|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
STANDING OR KNEELING?
Q: Our priest has required that all must stand during the Eucharistic Prayer. He has stated that he has the support of the bishop and it will be done his way. A significant minority of parishioners want to kneel. He has denied that kneeling is required according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (we do have kneelers). He has also said that those like me are a dividing factor in the church and may be required to give up their ministries.
Are we correct in wanting to kneel . . . and can we be stopped?
A: Though it is difficult, we should try hard to be charitable to priests of this sort. He is dead wrong that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) does not require kneeling. It states that the people "[The people] should kneel at the consecration unless prevented by the lack of space, the number of people, or some other good reason" (GIRM 21).
In the United States this has been expanded by the American Appendix to the General Instruction (AGI), which states: "At its meeting in November, 1969, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops voted that in general, the directives of the Roman Missal concerning the posture of the congregation at Mass should be left unchanged, but that no. 21 of the General Instruction should be adapted so that the people kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, that is, before the Lord's prayer" [AGI 21]. This document was approved by the Holy See, and so it is binding liturgical law in the United States. Nothing has changed this law. In fact, the Holy See has made it clear that kneeling is required even when there are no kneelers (Documents on the Liturgy [Liturgical Press, 1983], number 1411, footnote R2).
To be blunt, your priest is either lying or he is grossly misinformed. He is the one dividing the parish by asking people to act contrary to the Church's laws, and his threatening parishioners with the loss of their ministries in the Church is gross pastoral malpractice and abuse of office.
James Akin
Q: I must say that I think the Reformers had a point in declaring that justification is through faith alone because of Christ alone.
A: You're right to think that our salvation is due to Christ alone. Apart from Christ and his saving death and Resurrection we have no hope of salvation. I would not say that we're saved by faith alone, but rather that we're saved purely by grace, which of course comes only from God (although in his kindness and generosity he gives us the dignity of being channels or bearers of his grace to others).
What we need to be saved is justifying or sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is a supernatural state imparted to the soul whereby God not only considers us just by virtue of the merits of Christ but also makes us just. You're right to think that nothing you can do could merit this state. Sanctifying grace is given to us freely and unearned when we're baptized. We can lose it when we commit a mortal sin, but it is restored to us freely when we repent, confess, and receive absolution from a priest. What we merit (for ourselves) by our cooperation, our prayers, fasting, and good works is an increase in sanctifying grace whereby we are more and more conformed to God's will, come to know him more intimately, and our capacity for him is increased. It's the process in which it comes more and more to be that "I live now, not I, but Christ lives in me." Even though we can merit this increase in sanctifying grace, it's only because God gives us the grace to do good works and is kind enough to ascribe merit to our works, so in the end we're saved not by faith or works but by God. All we really have to do is surrender to him and do his will.
When the Reformers said we're justified by faith alone, they meant that, when we have faith, God imputes righteousness to us because Christ died and rose for us. He considers us just, even though we remain essentially sinful and depraved. That's not a bad deal, certainly better than going to hell, but I think the Catholic view of justification is better. In Catholic thinking God doesn't just consider us and treat us as justified; he actually makes us just and transforms us into his adopted children. "Adopted" is the correct word, but it is pretty pale in comparison to the reality of God's transforming action on our souls. When we think of human adoption we think of giving a child the name of his adopted parent and all the legal rights of his natural child. God's adoption of us is much more wonderful. It's as if a human parent could give his adopted child not just his name but also his blood or DNA so that he is not just called "son" but truly is such. In some mysterious way, even in this life, God shares his life with his children. I think we sometimes forget what a wonderful thing it is to be in a state of grace. In this state he is present in our souls in a supernatural manner. He shares his life with us. To the extent that we allow him to, he infuses his goodness into us. Our good actions have a supernatural character. Our sacrifices please him and have merit.
The Reformers apparently thought that if we can acquire merit we make God our. I prefer to think of our ability to merit an increase in sanctifying grace (which is really an intensifying of our life in and with God) as just another example of his kindness and graciousness. In his generosity he gives us the joy of "working in the family business" and rewards us for our efforts.
Frank Hanincik
Q: A Protestant friend of mine said that in Colossians 2:16-23 Paul condemns ascetical practices and holy days, which are only shadows that were done away with in Christ. What should I tell her?
A: First, point out that what Paul condemns in this passage cannot be such practices in themselves, because nearly every one of them is attested elsewhere in the New Testament. For example, the first thing Paul mentions is disciplines regarding "food and drink." Yet he cannot be condemning fasting, which Jesus not only permits but even expects of his followers (Matt. 6:17, Mark 2:20).
Elsewhere we find Paul practicing the very things he seems to condemn in Colossians 2:16-23: "festivals and Sabbaths" (Acts 20:16), "self-abasement" (Rom. 7:24, 2 Cor 11:7, 1 Tim. 1:15b), "rigor of devotion and severity to the body" (1 Cor. 9:27). Even "the worship of angels" (2:18) may be translated as "the honor or veneration of angels"-in itself surely a worthy thing.
The Colossian heresy-based on purported visions or revelations-mandated certain observances as if they were divinely instituted prerequisites for acceptance by God. In effect, it reintroduced an Old Testament economy of salvation with a divine ceremonial law as a qualification for divine acceptance.
