|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 13, Number 4
 April 2002 
|
|
|
GIRM Warfare?
Q: When are we to start adhering to the contents of the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)? I’ve heard that the bishops must go over it with a fine-tooth comb first. But what more needs to be said or done when our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, has put his seal of approval on it? Won’t we be held bound if we don’t follow it? Why make up rules if we are going to break them?
A: In order for a law to go into force it has to be promulgated. Usually, unless laws specify otherwise, they go into effect three months after they are published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS). Neither the new GIRM nor decrees ordering the publication of the new Missal have been published in AAS or promulgated through other means. Therefore, these are not yet in force. Their current legal status is (essentially) drafts of future law that have been shown to the public early. They are not yet promulgated.
When they will go into force is not clear. Rome has not made an announcement. Until such time as that happens, the current law remains in force.
Q: I read the book Doctor Faustus in which a man sells his soul to the devil in exchange for worldly pleasures. This caused me to wonder what Catholics are to think on this topic. If someone "sells his soul" is it possible to "unsell" it and again be in the state of grace?
A: While it is a mortal sin to attempt to sell your soul to the devil, it is impossible to do so. The soul, as the substantial form of the body, is an inalienable possession of the individual. It cannot be sold, stolen, folded, spindled, or mutilated. All one would have to do to return to a state of grace after attempting to sell one’s soul would be to go to confession.
Q: There will be a forum held at my parish about postures and practices at Mass, like bowing before receiving our Lord. How can I defend the church’s teaching and practice when I don’t have the formal training or education? The sister facilitating the forum has a master’s degree in liturgy.
A: Whenever you find yourself in this situation, I suggest that you ask—politely—to be provided with a copy of the authoritative document from which the person is getting her information. If she cannot do this, she should at least be able to provide the name of the document, the section or paragraph from which the directive is stated, and the source from which the document came (e.g., National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy, the pope). In this way, you can verify whether or not the document has any authority. If you are unsure of its authority, you can contact the apologetics department at Catholic Answers for assistance.
Q: Someone asked me, "Do you really think you can change God’s mind with prayer?" What do you think?
A: God does not change his mind in response to our prayers or our actions. Though Scripture sometimes speaks as if he does, this language is figurative, not literal. If he did change his mind, that would mean that God had imperfect knowledge.
However, the fact that God does not change his mind does not mean that we should refrain from praying. God, in his perfect wisdom, has made some things we need contingent on our praying for them. He does this so that we may turn our hearts to him, rely on him, trust in him, and grow in the virtues of faith, hope, and charity.
Q: When I pray the rosary, I can’t concentrate on the mysteries when I am saying the Hail Marys, so instead I pause and think of the mystery. If I try to do both at the same time, I find it difficult. I wonder if I am doing it wrong. Any suggestions you have that could help me?
A: First, it is not unusual to become distracted during prayer. When this happens one may try a number of things—for example, praying for a shorter time but striving to be more focused as you pray. This might mean that instead of the whole rosary you say only one decade but will have fewer distractions while praying it. Then, little by little, lengthen the time. Be sure to set aside a special time and place for prayer so that you will not feel like you should be doing something else.
Second, it is not wrong to have a special time of meditation during the rosary, separate from saying the prayers. In fact, this seems to be envisioned as the normal way of doing it in Pope Paul VI’s 1974 apostolic exhortation on Marian devotion.
In it, he noted the various elements of the rosary and then observed that each of them "has its own particular character which, wisely understood and appreciated, should be reflected in the recitation in order that the Rosary may express all its richness and variety. Thus the recitation will be grave and suppliant during the Lord’s Prayer, lyrical and full of praise during the tranquil succession of Hail Marys, contemplative in the recollected meditation on the mysteries, and full of adoration during the doxology" (Marialis Cultus 50).
This seems to envision meditation on the mysteries as a separate element, alongside the Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary, and the doxology (the "Glory Be"). He characterizes the attitude displayed in the Hail Marys as being "lyrical and full of praise" but the attitude as "contemplative" in the meditation on the mysteries.
It should be noted that Paul VI was not trying to establish one and only one way of saying the rosary, but it seems that what you are doing is in line with what he envisioned.
Q: Can you give me a logical answer about the people’s ages in the book of Genesis? Some of them lived to be nine hundred years old. What is the Catholic Church’s teaching about this?
A: The Church has no teaching regarding whether these ages are to be taken literally or not. The Church will say that whatever Scripture says is inerrant but must be understood in terms of the conventions of literature that were in use at the time.
It is known that, in many ancient cultures, fantastically long lives were assigned to famous forebears. This could be an indication that the ages are to be taken as symbolic of the greatness and venerability of the individuals.
However, this is not something the Church has taught. God can keep people alive as long as he wants. If he wants someone to live to be nine hundred years old, then that person can do so.
Q: I have had some heated discussions recently about what teachings of the Church have been formally defined as infallible. I believe that under the definition of infallibility set forth at the First Vatican Council and affirmed at the Second Vatican Council in Lumen Gentium, the following teachings have been infallibly taught: the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the reservation of priestly ordination to men, and the immorality of abortion and other deliberate killing of innocent persons. So, which teachings of the Church are in fact formally defined?
A: The Church has not yet compiled a list of all infallible teachings or dogmatic definitions. However, all of the teachings you name are infallible.
Some of them—the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption—have been infallibly taught by a definition of the extraordinary magisterium (i.e., in a definition of a pope or an ecumenical council). Others—the male priesthood, the intrinsic evil of abortion and the deliberate killing of innocents—are infallibly taught, without a definition, by the Church’s ordinary magisterium.
Tests for whether a definition has been made include: (a) if a pope is writing, does he use the phrase "I define"? and (b) if a council is writing, does it use the phrase "let him be anathema"? If either of these is the case, it’s probably an infallible definition, especially as this language has been used in recent centuries. There are other ways popes and councils can issue definitions, but these are phrases commonly used to do so.
Q: Okay, I would like to have an explanation of what exactly these three things are so that I can explain them to my friends: (1) transubstantiation, (2) supererogation, and (3) the temporal power of the pope.
A: (1) Transubstantiation is the transformation in the Eucharist of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. This transformation of substance does not affect the appearances of the elements, which continue to appear to be bread and wine. The substance changes; the appearances do not.
(2) Supererogation is doing more than what is required. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul counsels the Corinthians that he who marries does well, but he who does not marry does better (7:38). Paul thus indicates that Christians have the freedom to marry but that it is possible for them to do even better than this. Embracing a celibate life for the cause of Christ would be a case of supererogation—doing something more than what was required, since one is free to marry.
(3) The temporal power of the pope is that power which he exercises as a governmental rather than a religious leader. For example, the pope is the head of the Vatican City state. When he acts in this capacity, he is exercising temporal power as the head of a government. In former centuries the pope often had larger domains than just Vatican City state (which is tiny) and so used to have more temporal power than he does now.
Q: If no one witnessed the interplay between Christ and Satan in the desert, what are we to make of the accuracy of the account found in the Gospel of Matthew? Does the Church have any teaching specifically directed to how such an episode in Christ’s life, which apparently was not witnessed by any one else, could be accurately recounted in the Gospels?
A: Though this is not a matter the Church has addressed, it would seem logical that Jesus himself is the source on events recounted in the Gospels that were not witnessed by others. After the event, he told others; the story was then circulated orally among his apostles and disciples until one of them wrote it down.
|
Catholic Answers
