More Miscellaneous Matters

Does it really matter to what Church a person belongs as long as he does what is right?

While we must all live and believe according to the dictates of conscience, objectively speaking, if a person wants to be assured of knowing and doing what is right, he will belong to the right or true Church. The various churches are not the same. Christ directly established the Catholic Church and saving truth subsists in her.

Why are there so many sinners in the Catholic Church?

This is no truer for the Catholic community than it is for others. Christ called to himself sinners and the Catholic Church has ever been faithful in doing the same. We seek the repentance and conversion of souls. We leave ultimate judgment of the weeds and wheat to our Lord.

Cannot a person be an honest and faithful Christian without going to church?

He may on some level be a believer, but such a person is not a good Christian. The true Christian realizes that just as he is indebted to neighbors and friends, so too does he have debts before God. He was made for God. The Christian approaches God, not as an isolated individual, but as a member of a family of faith, a new People of God. It is our duty to go to Church and every Catholic is required under pain of mortal sin to participate at Sunday Mass.

Why is not fidelity to the bible sufficient for a union of faith?

The problem is that the "right meaning" of the bible must be followed for such a unity. The so-called bible churches all claim to follow the bible and yet they are divided from each other and the fragmentation continues. The union of faith mandates an infallible teacher or interpreter of the bible as well as a membership willing to submit their judgment to higher authority.

Why do Catholics believe in dogmas instead of the bible?

Catholic dogmas of faith are generally the teachings of the bible defined and elaborated upon by competent authority.

Are there not many roads leading to heaven?

Our Lord, Jesus, said that there would be one fold only-- one faith, one Church, and one God. No, there is only one road to heaven and that is the one Jesus has marked for us. Truth is not relative, especially upon this point. Christ cannot contradict himself. This gives great impetus to our missionary and evangelization campaigns. However, Catholics themselves should as St. Paul reminds us, "Be of one mind," and be configured to Christ. God certainly judges us according to what we know to be true and how we live out our faith in good conscience. The Church prays for her own and even for those outside her fold. She seeks to embrace them and save them. Who can estimate the efficacy of such intercessory prayer?

Can we believe in a Catholic Church as the true Church but not in the ROMAN Catholic Church?

No, we cannot. They are one and the same. No matter whether the rite is Western or Eastern, the head of the true Church is the bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Do we not all believe in one God?

Most, but not everyone is monotheistic. Mormon doctrine actually holds for polytheism (multiple gods). Religions from the East are also bringing pagan gods into the picture of our culture. Some believe in no god at all. Others define him in unacceptable ways. Further, we do not practice the same things that we were commanded. It should also be said that the devil knows there is one God and it does him no good.

Why do Catholics believe in teachings that are said not to be understandable?

While we do not understand the intrinsic nature of certain doctrines, we know they must be true because God who will not and cannot deceive us revealed them. Of course, there are still natural mysteries that we do not entirely comprehend, and yet, we believe and experience them as true.

Why do Catholics fail to wash one another's feet as Christ commanded in John 13:1-15?

Actually, it is done on Holy Thursday. The bishop washes the feet of twelve men. This command was not given to all, but to the apostles. It is intimately connected to the call to ministry and priesthood. Jesus did not offer this ritual as a required act for salvation, but only as a reminder of humility modeled after our Lord, himself.

Why do Catholics burn incense in church since Isaiah 1:13 says: "Incense is an abomination to me"?

God rebuked the people for their sins while offering incense to him. God himself commanded the offering of incense, but only as long as it was done with a pure heart.

If Catholics are so good then how can the Church excuse the persecution of Protestants in Spain during the Inquisition?

The civil government of Spain used religion to promote its agenda of unification and national security; the Church did not sanction the harsh treatment of Protestants. Ferdinand and Isabella established the Inquisition for more political than religious reasons. The Jews and the Moors faced the blunt of the assault. The latter group was seen as an enemy of the state. The royal officers who made up the inquisitors also persecuted bishops and priests when it suited their political aims. They imprisoned the Archbishop of Toledo for sixteen years. Repeatedly, the popes protested against the inquisition.

Did Protestants ever persecute Catholics?

Martin Luther advised his followers to kill the popes, cardinals, bishops, and all who would defend them. John Calvin unmercifully persecuted those who disagreed with his views. John Knox was so ruthless that some 17,000 so-called witches were burned in Scotland alone in the course of forty years. Knox said that people were bound in conscience to execute the queen and to kill all the priests. In England, Catholics were fined a hundred dollars a month for failing to participate at Protestant worship. Irish Catholics were imprisoned in dungeons, hanged, drawn and quartered, and faced other frightful ends because of their fidelity to the Catholic faith.

