sense in which
God were perfectly merciful, then he would forgive sins in every
single case, thus forgiving everyone. But "perfect" has other
meanings--for example it can also mean "in the best way."

Suppose a person needs 25 dollars to get out of trouble, and he comes
to me for help. I know that if I give him the 25 dollars he will get
out of trouble, learn his lesson, and all will be well. I also know
that if I give him more than 25 dollars he will not learn his lesson
but will use the extra money to go out and get in trouble again. How
would we regard the act of giving him 25 dollars versus a larger sum?

Assuming I do no owe him any money, giving either amount would be an
act of generosity, but which act would be the more perfect example of
generosity? From one perspective we might reason that giving the
higher amount would be more generous and thus more completely or
"perfectly" generous. From another perspective we might reason that by
giving the lower amount I would be helping him more and thus would be
more perfectly generous (generous in a better way).

This gives us an insight into the nature of virtue. To do something
virtuously is not just to do it in a higher degreee, but in a better
way.

God is perfectly merciful in that he perfectly displays the virtue of
mercy. This means that he is merciful to the right degree, with the
right motive, and in the right circumstances. But some people and some
circumstances are not the right ones. It is not appropriate to forgive
a person's sins when he is defiant and unrepentant. It may be
appropriate to continue trying to lead him to repentance, but it is
not fitting for him to be forgiven even before he has admitted he was
wrong.

God is perfectly merciful in the sense that he is merciful in the best
way, not in the sense that he forgives every single sin people commit.
Some sins (those of which people have not repented) are not
appropriate to forgive, so God's mercy is the very thing that prevents
him from forgiving them.

Were any of the Gospels written in Aramaic, since Christ and the
Apostles spoke that language? Was Hebrew only spoken by the priests in
the Temple? Did Pilate use an interpreter when he spoke to Christ?

We do not know for certain whether any of the Gospels were written in
Aramaic. An early Christian writer named Papias wrote (c. A.D. 120),
that Matthew wrote the oracles of Christ "in the Hebrew tongue." This
is ambiguous because "the Hebrew tongue" could refer to the language
known as Hebrew or to Aramaic, which was the tongue commonly spoken by
Jews at that time.

Throughout Church history the accepted opinion has been that Matthew
wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, but since the last century the view has
become common that he wrote in Greek instead. Recently there has been
a number of scholars returning to the earlier opinion that he wrote in
Hebrew or Aramaic. Some have suggested that Mark and Luke were also
written in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Two books by scholars advocating a non-Greek origin for some of the
Gospels are The Birth of the Synoptics by Jean Carmignac and The
Hebrew Christ by Claude Tresmontant.

In Jesus' day Hebrew was not spoken by only the priests in the Temple.
It was also used in the synagogue liturgy, and it was the language in
which Scripture was read. Many Jews had at least some understanding of
Hebrew, even though it was not their primary language.

This fact has apologetic implications for Catholics. The next time
someone attacks the Church for having used the "dead language" of
Latin in Church services and older editions of Scripture, point out
that Jesus worshipped in synagogues where the "dead language" of
Hebrew was used.

We do not know whether Pilate used a translator in his conversations
with Christ. As a Roman governor, Pilate would have known Latin (his
native language) and Greek (the international language). He might also
have known some Aramaic, since he was governor of an Aramaic-speaking
territory. Even if he did not know Aramaic, many Jews would have no
problem conversing with him; Greek was the language of commerce, and
many Jews knew it from their business dealings. Thus Jesus'
conversations with Pilate might have been conducted in Greek.

Aren't the images of Mary with the baby Jesus taken from pagan
representations of goddesses with children? If not, how do you explain
the fact that so many cultures have woman-with-child images in their
religion?

Perhaps because there are women with children in every culture.
Motherhood is a profound aspect of the human experience, and it should
be expected to appear in a culture's art and religion.

That two things are similar doesn't mean one is derived from the
other. After all, there are pyramids in Egypt and in Latin America,
but no serious archaeologist believes one kind is derived from the
other. The people in the two places simply made the same discovery: It
is possible to build a stable building in the shape of a pyramid. In
the same way, people in different cultures realized that motherhood is
significant, and mother-and-child images became common in all
cultures.

In the past one of the purposes of religious art was to instruct the
illiterate. If you want to convey to someone who can't read that a
given painting is of Christ's mother, how better to do it than by
painting her with her infant son?

Are there any Bible verses I can cite to support the use of holy
water? Fundamentalists say holy water is a superstition that has no
basis in the Bible.

They're wrong. Look up Numbers 5:17, where a ritual is being described
and the text says, "[A]nd the priest shall take holy water in an
earthen vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the
tabernacle and put it into the water."

This shows that holy water not only has a basis in the Bible, but that
it has been around since the days of Moses. Holy water was used for
numerous Old Testament ceremonies that involved ceremonial sprinklings
and washings. Today we are not bound to perform those ceremonies, but
the fact holy water was used at all proves that it is not a
superstitious or invalid practice.

Recently at my parish women have begun to give the homily after the
Gospel reading at Sunday Mass. Sometimes they call it a "faith talk."
Is this allowed now?

No. Canon 767 of the Code of Canon Law states, "Among the forms of
preaching the homily is preeminent; it is a part of the liturgy itself
and is reserved to a priest or to a deacon; in the homily the
mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian living are to be
expounded from the sacred text throughout the course of the liturgical
year. Whenever a congregation is present a homily is to be given at
all Sunday Masses and at Masses celebrated on holy days of obligation;
it cannot be omitted without a serious reason."

Furthermore, the instruction Inaestimabile Donum, issued by the Sacred
Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship and approved by
Pope John Paul II on April 17, 1980 also condemns the practice you
describe. Among the liturgical abuses condemned in the foreword of the
document is "homilies given by lay people." Under the section on the
Mass, subsection 3 states that "The purpose of the homily is to
explain to the faithful the Word of God proclaimed in the readings,
and to apply its message to the present. Accordingly the homily is to
be given by the priest or the deacon."

Sometimes I hear people around me at Mass saying with the priest,
"Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all
glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, forever and ever." I was
not taught to do this. Is this optional or should I say it also?

This concluding part of the Eucharistic Prayer, called the Per Ipsum,
is to be said by the celebrating priest alone or with concelebrating
priests, not by the faithful. Inaestimabile Donum makes this quite
clear:

"It is reserved to the priest, by virtue of his ordination, to
proclaim the Eucharistic Prayer, which of its nature is the high point
of the whole celebration. It is therefore an abuse to have some parts
of the Eucharistic Prayer said by the deacon, by a lower minister, or
by the faithful. On the other hand the assembly does not remain
passive and inert; it unites itself to the priest in faith and silence
and show its concurrence by the various interventions provided for in
the course of the Eucharistic Prayer: the responses to the Preface
dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the Consecration, and the
final Amen after the Per Ipsum. The Per Ipsum itself is reserved to
the priest."

New Agers talk a lot about nirvana. What exactly is nirvana, and how
does it compare with the Christian idea of heaven?

In Buddhism, nirvana is the final state the sould reaches on its
journey through different lifetimes. These lifetimes are pictured as a
series of lamps, one being lit by another, until the final lamp goes
out. The word "nirvana" means "going out" or "extinguishing."

According to Buddhists, our desires and cravings are what keep the
process of reincarnation going. By eliminating all desires it is
possible to escape the cycle of rebirth. When a person manages to
extinguish all his desires, he reaches a state of nirvana and is said
to be a saint.

When a saint dies he enters nirvana proper, in which he loses his
identity as a distinct individual. Buddha compared the question "Does
a saint survive his death?" to the question "Where does a flame go
when it is blown out?" Both questions are thought to be intrinsically
unanswerable. Neither a dead saint nor a blown-out flame have
individual identities anymore.

Nirvana is different from the Christian idea of heaven. Nirvana is a
state of desirelessness; heaven is a state of havings one's most
fundamental desire (for God) fulfilled. Nirvana is a state of ultimate
apathy and indifference, heaven of ultimate joy and fulfillment.
Paradoxically, Buddhists regard nirvana, the state of desirelessness,
as the most desirable state.

Nirvana also differs from heaven because it suggests one will
eternally lose his body and his individual identity, while Christians
claim they will keep both of them eternally.

I was told that devout Jews believe in purgatory. Is this true?

In essence, yes, though they do not call it purgatory. Jews do believe
in a purification (a purgation) which takes place after death. When a
Jewish person's loved one dies, it is customary to pray on his behalf
for eleven months using a prayer known as the mourner's Qaddish
(derived from the Hebrew word meaning "holy"). This prayer is used to
ask God to hasten the purification of the loved one's soul. The
Qaddish is prayed for only eleven months because it is thought to be
an insult to imply that the loved one's sins were so severe that he
would require a full year of purification.

The practice of praying for the dead has been part of the Jewish faith
since before Christ. Remember that 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, on which
Catholics base their observance of this practice, show that, a century
and a half before Christ, prayer for the dead was taken for granted.
Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism has preserved this authentic element
of Judeo-Christian faith.

Who are the "other sheep" Jesus mentions in John 10:16? In a TV ad the
Mormons say that verse refers to Jews who allegedly migrated to South
America around 600 B.C.

Jesus said, "And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must
bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one
flock, one shepherd." Most Catholic biblical scholars, following the
teaching of the early Church fathers, agree that the "other sheep" are
the gentiles, to whom the gospel was sent after the Jews rejected
Christ (Rom. 11:11-12).

During his public ministry Jesus confined his proclamation of the
gospel to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6, 15:24), and initially this remained
the focus of the apostles' preaching, although Jesus had foretold that
the gospel would eventually be carried to "all nations" (Matt. 28:19,
Acts 1:8). This opening up of God's blessing even to Gentiles was
foretold in the Old Testament (Ps. 2:7; Isa. 2:2-6).

Paul explained this to Gentile Christians: "Therefore remember that at
one time you Gentiles in the the flesh, called the uncircumcision by
what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by
hands--remember that you were at that time separated from Christ,
alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the
covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But
now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near
in the blood of Christ" (Eph. 2:11-13; cf. Rom. 3:22; Gal. 3:27-28).

