|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 10, Number 4
 April 1999 
|
|
|
Is Kneeling a Sign of Penance?
Q: A liturgist told me that we should return to the practice of standing during the consecration. According to him, the Early Church did not kneel and the Jews did not kneel in worship either. He said kneeling is a sign or penance and begging, but we are the people of the risen God. How do I respond?
A: Kneeling in prayer and the liturgy has a complicated history. The First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) included a canon proscribing kneeling on Sundays and during Pentecost, suggesting that kneeling was common in the early Church at other times (e.g., on weekdays). Eventually kneeling became more common in public prayer with the increase of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.
The early Church saw kneeling in public as essentially a penitential act, since the penitents knelt during the parts of the liturgy that they were allowed to attend. Kneeling now has more of a reverential than penitential connotation attached to it.
In regards to the first Christians and Jews not kneeling, we see Peter and Paul kneeling in prayer in Acts 9:40 and 20:36. Likewise, the Jews knelt on the occasion of a special solemnity, as we see when Solomon dedicated the temple, "kneeling down in the presence of all the multitude of Israel, and lifting up his hands towards Heaven" (2 Chron. 6:13).
In the Eucharist we are invited to approach an even greater manifestation of God's presence-the literal body, blood, soul, and divinity of God the Son-so it is fitting that we adopt what in our culture is one of the most reverential postures. Most fundamentally, kneeling at the consecration is a matter of obedience. Some may like to stand, but the Holy See does not allow for this (GIRM 21).
If someone argues that we should copy the supposed practice of the early Church, point out two things: (1) The current rubrics don't allow us to stand during the consecration, and (2) if they're really advocating a return to the early Church's practice the liturgy, that still wouldn'tresult in everyone at Mass standing. In the early Church, those who had committed grave sins were often required to do penance for years, either outside the church door on Sundays or-if they were allowed in church-kneeling or prostrating themselves through the service while everyone else stood.
Jason Evert
Q: My husband and I have been involved with the Word Faith Movement. I have become disillusioned with their theology of suffering. I know the Scripture verses that show we are to expect suffering in this life, but how can I make emotional sense out of suffering when it happens?
A: Human suffering entered the world due to the effects of original sin. God does not cause the suffering. He simply permits it to happen in our lives. To understand suffering, we must first understand some basic principles about God.
God is all-knowing. He is aware of every pain we feel and every tear we shed. He can see our entire life on earth as well as our eternal destiny. God is all-loving. He loves us more than we love ourselves and would not permit something to happen to us that would keep us from our ultimate good, which is God himself. God is all-powerful. He can bring good out of evil.
Bearing these facts in mind, sometimes God permits suffering to keep us from a greater suffering later or to preserve us for a greater good. For example, you might be passed over for a seemingly great job opportunity, only to get a better one later. Or God may know a danger lurking in the job environment that could bring you physical or spiritual harm. Trusting in God helps us deal with this kind of suffering.
Sometimes God permits us to suffer the consequences of our behavior. If we are sexually promiscuous, we might suffer disease, broken relationships, and other problems caused by our behavior. This suffering brings about good when we change our lives and abide by God's laws.
Further, God permits us to lose things that we have come to worship above him. For example, someone who has made money their god may suffer the shame and hardship of bankruptcy. This suffering can bring about a total dependence on God, and submission to his will.
God may allow suffering that has no apparent reason-a child dies, we are injured in a car accident, or a natural disaster strikes. These situations are the most difficult to understand. Yet though we do not see the reason for such suffering we know that there is one, even if it is not apparent from our limited perspective.
We are particularly vulnerable and weak when we suffer because we recognize that we are not in control. Yet it is precisely at this moment that we can become our strongest, if we learn to depend on God. Christ died to save us from the loss of heaven. He did not die to save us from suffering in this world.
Yet suffering need never be in vain. St. Paul says, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of the body, that is the church . . . " (Col. 1:24). We can join our suffering with Christ's for the sake of others. In this way suffering becomes redemptive. It is not suffering but our response to it that makes it so.
Jan Wakelin
Q: We have a relative who is a nun and she is about to celebrate a religious anniversary. We were going to give her a small monetary gift, but then we heard that she would just have to turn it in to her order. Is that true?
A: Quite possibly. As a matter of canon law, whatever a religious man or woman acquires by reason of individual labor or by reason of being a member of the institute belongs to the institute (canon 668). This is an age-old facet of religious life and is consistent with the fact that these men and women have freely chosen to live according to, among other things, the spirit of poverty and to be bound by its consequences. It also recognizes the fact that the religious institute is ultimately responsible for the material needs of its members.
Personal gifts such as you describe do not, strictly speaking, fall under the above canonical headings. However, many (my impression is most) religious orders have, also in accord with canon law, enacted special provisions whereby all members freely renounce their canonical right to own any property, including personal gifts. It is also possible for individual religious to commit to such a practice as a pious exercise (see again, 1983 CIC 668).
