|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
In re "INRI"
Q: What does "INRI" on top of the Crucifix stand for? What language is it?question
A: "INRI" means "Jesus Christ, King of the Jews," which in Latin is "Iesus Nazaraenus Rex Iudaeorum." This was the sign Pilate ordered posted above Jesus during the Crucifixion (Matt. 27: 37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, John 19:19).
Artists would have had a difficult task painting or carving the entire text, not only because of the length of the phrase, but because it was written in three languages-Latin, Greek, and Hebrew (Luke 23:38, John 19:20).
The custom arose of using only the Latin phrase (Latin, rather than Greek or Hebrew, was the language most literate people understood at the time) and shortening it to an acronym
Q: I was told that the Church no longer believes in Adam and Eve or the Fall, that that is all just a myth or legend. Is that true?
A: Not according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In the Catechism-the Church's most recent and authoritative treatment of the issue-we find the Church teaches the following:
"Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for 'from one ancestor God made all nations to inhabit the whole earth' [Acts 17:26; cf. Tob 8:6]" (CCC 360).
"The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator and in harmony with himself and with the creation around him, in a state that would be surpassed only by the glory of the new creation in Christ" (CCC 374).
"This entire harmony of original justice, foreseen for man in God's plan, will be lost [in Genesis 3] by the sin of our first parents" (CCC 379).
"By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings" (CCC 416).
Under the heading "How to read the account of the fall," the Catechism states: "The account of the Fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).
The footnotes to this paragraph in the Catechism cite the passage of the encyclical Humani Generis in which Pope Pius XII states: "As regards . . . what is called polygenism [the theory that there was more than one original couple at the beginning of the human race] . . . the faithful cannot lend support to a theory which involves either the existence on this earth, after Adam, of true human beings who would not originate from him, as the ancestor of all, by natural propagation, or that 'Adam' stands for a plurality of ancestors. For it is not at all apparent how such a view can be reconciled with the data which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Church propose concerning original sin, namely, that it originates from a sin truly committed by one Adam" (Humani Generis 37).
The existence of the historical individual Adam thus remains a part of the Church's teaching (see also CCC 359 and 375-6).
Q: I am a "Fundamentalist," but I've really enjoyed your tracts. Much food for thought! In one of them you state that the Bible says the Church is infallible. What passage or passages do you have in mind here?
A: Two passages are primary. The first is Matthew 16:18. Jesus says that he will build his Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. This means that the Church is endowed (as even Protestant theologians admit) with the attribute of indefectibility. It can never pass out of existence or repudiate Christ and his teachings.
A consequence of indefectibility is some form of infallibility. If the Church cannot repudiate Jesus and his teachings (lest it cease to be Jesus' Church and thus allow the gates of hell to prevail against it), then it can never solemnly teach error because this would bind the conscience of the believer to believe a false doctrine. The Church, as Christ's authorized teacher on earth and the Mother of all Christians, is thus protected from error in its solemn teachings, lest it lead the believer astray.
A second passage pertaining to the same issue is 1 Timothy 3:15, in which Paul states that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth." If the Church could commit error in those things which it solemnly teaches, it could not be the pillar and foundation of truth. It would teach not of truth, but a mixture of truth and error. Since Christ could not permit his Church to mislead members about the truths of salvation, the Church is protected from teaching error.
Q: I recently attended a meeting for Eucharistic ministers at which we were given a pamphlet which said that after the liturgy, the sacred vessels are carried into the sacristy where they are washed in the special sink called a sacrarium. I have been serving Mass for over ten years and have never heard of a sacrarium.
Is it liturgically correct?
A: The sacrarium has been a standard feature of parishes since long before Vatican II. It is considered the most respectful way to dispose of water used to wash sacred vessels and linens, as this water possibly contains small, dissolved particles of the sacred species.
Even though such particles probably no longer have the Real Presence (the Vatican has ruled that the Real Presence ceases when particles are so small that they no longer have the appearance of bread and wine), the Church prefers to dispose of them via a sacrarium.
A sacrarium is a basin with a drain leading directly into the ground, rather than into a septic tank or sewer. Through it, water used to cleanse sacred vessels and linens returns directly to the earth.
Q: Some people are telling me that all Christians should speak in tongues and that therefore I must do so. What should I say in response?
A: . Scripture is clear: Although everyone is given a spiritual gift, not everyone is given a miraculous gift, and in particular not everyone is to speak in tongues.
Paul says, "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts" (1 Cor. 12:27-31).
The answer to each one of Paul's rhetorical questions in this passage is "No." Not all (in fact, only a few people) have been appointed by God to be tongue-speakers.
While tongue-speaking is a good thing, it is not for everyone. God has given different people different gifts for a purpose-to make the members of the body mutually dependent on one another.