The Gospels place emphasis on the Samaritans (for example, in the
parable of the Good Samaritan). Who were they and why were they
important?

The Samaritans were people who lived in what had been the Northern
Kingdom of Israel. Samaria, the name of that kingdom's capital, was
located between Galilee in the north and Judea in the south. The
Samaritans were a racially mixed society with Jewish and pagan
ancestry. Although they worshiped Yahweh as did the Jews, their
religion was not mainstream Judaism. They accepted only the first five
books of the Bible as canonical, and their temple was on Mount Gerazim
instead of Mount Zion in Jerusalem (John 4:20).

The Samaritans of Jesus' day were strict monotheists. In some respects
they were more strict than Jews about commandments of the Mosaic law,
especially the sabbath regulations, but they did not share the Jewish
stricture against pronouncing the divine name Yahweh in their oaths.

Because of their imperfect adherence to Judaism and their partly pagan
ancestry, the Samaritans were despised by ordinary Jews. Rather than
contaminate themselves by passing through Samaritan territory, Jews
who were traveling from Judea to Galilee or vice versa would cross
over the river Jordan, by-pass Samaria by going through Transjordan,
and cross over the river again as they neared their destination. The
Samaritans also harbored antipathy toward the Jews (Luke 9:52-53).

That the Samaritans were separated from and looked down upon by the
Jews makes them important in the New Testament. Jesus indicated a new
attitude must be taken toward the Samaritans when he passed through
their towns instead of crossing the Jordan to avoid them (John 4:4-5),
when he spoke with a Samaritan woman, contrary to Jewish custom (John
4:9), and he said a time would come when worshiping in Jerusalem or on
Mount Gerazim would not be important (John 4:21-24). When asked whom
to regard as our neighbor, Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan
precisely because Samaritans were despised.

The apostles recognized that in the Church Samaritans must be accepted
as equal to Jews. Peter and John conducted a special mission to
Samaria to confirm Samaritans who had already been baptized by Philip
(Acts 8:14-17). This initiation of the Samaritans was a middle stage
between the preaching of the gospel to the Jews (Acts 2) and the
preaching of the gospel to full-blooded Gentiles (Acts 10).

Today a few Samaritans survive, not having lost their identity through
intermarriage. There are about 300 active practitioners of the
Samaritan religion, most of whom live in the city of Nablus. Although
their temple is long since destroyed, they still celebrate Passover
every year in its ruins on Mount Gerazim.

What is the difference between a rabbi and a Jewish priest? In the
Gospels were these two ways of referring to a single office?

The offices of rabbi and priest were distinct. Priests were
descendants of Aaron, and they worked at the Temple in Jerusalem,
though in Jesus' day there were so many of them that they did not work
through the whole year (Luke 1:5, 8-9). A rabbi was a religious
teacher who operated out of the local synagogue and was not required
to belong to any particular family or tribe in order to hold his
position. Unlike priests, rabbis at that time did not receive payment
for their teaching: they were expected to have a secular job instead
(notice that Paul was a tentmaker [Acts 18:2-3; see also 1 Cor.
9:3-15]).

Rabbis and priests tended to have different theological beliefs. Most
priests were members of the Sadducees, the aristocratic, priestly
party in Jerusalem, while most rabbis were Pharisees. These groups had
great theological hostility toward one another. One key point on which
they disagreed was whether there would be a resurrection of the dead.
Pharisees said there would be, while Sadducees said there was no
afterlife (Acts 23:8). The Sadducees also said angels and spirits do
not exist, while Pharisees said they do.

Despite the mutual hostility, the two groups served together on the
Sanhedrin, the ruling body of the Jews. When he was on trial before
the Sanhedrin, Paul used the fact that its priests and rabbis had
differing views to start an argument which jammed the machinery of
justice and got him a change of venue to a Roman court (Acts 23:6-31).

My wife is studying with Jehovah's Witnesses, and they have convinced
her that celebrating birthdays is a pagan custom and not something
Christians should do. She refuses to allow our children to celebrate
their birthdays. What should I do?

Birthday celebrations are mentioned only a few times in Scripture, and
nowhere are they condemned. Witnesses wrongly assume that celebrating
birthdays is evil because the only two explicit biblical mentions of
birthday celebrations are those in honor of a pagan, Pharaoh (Gen.
40:20-22), and a wicked man, Herod Antipas (Mark 6:21; cf. Matt.
14:1-12). To compound the issue, King Herod's birthday festivities
were the occasion of sexual immorality involving the daughter of his
brother's wife, Herodias, and led to the murder of John the Baptist.
Witnesses wrongly reason that, because these biblical occurrences
depict the celebrations of the births of wicked men, celebrating
anyone's birthday is in itself sinful. You can demonstrate that this
does not logically follow by showing that the Bible says that the
birthday of John the Baptist would be the cause of "joy and gladness,
and many will rejoice at his birth for he will be great in the sight
of the Lord" (Luke 1:14-15). While this passage does not explicitly
mention an annual celebration of John the Baptist's birth, it
certainly allows for such an interpretation and at the very least
demonstrates that it is good to celebrate the birth of a holy person.

Why won't Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood transfusions, even when
their lives are in jeopardy?

Mainly because their founder, Charles Taze Russell, scrambled to come
up with a unique set of doctrines that would stand out from the pack.
He didn't seem to care which biblical teachings he embraced and which
he rejected, so long as the resulting doctrinal pastiche would be
exotic. Rejecting blood transfusions on "biblical" grounds is one of
the odd tenets that make the Watchtower a truly odd organization.
Witnesses cite two verses as bases for their position: "You shall eat
no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your
dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from
his people" (Lev. 7:26-27); "For the life of every creature is the
blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall
not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is
its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off" (Lev. 17:14).

Besides being inconsistent by retaining this particular Old Covenant
prohibition while ignoring others, such as circumcision (cf. Gen.
17:2-14) and kosher dietary laws (cf. Deut. 14:3-21), Witnesses
misunderstand what these passages are talking about. In both Leviticus
7 and 17 the prohibition is against the eating of blood, not reception
of blood through transfusions (a medical procedure which was developed
only within the last century). Witnesses ignore the fact that in a
single passage in Leviticus the Lord prohibits the eating of both
blood and fat: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your
generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor
blood" (3:17). Yet the Watchtower does not condemn the eating of fat,
and no Jehovah's Witness would feel any moral compunction against
eating a bag of fried pork rinds or enjoying a nice, fatty cut of
prime rib. This is a good example of the Watchtower's selective
"theology."

Secularists have the American Civil Liberties Union, and Protestants
have the Rutherford Foundation, but are there any Catholic legal
defense organizations to protect the legal and civil rights of
Catholics? Are there any organizations to make sure they get their
ecclesial rights within the Church?

Yes to both questions. For cases where Catholics are being denied
their rights in the secular world, contact the Catholic League for
Religious and Civil Rights, 1011 First Ave., New York, NY 10022, phone
(212) 371-3191. This organization exists to help defend the rights of
Catholics in American courts.

For cases where Catholics are being denied their ecclesial rights
within the Church, contact the St. Joseph Foundation, 4211 Gardendale,
Suite A-100, San Antonio, TX 78229, phone (210) 614-3673.

I've heard that when a man leaves the priesthood, he undergoes a
process called "laicization," which takes away his priestly powers,
making him a regular layman. Is this correct?

It is only partly correct. Laicization is a process which takes from a
priest or other cleric the licit use of his powers, rights, and
authority. Laicization occurs automatically when a priest, deacon, or
monk marries or joins the military without permission. Major clerics
(priests and deacons) are directly laicized through their superiors by
the penalty of degradation. The Holy See also has the privilege of
laicizing major clerics.

Laicized clerics are forbidden to wear clerical dress or to perform
ceremonies or to administer the sacraments ordinary to their former
offices. Priests who are laicized are required to continue practicing
celibacy, although dispensations from this discipline are frequently
given. Otherwise, laicization renders a cleric for ecclesiastical
purposes the equivalent of a layman.

The supernatural mark of holy orders and the powers connected with the
sacrament (especially for the priest) remain even after laicization,
although they cannot be used licitly. A laicized priest has the power
to confect the Eucharist. Although to the world he may live as a
laymn, in a sense "once a priest, always a priest."

What can you tell me about the book Poem of the Man-God? Has it been
condemned by the Church?

Poem of the Man-God, a multi-volume work of prose written by Maria
Valtorta, purports to be a factual account of the life of Christ as
revealed by Jesus himself. Interest in the work grew after one of the
alleged seers from Medjugorje claimed that the Virgin Mary okayed the
reading of the book. The history of the book leads one to question the
credibility of this claim. In 1960 The Poem of the Man-God, then a
four-volume set, was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. The
official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, summarized the
findings of the Holy Office in an article titled "A Life of Jesus
Badly Fictionalized." When the publishers tried to get around this
condemnation the next year by publishing a new ten-volume set, the
work again was condemned in the Vatican paper which called it "a
mountain of childishness, of fantasies, and of historical and
exegetical falsehoods, diluted in a subtly sensual atmosphere."

In correspondence with Catholic Answers, the current Apostolic Nuncio,
Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan, pointed out that, although the Index
was abolished in 1965, it still retains its moral force, and faithful
Catholics should heed the reservations and cautions expressed in it.

Is it true that the Greek Orthodox Church believes in infallibility,
but not in the Catholic sense?

The members of the Greek Orthodox Church believe that the only
infallible authority is an ecumenical council of all the bishops of
the world. They believe that there were only seven such councils held
before the Eastern Schism, when the Eastern churches split from Rome.
They say the charism of infallibility is now inoperative or
non-existent and will be until the Eastern churches are reunited with
Rome. This is in stark contrast to their predecessors at the Council
of Chalcedon in 451, who said "Peter has spoken through the mouth of
Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I]. The matter is closed. Let him who
will not listen to Leo be anathema."

One of the causes of the Reformation was the selling of indulgences.
Does the Catholic Church still sell them?