A truly Christian asceticism, in which human precepts (even authoritative ones) are recognized as such and are used to promote spiritual growth rather than to qualify for divine acceptance, is not only not condemned by Paul, but is supported by the rest of the New Testament.
Stephen Greydanus
Q: Someone told me that the anathemas of Trent have all been repealed. Is this true, and does it mean Catholics no longer believe these things?
A: The anathemas do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication. This does not mean that the Church no longer rejects the beliefs that had been anathematized. The formula "let him be anathema" is a traditional expression that ecumenical councils used when making infallible definitions. Therefore, the dropping of the canonical penalty of anathema does not "undo" the infallible definitions expressed in Trent's canons. An infallible definition, by its very nature, can never be "undone." The Church still believes and teaches all the definitions Trent issued. Furthermore, even though a person no longer incurs anathema by violating the canons of Trent, he still may incur excommunication. Many of Trent's definitions concern articles of faith, and for a Catholic to doubt them culpably or to deny them constitutes heresy (CIC 751), which in turn incurs excommunication (CIC 1364 §1). While the canons of Trent may no longer lead to the specific penalty of anathema, they still can lead to the more general penalty of excommunication.
(In the Bible "anathema" usually means condemnation, but Trent used the term in its later canon law sense. In official Church documents "anathema" never means that the person against whom the term is applied is being condemned to hell. This is a misunderstanding commonly held by non-Catholics.)
James Akin
Q: A parish I know is attempting to consecrate gingerbread as the host during Mass. I know this is invalid, but is the wine, which is valid matter, transubstantiated when it is paired with invalid matter for the host?
A: Canon 927 of the Code of Canon Law would suggest not. Use of invalid matter for either element is a gravely immoral liturgical abuse and you should attempt to get the gingerbread problem corrected. Talk to the diocese if necessary.
Canon 927 states: "It is sinful, even in extreme necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other . . . ." Strictly speaking, this canon does not imagine the circumstance you are proposing. It envisions a priest consecrating one element and then entirely omitting any ostensible consecration of the other.
In your circumstance the priest is attempting to consecrate the other element, or at least simulating its consecration. He is using the wrong matter for that consecration. Still, if he knows that he has used invalid matter for the consecration of the host-which itself is gravely sinful-to proceed to consecrate the chalice and continue with Mass as usual would be gravely sinful.
The issue of whether the wine would be validly consecrated in the situation you describe has not been definitively settled. Canon 927 forbids priests to consecrate one element without the consecrating the other, but it does not say that it is impossible to do so. In fact, it seems very probable that one can consecrate one without the other. The host becomes the Body of Christ prior to the consecration of the wine, as shown in the Mass by the elevating and adoration of the consecrated host before the consecration of the wine. As soon as the priest has finished the formula of consecration over the host, Christ is truly present, which is why we immediately adore the host, even though the cup has not yet been consecrated.
According to the Church's historic teaching, this is true even when the matter in the chalice is invalid. For example, Aquinas considers the case of what a priest should do if he has said the words of consecration over both the bread and the chalice and then discovers that there is only water in the chalice. He states that the priest should replace the water with the usual mixture of wine and water and then say the words of consecration for the Precious Blood only (cf. Summa Theologiae III:83:6, rep. 4). He does not have to consecrate the Host again also. The same procedure is used today.
James Akin
Q: I am a former Catholic. How do you explain that Jesus, the only perfect Jew, gave human blood to his closest followers when Kosher laws clearly state that animal blood is not to be ingested?
A: This is not very difficult, and I am surprised that you would find it to be such a stumbling block. But then again, so did the original hearers. If Jesus was the ideal Jew, why didn't his fellow Jews find him to be such? He violated the Sabbath, and claimed to be Lord of it. This did not square with his Hebrew associates very well. After violating another Jewish law in Mark 7, he then declared all foods clean, and Paul agrees with him in 1 Corinthians 10. The question should be, "If Jesus was such a perfect Jew, why was he crucified, instead of being made the king of the Jews?" Returning to the idea of drinking another's blood, the Bible teaches that blood is the seat of life within living things, and thus it is sacred. When the Bible says one is symbolically eating another's flesh and drinking his blood, this idiomatic phrase means to persecute, betray, and murder (See Mic. 3:3, Ps. 27:2, Isa. 9:20, 49:26). Now read John 6 in light of those that understood Jesus to speak symbolically: "I solemnly assure you that unless you persecute and betray me you have no life within you. He who does violence to me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." This is senseless, but it is what he would have said if he spoke symbolically. Some listeners in John 6 understood him literally and so left. He did not call them back to say he was speaking in parables. They left, and Judas turned away with them at this point (vv. 64, 71). This is the only place in the Bible where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. "Do you also want to leave?" Why is it that the only church that evokes the same response given to Jesus is the Catholic Church? "How can he give us his flesh to eat? . . . This is hard to accept." If anything, people join non- Catholic churches because their teaching on "symbolic" Communion is so easy to accept.
Jason Evert
Q: What do apologists have to apologize about?
A: About themselves, lots; about the faith, nothing.
Karl Keating
|
[TOP]
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
