|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 14, Number 5
 May-June 2003 
|
|
|
Old Testament Saints Are as Good as New Testament Saints
Q: Can Catholics pray to Old Testament heroes like Abraham, Moses, David, and Elijah as one would pray to Christian saints like Peter or Francis?
A: Certainly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us, "The patriarchs, prophets, and certain other Old Testament figures have been and always will be honored as saints in all the Church’s liturgical traditions" (CCC 61). Statues of such Old Testament figures as Moses, David, and Elijah can be found in some Catholic churches, a reminder to ask the intercessions of these saints.
Many Old Testament saints offer compelling examples of faith, perseverance, and heroic virtue and are as worthy of our devotion and prayers as the angels named in the Old Testament—Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.
A prayer called the Litany to Old Testament Saints can be found online; it includes invocations of holy patriarchs, kings, women, prophets, and martyrs, both as individuals (e.g., Abraham, David, Sarah, Elijah, Abel) and as groups.
Of course, whether praying to Old Testament saints or Christian saints, we are always asking their intercession, not praying to them as we do to God.
Q: Just before the Gospel reading, the celebrant leads us in the gesture with our thumbs making the sign of the cross on our foreheads, lips and hearts. Who created this and why?
A: As early as the ninth century, the faithful were making the sign of the cross on their forehead and breast at the reading of the Gospel. Then, in the eleventh century, we find the deacon and the faithful making the sign of the cross on the forehead, mouth, and breast after the words "A reading of the holy gospel . . ." (Jungmann, Mass of the Roman Rite).
According to Jungmann, "The original idea of this signing of oneself is probably indicated in the scriptural text frequently cited in this connection, the quotation about the wicked enemy who is anxious to take the seed of the word of God away from the hearts of hearers (Mark 4:15). . . . But another explanation takes over by degrees; an ever-increasing stress is placed on the readiness to acknowledge God’s word with courage. . . . The meaning is this: For the word which Christ brought and which is set down in this book we are willing to stand up with a mind that is open, we are ready to confess it with our mouth, and above all we are determined to safeguard it faithfully in our hearts" (CIN-Origin of the Sign of the Cross, Father Mateo, July 28, 1991).
Q: During Lent my parish removes all the holy water from the entrance fonts. The crucifix in the sanctuary has also been replaced with a shroud-draped cross. Is this the first step towards iconoclasm in my parish, or am I just overreacting to a legitimate tradition?
A: Emptying or covering holy water fonts during Lent is a modern innovation not found in the Church’s directives. Water is always kept in the holy water fonts until after Mass on Holy Thursday, when they are emptied of holy water and later refilled with the water blessed at the Easter Vigil (Paschales Solemnitatis 97).
Lent is a time when we need the spiritual benefits of holy water. Holy water is a protection from evil, a reminder of our baptism and of our commitment to live a Christ-centered life. Empty holy water fonts during Lent only deprive the faithful of spiritual benefits that are theirs by right.
The General Instruction on the Roman Missal requires a crucifix to be present during the celebration of the Mass. It may be possible to get away with replacing the main sanctuary crucifix with a cross if there is another crucifix present at least during the Mass (e.g., if an altar server or crucifer bears a crucifix into the sanctuary during the entrance). The covering of crosses is permitted during the last two weeks of Lent (approved by USCCB and Holy See, effective April 2002). The rubrics for the fifth Sunday of Lent state:
"In the dioceses of the United States of America, crosses in the church may be covered from the conclusion of the Mass for Saturday of the fourth week of Lent until the end of the celebration of the Lord’s Passion on Good Friday. Images in the church may be covered from the conclusion of the Mass for Saturday of the Fourth Week of Lent until the beginning of the Easter Vigil."
Q: In some old documents I found references to a woman named Mary of Cleophas, who was said to be the sister-in-law of the Virgin Mary. Is this speculation, or do we know something about this women?
A: In John 19:25 we read, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary [the wife] of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." The exact nature of the sisterhood between Jesus’ mother and Mary of Cleophas is unknown. It is possible that Cleophas was Joseph’s brother, which would make the Marys sisters-in-law. Or perhaps they were sisters in the sense an extended family (e.g., cousins).
Q: Why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?
A: The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.
They also believe that Jesus came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually polytheistic and pagan rather than trinitarian.
For an in-depth look at this, see the books Inside Mormonism and When Mormons Call by Isaiah Bennett, available from Catholic Answers. For a shorter but equally incisive take, see Fr. Brian Harrison’s two-part series on Mormonism in the April and May-June 2003 issues of This Rock.
Q: The priest who teaches our RCIA class refers to God as "he or she" and expresses open-mindedness about women priests. What can I say to him?
A: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition never refer to any person of the Godhead as she or he or she. The word he is always used. This same usage is invariably followed by the Church’s magisterium and in the liturgy and is stipulated in the Church’s translational norms as well.
Jesus began the only prayer he taught us with "Our Father." A father is a he. Jesus himself is obviously male, so it would be inappropriate to refer to him with a non-masculine pronoun. And Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as I: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John.14:26).
While the Bible does sometimes use feminine and maternal metaphors for God and especially for divine wisdom—which in some passages seems to be represented as a divine person and has sometimes been theologically identified with God the Son—nevertheless Scripture and the Church’s liturgical tradition agree that God is to be called he, not she. Bottom line: There is no place in historic Christian expression for "inclusive" God language.
Regarding the all-male priesthood, the Holy Father could not have been clearer on this issue. In his apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, he said, "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (4,2, emphasis added).
Q: What is the Church’s view on organ transplants? I feel that they are wrong. If God calls someone, who are we to stop the death process?
A: By that logic, any life-preserving medication or intervention would be wrong. Removing an inflamed appendix or administering CPR are just as much intervening in a process that would lead to death as transplanting a heart. Even yanking someone out of the path of an oncoming bus could be interpreted as saving someone who was being called by God.
Not only does the Church accept the transplanting of human organs, it recognizes the donation of organs and blood to those in need as acts of charity and therefore commendable. Needless to say, such donations must not in the slightest way cause the death of the donor.
Q: I am in the midst of a divorce I believe could be avoided with counseling, but my wife is moving toward the divorce with no second thoughts. Is it wrong for me to sign divorce papers? If I don’t, she can still divorce me, but we would have to go through a trial, and that would ruin me financially.
A: Civil divorce has no effect on the indissolubility of a valid marriage. The Church permits civil divorce only for the equitable division of property that has been held in common. If not signing the divorce papers will not prevent the divorce, then refusing to do so might be only a waste of time and money. You are not obliged to incur financial ruin in order to avoid signing divorce papers.
|
Catholic Answers