That's like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The Catholic
Church does not now or has it ever approved the sale of indulgences.
This is to be distinguished from the undeniable fact that individual
Catholics (perhaps the best known of them being the German Dominican
Johann Tetzel [1465-1519]) did sell indulgences--but in doing so they
acted contrary to explicit Church regulations. This practice is
utterly opposed to the Catholic Church's teaching on indulgences, and
it cannot be regarded as a teaching or practice of the Church.

In the sixteenth century, when the abuse of indulgences was at its
height, Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, 1469-1534) wrote about the
problem: "Preachers act in the name of the Church so long as they
teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach,
guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which
they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church;
it need not be wondered that they go astray."

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church
teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to
eliminate abuses:

Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the
Church (cf. Matt. 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23), and she has even in the
earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy
council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most
salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the
holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with
anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is
in the Church the power of granting them.
In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the
ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest
by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But
desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by
any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences be blasphemed
by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way
by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a
most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be
absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have
sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever
other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places
and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be
prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make
note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next
provincial synod" (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences).

In 1967 Pope Paul VI reiterated Catholic teaching on indulgences and
added new reforms in his apostolic constitution Indulgentarium
Doctrina (cf. Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents,
ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. [Northport, New York: Costello, 1980],
62-79).
Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses
called "cults," while other groups, such as Fundamentalists and
Calvinists, are not? Don't all of these groups teach cultic doctrines?

The word "cult" has fallen on hard times. Used authentically, it
refers to a grouping of people for some religious purpose; it can also
refer to specific ceremonial, liturgical, and prayer activities
carried out within a particular group. Vatican II, for example, refers
to the "cult of the saints," meaning the honor and devotion Christians
show to Christians who are now reigning with Christ in heaven. Used
this way, "cult" carries no pejorative connotations.

In the last few decades an unfortunatue phenomenon has sprung up,
primarily among Evangelical Protestants who have appropriated the word
and used it to categorize religious groups with whom they disagree.
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have become "cultists," and their
religions are branded as "cults." In popular jargon "cult" implies
more than just a religion with odd tenets. It carries the implication
that the group has a hidden agenda, uses deception and mind control
techniques to keep its members in line, and may be satanic in origin.
Calling someone a "cultist" has become a handy stick with which to
beat members of minority religions. Some Fundamentalists call the
Catholic Church a cult.

Of course, some religions are cults, but it's a matter of prudence
whether to trumpet that fact. If you want to evangelize adherents to
such religions, you must avoid approaches that will alienate them. Be
firm but charitable. Don't throw around the terms "cult" and
"cultist." With a little restraint you'll more likely get your message
across. If you start by telling a non-Catholic that he's a member of a
cult (even if he is), it's unlikely that he'll listen to anything you
have to say.

When did the custom of canonizing saints start, and is it true that
canonizations are infallible?

Here are excerpts from two articles on canonization of saints; they
are taken from The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967):

The solemn act by which the pope, with definitive sentence, inscribes
in the catalogue of saints a person who has previously been beatified.
By this act he declares that the person placed on the altar now reigns
in eternal glory and decrees that the universal Church show him the
honor due to a saint. The formulas indicate that the pope imposes a
precept on the faithful, e.g. "We decide and define that they are
saints and inscribe them in the catalogue of saints, stating that
their memory should be kept with pious devotion by the universal
Church."
The faithful of the primitive Church believed that martyrs were
perfect Christians and saints since they had shown the supreme proof
of love by giving their lives for Christ; by their sufferings, they
had attained eternal life and were indefectibly united to Christ, the
Head of the Mystical Body. These reasons induced the Christians, still
oppressed by persecution, to invoke the intercession of the martyrs.
They begged them to intercede before God to obtain for the faithful on
earth the grace to imitate the martyrs in the unquestioning and
complete profession of faith [1 Tim. 2:1-5, Phil. 3:17] . . . .

Toward the end of the great Roman persecutions, this phenomenon of
veneration, which had been reserved to martyrs, was extended to those
who, even without dying for the faith, had nonetheless defended it and
suffered for it, confessors of the faith (confessores fidei). Within a
short time, this same veneration was extended to those who had been
outstanding for their exemplary Christian life, especially in
austerity and penitence, as well as to those who excelled in Catholic
doctrine (doctors), in apostolic zeal (bishops and missionaries), or
in charity and the evangelical spirit . . . .

In the first centuries the popular fame or the vox populi represented
in practice the only criterion by which a person's holiness was
ascertained. A new element was gradually introduced, namely, the
intervention of the ecclesiastical authority, i.e., of the competent
bishop. However, the fame of sanctity, as a result of which the
faithful piously visited the person's tomb, invoked his intercession,
and proclaimed the thaumaturgic [miraculous] effects of it, remained
the starting point of those inquiries that culminated with a definite
pronouncement on the part of the bishop. A biography of the deceased
person and a history of his alleged miracles were presented to the
bishop. Following a judgment of approval, the body was exhumed and
transferred to an altar. Finally, a day was assigned for the
celebration of the liturgical feast within the diocese or province.

The transition from episcopal to papal canonization came about
somewhat casually. The custom was gradually introduced of having
recourse to the pope in order to receive a formal approval of
canonization. This practice was prompted obviously because a
canonization decreed by the pope would necessarily have greater
prestige, owing to his supreme authority. The first papal canonization
of which there are positive documents was that of St. Udalricus in 973
. . . . Through the gradual multiplications of the Roman pontiffs,
papal canonization received a more definite structure and juridical
value. Procedural norms were formulated, and such canonical processes
became the main source of investigation into the saint's life and
miracles. Under Gregory IX, this practice became the only legitimate
form of inquiry (1234) . . . .

The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in
the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its
correlative the power to canonize . . . . St. Thomas Aquinas says,
"Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we
believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in
this the judgment of the Church is not able to err" (Quodl. 9:8:16).

The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith
and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the
Church hold up for universal veneration a man's life and habits that
in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into
error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of
a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme
pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates
and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or
judges that person's acts to be in accord with its teaching.

May the Church ever "uncanonize" a saint? Once completed, the act of
canonization is irrevocable. In some cases a person has been popularly
"canonized" without official solemnization by the Church . . . yet any
act short of solemn canonization by the Roman pontiff is not an
infallible declaration of sanctity. Should circumstances demand, the
Church may limit the public cult of such a person popularly
"canonized" (vol. 3, 55-56, 59, 61).

In a recent This Rock article ("Changing the Sabbath", December 1993),
you stated that Christ used his authority to alter the sabbath in
Matthew 12:8, but a footnote in my Confraternity Version of the Bible
says he did not alter the commandment, but urged it be interpreted in
a more reasonable way. How could he alter one of the Ten Commandments,
anyway?

Jesus exercised his sovereign power to abrogate the sabbath law in at
least some way. This is why he states, "For the Son of Man is Lord of
the sabbath" (Matt. 12:8). Both "Son of Man" and "Lord" are references
to Christ's sovereign power. The footnote in your Confraternity
Version is wrong. Footnotes in Catholic Bibles are not infallible.
(See "Dragnet" in the January 1994 issue of This Rock for a place
where we caught one such footnote in an outright historical error).

The sabbath command is the only one of the Ten Commandments which can
be altered in any way, because only it is a part of the ceremonial
law. This is taught by the Roman Catechism issued after the Council of
Trent:

The other commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural
law, obligatory at all times and unalterable. Hence, after the
abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the
two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their
observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity
with nature which dictates obedience to them.
This Commandment about the observance of the sabbath, on the other
hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfillment, is not
fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change and belongs not to
the moral, but the ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle of the
natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship
to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact the sabbath
was kept holy only from the time of Israel from the bondage of
Pharaoh.

The observance of the sabbath was to be abrogated at the same time as
the other Hebrew rites and ceremonies, that is, at the death of
Christ. . . . Hence St. Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, when
reproving the observers of the Mosaic rites, says: "You observe days
and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest perhaps I have
labored in vain amongst you" [Gal. 4:10]. And he writes to the same
effect to the Colossians [Col. 2:16].

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

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

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

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

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

When a person commits mortal sin he implicitly rejects God and the
entire life of holiness he had led up to that point, including the
reward he would have gotten for his good deeds. When he repents and
comes back to God through the sacrament of confession, does this mean
he will have to start from zero in gaining new rewards?

No. The common teaching of Catholic theologians is that there is a
"revival of merit" when a person comes back to God. When a person
comes back to God, he implicitly reaffirms the prior life of holiness
he had led, so his rewards for that life are restored.

In Infinita Dei Misericordia (1924), Pope Pius XI taught that
penitents have "the fullness of the merits and the gifts which they
lost through sin . . . restored and given back." Thomas Aquinas taught
the same thing (Summa Theologiae 3a:89:5).

I heard there was a "secret Gospel of Mark" which contained additional
material not found in the canonical Gospel of Mark. Is there any truth
to this? What are we to make of this report?

Not much. In 1958 Morton Smith claimed to have found a portion of a
letter written by Clement of Alexandria. It discussed a second edition
of the Gospel of Mark, prepared after Peter's death. This second
edition supposedly included stories not found in the canonical Mark.
The longest of these stories was what appeared to be an alternative
account of the resurrection of Lazarus. According to the letter Smith
found, this document was kept at Alexandria (of which Mark had been
bishop), but not generally disseminated. The Gnostic heretic
Carpocrates obtained a copy of the gospel and then revised it, adding
his own gnostic teachings, and then used it to justify the licentious
sexual ethics of his followers.

The letter is of dubious authenticity. Smith claimed to have found it
handwritten in the back of a book in the library of the Mar Saba
monastery in southern Israel. The book itself dated from the
seventeenth century, and the handwriting of the letter was dated from
the eighteenth century. Smith published photographs of the letter, but
since their publication no other Western scholar has seen the letter.

Even if Smith's account of finding the letter is correct, it is
doubtful that the eighteenth century person who wrote it in the back
of the book had a genuine letter of Clement of Alexandria. He might
have composed the letter himself, expecting someone to find it in the
future, or he may have had a copy of a letter previously forged in
Clement's name.

