|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 10, Number 5
 May 1999 
|
|
|
Jesus the Archangel?
Q: Is it true Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Michael the archangel and Jesus are the same person?
A: In a word, yes. The Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that Jesus was Michael the archangel prior to his coming to earth. They assert: "Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God's Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return" (Aid to Bible Understanding, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1971, 1152).
They arrive at this erroneous belief primarily through a misinterpretation of (1) Daniel 10:13, 21, where reference is made to a "great prince," Michael; and (2) 1 Thessalonians 4:16, where the Lord Jesus is described as descending from heaven at the sound of the archangel's voice. The JWs' own New World Translation of the Bible reads, " . . .the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice."
According to the JWs, Michael is the only angel other than Gabriel mentioned in the Bible, and Michael is the only one who is called an archangel. (The angel Raphael is mentioned in the book of Tobit, but since the Jehovah's Witnesses sprang from Protestantism, they use the Protestant canon of Scripture, which is missing this Old Testament book plus six others.)
Since the Lord Jesus descends from heaven "with an archangel's voice," the JWs understand this passage as "suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel" (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1152).
While there are several problems with this line of reasoning, two points in particular easily reveal its fallacy. First, the fact that the Lord Jesus descends "with an archangel's voice" does not automatically mean that it is his own voice spoken of. This passage simply says that an archangel's voice will accompany the Lord's descent from heaven, in the same manner that the bailiff's voice ("All rise!") accompanies the judge's entrance into the courtroom.
Second, Hebrews 1:6 says, "For example, to which of the angels did he [God] ever say: 'You are my son; I, today, I have become your father'?" (New World Translation). The answer to the question is, of course, "none."
Thus, if God never called an angel his Son, then Michael-who is an angel-cannot be the Son. The fact that Michael is an archangel does not change anything, as he is still an angel by nature. An archangel is simply a "higher order" of angel, but an angel nonetheless; "arch-" simply means "ruling" or "high ranking."
Joel S. Peters
Q: Can a cardinal tell a bishop what to do?
A: No. At least, not if you are asking whether a cardinal, simply because he is a cardinal, has authority over a diocesan bishop who does not happen to be cardinal.
It might be that the cardinal holds another office of authority in the Church (say, the head of a Vatican dicastery), and in that position he might have authority to direct a bishop's action in certain matters. But it is the office held that confers that authority on the cardinal, and not the status of being a cardinal.
Cardinals enjoy a certain prestige upon being named cardinals or "princes of the Church," as they are sometimes called, and they possess certain special faculties or privileges (for example, the right to hear sacramental confessions anywhere in the world [CIC 967]). But, aside from their most famous role as sole electors of the pope (CIC 332 et alia), cardinals are not authority figures in the Church.
Edward N. Peters
Q: I have a Mormon colleague who does not drink Coke or other soft drinks. He said his religion forbids it. Is this true?
A: Yes, by a circuitous route Mormonism has ended up forbidding all caffeinated drinks to its members, including the popular soft drinks.
On February 27, 1833, Joseph Smith reported a revelation known as "the Word of Wisdom," which is now enshrined in Mormon scripture as Doctrine and Covenants 89.
The elders of the early Mormon Church used to meet in a room over Joseph and Emma Smith's house in Kirtland, Ohio. After a good deal of pipe-smoking, they would take large chews of tobacco and spit all over the floor. Smith's wife was none too pleased with having to clean up the mess, and Smith quieted her by "inquiring of the Lord" (see Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses 12:157-158).
The resulting "revelation" allegedly was given "not by commandment or constraint," but as advice or counsel that henceforth members should not use tobacco, alcohol, or "hot drinks," interpreted as coffee and tea. Later prophets deemed this to refer also to cold coffee or tea and eventually extended to cover caffeinated colas as well.
Grains and vegetables were especially commended. According to the Word of Wisdom, meat was to be eaten sparingly, and then only in winter and times of famine. The "revelation" promised that those who followed it would "find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge."
Mormons tout the Word of Wisdom as a case of God protecting them from health problems stemming from alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine (all of which were already under attack for health reasons in nineteenth-century America). Yet the Mormon God was apparently not farsighted enough to inform his followers of the dangers of salt, fat, and cholesterol.
At first the "Word of Wisdom" was presented only as advice, not as having the force of law. But the "advice" from God soon took on the status of a commandment.
