|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 13, Number 7
 September 2002 
|
|
|
It's Old But It's Not Catholic
Q: I was invited to an event at Our Lady of Good Hope Old Roman Catholic Church. What is meant by "Old Roman Catholic Church"? I don't want to attend if they are schismatic.
A: The so-called "Old Catholic Church" is a schismatic group that split off from the Catholic Church after Vatican I over the issue of papal infallibility.
Q: Is fornication explicitly forbidden in the Bible? I read the Bible frequently but can't recall a specific instance.
A: Here are some verses for you (emphases added):
Mark 7:21-23: "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."
Galatians 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Ephesians 5:5-6: "Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."
Colossians 3:5-6: "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming."
Q: We Catholics believe in transubstantiation where the bread and the wine change into the body and blood of Christ yet remain under the appearance of bread and wine. How was it possible for the Corinthians to be getting drunk from the blood of Christ since the wine is no longer wine? Since alcohol in the wine is what constitutes it as wine instead of grape juice then that would mean the alcohol would transform into blood and it would not be possible to get drunk from Jesus!
A: You are correct that it is not possible to get drunk from Jesus. However, two points are in order:
1) Paul did not say that the Corinthians were getting drunk on the Precious Blood. Here is what he actually said: "When you meet together, it is not the Lord's Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?" (1 Cor. 11:20-22).
What is being talked about here is not simply the celebration of the Eucharist. It is a reference to an early Christian practice known as an Agape (Greek, love), commonly (though somewhat misleadingly) referred to in English as a "love feast." The same custom is referred to in Jude 12. Basically, early Christians got together and had a common meal in conjunction with the Eucharist. This was similar to the way in which Jesus instituted the Eucharist in the context of a larger meal.
The Corinthians were celebrating this meal in an improper manner that profaned the eucharistic celebration that accompanied the Agape. Thus he tells them that it is not the Lord's Supper that they eat. However, he does not say that they were consecrating and then consuming large quantities of the Precious Blood. There was probably only a single eucharistic chalice consecrated, and almost certainly it is the wine some were using to get drunk was that served in the non-eucharistic portion of the Agape.
2) However, it is still possible to become inebriated from the accidents of wine that has been consecrated. Though the wine itself has been transformed in substance into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, the accidents of wine remain. These appear to be wine to the senses-sight, taste, touch, smell. They also still "appear" to be wine to one's metabolism.
Thus when the Precious Blood is consumed, the body goes to work on the accidents as if one had just drunk wine. As the body responds, the accidents cease to appear to be those of wine, at which point the Real Presence ceases, and the body is left with what are or what appear to it to be the constituents elements of wine. A person's body will then metabolize these just as if they were ordinary water, sugars, and alcohol.
Thus it is hypothetically possible to become intoxicated after drinking excessive quantities of the Precious Blood. It would not be the Real Presence that caused this-indeed, the Real Presence would be gone as soon as the metabolization began-but the accidents of wine that had been ingested.
Q: I have been told that Christ hears us in the confessional and that he answers through the priest. I have also been told that he becomes present on the altar through the actions and prayers of the priest. I believe in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, but why on earth would we think that the confessional is where he comes "without fanfare"? I am very confused on this, and it makes me not like confession.
A: It seems that the difficulty you are encountering is caused by a metaphor. If someone were to say that Christ hears us in the confessional and answers through the priest, that is not to be taken literally. Jesus does hear us in the confessional, but he also hears us everywhere we go. He is omniscient. The affirmation that he hears us in the confessional is not to be taken as an exclusion of his hearing us elsewhere.
Similarly, if someone says that Christ answers through the priest, this does not mean that Jesus seizes control of the vocal cords of the priest and delivers an answer to us. It means that the priest has been authorized to absolve us by his participation in the priesthood of Christ. It also means that when the priest is properly absolving or withholding absolution Christ endorses that.
This is in contrast to the Eucharist, where Christ is literally present. His bodily presence in the Eucharist is not a metaphor.
Q: I am beginning to doubt my faith, because it seems that certain words need to be said, and certain actions taken in the sacraments. Forgive me for saying this, but for the first time in my life, I am wondering how this is different than witchcraft (incantations, et cetera).
A: The central difference between magic and grace is that magic is meant to draw upon forces resident in nature or in the supernatural world other than God. By contrast, grace comes from God.
Magic also frequently involves the idea that the effect takes because of the operation of natural or supernatural laws. Grace takes place because of God's choice.
God may give a promise that he will do something in response to our actions, and this may mean that the effect will occur in a regular way. However, it is still because of God's choice, not because it is compelled to happen by natural law.
This is the case in the sacraments. God has promised to give his grace when we approach him in the sacraments, but it is still his operation, not ours, that is important in the sacraments. Our actions in the sacraments do not compel him to act. It is his gracious initiative that brings us to the sacraments and that then blesses us as we partake of them.
God has prescribed for us certain actions to do in the sacraments; among them the saying of certain words. However, these are not magical formulae that we repeat and that take their effect on their own.
First, there is flexibility in the words that can be used (though there has to be some uniformity or else one couldn't tell one sacrament from another). Different rites of the Church use slightly different wordings, though as long as the central idea of the sacrament is expressed, it will be valid.
The limitation in a given rite to a single formula is for pastoral reasons, not because the formula magically compels God to do something. Our words do not compel him. We are merely approaching him in the sacraments, asking that in his mercy and by his faithfulness he will fulfill the promise he has given to bestow his grace upon us. As long as we approach him on his terms rather than ours, he will.
This is not magic. It is appealing to God's mercy and faithfulness. That is very different than ordering the forces of nature or bound spirits to do something for you.
Q: My child attends a Catholic preschool that is studying Chinese New Year and ending this study with a Chinese New Year parade. My daughter's class is wearing a dragon costume and parading throughout the school. The school has explained that they are not teaching the kids about the symbolism (luck) associated with the dragon. However, I feel very uncomfortable with my daughter wearing a dragon costume and being involved with the parade. Should I be concerned? I am thinking I will keep my daughter home that day.
A: As long as Chinese New Year is being explained as a civic holiday without the luck, astrology, Confucianism, et cetera that attend it in China, then having a commemoration of it in school-Catholic or otherwise-is not a problem. If Catholic schools in China can celebrate Chinese New Year, then Catholic schools elsewhere can note its existence in some form.
However, one could well be of the opinion that what your particular school is doing is problematic. Unless there is a high percentage of Chinese Americans in your school, the lengths to which the school is going could seem rather excessive.
Regarding the dragon costume, it is true that in the West dragons often have connotations of evil, but that isn't the case in Asian culture, and most American kids won't interpret a dragon as either a good thing or an evil thing. American kids respond to dragons like dinosaurs-big, powerful, interesting animals that are a little scary.
Whether you keep your child home that day is your call as a parent. However, if one were to systematically keep a child shielded from such events, it could lead to either a Fundamentalist attitude on the part of the child or to a resentment of not getting to participate in events with classmates.
You also might want to talk to the school principal about whether these celebrations are excessive or not and share your concerns with him about it. Perhaps in future years they won't do have them.
|
Catholic Answers