Even if Clement wrote the letter, it does not prove that the version
of Mark he mentions was genuine. Someone between the time of Mark and
the time of Clement may have added the additional material and then
put forward the Gospel in Mark's name (just as the heretic Carpocrates
is supposed to have done). Few scholars who believe Clement wrote the
letter believe Mark was the author of the Gospel the letter mentioned.
The additional material contains clues that make it unlikely it would
have been written by Mark.

What is fundamental option theory? I understand that the pope
discussed this in his recent encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, but I
don't know what it is or why it is important. Was it one of the
opinions he condemned?

The pope condemned the fundamental option theory, but he admitted that
it had some valid elements.

According to fundamental option theory, each person makes a deep and
basic choice for or against God. Individual acts we perform may or may
not be in accordance with that fundamental choice. For example, when a
person who has made a basic choice in favor of God sins, this choice
to sin is not in accord with his fundamental orientation in favor of
God.

The key claims of fundamental option theory are that individual acts
do not change our basic orientation and that only when our fundamental
option changes against God do we fall out of a state of grace. A
person can commit particular sins without losing a state of grace.

Historic Catholic theology would say that those sins which do not
change our fundamental option are venial sins and that those sins
which do change it are mortal sins. Whenever a person commits a mortal
sin, he has changed his fundamental option and chooses to be against
God; he loses the state of grace.

But this is not the way fundamental option theorists present their
system. They typically claim that one can commit acts such as
adultery, homosexuality, and masturbation, which the Church has always
regarded as mortal sins, without changing one's fundamental option.
Some go so far as to imply that no single act of sin one commits
changes one's fundamental option; only a prolonged pattern of sinful
behavior can do so.

The effect of fundamental option theory, when it is presented this
way, is to minimize people's awareness of mortal sin and the danger it
poses to their souls. It was this teaching, which undermines what the
Church always has taught concerning sin, that the pope condemned
(Veritatis Splendor 65-70).

How can I defend the book of Judith against Fundamentalist attacks
which charge it with blatant historical inaccuracies, such as stating
that Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Assyrians instead of the
Babylonians (Judith 1:1)?

Some scholars have thought that Judith is a stylized account of real
events and that this explains the supposed "historical inaccuracies"
in the book--they are due to the form of stylization the author
employs. You might compare the book of Judith to the book of Job,
which Fundamentalists view as a stylized account of a real historical
event. They believe the basic story in Job is real, since Job is
mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Ezek. 14:14, 20), but because
chapter after chapter of the book is dialogue written in the form of
Hebrew poetry, Fundamentalists concede it is a stylized account.

Other scholars have thought Judith is not a historical book but a
"theological novel"--basically and extended parable--and that this
could be recognized by any Jew reading the work. On this view, the
fact that Nebuchadnezzer is declared to be the king of the Assyrians
in the very first verse of the book is regarded as one of the cues
that would tell the reader he is reading an allegory rather than
history. Nebuchadnezzar was then the single most famous persecutor of
the Jews, and every Jew knew he was king of the Babylonians.

Scholars who adopt this view point out that Judith's name means "Lady
Jew" and that she is placed against the two greatest enemies of the
Hebrew people, Nebuchadnezzar, the king most famous for fighting them,
and the Assyrians, the second most famous enemy of Israel. To give a
modern equivalent of this, suppose you picked up a book that pitted
Miss America against Adolf Hitler, king of the Russians. Would you
identify the work as a piece of literal history or as an allegory
intended to teach a point?

The idea that Scripture contains parables, allegories, and figurative
language is something even Fundamentalists will admit. So long as the
original audience recognized that what it was reading was a literary
device, there could be no objection to including the work of
Scripture--it would not have deceived the intended readers into
thinking it was making factual claims when it was not. The parables of
Jesus are a perfect example of this.

The status of the book of Judith is thus similar to that of the Song
of Solomon. We are not sure whether this latter work is a stylized
account of real events (was the wife of Solomon mentioned in the book
a real person?) or whether it is a straight parable about ideal love.
If the Song of Solomon can go into the Bible, so can Judith.

Papal infallibility can't be true because Pope Zozimus pronounced
Pelagius to be orthodox and later reversed himself. What do you have
to say to that?

Zozimus (reigned 417-418) was approached by Caelestius, who brought a
profession of faith from Pelagius for the Pope's examination. Zozimus
examined Caelestius and the profession and found nothing heretical in
them. He said the African bishops' condemnation of Pelagius and
Caelestius had been hasty and instructed Africans with charges against
them to appear in Rome for further investigation.

This prompted outrage among the African bishops since they considered
the Pelagian controversy to have been closed by Zozimus's predecessor,
Innocent I. Zozimus responded by stressing the primacy of the Roman
See and by explaining to them that he had not settled the matter
definitively and that he did not intend to do so without consulting
them. He said that his predecessor's decision remained in effect until
he had finished investigating the matter.

The bishops provided Zozimus with additional evidence against
Pelagius, and the Pope condemned Pelagianism. His initial assessment
had been a tentative judgment, based on partial evidence. He did not
issue a definitive judgment, much less a doctrinal definition, as
indicated by the fact he asked for additional evidence to be sent to
Rome. The case of Zozimus thus does not touch the doctrine of papal
infallibility.

I am encountering a group known as the Christadelphians. How did they
originate and what do they believe?

The Christadelphians ("brothers of Christ") were founded in 1848 by
John Thomas, a physician and the son of a Congregationalist minister.
Thomas for a time had associated himself with the Campbellites (the
"Church of Christ" movement). In 1848 he wrote Elpis Israel--An
Exposition of the Kingdom of God, a book which contained his religious
ideas.

The sect attracted members in the U.S., Canada, and England and came
to be known as the Christadelphians during the U.S. Civil War, when
the members' pacifism forced them to select a name. They have
experienced no significant growth since that time and today have
approximately 20,000 members in England and 16,000 in the U.S. Members
are also found in Canada, Australia, Germany, and New Zealand.

Christadelphians hold to unitarianism, the belief that there is only
one person in the Godhead. They see Jesus as one of the many "Elohim"
or "created gods" who were at one time mortal men; in this
Christadelphians are much like Mormons. The Holy Spirit is not
considered a spirit but a force.

Christadelphians believe the soul "sleeps" between death and
resurrection and that there is no eternal punishment; in this they are
like the Jehovah's Witnesses. The wicked will not be raised on the
last day. Christadelphians deny the existence of the devil and claim
that Christ will soon return to reign in Jerusalem for a thousand
years.

Christadelphians have no central authority. Each local church or
"ecclesia," as it is called, functions independently and generally
meets in private homes or rented buildings. They do not employ
salaried clergy, but elect "serving brethren" for three-year terms.
They do not have missionaries and are opposed to military service,
trade unions, holding elective office, and voting in civil elections;
again, in these matters they are like the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Christadelphians I deal with claim many people will never be awakened
from death (cf. Is. 26:14, 43:17, Jer. 51:57). They say that Paul
implies this in 1 Cor. 15:18, where he says that if there were no
resurrection then those who have died in Christ would have perished.
How can this be refuted?

Point out that the passages they quote do not prove their case, but
can be interpreted in other ways. Isaiah 26:14 describes Israel's
defeated conquerors as "shades that cannot rise." This means they are
unable to bring themselves back from the dead. Isaiah 43:17 and
Jeremiah 51:57 refer to the dead's inability to get up from falling
down, and in the case of Jeremiah 51:57 it is the inability to get up
from sleep. All three passages are qualified by their time frame,
which is limited to this age and does not have the end of the world in
view. It is within this age that the dead will never rise and will
always sleep. The end of time is a different matter.

When we turn to those passages where the end of the world is in view,
we see that the wicked will be raised on the last day. In John 5:28-29
Jesus tells us, "Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming when
all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who
have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done
evil, to the resurrection of the judgment." We are told that all the
dead will hear his voice and arise and that the wicked will experience
"the resurrection of the judgment."

In Revelation 20:12-15 we read, "And I saw the dead, great and small,
standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book
was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by
what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave
up the dead in it, death and hades gave up the dead in them, and all
were judged by what they had done. . . . [A]nd if any one's name was
not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of
fire."

Here we are told that all of the dead, great and small, will be judged
by what they have done. The sea, death, and hades will give up the
dead that are in them, which means none of the dead will be left
unresurrected. Among the resurrected will be the wicked, who will be
damned.

The Christadelphians argument from 1 Corinthians 15:18 is flawed. Paul
states that if Christ is not raised, then those who have died in him
have perished. The simplest way to refute this is to turn it on its
head. Christ was raised, therefore those who have fallen asleep in him
have not perished--they are still awaked and conscious with him in
heaven.

Further points should be made:

First, for Jews the alternative models of the afterlife were total
annihilation (this was the Sadducees' view) and resurrection (the view
of the Pharisees). When Paul says, "If there is no resurrection then
the dead in Christ have perished," he may be alluding to the Sadducee
view that there is no survival beyond death. He is not thinking about
a disembodied existence because, in Jewish thought, a disembodied
existence is just a temporary state preceding the resurrection. If
there were no resurrection, there could be no disembodied state
either. (On the fact that there is a conscious, disembodied state, see
Luke 16:19-31 and Rev. 6:9).

Second, your Christadelphians friends have assumed that in 1
Corinthians 15:18 "perished" means "been annihilated" or "ceased to
exist." This is not necessarily the case. For example, in Ephesians
2:1 Paul refers to a spiritual death (being "dead in one's sins") that
can be experienced even while one is alive. His point in 1 Corinthians
15:18 might thus be that those who have died as Christians are not
only physically dead, but spiritually dead also if there is no hope in
resurrection; they pinned their hopes on Christ in vain. This is the
thought of the previous verse: "If Christ has not been raised, your
faith is futile and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor. 15:17).

Some Eastern Orthodox claim that the Catholic Church is under anathema
because it added the word filioque ("and the son") to the Nicene Creed
after the declaration that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. This
was illicit, they say, because the Council of Ephesus condemned anyone
who composes a new creed. How should we reply?