Did not the Pope approve of the killing of Protestant Huguenots on St. Bartholomew's night?

He had nothing to do with the massacre. Charles IX, manipulated by his mother, Catherine d Medicis, asassinated Admiral Coligny, the leader of the Huguenots (who were opponents of the king). This occurred on August 24, 1572 and caused escalation in violence against the Huguenots in France.

But, did not the Pope command a Te Deum be sung in France when he heard about the massacre?

After the tragedy, the King informed the Pope that he had escaped a terrible conspiracy upon his life and throne. Not knowing the true facts, the Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung. Later, when the Pope learned the true facts of the massacre, he wept for the victims and condemned the course the King had pursued.

But, did not Cardinal de Lorraine bless the poignards of the soldiers prior to the massacre?

This is a lie based upon a dramatic fiction and the propaganda of anti-Catholics. Cardinal de Lorraine was not even in France. At the time he was in Rome attending to matters of the Church.

Is it not the Galileo affair, in which he was imprisoned, proof that the Catholic Church opposes progress?

The Pope merely refused to accept proofs that Galileo offered to prove the theory that the earth moves around the sun. Galileo tried to prove it from the bible, which was impossible. Protestants and Catholics alike rejected his proofs. Nevertheless, the Church honored Cusa and Copernicus who maintained similar theories. However, they claimed as their scientific opinion, only what they could prove.

Since there is nothing in the bible about it, how can Catholics contend that St. Peter was the bishop of Rome?

Much of what we know comes from tradition. Archeological work and the evidence are that St. Peter was executed in Rome. Pious tradition and Christian lore tend to fill out the story. St. Peter started his apostolic work ten days after the ascension, about the fifteenth of May in the year 34 AD. He remained four years in Jerusalem and preached the gospel there. Afterwards, he traveled to Antioch where he remained seven years, preaching and administering Church affairs. He left Antioch and returned to Jerusalem where he was imprisoned. Miraculously delivered (Acts 12), he went and preached the gospel in Rome. He performed many miracles and the Church flourished. From that location, he began to send bishops and priests throughout the known world. After seven years, the Emperor Claudius banished him from Rome. He visited Britain, Carthage, and Alexandria and finally returned to Jerusalem. It was there that St. Paul consulted him regarding the Gentiles and the observance of circumcision (Council of Jerusalem). St. Peter decided that the Gentiles were not bound by this matter of the Mosaic law. When Emperor Claudius died, the infamous Nero succeeded him. Peter returned to Rome, just as Aquilla and Priscilla had done. Two years later, St. Paul joined Peter as a prisoner in Rome. During the 22nd year of St. Peter's Roman pontificate, Nero set the city on fire. The emperor placed the blame on the Christians and persecution ensued. St. Peter left Rome again. The 24th year, he returned and fortells his death (Acts 1:14). St. Peter and St. Paul had frustrated Simon Magus' magical arts. The two apostles were thrown into the mamertine prisons for nine months, where St. Paul composed his second letter to Timothy. They converted Process, Martinian, the keeper of the prison, and 47 prisoners. St. Peter miraculously caused water to spring forth from the prison floor in order to baptize the new converts. This well is still preserved. In the 25th year of his Roman pontificate, St. Peter and St. Paul were sentenced to death. St. Peter was crucified upon an inverted cross on Mount Janiculum (feeling unworthy to die precisely like his Lord). St. Paul was taken to the Salvia waters about four miles south of Rome and beheaded. When St. Paul's head fell under the sword, it made three bounds and a fountain is said to have sprung forth at each place where his head hit the ground. Three fountains are still venerated as the site.

More on Relics & Holy Pictures

Why do Catholics show honor to the relics of saints?

One could also ask, why does a child save his dead mother's ring? Why are the belongings of those we love sometimes treated as sacred? Why do fans collect memorabilia of their sports heroes and entertainment stars? The story is told about a very old man who insisted in his will instructions that a locket of hair and a particular handkerchief be placed in his casket. It turned out that these were the only items that he possessed from a girl who had suffered a fatal accident when he was a young man. He loved her. He still loved her. Relics, no matter whether they be something used or worn by the departed saint, or something contacted to the body after death, or even a part of the body itself, all point to the life and extraordinary discipleship of the faithful departed. They remind us that the bonds of faith are not destroyed by death. Love is stronger than death. In the case of saints, relics are tangible reminders that true holiness is possible. Relics, especially of the body, provide an intimate connection with the departed. Such relics are held in special esteem because the living bodies of Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit. The souls of the righteous live with God and one day they will rise body and soul with Christ. The Christian sees the dead body, not crudely as an empty husk, but as an element of our personhood esteemed for its past powers and consecrated by the grace of God. We treat the bodies of the faithful departed with a profound respect and reverence. Every corpse reminds us of our Savior who was brought down from his cross and laid in a tomb. We have been signed in Christ crucified. And yet, we know the promise on the other side of the cross.