As Paul told the Corinthians, "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? . . . If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you,' nor again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you.' " (1 Cor. 12:16-21).
Q: Would you be so kind as to inform me whether there was any saint who had the stigmata before St. Francis of Assisi? If so, what was his or her name?
A: The old Catholic Encyclopedia (1910 edition) states about stigmatics: "None are known prior to the thirteenth century. The first mentioned is St. Francis of Assisi, in whom the stigmata were of a character never seen subsequently: in the wounds of feet and hands were excrescences of flesh representing nails, those on one side having round black heads, those on the other having rather long points, which bent back and grasped the skin. The saint's humility could not prevent a great many of his brethren beholding with their own eyes the existence of these wonderful wounds during his lifetime as well as after his death" (14:295).
Q: I am teaching CCD to seventh graders and was asked, "Why did God create the world?" Is there an answer to this question or is it a mystery?
A: It is defined Catholic doctrine that God created the world as a free act-he was not compelled by any external or internal necessity to do so.
However, we can still offer explanations for why he freely chose to create the world, such as his desire to bring glory to himself by creating the world and rational creatures to love and bless.
Both of these truths-that the creation of the world was a totally free act and that it was done to bring glory to God-are expressed in a solemn definition by the First Vatican Council: "If anyone refuses to confess that the world and all the things contained in it, the spiritual as well as the material, were in their whole substance produced by God out of nothing; or says that God created not by an act of will free from all necessity, but with the same necessity by which he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was made for the glory of God, anathema sit [let him be excommunicated]" (Dei Filius, canon 1 :5).
Q: Are there any circumstances that would make it permissible for a Catholic to receive Communion at a Lutheran wedding? Would it be better to receive, knowing that this not the Body and Blood of Christ, if everyone else attending was participating?
A: No, there are no circumstances in which this would be permissible. There are limited circumstances in which it is permissible for Catholics to receive Communion from a non-Catholic minister. These conditions are set forth in canon 844:2 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: "Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid" (CIC 844:2)
Since the canon stipulates that such sacraments must be from a minister of a church whose sacraments are valid, that leaves out a Lutheran service. Lutherans do not have a validly ordained ministerial priesthood and so do not have a valid Eucharist; the Eastern Orthodox churches, by contrast, have a valid Eucharist because they have a valid priesthood.
Except for the case of an emergency baptism (dealt with in CIC 861:2), the only conditions under which a Catholic can receive sacraments from a non-Catholic minister are those indicated in canon 844:2.
This is indicated by the previous part of the canon, which states, "Catholic members of the Christian faithful. . . may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers, with due regard for [section 2] . . . of this canon and canon 861:2" (CIC 844:1).
The fact that it is a family occasion such as a wedding and that other people are participating in the Lutheran Communion does not change one's obligation under these canons.
The need to be faithful in this matter is particularly underscored in another part of the Code: "The Christian faithful are bound by an obligation, even in their own patterns of activity, always to maintain communion with the Church" (CIC 209:1).
Q: I have read that in heaven we will not have free will. I rather hope that this is true since I have gotten into a lot of trouble using, or rather misusing, it. What is the Catholic Church's position on this?
A: Don't worry. In heaven we will have the best of both worlds on the free will question. We will both have free will and not be able to misuse it. We will be free to choose to do any good thing; we simply won't be able to choose to do evil things.
Augustine speaks of four conditions of the human will: posse peccare (able to sin),posse non peccare (able not to sin), non posse peccare (not able to sin), and non posse non peccare (not able not to sin).
In our redeemed but not yet glorified state we are still posse peccare (able to sin), but in our glorified state we will become non posse peccare (not able to sin). We will still, however, be able to choose freely to do all kinds of good things.
Consider an analogy: As creatures with legs, we can choose to walk many different places, but we cannot choose to fly. We do not have wings.
Suppose we were modified so that we also had wings. We could then choose either to walk or fly where we wanted. Now suppose we were modified again so that we no longer had legs. We could then choose to fly where we wanted, but we could no longer choose to walk there.
Something analogous happens with the functioning of our wills. When we were born and before God's grace came into our souls at baptism, in theory we could choose to do all kinds of things. We could do them with one of three kinds of motives: naturally good motives, naturally evil motives, and supernaturally evil motives. We could not do things from a supernaturally good motive (e.g., out of unselfish love for God).
After God's grace came into our souls, we became able to do things from a supernaturally good motive; yet we can still do things for the other three reasons as well.
At the end of this life, those saved will change again: We will possess free will to do what we want, but we will no more be able to choose to do evil than a legless creature could choose to walk or a wingless creature could choose to fly.
|