It is true that the Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited the making of
new creeds. It stated, "It is not permitted to produce or write or
compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy
Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any
who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the
benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some
other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or
clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges, and if
they are laymen they are to be anathematized" (Definition of the Faith
at Nicaea).

Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they
are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are
pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can
revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since
the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it
could be changed by later ecumenical councils.

At the ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45), it was changed, and
the council ruled that the words "and the Son" had been validly added
to the Creed. The Eastern Orthodox originally accepted the authority
of the Council of Florence, but later rejected it.

Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at
Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople. This is significant
because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the
Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed until
the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition of
Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the
Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Easter Orthodox version
includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople
I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about
the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was
added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.

Ephesus' prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene
prompted questions about the status of the material added by
Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at
the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated, "Therefore
this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed
of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And
because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching
about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly
fathers who met some time later in the imperial city--the teaching
they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their
predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit"
(Definition of Faith).

According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of
Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the
Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what
was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations
to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for
others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add "filioque"
legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit's
procession.

I have heard some modern Catholic scholars suggest that angels are not
personal beings but archetypes or symbols of cosmic principles. Is
this correct?

They're fantasizing. Their notion is contrary to the official teaching
of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "As purely
spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: They are
personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible
creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness" (CCC 330).

A theologian is also not permitted to reduce the devil or demons to
archetypes or to some other impersonal status.

The Catechism goes on to say, "The Church teaches that Satan was at
first a good angel, made by God: 'The devil and the other demons were
indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their
own doing'" (CCC 391, citing Lateran Council IV [1215]).

I have the Collegeville Bible Commentaryfor the New American Bible,
but it seems really technical. Is this a good commentary?

We are unable to recommend the Collegeville Bible Commentary. It is
characterized by one-sided, liberal Bible scholarship and lack of
fidelity to the Church's teachings.

A good example of this is the commentary on Romans 1:18-32. In that
passage of the Bible Paul states that because pagans worshiped
creatures rather than the Creator, "God gave them up to dishonorable
passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and
the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were
consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts
with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their
error" (Rom. 1:26-27).

The Collegeville Bible Commentary states "'natural' and 'unnatural'
should be more accurately translated 'culturally approved' and
'culturally disapproved.'" This is linguistic nonsense. The Greek word
here for "natural" is the adjectival form of phusis, from which we get
"physics." The term means "according to [a thing's] nature." It has
nothing to do with society's approval or disapproval. In fact the
phrase for "unnatural" (para phusin) was found in the Stoic
philosophers before Paul's time and clearly indicated something that
was out of accord with nature. Sickness, for instance, was said to be
para phusin (cf. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
vol. 9, p. 265).

The fact that the Collegeville Bible Commentary would go so far as to
say that the terms "should be more accurately translated" as
"culturally approved" and "culturally disapproved" shows the lengths
to which the authors of the commentary are willing to go to push their
social agenda. (In the case cited the commentary gives what my be
termed a pro-homosexualist interpretation.) This is not scholarship,
but the antithesis of it, where a scholar's personal social or
political views are allowed to dominate the data.

We have given only one example of this commentary's deficiencies, but
we have found enough similar problems that we cannot recommend this as
a trustworthy work.

1 Timothy 4:14 says that Timothy was ordained by priests. Doesn't that
contradict the Catholic teaching that only bishops can confer Holy
Orders?

This verse does not say that Timothy was ordained by priests. At most,
it says that priests laid their hands on him at the time of his
ordination, but this does not mean that it was they who conferred the
sacrament upon him.

When someone is ordained to the priesthood, the bishop imposes hands
on the candidate, followed by any already-ordained priests who are
present. These impositions of hands have different significance. The
bishop places his hands on the candidate to impart the Holy Spirit to
him for ministry, to confer on him the sacrament of holy orders. When
the new priest's colleagues lay their hands on him, it is not to
confer the sacrament, but to symbolize their union with him in the
priesthood and their sharing a common Spirit through the sacrament.

This explanation of the two impositions can be found as early as the
Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, which was written in the early
200s.

In 2 Timothy 1:6 Paul states, "Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift
of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands."
Timothy's ordination was received through the laying on of Paul's
hands, and Paul had the powers of a bishop as part of his powers as an
apostle. Thus someone of episcopal rank ordained Timothy. If 1 Timothy
4:14 means that presbyters (priests) laid their hands on Timothy, it
was the same situation as modern priests laying their hands on a
candidate after the bishop actually confers the sacrament.

Yet there is a question whether 1 Timothy 4:14 even refers to priests
laying their hands on Timothy. In most modern Bible translations the
verse is rendered this way: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which
was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders
[presbyters, priests] laid their hands upon you," but the verse can
also be translated this way: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which
was given to you . . . with the laying on of hands for the
presbyterium [priesthood]." In other words, the laying on of hands was
to make Timothy a member of the priesthood; it was not the priests who
laid their hands on him.

How can we show, from Scripture, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the Son as well as the Father?

One proof is that the Holy Spirit is referred to in Scripture as both
the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20, Rom. 8:10-11, 2 Cor. 1:21-22,
Eph. 3:14-16) and as the Spirit of the Son (Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6, Phil.
1:19, 1 Peter 1:11). Statements saying that the Spirit is "of" the
other two Persons of the Trinity indicate that his Person is tightly
bound up with and originates from them (just as the Son is the Son
"of" the Father).

A second proof is that the external relations of the Trinity model
their internal ones. In Acts 14:26 the Spirit is said to proceed from
the Father, but a chapter later, in 15:26, Jesus states that he will
send the Spirit from the Father. The same relation is reflected in
Acts 2:33, where Peter states that Jesus has received the Spirit from
the Father and sends him.

A philosophical explanation of this is found in the Council of
Florence, which stated in 1439, "Since the Father has through
generation given to the only-begotten son everything that belongs to
the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the
Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Son" (Decree for the Greeks).

The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son because the Father has
given all things to the Son, including the procession of the Holy
Spirit. For more information see the Catechism of the Catholic Church
246, 248, 264.

Aren't all sins equally offensive to God? After all, James 2:10 says,
"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become
guilty of all of it."

Don't ignore 1 John 5:17: "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin
which is not mortal." Everyone sins and falls short of the glory of
God--there is no disputing that. But why would Paul tell Christians in
Rome to keep the faith--"otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom.
11:22)--unless he feared for their salvation? There are other times
when the apostle indicates the necessity of remaining with Christ lest
salvation be lost (1 Cor. 9:27, Phil. 2:12). Yet salvation is not lost
by every sin; as James says, "We all stumble in many ways" (Jas. 3:2).

It stands to reason that the Catholic Church would teach that some
human failings are worse than others. Man-made law reflects this
insight: Governments do not hang jay-walkers. As it is with human law,
so it is with divine law. Minor sins are called "venial," and serious
sins are called "mortal" because they involve a massive rejection of
God's law and cause the spiritual death of the soul.

What James means when he says that whoever fails on one point of the
law is guilty of breaking all of it is not that all humans are equally
guilty if they sin once--then there would be no difference in the
levels of punishment people would receive, yet Jesus says there will
be (Luke 12:47-48; cf. Matt. 10:15, 11:22-24). What James means is
that anyone who breaks one point of the law is guilty of breaking the
law itself, of breaking it as an entity. To give an analogy, anyone
who breaks one part of a plate is guilty of breaking the plate. He may
not have broken every part of it--smashed it into pieces--but he is
guilty of breaking the plate as a whole.

In the same way, a person who breaks one law has broken the law as a
whole; he has become a lawbreaker, which is James's point, as is clear
from the next verse: "For he who said, 'Do no commit adultery,' said
also, 'Do not kill.' If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you
have become a transgressor of the law" (Jas. 2:11). This means all of
us need mercy and therefore need to be merciful (Jas. 2:12-13).

In light of all the evidence proving evolution, to be a faithful
Catholic does one have to believe that there was an original couple
called Adam and Eve?

It is prohibited to believe that there were multiple first parents,
many sets of Adams and Eves. This position is called polygenism. It is
a teaching of the Catholic Church that there was one set of parents,
and it was they who committed an offense against God, and that offense
has had lasting effects for mankind. This is the doctrine of original
sin, the sin that occurred at the origin of the human race. C.S. Lewis
argued that the existence of original sin is perhaps one of the most
obvious facts of human life, even to non-believers.

Those who hold that there were multiple sets of first parents go
against the teaching of the magisterium on the doctrine of original
sin. In fact, there are even logical difficulties in accounting for
original sin if that calamitous falling can't be traced to a single
man, Adam.

In an encyclical issued in 1950 Pope Pius XII stated, "When there is a
question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism
so-called, then the sons of the Church in no way enjoy such freedom.
For the faithful in Christ cannot accept this view, which holds either
that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive
their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all,
or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is
by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what
the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the
Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly
committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation,
and exists in each one as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

I've heard Fundamentalists argue against the use of holy images by
citing Deuteronomy 4:15, which says God did not show himself under any
form. They say that by having such images we commit idolatry by trying
to force God into a man-made form. What would be a response?

Early in Israelite history the Jews were forbidden to make pictures of
God because he had not revealed himself to them in a visible form. Had
the Israelites made images of God, they might have been tempted to
worship them, much as the pagans around them worshiped images. God
later revealed himself under visible forms. One instance is found in
Daniel 7:9-10: "As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was
ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the
hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its
wheels were burning fire."

The Holy Spirit revealed himself under two visible forms--that of a
dove, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John
1:32) and as tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4).

Most notably, God the Son visibly revealed himself in the Incarnation:
"[A]nd going into the house they [the magi] saw the child with Mary
his mother" (Matt. 2:11).

Since God has revealed himself in the above forms, he can now be
depicted under these forms. Keep in mind that Protestants have
pictures of Jesus in Bible story books, that they depict the Holy
Spirit as a dove, and that they depict the Father as an old man
sitting on a throne. They do all these without the least temptation to
worship these images as God.