Nevertheless, is it not idolatry to honor relics, even in they are parts of a person's dead body?

No, it is not idolatry. Of course, as with devotion to saints, error exists in the extremes. If one were to offer divine worship to things and persons, living or dead, then it would be idolatry and a serious sin. The Church, herself, teaches this. Rather, by honoring the friends of God, we honor God himself.

Do Catholics use relics as talismans, believing while they wear or carry them, that no evil can befall them?

This question has to be very carefully answered because we live in times when there has been a resurgence of witchcraft in naturalist and new age cults. Some of this unfortunate business is infecting our young people and entering the mainstream. It is peculiar that in our technological age and scientific culture that many of the old superstitions are reappearing, albeit in refashioned guises. Certainly, kids use to do such things as carry a rabbit's foot for good luck, although having four of them did the rabbit no good. However, what was once done in fun has taken on the pallor of a religion. While some people will wear crosses and attribute little if any meaning in the practice; others use religious symbols and items to ward off bad luck and curses. Sometimes they even commit sacrilege in pseudo-religious rituals.

I recall one time finding wax figures used in such diabolical practices, along with profane candles and statuary of the saints (dressed in strange sorcerer clothing) hidden in a church. A woman from Haiti turned out to be the culprit. She had tainted her Catholic faith with pagan superstition. This is a terrible sin and a grave offence against God.

Having offered this warning, it must be said that in Catholic circles it is held that relics might avert evil. However, the object itself has no magical power! The relic becomes an expression of our faith, just as we may voice it in words and actions. If our faith is real and actualized in charity, then God may indeed see in a relic a call for assistance. Further, the saint represented by the relic may also intercede and pray for us.

How do we know that the so-called saint is actually in heaven?

We can know it from the holy life they lived while still in the world, by the wonders and miracles he performed, and by the scrutinizing canonization process itself in the Catholic Church.

Does the bible say anything about us honoring relics?

Look at Exodus 13:19: "Moses took Joseph's bones with him; because he had adjured the children of Israel, saying, 'God shall visit you if you carry my bones from hence with you.'" Now read Acts 9:15: "In so much that they brought forth the sick into the streets and laid them on beds . . . that when Peter came his shadow at least might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities." Another passage is Acts 19:12: "And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them." All this goes to prove the importance of relics, particularly when grounded in Christian faith. But how could it be any other way? Like the hemorrhaging woman, who believed that touching the mere tassel of our Lord's cloak would bring her healing, may we also use wisely the things of God.

Moving on to a related topic, why do Catholics keep holy pictures in their homes?

These images bring to mind the lives and virtues of the saint they represent. They inspire us to imitate their example.

But, if this is all it is, then why do Catholics kneel down and bow before such pictures and statues?

These representations assist our imaginations. While the custom of bowing at official engagements has been largely lost in secular greetings; it has been retained in regards to religious practice. We bend at the waist as a signed of greeting and respect to an old friend in heaven (whom the image represents). If we fall to our knees, we are actually taking a humble stance before Christ himself who has often shined ever so brightly in the lives of his saints.

Does the bible say that we are permitted to make pictures and statues in honor of the saints?

First of all, we are doing little more externally than what civil society does in putting up a statue in honor of a famous citizen or soldier. Second, there is ample precedent for such a practice in the bible. (The reason for the Hebrew reservation regarding images was because so many of the peoples around them actually worshipped false gods of stone.) We read in Exodus 25:18: "You shall make also two Cherubim of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle . . . Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory." In Numbers 21:8, we read: "And the Lord said to him: 'Make a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign; whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live . . . when they were bitten, looked upon it, they were healed." The brazen serpent foreshadowed (as a type) Christ and his saving cross. Honoring the Ark of the Covenant, "Joshua rent his garments and fell flat on the ground, before the ark of the Lord until evening, both he and all the ancients of Israel."

Nevertheless, how can this be reconciled with the divine prohibition, "You shall not make a picture of any other likeness . . . thou shall not adore them, nor serve them"?

Context here means everything. Otherwise, one would have to say that the Word of God contradicts itself. The invisible God of the Hebrews absolutely forbid the making of images for purposes of divine adoration. However, he did not prohibit images as such. Indeed, in the case of the ark, they were mandated. Of course, given the inclination of the early Jews to fall easily into idol worship, it is no wonder that the prohibition was often extended and made more severe.