If either of these cases apply to your relative, as is apparently the case, she would, as a matter of freely accepted obligation, turn your gift in to her superiors. If you wonder whether such is the rule in your relative's institute, ask her. It is possible, even in cases of institutional or individual total renunciation, that a small gift from a relative would be "returned" to a religious for his or her reasonable use.
By the way, if your gift is freely given to show your love for your relative, it shouldn't be of concern to you what she does with it.
Edward Peters
Q: A Mormon missionary has been trying to argue for the Book of Mormon by discussing "the stick of Joseph" and "the stick of Judah." What on earth is he talking about?
A: He's referring to a verse in Ezekiel. The passage reads:
"The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: Then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand" (Ezek. 37:15-17, KJV).
This is one of several passages Mormons try to conscript to prove the Bible spoke of another inspired work of scripture that was to be brought forth in the "latter days."
Mormons rely greatly on the Ezekiel passage as a proof text to demonstrate not only the possibility of divine scripture aside from the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon's doctrinal equality with it. They assume that the "stick of Judah" is the Bible, while the "stick of Joseph" is the Book of Mormon. In these, the latter days, the two have been joined together, forming the bulk of Mormon scripture.
Mormonism's professed literal interpretation of Scripture does not extend to hundreds of passages it rejects as corrupted or that it skews to suit its own purposes. In the case of Ezekiel 37, Mormons not only neglect the plain sense of the words but also ignore their true interpretation, given by God-in the very same chapter.
First, the Hebrew term translated as "stick" (aits) is never used anywhere in the Old Testament to mean "book," "scroll," "writing" or anything similar. It is variously translated as "wood" or "branch," "timber," or "tree." Needless to say, the Book of Mormon was allegedly written on metal plates, not scrolls or sticks.
Second, the correct interpretation of this symbolic action of the prophet is given just a few verses later. Ezekiel is to take the two sticks, put them end to end and hold the joined ends in his hand. He thus displays to the people a "single" stick, once again united. This is to show that the scattered remnants of the Southern kingdom ("Judah") and Northern kingdom of Israel ("Joseph") will be returned from exile, restored to their land, and made one nation again. "They shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all" (Ezek. 37:22).
With divine impetus, Ezekiel first spoke this parable of redemption then enacted it. Only Mormonism can manage to mistake "timber" for "scrolls" and "nations" for "metal plates."
Take a look at the passage in a more modern translation: "The word of the Lord came to me: 'Son of man, take a stick and write on it, "For Judah, and the children of Israel associated with him," then take another stick and write upon it, "For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him," and join them together into one stick. . . . Behold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph (which is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with him; and I will join with it the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that they may be one in my hand. . . . I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all sides, and bring them to their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms" (Ezek. 37:15-22, RSV).
As the text makes clear, this is a prophecy of national reunification, not about the appearance of hidden scriptures.
Isaiah Bennet
Q: Is it true that the Watchtower Society, the parent organization for the Jehovah's Witnesses, has made a change in its long-standing policy on prohibiting blood transfusions?
A: Yes, and the implications for Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's) are staggering. For those who may not know, JW's believe that blood transfusions are expressly forbidden by God and that to receive one is akin to committing spiritual suicide. They would rather die-or even allow a family member to die-than receive one. Their belief comes from an erroneous understanding of the Old Testament prohibitions against eating blood (cf. Gen. 9:4, Lev. 17:10-14-and notice that it's animal blood being spoken of) and the New Testament admonition to abstain from blood for the sake of not offending another's conscience (cf. Acts 15:29).
The policy change occurred in 1998 for JWs in Bulgaria, where their status as a religion was threatened because of their prohibition against transfusions. With an earlier law in mind, the Bulgarian government viewed this prohibition as a danger to public health and threatened to deny their status as a religion. The JWs reacted by taking the Bulgarian government before the European Human Rights Commission (EHRC). In a communique issued by the EHRC Secretary (see the EHRC website at http://194.250.50.20l/eng/ E276INFO.148.html), the JW leadership in Bulgaria claimed that JWs have "free choice in the matter" and-more importantly - that there are " no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusions" (emphasis added).
This alleged lack of sanctions is a 180-degree turn by the WTS, since its long-standing policy was articulated as follows: "According to the law of Moses, which set forth shadows of things to come, the receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshiping. . . As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshiping" (The Watchtower, January 15, 1961, p. 64). It should be noted that disfellowshiping for a JW means a complete shunning by all other JW's, including family members. He or she effectively becomes totally cut off from all religious and even social ties, as the majority of a JW's friends and associates typically are fellow JW's.
As a result of this change in doctrine, one can only conclude that (a) the WTS has different standards for its members, depending on where they live (a similar change does not apply for JWs elsewhere), (b) the WTS intentionally misrepresented its policy to circumvent the difficulty with the Bulgarian government, or (c) this change is yet another example of mutating doctrines of the WTS. Any way you view it, this change is clearly problematic.
Joel S. Peters
|
Catholic Answers