Are non-Catholic marriages valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church?
What if a Catholic marries a non-Catholic?

In general, marriages between non-Catholics, of whatever religion, are
considered valid, but the situation is not as simple as it sounds
because there are two kinds of marriage: natural (ordinary) marriage
and supernatural (sacramental) marriage. Supernatural marriages exist
only between baptized people, so marriages between two Jews or two
Muslims are only natural marriages. Assuming no impediments, marriages
between Jews or Muslims would be valid natural marriages. Marriages
between two Protestants or two Eastern Orthodox also would be valid,
presuming no impediments, but these would be supernatural
(sacramental) marriages and thus indissoluble.

When one spouse is a Catholic and the other is a non-Catholic--this is
commonly termed a "mixed marriage"--the situation changes. Just as the
state has the power to regulate marriages of its citizens by requiring
them to get a blood test or to marry in front of a competent
authority, so the Church has the right to regulate the marriages of
its "citizens."

If one participant is a Catholic who has not left the Church by a
formal act, such as by officially joining another church, he must
obtain a dispensation for the marriage, which would otherwise be
blocked by the mixed-marriage impediment or by the disparity of cult
impediment. A Catholic who has not left the Church by a formal act
also must obtain a dispensation to be married in front of a
non-Catholic minister. If either of these dispensations is not
obtained, the marriage will be invalid.

I have always been taught that a person's soul and his spirit are the
same thing, but in some passages Paul seems to distinguish the two
from each other. What is going on in these cases?

The terms "soul" and "spirit" are used in different senses in the
Bible (Catechism of the Catholic Church 363). Genesis 2:7 states that
God formed man's body from the ground, breathed into him the breath
(spirit) of life, ans so "man became a living soul" (literal
translation). Here the term "soul" is used to refer to the whole man,
composed of both body and spirit. The same use is found when we
describe a shipwreck and say things like "70 souls were lost," meaning
70 people died.

A different use is found in Revelation 6:9 and 20:4, where John sees
the souls of those who have been slain for the gospel. Here "soul"
obviously does not refer to the whole, embodied person, but to the
immaterial part, the spirit, that survives the death.

In two Bible verses (1 Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12) "soul" and "spirit"
seem to be used in distinct senses, but this does not prove the
existence of two immaterial substances in man. The authors use Hebrew
parallelism for poetic effect; they are not talking about constituent
parts of man.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also sheds light on this issue:
"Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit . . . The Church
teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the
soul. 'Spirit' signifies that from creation man is ordered to a
supernatural end and that his soul can graciously be raised beyond all
it deserves to communion with God" (CCC 367).

A friend of mine says she was baptized a Catholic when she was an
infant, then rebaptized when her family became Baptists. What does
rebaptism do, if anything?

If a person's inititial baptism was valid, rebaptism does nothing to
improve the state of the soul before God. Any valid baptism imprints a
spiritual mark or character on the recipient's soul. This mark cannot
be destroyed or removed, so baptism can never be repeated. Any
subsequent attempts at baptism will be invalid. They are at least
materially an insult to the Holy Spirit, because they imply that what
the Spirit did in the initial baptism was not sufficient. Usually,
though, a person who receives a "second baptism" is not formally
guilty of insulting the Holy Spirit since he has been mistaught
concerning the efficacy of his initial baptism.

Because of the invalidity of subsequent baptisms and the danger of
insulting the Holy Spirit (even materially), the Church is reluctant
to apply the rite of baptism to a person who already has been baptized
in a non-Catholic sect. Only if there is some reason to doubt the
person's initial baptism does the Church apply the rite of baptism to
him--and then it does so conditionally. A conditional baptism has the
form, "[Name], if you were not already baptized, I baptize you in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This
leaves the question of whether the person's original baptism was valid
up to God, and it shows that the Church never rebaptizes people
baptized outside the Church.

Rebaptism into a Protestant sect does do one thing: It changes a
person's status under canon law. It is generally taken as a formal
declaration that one has left the Catholic Church. People who make
formal declarations are exempt from certain obligations they acquired
as Catholics. Canons 1086 and 1117 exempt those who have defected from
the Church by formal act from the disparity of cult impediment to
marriage and from the need to observe the Catholic form of marriage
(marriage in front of a Catholic priest or deacon, with two official
witnesses). Formal defectors are not exempt from other marriage
impediments (lack of age, physical impotence, or prior marriage
bonds), nor are they exempt from other ecclesiastical obligations they
assumed as Catholics (see Coriden, Green, and Heintschel, The Code of
Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, 129).

I recently watched a debate between a Christian and a Muslim. The
latter said there were contradictions in the Bible and gave as an
example a passage saying Solomon had 4,000 horse stalls and another
passage saying he had 40,000. What should I make of this?

Don't make a mountain out of it. The passages you refer to are 2
Chronicles 9:25, which says Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses, and 1
Kings 4:26, which in some translations says he had 40,000 of them
(this latter verse is numbered 1 Kings 5:6 in the New American Bible).
Those translations which give the number 40,000 are based on the
Masoretic Text, the Old Testament used by Jews in the Middle Ages. But
if one checks the Septuagint (LXX), one discovers manuscripts giving
the number 4,000--the same as in 2 Chronicles 9:25.

What we have here is a classic example of a copyist error. Before the
printing press, each copy of the Bible had to be produced by hand from
a previous copy. Though the scribes doing the copying were amazingly
meticulous in their efforts, occasionally a scribe would get sleepy or
lose his concentration or mishear a word in the text as it was being
read aloud, and he would make a mistake. These tiny mistakes are
called copyist errors, and they were dangerous because, if not caught,
they would be passed on to future copies made from this scribe's work.

The Hebrew word for forty is only two strokes of a pen different from
the word for four. What probably happened in the case of 1 Kings 4:26
is that some early scribe became sleepy and accidentally added those
two strokes to the word he was writing. No one caught the error. His
manuscript became the basis for the Masoretic Text. The true form of
the text was preserved in the LXX manuscript tradition (the LXX being
an early Greek translation of the Old Testament), which is used for
this verse by almost all modern Bibles.

The fact we have a copyist error in this case has been known for a
long time. For example, Keil & Delitzch's Commentary on the Old
Testament, first published in the mid-1800s, states: "Arba'iym (40) is
an old copyist's error for arba'ah (4), which we find in the parallel
passage, 2 Chronicles 9:25, and as we may also infer from chapter
10:26 and 2 Chronicles 1:14, since according to these passages Solomon
had 1,400 rekeb or war chariots. For 4,000 horses are a very suitable
number for 1,400 chariots, though not 40,000, since two draught horses
were required for every war chariot, and one horse may have been kept
as a reserve" (Commentary on the Old Testament 3:53).

Generally, numerical discrepancies are trivial in their solution and
are obvious to scholars. John Haley's classic work, Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible, states, "We have previously, more than
once, called attention to the marked resemblance of Hebrew letters to
one another; also to the fact. . .that these letters were in ancient
time employed to represent numbers. These two facts indicate at once
the cause and the solution of the numerical discrepancies" (Alleged
Discrepancies, 380).

I know of a priest who, during the consecration at Mass, used to say
"This is our bread of life" instead of "This is my body." Was this
valid? If not, did the people receive the body and blood of Christ?
What if the priest makes only minor variations in the words? How much
must be there for the consecration to be valid?

What this priest said was definitely illicit and far removed from the
proper words used to confect the Eucharist. He engaged in a grievous
liturgical abuse of the kind which should immediately be reported to
the bishop. Because the priest used not just improper words, but words
that didn't even mean "This is my body," the consecration did not take
place at all.

The result was that the people at that Mass were led into material
idolatry. They adored something that was not really Christ, but just
bread. They were worshiping as God something that really wasn't, even
though they were unaware of the import of the priest's actions. This
means they did not incur the guilt of the sin of idolatry.

While it is always gravely illicit for a priest intentionally to
change the words of consecration from what is in the Church's
liturgical texts, it is possible for there to be some variation in
wording without rendering the Mass invalid. Slight slips of the
tongue, for example, don't make for invalidity.

That there can be some variation is obvious from the fact that the
current words the priest uses are not taken from any single New
Testament account of the consecration, but are a combination of
elements of the four different accounts (Matt. 26:26-28, Mark
14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 11:24-25). Surely a priest in the
early Church, at a time before liturgical texts became fixed, would
have been able to consecrate validly if he had read the words of
consecration out of one of the gospels.

There are elements in the current words of consecration that are not
directly from the Bible. For example, "Take this all of you and eat
it" is not found in the English translation of the Bible used at Mass
nor in the Greek text of the Bible. The closest text is Matthew's
"Take, eat" (Matt. 26:26). The closest thing in the Bible to "This is
the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant" is
Paul's "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Cor. 11:25).

The same is true of the wording used in the Tridentine Mass. In place
of those two phrases, it has "All of you take and eat of this"
("Accipite, et manducate ex hoc omnes") and "For this is the chalice
of my blood of the new and eternal covenant" ("Hic est enim calix
sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti"). Neither one of these
Latin phrases corresponds exactly to the Greek.

So what's the bottom line? What must a priest minimally say? For there
to be a valid consecration the priest must say at least this much:
"This is my body . . . This is my blood." It would be illicit for him
to reduce the words of consecration to these, but the consecration
would nevertheless be valid.

It should go without saying--but we'll say it anyway--that there never
can be any explicit denial of transubstantiation contained in the
words used by the priest. He can't say such things as "This is my body
if you accept it by faith" or "This is a symbol of my blood." If such
words are used in conjunction with the "bare minimum" words, the
consecration won't "take" because "This is my body . . . This is my
blood" would be gutted of meaning.

During the Mass, when the priest says, "We offer you, Father, this
holy and living sacrifice," what exactly is he offering and why? Also,
to what did Jesus refer when he said, "Do this in remembrance of me"
(Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25)? What was "this," and where does the
Eucharistic sacrifice come in?