Making a secular comparison. Many of us adorn our homes with statuary, paintings, and photographs. We have them for beauty and for sentimental reasons. Is a picture of one's child or a grandmother vain idolatry? I think not. Neither are depictions of saints and other holy personages.

More on Prayer, Fasting & Blessings

What is the prayer book from which priests and religious read?

Called the Liturgy of the Hours or the Breviary, it is one of the principal ways, along with the Mass, that the Church seeks to pray unceasingly throughout the world. Priests and religious use the Breviary as a staple in their prayer life. It is a form of prayer mandated for them and optional for the laity. It structures prayer during the day: Office of the Readings, Morning Prayer, Daytime Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Compline.

What constitutes this book?

It consists of Scripture lessons, readings from the Church fathers and saints, prayers composed by the Church, and most prominently, the psalms. The psalms are recited and chanted because they were the prayers Jesus would have known by heart and prayed daily. The psalms consecrate the Breviary as the prayer book of Christ. There are also hymns in the book. Several editions and translations exist. In the United States there is both an edited one volume and a complete four volume set.

What is the purpose?

It insures prayer and gives unity to the Church's prayer all over the world. When used by priests, it allows them to imitate Christ in rendering constant intercession for the people.

What is the origin of the Angelus prayer?

Church's would call people to prayer three times a day by ringing the church bell. This was introduced by Pope Urban II in 1095 AD to invoke Mary's protection upon the crusaders. After the conflict, it was retained as a special way to thank God three times a day for the blessings of redemption merited through Christ.

What is the Rosary?

What is it not? The Rosary is a collection of many prayers into one; and yet, it is a simple prayer, introduced by St. Dominic in the thirteenth century and highly approved by the Church. It is called the Rosary because it is composed of a series of beautiful prayers and meditations about the principal stages in Christ's life, which are strung together one after the other like a garland, in other words, like so many beautiful and fragrant roses. Christ's life is divided into the joyful, sorrowful and glorious mysteries.

Why do Catholics repeat the same prayers in the Rosary, is it not vain repetition?

Is it vain repetition to breathe one breath after another? Does a lover ever tire of telling his beloved, "I love you?" No, there is nothing vain here. Like the angels who eternal praise God as "Holy, Holy, Holy," so we say certain holy prayers and praises over and over. The staple prayer is the HAIL MARY, sandwiched between an OUR FATHER at the beginning of each decade and closed with a GLORY BE and an optional FATIMA ASPERATION. There are five events recalled and meditated upon. The opening prayer is the APOSTLES' CREED and three OUR FATHERs (for an increase of faith, hope, and charity). The Rosary concludes with a HAIL HOLY QUEEN.

Outside the Rosary, other prayers of importance for the Catholic would be an ACT OF CONTRITION, the REGINA CAELI (substituted for the Angelus during the Easter season), GRACE BEFORE & AFTER MEALS, the STATIONS OF THE CROSS, and various novenas and litanies, etc.

Why do Catholics also do things like fast?

Actually, there is far less of it than there used to be. Fasting and abstinence (avoiding meat) was once much more strictly regulated. Unfortunately, many people have misunderstood the change regarding Friday abstinence. It was not utterly revoked. Rather, one could substitute another form of penance or mortification. Many people either did not know this or simply failed to sacrifice something else. Catholics fast because Jesus fasted (Matthew 4:12). Indeed, he told us to fast (Matthew 1:16,18). Also, St. Paul fasted (2 Corinthians 4:10) and the other apostles did so too (2 Corinthians 6:5). Good people under both the old and the new dispensation have fasted as a sacrifice to God, to firm up their discipline, and to prolong their life (1 Corinthians 9:27).

Why do Catholics abstain from meat on the Fridays of Lent and are asked to render some similar penance on Fridays throughout the year?

It is not because meat is bad, but precisely because it is good. We abstain as a small sacrifice in remembrance of the death of our Lord on a Friday. Today, the Church requires that Catholics abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday and all Fridays of Lent. On Ash Wednesday and Good Fridays, Catholics are both to abstain from meat and to fast.

What is a blessing?

It is a holy action whereby the priest invokes the divine blessing on persons or things, just as Jesus did when he blessed children, bread, fish, and other objects.

What does the Church bless through her ministers?

The Church blesses houses, fields, persons, and about any object that can benefit people.

Why does the Church use holy water?

It is a suitable substance, reminding us of our baptism and faith, to bless people and things. It is a wonderful symbol (sacramental) to wash us from venial sin and to protect us against the evil spirit.

When do Catholics use holy water?

Catholic Christians sign themself with the water upon entering and leaving the church. They also use it at home: upon rising and retiring, before prayer time, upon going out, etc.

