The Real Disappearance Story
Regarding “Waiting to Be Raptured” (April 1999): I was raised in a Fundamentalist congregation and sat through many sermons that promised Christ would surely return within the lifetime of the minister. The “disappearance stories” were a frequent theme. We heard of the two individuals who would be working side by side and one would suddenly be gone; or of the two sitting on the bus bench and in an instant one would disappear. Members of the congregation would smile, nod their heads, and murmur “Amen.” They loved these stories.
I am now seventy-one years old and can vouch for the disappearance of untold dozens of these church members and several ministers — not through the Rapture as they had supposed but through a timely death.
Margaret Finley
Banning, California
Razor Buzzing Away, Husband Gone
The article on dispensationalism “Waiting to Be Raptured,” April 1999) was eye-opening. I have friends from the Church of the Nazarene who are Dispensationalist. The article helped me to understand their thinking. For one thing, I never knew why they considered the objection “But that was the Old Testament!” to be such a clinching argument. They probably believe that the Old Covenant was a former “dispensation” that has passed away. I hope to send them the article.
One error in the article, though. I too watched the film “A Thief in the Night” (my Nazarene friends invited me to a Halloween party at their church where we “just happened” to watch this film). The main character in that epic of doom is a woman, not a man. She awakes one morning, just after her husband has made his decision for Christ the night before, to find him missing, his razor buzzing away unused in the bathroom and discovers to her horror that she is one of those “left behind.” I don’t think she ever becomes a Christian, but she witnesses the terrors of the Tribulation.
At the end of the film she wakes up and realizes it was all a dream. She goes to the bathroom and discovers the razor still buzzing away, her husband still gone. The film ends with her screaming hysterically, “No, no, no!” As the screen fades to black, a title reads “The End . . . Is Coming!” It would be a much more disturbing film if it weren’t so poorly made.
Regina Doman
Jacksonville, North Carolina
I Now View Dispensationalism As A Cult
I was one of those young people like Carl Olson (“Waiting to Be Raptured,” April 1999) who sang “I Wish We’d All Been Ready,” saw “The Thief in the Night,” went to Moody Bible Institute, and read my Ryrie Study Bible all the way through (including the notes) with admiration and devotion. I agonized over and “witnessed” to many people who were going to be left behind when the Rapture occurred, which I predicted back in the seventies would almost certainly be before 1990.
I’m not young any more, and I converted to Catholicism in 1990, but my family and several friends still look to be raptured sometime, hopefully (in their minds) soon. Your article helps me put the whole Dispensationalist world in perspective and understand it better now that I have the Catholic Church to rely on for Bible interpretation.
It’s been quite a journey out of Fundamentalism into the much more light-filled Catholic Church. One of the many aspects of the Catholic Church for which I’m so grateful is that I don’t need to “figure the Bible out for myself,” after spending my first thirty years trying very conscientiously to do just that.
I now view that world of Dispensationalism as a big, subtle, sophisticated cult like the Latter-Day Saints. Thanks for the helpful article.
Mark Lindeblad
Chicago, Illinois
A Product Of His Perfection
I am forty-five years old and I have been a lector for the past eight years. This February was the first time I have taken time off to reflect on what I have been doing as a minister of the Word. In “The Abolition of Man” (April 1999) you touched a very sensitive issue: inclusive language.
I was raised a feminist. I never attended Mass and I can almost say I didn’t care for God. Every man was my enemy. Any word that was masculine — he, him — sounded domineering and corrupt. It was difficult to love God with so much hate in me. It was not until I was thirty-seven that I realized what was causing me to be so miserable was my feminism. It took two years of counseling realize this.
I will always be grateful that I no longer think that way. I believe any woman who feels excluded by the words in the Bible is wrong in thinking that God has made a mistake in making her a woman. God only makes perfect things. He does not waste his time. He only creates goodness. For a woman to be offended by what anyone calls her only means that her physical nature is more important than her spiritual part. When someone degrades you, they degrade the perfection God has created.
I have come to understand that I am who I am and God has made me a woman. I am a product of his perfection. Who can possibly say I am less than that?
Lydia Pacheco
Blanco, New Mexico
Cesspool Controversy Swirls On
In “Letters” (April 1999), Robert J. Simone took Tim Ryland to task for saying, “Advertising for priests on MTV is like trolling for fish in a cesspool.” I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Ryland that this “music” channel is no place to be advertising for seminary candidates.