As one would guess by the words the priest uses, he is offering to God
the sacrifice which is Christ. It is a holy sacrifice because Christ
is holy, and it is a living sacrifice because Christ is alive as he is
being offered on the altar; he does not die again. Pope Paul VI's
Credo of the People of God states, "We believe that . . . the bread
and wine consecrated by the priest [are] changed into the Body and
Blood of Christ now enthroned in glory in heaven."

The reason for the offering is so that Christ's once-for-all offering
on the cross might "be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the
end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness
of the sins we daily commit" (CCC 1366, citing the Council of Trent;
cf. CCC 1356-1381). "As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in
reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain
spiritual or temporal benefits from God" (CCC 1414).

When Christ said "Do this in remembrance of me," the "this" to which
he referred was the celebration of the Eucharist, including
consecration and consumption. This is why Paul explains the remark by
saying, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you
proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:25).

This proclamation of the Lord's death has sacrificial overtones. It is
not simply a way of getting us to remember Christ; it re-presents to
God what he did and prompts the Father's merciful remembrance of us.
This is the function of a memorial offering (Num. 10:10). In view of
this fact, the Protestant scholar Joachim Jeremias translates the
phrase "Do this is remembrance of me" (that is, remember me to your
benefit; cf. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 237-255). The
Greek phrase can also be translated "Offer this as my memorial
sacrifice" ("Quick Questions," This Rock, September 1993).

My Protestant wife is objecting to my taking our new baby to Mass with
me on Sunday. She says that until he is a little older, she can't bear
to be separated from him for that long (she doesn't want to go to Mass
with us). The trouble is that since our boy was baptized as a Catholic
a month ago he has the requirement to go to Mass every Sunday, doesn't
he?

No, he doesn't. Canon 11 of the Code of Canon Law states that three
conditions must pertain for a person to be subject to ecclesiastical
laws (such as the requirement to assist at Mass on Sundays):

He must have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church,
he must have the use of reason, and
unless the law states otherwise, he must be at least seven years of age.
Your son meets the first of these conditions, but not the other two.
He will not be subject to the requirement to participate in Sunday
Mass until he is seven; and he will not be subject to the Church's
laws on fasting and abstinence until he is 14 (since canon 1252
exempts those under 14 from this obligation).

Eventually he will be subject to these laws. Your obligation as the
Catholic parent is to do all you can to see that he is raised as a
Catholic, since he has been baptized into the Catholic Church and has,
by your proxy, assumed the obligations of a Catholic. Even prior to
his turning seven, he needs to be taken to Mass enough to consciously
ingrain his Catholic identity in him. This is part of your obligation
to see to his Catholic education.

If your wife strenuously objects to your taking him to Mass for a
temporary period, you are not sinning by not taking him, though you
run the risk of setting a bad precedent with your wife. Only your own
knowledge of your situation can weigh the potential risks and
benefits. If she objected to your ever taking the child to Mass, a
more complicated situation would ensue.

You stated that when the Latin Mass says Christ's blood was shed "pro
multis," normally rendered "for many," it can equally be translated
"for all" since "many" is a biblical idiom that often means "all" (cf.
Dan. 12:2, Rom. 5:12). If so, why was this not stated for 1900 years?
Also, did "for many" always mean "for all" in the Bible?

It has been stated for 1900 years that Christ's blood was shed for
all. The Church declared heretical the Calvinist/Jansenist idea that
Christ shed his blood exclusively for the elect. The translation "for
all" may not have been used in the liturgy until recently, but this
was because in the Western rite the Mass was celebrated in Latin until
recently. There were no English translations made for liturgical use.

Today there is still variation among the different language
translations of the Mass. In some languages, such as Spanish, the
rendering of "for many" has been kept, while in others, such as
Italian, the rendering of "for all" has been used. In other rites of
the Church there are further variations on the words of consecration.
The Greek term for "many" in the consecration (pollus) is not always
an idiom for "all." In Mark 5:26 we are told that the woman with the
issue of blood had suffered under many (pollus) physicians, but she
certainly had not been to all the doctors in the world. Here the term
simply meant, "many." In the case of the words of consecration, we
know that "all" is a valid translation because the Bible tells us
Christ did shed his blood for all men (1 John 2:2), and the Church has
condemned as heretical the contrary proposition.

Dissenters from papal authority, trying to downplay the authority of
documents such as Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, use Joan
of Arc as an example of the Church making a decision and then
reversing it, thereby proving itself fallible. What is the story of
Joan of Arc, and does it make a dent in infallibility?

Joan of Arc was born in France in 1412. A poor, illiterate peasant
girl known for her piety, she began hearing "voices" from God at age
13. Five years later she revealed the message of the voices: to
deliver France from the control of England, gained by Henry V in the
Treaty of Troyes in 1420.

Joan convinced Charles VII (known as the Dauphin), rightful heir to
the French crown, to assemble an army and help relieve the city of
Orleans, which had resisted the English and been under siege for eight
months. With Joan in command, the French army marched on Orleans and
ended the siege in eight days. A succession of further victories saw
Joan present at Charles's coronation at Rheims in 1429.

Charles, once crowned, became apathetic and opposed Joan's plans for
further action, and when she tried to move to relieve the city of
Compiegne, she was arrested and, in 1430, sold to the English, who
wished to eliminate their staunchest adversary and at the same time
discredit the coronation of Charles, owed directly to Joan.

Pierre Cauchon, bishop of Beauvais and strong ally of the English,
tricked her into an admission of guilt, and, after a three-month
trial, she was convicted of heresy. She was excommunicated and turned
over to the state, which on May 30, 1431 had her burned at the stake.

In 1456, after a posthumous trial, Joan was formally rehabilitated by
Rome, which canonized her in 1920. This reversal of Cauchon's judgment
in no way affects the Church's teaching authority. A lone bishop's
determinations of an individual's sanctity or personal revelations
does not fall under the Church's charism of infallibility. Joan was
condemned by an individual bishop who had a clearly political agenda.

Cauchon's personal corruption says nothing about the universal
Church's ability to teach authoritatively on matters of faith and
morals. On the positive side, note the relative speed (by
fifteenth-century standards) with which she was rehabilitated; keep in
mind also that she was burned by the secular power, not by the Church.

I heard that it's the Church's teaching that unbaptized babies go to
hell rather than limbo. Is this true?

No--but neither is it official teaching that they go to limbo. The
fate of unbaptized children has not been determined.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only
entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for
them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should
be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to
say, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them" [Mark 10:14,
cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for
children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the
Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through
the gift of holy baptism" (CCC 1261).
The idea of limbo is a theological speculation about what happens to
people who depart this life in original sin (1 Cor. 15:22) but without
actual sin (Rom. 9:11). The only such people would be the unborn,
babies, young children, morons, and a few others. They lack actual
sin, so they would not be in hell, but they have original sin, so they
would not be in heaven. It was speculated that they would be in a
place of natural glory (limbo).
The basis for this speculation has been undercut by recent reflection
on God's salvific will. The Second Vatican Council stated, "For since
Christ died for all (Rom. 8:32) . . . we must hold that the Holy
Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way
known to God, in the paschal mystery" (Gaudium et Spes 22). This
includes the young and those severely retarded.

If, in whatever mysterious way the person receives the offer, he
accepts it, then he has "baptism of desire" and goes to heaven. If the
person rejects the offer, then he has committed mortal sin and goes to
hell. Thus it can be argued that no one leaves this life with original
sin but without actual sin. People die either in a state of grace or
in a state of mortal sin.

Some have speculated about what form God's offer of salvation might
take to children. One suggestion is that he might enlighten them at
the moment of death and enable them to make a choice for or against
him. This possibility was endorsed by the nineteenth-century Catholic
theologian Heinrich Klee.

Another suggestion is that these persons may have a form of "baptism
of desire" through the desire of their parents, of the Church, or of
someone else. This would operate the way the faith of the Church
suffices to allow infants to be baptized, even though they lack faith
themselves. This idea ("vicarious baptism of desire") was endorsed by
Cardinal Cajetan at the time of the Reformation.

Are sacraments efficacious even if not understood by the one receiving
them? Doesn't grace require active cooperation of faith, knowledge,
and will?

When a sacrament gives us a grace requiring cooperation, such as the
grace to love our spouses, it does require us to cooperate for that
grace to manifest itself. But when a sacrament gives us a grace that
does not require action (such as sanctifying grace), then our active
cooperation is not required. This is not to say our passive
cooperation is not needed. Sacraments communicate their grace to us
unless we put obstacles in the way--but we can put obstacles in the
way.

For example, in order to receive the sacrament of matrimony, it is
necessary to be open to the essential properties of marriage, such as
unity and indissolubility. If, at the time the marriage is contracted,
one party is not open to the essential properties, the marriage will
not be valid. There will be no real marriage at all.

The Code of Canon Law says, "But if either or both parties through a
positive act of the will should exclude marriage itself, some
essential element, or an essential property of marriage, it is
invalidly contracted" (CIC 1102:2). But "Error concerning the unity,
indissolubility, or sacramental dignity of matrimony does not vitiate
matrimonial consent so long as it does not determine the will" (CIC
1099).

It is necessary to cooperate at least passively to retain sanctifying
grace, which is cast out of the soul by mortal sin. Once sanctifying
grace has been received through a sacrament, to retain this grace, you
must cooperate by not committing mortal sin.

Active cooperation with the sacrament is not always required. The
recipient's status is taken into account. When an infant is baptized,
or when he receives any other sacrament, he will receive the
sanctifying grace the sacrament communicates. His passive cooperation,
both in accepting the grace and in retaining it, is assured by the
fact that he is incapable of putting an obstacle in the way and
incapable of committing mortal sin (Rom. 9:11).

I've been seeing television programs about people trying to find the
ark of the covenant. What should a Catholic think about these efforts?
Does the physical ark of the covenant still exist, and can it be
found?

According to a letter attached to the beginning of 2 Maccabees, the
prophet Jeremiah hid the ark of the covenant in a cave on Mount Nebo,
where Moses had looked across the Jordan river into the Promised Land
(Deut. 34:1).