Why are people sometimes sprinkled with holy water at Mass?

It is because we should be cleansed and sanctified when we enter into God's house and his abiding presence there.

More on the Sacrifice of the Mass

What do Catholics mean by the sacrifice of the Mass?

A sacrifice is the oblation of a sensible thing made by God through a lawful minister by a real change in the thing offered, testifying to God's absolute authority over us and our complete dependence upon him.

Does God really want us to render sacrifice?

Yes, indeed, so much is this need ingrained in us that we find various forms of sacrifice in many world religions and in those of antiquity. It was because of a jealousy over the acceptance of a sacrifice that Cain killed Abel. Beginning with the Jews, sacrifice was properly directed toward the true God who had revealed himself. Noah, Abraham, and the Old Law enacted sacrifice to God. The sacrifices of the first people called by God would typify and foreshadow the sacrifice of the cross upon which Christ offered his body and blood to the Father for our redemption from the sin and the devil. This same sacrifice is commemorated or made sacramentally present in the Mass. It is offered to God upon our altars for the living and the dead.

Does the bible say anything about New Testament sacrifices?

The prophecy of Malachi states that the sacrifices of the old law would be abolished and supplanted by a new one offered for the entire world: "I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of Hosts: and I will not receive a gift of your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is a sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation."

Was this prophecy fulfilled?

Yes, the Jewish sacrifices have utterly ceased. The new sacrifice is the saving death of Jesus Christ, which is renewed and made present in each Mass offered every day. Around the world and in countless places it is celebrated, from the rising of the sun to its setting.

Does this mean that, according to Catholics, Jesus must suffer and die over and over again?

No, Jesus does not suffer and die all over again. Christ has risen from the dead and can never more die. As if it were a time machine, the Mass connects us with his one time passion and death-- extended to us sacramentally so as to give us the opportunity to participate and offer ourselves along with him. It is repeatedly offered to God the Father for the forgiveness of sins.

Does not this notion of repeated sacrifices clash with the warrant of New Testament testimony? After all, St. Paul states "But Christ . . . by his own blood entered into the holy of holies, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12) and later: "So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (9:28). In chapter 5:14, we read: "For by one oblation he has perfected forever them that are sanctified." It seems to be saying that the one sacrifice on the cross was enough and no other ones are needed.

The one sacrifice of the cross is enough for our redemption. However, it must be commemorated and applied to souls, just as Jesus commanded: "Do this in remembrance of me." This is done daily in the Mass.

But if Christ has already died for our sins, and we are thus saved, why is the Mass necessary?

If all we had to do were to believe that Jesus had died for us and that we were then automatically saved, then there would be no need for the Mass. Of course, such a presumption would make preaching and the Church herself unnecessary. There would be no impetus to live a holy life. While proponents of such a view often speak a great deal about hell, it would largely make it inconsequential as well. Those who have committed the most grievous wrongs would be on the same footing as saints. However, our Lord, beside his death on the cross, has commanded other things of us if we are to be saved.

How can Catholics make such a claim of St. Paul's words to the contrary? He writes: "For it is fitting that we should have such a high priest, who need not daily (as other priests) offer sacrifices first for his own sins and then for the people, for this he did once in offering himself."

The context is being confused here. He is not talking about the Mass but about Jewish sacrifices and their high priests. Because of their imperfections, their sacrifices were no longer needed. Catholic priests do not offer a new sacrifice, but the same oblation of Jesus on the cross. The words of Jesus make it a command performance.

Does St. Paul say that ministers should do more than preach; they should also render sacrifices to God for the peoples' sins?

Certainly, he says in Hebrews 5:1: "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sin."

If the sacrifice of the Mass were required, it would seem to imply that the sacrifice of the cross was insufficient to reconcile us with God; is this true?

No, it is not. The sacrifice of the cross was sufficient to reconcile us with almighty God, but Christ desired that his oblation of the cross should be commemorated in "living" memory of him. As with the memorial acclamation in the revised liturgy, St. Paul says: "For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come" (1 Cor. 11:26). As faithful adopted sons and daughters of God, our Father, we celebrate our redemption with an unbloody sacrifice (of the cross) to God for ourselves and for the good of the world.

More on Holy Communion

What is the main difference between the Holy Communion received by Catholics and that, which is implemented by non-Catholics?

While some may contend that there is some sort of weak "spiritual" presence, most non-Catholics reduce Communion to an "empty" sign, in other words, something that signifies a presence, which is absent, namely the historical Jesus. This reduces the communion elements simply to ordinary bread and wine. Of course, without a legitimate priesthood and Eucharistic liturgy, there communion precisely such. On the other hand, Catholics believe that their Holy Communion conveys a sacramental and real presence of the risen Christ. The Eucharistic species have literally been transformed into our Lord. Possessing a valid priesthood, which celebrates a lawful Mass, the communicants eat the REAL body of Christ and drink the REAL blood of Christ.