It’s ironic that, in criticizing Mr. Ryland for being judgmental, Mr. Simone attacks him personally before he takes issue with Mr. Ryland’s ideas. Indeed, the whole “judgmental” issue is a bugaboo. Did Christ judge the moneychangers when he drove them out of the temple? We are called by our faith to judge, to hate the sin but not the sinner or, in this case, to hate the view but not the viewer. (To criticize Mr. Ryland, Mr. Simone uses an example from the cartoon show “The Simpsons,” whose sensibilities are part and parcel of the cynical, smart-aleck, no-one-call-tell-me-anything MTV mindset. What does this say about Mr. Simone’s own aesthetic sense being dulled by overexposure to corrupt pop culture?)
Don’t forget that the local diocese advertising on MTV is supporting this corrupt corporation financially, which should be argument enough against it.
Undoubtedly at any given moment there are some good young men watching MTV. I don’t think Mr. Ryland would argue that a few healthy fish couldn’t sometimes be found a cesspool. But if they want to stay healthy, they’d better-quick-get out of the cesspool.
Raymond Rivera
El Toro, California
Editor’s reply: We received too many responses to “So You Call Yourself a Catholic,” Karl Keating’s “pop quiz from hell” (March 1999), to be able to run them all. The following representative letters cover all the questions raised by readers.
Not Well-Stated
I enjoyed taking the Catholic quiz, but I have a problem with the answer to question two. If the answer to question one — “Jesus is present, and the bread and wine are not present, after the consecration” — is right, then your answer to question two that after the consecration “the bread is both Jesus’ body and blood” is not well-stated, since the bread is no longer present. Note when speaking of the chalice you do not say “wine” but “contents of the chalice.” I would have thought that “the appearance of bread” would be more accurate.
Sue Johnson
Munich, North Dakota
Editor’s reply: It would have been no help to say “the appearance of bread is both Jesus’ body and blood” because that is false. It is the essence of the bread that changes, not its appearance.
Should A Priest Celebrate Mass When He’s Alone?
In the answer to question three you state that ” a priest may celebrate Mass by himself; the validity of the Mass does not depend on the presence of witnesses.”
In the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, article 211 states: “Mass should not be celebrated without a server or the participation of at least one of the faithful except for some legitimate or reasonable cause.” Canon 906 of the Code of Canon Law states: “A priest may not celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice without the participation of at least one of the faithful unless there is a good and reasonable cause for doing so.”
I have not been able to discover what “a good and reasonable cause ” might be. Are there any rules or regulations in this regard? If there are, I would be grateful if you would give me the citation.
Paul Pinto
Hemel Hempstead,
United Kingdom
James Akin replies: Legally “a good and reasonable cause” is a fairly easy standard to meet. Any cause that is not bad or unreasonable will count. Examples might include, “I need to say Mass for my own spiritual benefit” or “I need to say Mass for a pressing world concern” Canon 906 sets a preference but does not establish a standard that is difficult to meet. And even if a priest did not have a good and reasonable cause, only liceity, not validity, would be affected.
Begging Works Sometimes Because We’re So Darned Nice
Accepting the challenge of “The World’s Toughest Catholic Quiz,” I was disheartened to score what is described as “wonderful” (one less than perfect). But on question six, item “a” states “There is one God who manifests himself in three distinct roles of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” was marked “wrong.” The reason given was “because this is the heresy of Modalism, which says that there is one Person in the Godhead and that Person wears different ‘masks,’ so to speak, according to his different activities.” However, item “a” makes no mention of one Person — only of one God. Hence, that statement does not describe Modalism (also known as Sabellianism), and is theologically true, not false. Won’t you please give me a score of 100 percent correct? Puleeze?
Fr. John H. Hampsch, C.M.F.
Claretian Tape Ministry
Los Angeles, California
Editor’s reply: Gosh, Father, we hate to be hard-nosed about it, but the key here is the phrase “three distinct roles,” quite different than “three distinct Persons.” Maybe we can work out an extra credit assignment.
Three Wrong Minus Two?
I took the “pop quiz from hell,” and I missed three of the questions. However, I can take consolation from the fact that Karl Keating himself missed at least one and possibly two.
Let me explain. The correct answer to number seven (“A deacon is . . .”) is “e,” “none of the above.” Answer “c,” which you identified as the correct one, says a deacon is “a man who has received the first level of holy orders.”
This is technically untrue: The first major order is subdeacon, not deacon. There are seven clerical orders, four minor and three major. The four minor orders are porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte.
The three major orders are subdeacon, deacon, and priest. Therefore, it could be argued that the “first level of holy orders” is porter if you start with minor orders, or subdeacon if you start with major orders. In either case, deacon is either the sixth order or the second level, not the first.
With regard to question twelve (“Papal infallibility means . . .”), a case can be made for “none of the above.” The other questions in this quiz were very precise in their answers, but this question is ambiguous. The pope can teach publicly and officially without being infallible. To take a current example, the pope has spoken publicly and officially against the death penalty. While his speaking out should be taken seriously by all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, I believe that most theologians would agree that these statements are not to be considered infallible.