Observance of the Word of Wisdom was sporadic, even by Smith and other early leaders. By 1930, however, it had become more rigorously enforced. It is now enjoined "by . . . constraint" and not merely as advice. Prior to a candidate's baptism, he is interviewed by a senior missionary who asks him questions, including about his compliance with the Word of Wisdom. For example, has he refrained from all alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea? For decades now members have been asked in their yearly interviews with church authorities if they keep the Word of Wisdom. Failure to do so-except for the meat prohibition, which has silently fallen through the cracks-bars one from attending the temple and from church leadership positions.
In the Mormon view, this has grave consequences, for unless a Mormon does his "temple work" he is unable in the next life to achieve godhood. Joseph Smith may have been able to use alcohol, tobacco, and coffee, even after the "giving" of the Word of Wisdom, but no Mormon today can, on pain of becoming a second-class citizen in theafterlife.
Of course, the Mormon prohibition on certain foods is in marked contrast to the biblical and Christian view. While Paul does urge moderation (Phil. 4:5), and while periodic abstinence from foods can be a healthy spiritual discipline (Dan. 10:2-3), the Bible stands fast in maintaining that all foods are to be received with thanksgiving: "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:4). Specifically, as a matter of Christian liberty, Paul commands us not to have food laws imposed on us on religious grounds: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink" (Col. 2:16). This includes even alcohol, so long as moderation is observed. Rather than condemn the consumption of alcohol, for example, the Bible clearly permits and even advises it (1 Tim. 3:8, 5:23; Tit. 2:3; 1 Pet. 4:3; also Deut. 14:24-26; Prov. 31:6-7).
Isaiah Bennett
Q: My parish has "liturgical dance." Is this allowed?
A: No. In 1975, the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship prepared a document titled Religious Dance, An Expression of Spiritual Joy (Notitiae 11 [1975] 202-205). Although the document noted that religious dance plays a positive role in many cultures, "dance has never been made an integral part of the official worship of the Latin [e.g., Latin language] Church. If local churches have accepted the dance, sometimes even in the church building, that was on the occasion of feasts in order to manifest sentiments of joy and devotion. But that always took place outside of liturgical services. Conciliar decisions have often condemned the religious dance because it conduces little to worship and because it could degenerate into disorder."
The document is forceful in stating that this does not mean religious dance can be used in the liturgy in Western culture: "Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure.
"For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations."
In some places a kind of pseudo-ballet or "interpretive dance" has been tried in liturgy, but the document indicates this is equally prohibited: "Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation.
"Therefore, there is a great difference in cultures: what is well received in one culture cannot be taken on by another culture. "The traditional reserve of the seriousness of religious worship, and of the Latin worship in particular, must never be forgotten."
This does not mean that religious dance cannot be done at all. The document specifies: "If the proposal of the religious dance in the West is really to be made welcome, care will have to be taken that in its regard a place be found outside of the liturgy [e.g., not during Mass], in assembly areas which are not strictly liturgical [e.g., in the sanctuary or nave of a church]. Moreover, the priests must always be excluded from the dance."
In 1994 the Holy See reiterated: "Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by hand-clapping, rhythmic swaying, and dance movements on the part of the participants. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not simply a performance" (Instruction on Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy, 42; emphases added).
James Akin
Q: Under what conditions may I-a layman engaged in considerable private apologetic discussions-baptize those I am helping bring into the Church?
A: Under nearly none. Canon 861 states that the "ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, priest, or deacon." As a layman, you aren't any of these. Moreover, you do not claim to be "deputed for this function by the local ordinary" in case the ordinary minister of baptism happens to be impeded (also from CIC 861).
Indeed, canon 861 recognizes only one condition under which you may baptize licitly: "in case of necessity." But this is not nearly as wide-open as it might sound. "Necessity" is almost always described by canonical experts as being present chiefly in cases of mortal danger. Indeed, the Roman Ritual, in providing the text to be used for baptism conferred by non-ordained ministers, opens by noting that the so-called shortened rite is to be used only in cases of "imminent danger of death."
I won't cite here the long list of other canons likely violated by private baptism outside of danger-of-death situations (though the curious might wish to consult, among others, canons 851, 853, 856, 857, and 866). Nor will I spend much time observing that, however illicit such baptisms are, they are almost certainly valid, assuming the use of water and the Trinitarian formula.
Instead, I would simply note that, according to canon 878, "the minister of baptism, whoever it is, must inform the pastor of the parish in which the baptism was administered." The reasons for such a provision are obvious, but I would not relish being the one required to report an illicit baptism to a pastor.
Edward N. Peters
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