Did Jesus really promise that he would give us his body to eat and his blood to drink?

Yes, most assuredly so. Jesus says in John 6: "The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world." His fellow Jews murmured in disagreement, seriously doubting that Jesus could do such a thing. He could not be serious, they thought. Maybe, he only meant it in a figurative fashion? Of course, even that was somewhat offensive to Jews, given their strict dietary laws. Jesus reiterates it to insure that there is no confusion: "Truly, truly I say to you: except you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life…. for my flesh is truly food and my blood truly drink."

Later, did Jesus fulfill his promise and give his apostles his body to eat and his blood to drink?

Again, yes. We read in Matthew 26: "And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and saying: 'Take and eat. This is my body.' And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, gave it to them, saying: 'Drink of this, all of you. For this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins.'"

Is not the fact that many denominations stress the eating and drinking a sufficient indication of their belief in the body and blood of Jesus?

No, it is not. Indeed, many deny the Catholic understanding of "real presence" while making a big deal over the fact that often Holy Communion in the Catholic Church is often reduced to the host. (Each particle of the host and every drop of the precious blood, not wine, is the complete Jesus, body and soul, humanity and divinity.) Protestants get caught up in the mechanics and deny the very essence of the sacrament. Jesus himself was concerned that his followers might go through the motions of eating and drinking the sacred meal and lose sight of the underlining reality. He says: "My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." Further, he tells his people: "Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." Acknowledging this truth, the apostles raised the "breaking of the bread" or Eucharist to the center of the lives.

But Christ seems to reverse himself when he says: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing." How is this explained?

If it were not tragic, it would be amusing how Protestants often point to this sentence to refute the Catholic understanding of real presence. After all, it intimates that Jesus was in error or that he hastily revises his teaching when most of his followers abandon him over it. Such is far from the truth. Jesus does not suddenly suffer from amnesia regarding his earlier words, rather, he is talking about the spirit of God which makes faith possible, even in those things difficult to accept, like the graphic truth of his Eucharistic presence. Eating the flesh of Jesus without faith would profit nothing; eating it with faith gives life.

It has been offered that what Jesus meant to say at the Last Supper was, "This represents my body, this represents my blood." Is this not more correct?

It is a lie. If Jesus meant to say that the bread and wine only represented his body and blood, then he would have said so. However, he purposely said: "This is my body, this is my blood." Lacking a "to be" verb, his expression is even more stark: "This--my body, this--my blood." Some time prior to the Last Supper, our Lord promised his followers that he would give them his body and blood as food and drink. Jesus spoke plainly and made no attempt to mislead his listeners with ambiguous rhetoric. Christ's Church has believed Jesus' words in their literal sense for two thousand years. The apostles believed that the Eucharist was the real body of Christ. It is not ordinary bread. St. Paul goes so far as to emphasize that unworthy reception of this bread of life causes damnation.

How can God possibly give us his own body to eat and his blood to drink?

This question suffers from the intrusion of modern atheism, even when it emerges from fundamentalist Christians. How could God possibly take flesh at all? And yet, he did precisely this in the incarnation. How could he feed five thousand people with a mere five loaves of bread and two fishes? Nevertheless, he did. If God could change rivers into blood, as he did in Egypt, could he not transform bread and wine as a sacrament for his followers? Sure. God is almighty and can do all things. Would we be so egotistical as to hold that just because we cannot envision something as possible that it is impossible for God?

When Jesus, and today the priest, breaks the consecrated bread, is he breaking the body of Christ?

No, only the outward form of bread is broken not Christ's body.

How can the complete and living Christ be present in each and every Holy Communion around the world and often at the same time?

He is God. This mystery of the real presence of Christ cannot be explained in a way sufficient for human understanding. Nevertheless, we know with God that all things are possible. The sun in the sky can shed its light and warmth upon many places at the same time, but there is still only one sun. This is a poor analogy, and yet it might help.

How can Catholics argue such a transformation when St. Paul merely called it BREAD, saying, "Whosoever shall eat of this bread?"

The apostle emphasizes "this bread" as something more than ordinary bread. Recall that in the same chapter he complains about those who fail to discern between this bread and the ordinary variety. He warns them that to eat this bread unworthily brings down judgment, making one guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Ordinary bread could not mandate such a punishment.

While it might be granted that Jesus gave his body and blood to his apostles, is it not too great a leap to suppose that priests can give this body and blood to others?