Earl Williams
Santa Ana, California
Editor’s reply: Deacon is the first level of true ordination. Subdeacon and the others-used in the old rite of ordination as preparatory steps but not in the new-are not, properly speaking, levels of ordination. They do not imprint the soul with an indelible mark the way ordinations to the deaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy do.
On your second point, our answer stated the pope is infallible when he teaches publicly and officially “a doctrine of faith or morals” for all Christians to hold. The current pope has never presented his views on the application of the death penalty in the form required for there to be an ex cathedra definition.
Two Reasons Why You’re Incorrect
I answered “none of the above” to question fourteen. I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion, and there is no possibility of going to confession” (1457).
Actually, there are two reasons why your answer is incorrect. First, a person must be aware that he has committed a mortal sin (not just a technicality — if an absentminded senior citizen forgets a mortal sin and receives Communion, we don’t want to heap further sin on him where there is none). Second, if a person has perfect contrition he may receive under grave circumstances — again, no small technicality, especially as we have troops in Kosovo.
Michael Forrest
Hampden, Massachusetts
Editor’s reply: If an absentminded senior citizen — or anybody — forgets the commission of a mortal sin, then he isn’t “aware” of it and your first reason doesn’t apply. Second, even “deep contrition” (by which the catechism apparently means “perfect contrition”) doesn’t suffice unless one has a “grave reason” for receiving Communion and can’t go to confession at all. Aside from the cases in wartime you allude to, I can’t think of how these conditions could be met. The quiz was referring to normal situations and apparently didn’t make that clear enough.
We Should Be Encouraging Confession
Regarding question fourteen that says, “The sacrament of confession . . .” Item “c” is “must be received by all Catholic adults at least once a year. (This is one of the six precepts of the Church.)” That answer is listed as “wrong, because this is not one of the six precepts of the Church, for the simple reason that you need to go to confession only if you commit a mortal sin, though it is good to go frequently even if you commit only venial sins.”
I feel this is in error. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists as the second precept of the Church “You shall confess your sins at least once a year.” It goes on to say that this “ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness.” There is nothing that says you need to confess only if you have committed a mortal sin.
In this day and age when so many people say and do whatever they want, answers like this are misleading. In these end times it is all the more important that we receive the sacraments, especially the sacrament of reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist, as frequently as we can for all the strength and grace God offers for the good of our souls.
Instead of telling people not to go to confession if they have no mortal sins we should be encouraging them to go as often as possible.
Rita Biegala
Via the Internet
Editor’s reply: The Catechism is a teaching document rather than a legal document, and it uses approximate language when discussing the law. For the legal details, it refers us to the code of Canon Law. CCC 2042 footnotes Canon 989 of the Code, which states: “After having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess grave sins at least once a year.” Thus there is no legal obligation to confess annially if one lacks grave sin.
Another Success Story In Self-Grading
I’ve just completed the “pop quiz from hell” and want to complain about one answer. It was the only one I got “wrong.” The instructions say, “Terms are used in their precise meanings.” So I responded to question fourteen (about receiving confession before receiving Communion) by marking answer “e,” “none of the above.”
Your explanation for saying that answer “a” is correct refers me to answer 5d — where it clearly says, “except in carefully defined circumstances.” If there are any exceptions, then it is not true that the sacrament of confession must be received. I’m going to give myself a score of 100 percent on your quiz.
Fr. Joseph P. Browne, CSC
Portland, Oregon
I Do Not Believe This To Be True
Regarding question fifteen: I chose “a,” “Jesus’ human nature died on the cross.” Your answer was “c,” “God died on the cross.” I assume from your answer that you’re saying the divine nature of Jesus died on the cross. I do not believe this to be true. Death is a property of human nature. Death is not a property of divine nature.
Francis Peterson
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Who Is Left To Have Died On The Cross?
I have some questions regarding question fifteen (about the crucifixion). Recently I attended a conference where Fr. Benedict Groeschel said that Christ’s human nature died on the cross (in contradiction to your answer “a”).
Two things I’d like to point out from your answer choices: (1) your claim that “it is not your human nature that dies but you as a distinct person” (answer “a”); and (2) that there “is no human person in Jesus. There is only one Person, the divine” (answer “b”). If only the person dies (not the human nature) and God-who in his divinity is life and therefore his divine person-cannot die, then what is left to have died? Because of the hypostatic union, when Christ’s human nature died, we can say God died. Divinity did not.
Elizabeth Lanham
Via the Internet
Editor’s reply: If we ask, “What died on the cross?” I suppose we can answer, “Christ’s human nature.” But the question asked, “Who died on the cross?” Only a person is a “who”; a nature never can be.