We read:

And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent [of
meeting] and the ark and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the
entrance. Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but
he could not find it. When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and
declared: "The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people
together again and shows his mercy. And then the Lord will disclose
these things, and the glory of the Lord will appear, as they were
shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should
be specially consecrated" (2 Macc. 2:5-8).
Two questions face the interpreter of this text. First, is it
inerrant? This question must be raised because letters contained in
historical books do not have to be inerrant themselves--they merely
have to be inerrantly reported by the historical book (e.g., the
letter against the Jews in Ezra 4:8-16). It is not clear whether the
letters that appear before the main text of 2 Maccabees are on the
same level as ordinary historical documents contained in an inerrant
document or as on the the same level as the inerrant document itself.
Second, has the finding of the ark already happened? The reference to
the time when "God gathers his people together again and shows his
mercy" has been interpreted as a reference to the return from the
Babylonian exile and the coming of Christ (see Luke 2:25; cf. 1:68).
In Revelation 11:19 we read, "Then God's temple in heaven was opened,
and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were
flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and
heavy hail." It is thus possible that the promise of the ark's finding
might have a spiritual fulfillment in the book of Revelation and the
events surrounding the first coming rather than a literal, historical
fulfillment in an archaeological unearthing of the ark.

There are other accounts of what happened to the ark. One that is
currently popular states that it was taken from Israel and eventually
deposited in an Ethiopian church (which refuses to reveal its
contents). Another, found in the non-canonical book 2 Esdras, claims
that the ark was plundered by the Babylonians (2 [4] Esdras 10:21-22).

Because of these questions, no firm conclusion can be drawn. As
interesting as the subject is, we won't know for sure whether the ark
will be found until it is unearthed or until the world ends (whichever
comes first).

What is an ark, anyway? The Bible talks about the ark of the covenant
and Noah's ark. Does this mean that the ark of the covenant was shaped
like a boat?

Just the reverse: It means that Noah's ark was shaped like the ark of
the covenant--in other words, like a box. "Ark" is simply an old word
for "chest" or "box." The Hebrew terms used for the two arks (tebah
and arown mean the same.

When God told Moses to build an ark, what he in effect said was, "Make
yourself a box of gopher wood; make rooms in the box, and cover it
inside and out with pitch. This is how you are to make it: The length
of the box will be four hundred and fifty feet, its width seventy-five
feet, and its height forty-five feet. Make a roof for the box, and
build its walls to within a foot and a half from the top; and set the
door of the box on its side; make it with lower, second, and third
decks" (Gen. 6:14-16).

Similarly, some modern translations of the Bible, such as Today's
English Version (the Good News Bible), render the phrase "the ark of
the covenant" as "the covenant box." The ark of the covenant served as
a chest to contain certain articles intimately associated with God's
covenant with Israel. Hebrews 9:4 reveals that it contained the
tablets of the ten commandments (God's requirements of his people), a
golden jar of manna (God's provisions for his people), and Aaron's
rod, which had budded to show that Aaron was God's priest (God's
proper way to be approached by his people) (Num. 17:10). These
articles symbolize the aspects of a king's covenant with those under
him: what he requires, what he provides, and how he is to be
approached.

The ark also served as God's throne (1 Sam. 4:4, 2 Sam. 6:2, 1 Chr.
13:6-7, Jer. 13:16-17) or as the footstool of his throne (1 Chr.
28:2). God declared that he would speak from above the cherubim that
were on the lid of the ark (Ex. 25:22), and he is regularly spoken of
as being "enthroned above the cherubim" of the ark. Thus when Joshua
carried the ark around the walls of Jericho (Josh. 6-7), the picture
was of a king being carried on his throne in triumphal procession
around the city of conquest.

In a popular Catholic devotion known as "The Litany of Humility," we
ask Jesus to grant us the grace to desire "that others should become
holier than I, provided that I become as holy as I should." This
doesn't seem to make sense. Since we should all avoid sin completely,
doesn't this mean we all should become equally holy, making it
non-sensical to ask for others to be holier than us?

The argument confuses two different kinds of holiness: holiness with
respect to sin and holiness with respect to good works. With respect
to sin, we should all be equally holy because we should never sin
(even though we continually do so during this life). With respect to
good works, we are not called to be all equally holy, because God has
called us to different levels of sacrifice and good works. He has
given us different opportunities and gifts for holiness.

Paul indicates that some have been given the gift of celibacy, while
others have not (1 Cor. 7:7), and that celibacy is preferable because
of the increased opportunities for devotion to God that it offers (1
Cor. 7:36-38). He summarizes by saying, "If anyone thinks that he is
not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are
strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: Let them marry--it
is no sin . . . . So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and
he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Cor. 7:36-38).

Therefore, while we all are called not to sin (which a person who
marries would not be doing), some of us are given the opportunity to
do even better than not sinning (by not marrying).

The Church teaches that when God justifies us he completely removes
all objective sin from our souls and makes us holy by giving us
sanctifying grace (Trent, Decree on Original Sin 5). This holiness
through sanctifying grace is then increased by doing the good works
which justification enables us to accomplish (Trent, Decree on
Justification 10, 16, and canons 24 and 32). Our souls are rendered
completely holy in justification in that they are completely free of
objective sin and are given sanctifying grace, but they are not as
holy as they will become through pleasing God by doing good works
(Eph. 4:18, Col. 1:9-10).

We might compare the way sanctifying grace makes our souls shine
before God with the way a light shines. A light might shed completely
white light, yet it might not shine this light as intensely as some
other light does. In this way, our justified souls shine purely before
God, but may still come to shine more brightly.

When we pray the Litany of Humility, we ask that we will become holy
in the sense that we will perform all the good works God has
commissioned us to do, and we ask that we will not be envious of
others but will want to see them go on to perform even more good works
than we do. No contradiction is involved.

Are homosexuals born with this disorder? I have never heard a
definitive answer on this subject. I believe this behavior is not
learned, but if it happens at birth, why would God place such a heavy
cross on any human being he created?

Science has not yet established the degree to which homosexual
tendencies are learned or inborn. It is likely to be a combination of
both factors, like alcoholism is. In the latter case, there is a
genetic predisposition to alcoholism, but it takes a process of
conditioning and experience with alchohol to develop the addiction.

Sexual drives are built into the human race biologically, but among
humans sex is subject to a great deal of cognitive conditioning.
Responses to particular stimuli (body shapes, facial features, hair
colors, clothing) are largely learned and vary widely from individual
to individual, and even from time to time in a single individual's
life. This degree of cognitive involvement in sexual behavior is not
found among lower life forms, whose sexual behavior is almost entirely
instinctual and has few cognitive factors involved in it.

There may be genetic, hormonal, or neurological factors toward which
produce a predisposition toward homosexual desires, but some degree of
learning and conditioned response is almost certainly involved (as in
human sexuality generally). Because of this ambiguity, the Catechism
of the Catholic Church states that homosexuality's "psychological
genesis remains largely unexplained" (CCC 2357).

It is important to realize that homosexuals do not have complete,
voluntary control over their desires. Of course, they have control
over their actions, as do heterosexuals. After a person has been
conditioned to homosexual responses, it is impossible to simply wish
away the desires, just as it is impossible for an alcoholic to wish
away his desire to be drunk. (It should be noted that heterosexuals do
not have complete control over their desires either.)

Homosexuals also do not make a conscious choice to have homosexual
tendencies. Nobody says, "I think I'll become a homosexual!" any more
than anyone says, "I think I'll become an alcoholic!" Homosexual
desires may come about as a result of certain choices the individual
makes (such as thinking about members of the same sex in a certain way
or engaging in homosexual behavior), just as alcoholic desires may
come about as the result of certain choices the individual has made
(such as frequently choosing to get drunk), but virtually no one
consciously chooses to become a homosexual or an alchoholic as a goal
and then intentionally cultivates the corresponding desires.

For this reason, the Catechism states, "The number of men and women
who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do
not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.
They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every
sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. The
persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they
are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross the
difficulties they may encounter from their condition" (CCC 2358).

While they may not choose their desires, homosexuals do have the
ability to choose whether they act on those desires, just as an
alcholic has the choice of whether to act on his desire to get drunk
and just as a heterosexual has the choice of acting on his desires.
For this reason, the Catechism states, "Basing itself on Sacred
Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,
traditions has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically
disordered. They are contrary to natural law . . . . Under no
circumstances can they be approved . . . . Homosexual persons are
called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them
inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by
prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and
resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357, 2359).

Regarding God's involvement in the origin of homosexuality: He is not
the source of such temptations, just as he is not the source of
temptation in general: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am
tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself
tempts no one" (Jas. 1:13). Adam is the source of the temptations we
feel. It is because of his sin that we have inherited a corrupt nature
(Rom. 5:19).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
President of The United States
Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
Weatherdata Weatherdata http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426
USFMSC
http://www.cityfreq.com/ca/avalon/
QUALIFY QICP
Latest Weather http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KCAMODES11
Int'l http://wow.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/view?siteID=353766276
OCCUPS
http://www.occupationalinfo.org/02/025062010.html
NAS BLYND http://data.backyard2.weatherbug.com/data/ecv.aspx?ID=p19133
goldlandabstracts; link check
own search engine - The United
States International Policies
http://lnk.ms/8d5gl aol
http://groups.google.com/group/united-states-of-american
http://twitter.com/ptusss Federal Communication Commission
http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/

Ambassador Chevy Chase; Kevin Corcran; Jack Nickolas; Cher; Shirley Temple
Black; Liza Minnille; Ansari; Ernest Tascoe; Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Agent Jodie Foster; Department of Veterans Affairs Director George H.W. Bush
Title 22 USCS section 1928 (b) The e-mail
transmission may contain legally privileged information that
is intended only for the individual or entity recipient, you are hereby,
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
E-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements
can be made for proper delivery. Title 42
USCS section 192 etseq Margie Paxton Chief of Childrens Bureau
Director of The United States Department of Human Services; Defendant
Article IV General Provisions Section 2
(Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States "Any thing
in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding"
Contrary to Law (of an act or omission) illegal;
https://twitter.com/ptusss to email guyperea1@hpeprint.com