It is no stretch of credulity at all. The apostles were commanded by Jesus to repeat what he did. He gave them his body and blood so that they might have a share in his eternal life. If this power was not handed down to the priests, how could we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood? Jesus said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth is given to me, as the Father has sent me, so I send you." The authority given the apostles is necessarily passed down to the bishops and priests.

Might the communion bread and wine be seen as a remembrance of Christ only?

No, this view is too narrow. The consecrated elements are indeed a remembrance of Christ, but they are also his body and blood. The stark words of institution make any other interpretation impossible. Further, the Hebrew view of memory is much different from our own. We tend to use remembrance in a nostalgic way, recalling something that is passed and absent. The ancients saw the past coming alive again in the telling. Remembrance makes something present, it allows one to enter into the story. Regarding the Eucharist, this is not only figuratively true, but really so. The Mass allows us to visit and participate in the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Holy Communion is our encounter with our risen Lord, now made our saving food.

Can it be proven that the first Christians held such views about the Eucharist?

Yes, it can. St. Justin (150 AD) says, "The faithful receive communion not as an ordinary bread, or an ordinary drink, but we were instructed that it is the flesh and blood of Christ." St. Irenaeus (200 AD) writes regarding the Gnostic heretics, "They refuse to acknowledge that the bread in Communion is the body of their Lord and the chalice his blood." Other early authorities write similar testimonies, saying that Christ is joined with us in communion, not only through faith, but really and truly. It is said that just as water was changed into wine, so is the bread changed into the body of Christ. Others speak of adoration, an operation proper to God alone, as proper before the Blessed Sacrament. Extending back to apostolic times, this 16th century epiclesis illustrates this abiding belief: "Come, Holy Spirit, consecrate, change, transform by thy almighty power the bread and wine into the body of Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, and in the blood which was shed for our salvation." Even many of the early breakaway groups from the Catholic Church retained this central teaching in the real presence.

How could Jesus reasonably be present under the appearance of so many wafers and in so many churches at the same time?

Spatial and temporal limitations do not apply to God. We may not understand it, but Jesus, being God, is not locked exclusively into any one time or replace. Such is the mystery of Christ after his resurrection and ascension.

What proof can be put forward in favor of the claim that Jesus remains in the hosts reserved in the Church tabernacle?

We have Jesus' own words for this sacred trust. He says: "This is my body," and he makes no move to turn the sacred elements back into bread. Therefore, as long as the appearances of bread are present, so is Jesus. In addition, we know that the first Christian believers carried the consecrated bread to the sick, to prisoners, and maintained it in valuable vases for later administration to those near death. This faith of the early Church is formative to what we have always maintained.

Does the body of Christ in Holy Communion suffer from human digestion?

No, only the outward appearances are subject to change. The body of Jesus is not touched.

Does the bible say that Jesus will live in our hearts after communion?

Yes, we find the passage in St. John 6:57: "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him."

Is it permissible only to believe that Jesus is somehow present in the bread, but not that it is actually transformed into his body?

No, it is not, if one wants to remain a true Catholic. Again, Jesus said: "This is my body." We either believe in Jesus' words or we do not. If it is not really changed into his body, then Jesus was lying to us. This would be absurd.

Is it idolatry to adore the communion bread?

If it were ordinary bread, adoration would indeed be idolatrous. However, since it is the body of Jesus, it is expected and proper.

Why do so many Churches offer only the host and not the cup?

The pattern followed by the early Church is significant in that many received only the consecrated bread or only the precious blood. Further, the totality of Christ-- body and blood, soul and divinity-- is received whole and entire under either form. The practical consideration aside, which could be serious regarding excess consecrated wine, the priest's communion of both species illustrates the unity of the host and the cup.

But, are not Catholics denying a direct command of Jesus in not drinking from the cup?

It should be said that many Catholic parishes do offer the precious blood to the congregation. However, large parishes often find it difficult. After all, unlike some of the Protestant parishes, our sensibilities about the real presence would cause a just anxiety about the use of hundreds of small thimble-sized cups. While Jesus did say "unless you eat my body . . . and unless you drink my blood," however, he also said in the same chapter: "If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever . . . the bread which I shall give you is my flesh for the life of the world." Clearly, this means that eating this bread will give us a share in eternal life. This is elaborated by St. Paul: "He who eats this bread or drinks this chalice unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).

Is not every baptized believer a priest who can celebrate the Lord's Supper?

No, baptismal priesthood and ministerial priesthood are quite different. The laity cannot consecrate the bread and wine. Only the apostles were commanded to do this by Jesus. Consequently, only their successors, the bishops and priests at Mass are able to consecrate the bread and wine in the name of the people. As St. Paul tells us, the ministers are chosen by God to offer sacrifices for the people (Hebrews 5:1).