Not Simply A Test But A Teaching Tool
I think the quiz is fine, but I would suggest that you would have a much more effective apologetics tool is you took out the “none of the above” option and included a correct answer as one of the options for each question.
When I was working on my Master of Arts in teaching, we were instructed never to use the “none of the above” option when constructing tests. The reasons for not doing so included the fact that people are naturally turned away from that option. There’s something about us that wants the truth to be there. Students taking a test often succumb to the temptation to choose an incorrect answer simply to avoid choosing “none of the above” because it is somehow unsatisfying. You’re not testing knowledge but playing with people’s minds. The instructions on your pop quiz say “There are no trick questions,” but providing “none of the above” makes every question a “trick” question.
Another reason to avoid using “none of the above” is that a test is not simply a testing tool but a teaching tool. A test teaches students how to recognize correct and incorrect answers, truth and falsity. A question where all the answers are incorrect (except, of course, “none of the above”) teaches students how to recognize only false answers. For instance, someone could get the answer to question six on the Trinity by choosing “none of the above” and still fail to understand Catholic teaching on the Trinity.
I hope this respectful critique is received in the loving manner in which it is sent. God bless the work you do.
Robert Hunt
Memphis, Tennessee
The Author Is Simply Wrong
I have received anonymously in the mail a photocopy of “The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses.” Underlined is abuse number ten, “Closing the holy water fonts at some seasons.” The author states that this is an “innovation introduced spontaneously” and that emptying the fonts is “wrong no matter how you look at it” and the “it makes absolutely no sense.” He finds enough reason to “suppose it is forbidden.”
The first nine “abuses” in the article were substantial issues and were likewise accompanied with references to authoritative sources that would support the author’s argument. In abuse number ten there was no such resort to authority. That is because the author is simply wrong, and is ignorant of the tradition of the Church.
There was a time when it was a long-standing tradition to empty the fonts at Lent. Now it is only encouraged. In fact the ordo requires that the fonts be empty and dry during the Triduum. There was a time when Lenten baptisms were forbidden; now they are only discouraged. Lent is a time to thirst, to fast, to prepare for baptism, and to prepare to renew the promises made at baptism.
I take personal care and responsibility for the liturgy at my church. It is celebrated with much reverence. I am training a parish liturgical commission. We have read all the documents. To have your magazine mailed to me with someone underlining this misinformation is insulting to the time and care we take with the liturgy.
Rev. Jeffrey Keyes, CPPS
Alameda, California
The Prince Of Darkness Is In The Details
Several of the letters attacking your article “The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses” (January 1999) claimed you were nitpicking about details that don’t matter. I happen to think they do. In fact, they matter enough to affect our faith.
I’ve realized over the last few years that the Prince of Darkness, in all his cunning and deceit, chips away at our faith a little bit at a time. We used to kneel at the Eucharist and receive Christ in our mouths from a priest. Now we don’t kneel, we receive him in our hands from a layman, and polls tell us seventy percent of Catholics no longer believe in transubstantiation.
How did we get to where we are? I think in part that some of us decided we knew better than the Magisterium, so we chose not to follow the rules. Each little thing we’ve done — whether moving the altar into the middle of the church or taking the Eucharist in our hands — has an effect. Unfortunately, the effect in the last thirty or forty years has been generally negative.
Details matter. Those ten liturgical practices identified in the article exist for a reason. The priest should not leave the altar for a reason. We should not hold hands during the Our Father for a reason. I’m not a rules-monger. I m only saying we must be careful. We can’t let rules dominate our lives and restrict our faith, but we have to realize rules have a purpose.
One of your readers, a retired military person wrote, “The private doesn’t tell the general what to do.” I just came back from the United States Air Force squadron officer’s school. As a commissioned officer in the USAF, I’m called upon to disobey any immoral or illegal orders (i.e., tell the general when he’s messing up).
That’s what we should do as Catholics. Our priests aren’t abusing the liturgy on purpose (hopefully), so let’s help them out. Let’s voice our concern and say, “Hey, Father, I noticed you’re omitting the penitential rite. Did you know, in doing that, you’re also failing to absolve our venial sins?”
I could probably fill a whole book on this topic. Maybe some day I will.
Dennis Curran
Vandenberg AFB, California
Tabernacle Touching
The recent article about the ten most common liturgical abuses (January 1999) was very informative. I have read James Akin’s book Mass Confusion and can’t find a mention of whether or not laymen are allowed to access to the tabernacle during or outside of Mass. Is this considered an abuse?
Dick Brouillette
Greenville, New Hampshire
Editor’s reply: Though some dioceses have stricter guidelines than others, there is no Church law stating that laymen may not have access to the tabernacle. When this is the case, a presumption of liberty prevails.