What are some of the practical reasons why the cup might not be offered?

1. The apostles themselves could not always administer it to the sick or imprisoned.
2. The danger of spillage is a real concern.
3. There is a great aversion to drinking from the same cup, especially with the sick.
4. Some places have difficulty procuring and preserving wine.
5. Alcoholics and certain others cannot drink it.
6. Because Jesus gave the Church authority to regulate such matters.

More on Indulgences

What exactly are the eternal punishments due to sins?

When we speak of eternal punishment, we are referring to the everlasting pains of hell.

What then are the temporal punishments due to sin?

Punishments, which take place in the temporal realm or in time, are basically the ills and struggles of mortal life. We all know sickness and dying. We experience loss and grieving. We face man's inhumanity to man as well as natural disaster. The pains of purgatory would also be added to this list.

In what ways are the temporal punishments due to sin forgiven?

There are many ways, including penance, prayer, good works, and indulgences.

Can it really be shown that Jesus gave his apostles the power to grant indulgences or to remit the temporal punishment due to sin?

Yes, this power is found in the sacred charge given Peter by Jesus: "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). The authority is given to Peter from Christ to remit whatever it is that hinders people from the gate of heaven.

Is it lawful for the Catholic Church to charge money for granting indulgences?

No, it is not. Such trafficking in indulgences is an abuse that has always been condemned by the Church.

But, did not the Pope charge money for the indulgences sold to help build St. Peter's in Rome?

The charge behind this question is a gross distortion of the facts. The conditions placed upon those desiring such an indulgence were clearly enumerated: they were first to make a good confession, and only then as an act of penance, they might offer some money to the building of the great church. However, no one was obliged to make this payment, as there were many other ways to have temporal punishment forgiven.

Wait a minute, how can this be true? The Dominican monk, Tetzel, told the crowds that the payment of a dollar could gain an indulgence of past and even of future sins.

Well, if the monk really said this, then he was sorely mistaken. Such behavior would have been I contradiction to Church teaching. Reputable authorities give a different picture of Tetzel. Indeed, in 1517, he published a thesis upon the subject wherein he writes that to gain an indulgence there must be sorrow for sin, a good confession, holy communion, fasting, and church visitation. He also writes that the indulgence does not forgive sins, but only the temporal punishments of past sins, and not of future sins.

Why does God not forgive sins directly, without priestly and papal mediation?

Such is well within the prerogatives of God; however, he wisely created the ministry of priests. First, the priest functions in Christ's name and corrects the sinner from his evil ways. Second, the priest imposes a penance upon the sinner, just as our Lord would do if he still visibly walked the earth. Third, the encounter with a minister of the Church amplifies the certainty of God's friendship and mercy; one does not have to endure a life of uncertainty about the forgiveness of one's sins.

Could it be that indulgences might forgive the temporal punishments imposed by the Church, but not those put into place by God?

No, the authority here is absolute. "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." This power granted the Church through Peter makes no distinctions.

What does the term "treasury of the merits of the Church" mean?

This has to do with the infinite merits of Christ, the "superabundant merits" of the Virgin Mary and those of the saints. Our Lord gave the Church the power to distribute these merits to penitent sinners and to remit to them the temporal punishments due to sin.

Will not people abandon a spirit of penance if they see that temporal punishments can be forgiven easily?

No, because to gain an indulgence, such a contrite heart, free from sin, and averse to evil inclinations, must be present. Such a disposition can quite easily shorten the time of penance.

More on the Baptism of Children

Why do we baptize children?

"Unless a man be born again of the water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven" (John 3:5). Neither gender nor age is specified in this passage, despite the rendering of this English translation. Such a fact is important because the suggestion that this passage is a repudiation of infant baptism would be far from the mark. Indeed, given the necessity of baptism, it would point to the latter. Nevertheless, accepting that the passage is addressed to those who have reached the age of reason, we can explore what it means, "to be born again." Just as we receive biological life in the womb, so too can we receive supernatural life from the womb of Mother Church; the water of the baptismal font; and the Holy Spirit. We do not deny that adults need to be taught and to accept the faith prior to baptism. Jesus says as much in his commission to spread the Gospel: "Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." However, in reference to children, the faith of parents and the believing community suffices. St. Paul was converted by God's grace at a time when he did not believe in Christ and persecuted the Church. St. John the Baptizer was sanctified prior to his martyrdom, even though he knew little about the faith of Christ. Precedent for such an early initiation into the People of God can be found in the practice of the Jews, the first people called forth. Almighty God can wash children clean of original sin and give them a share in divine life, just as he presumed faith in the Jewish children circumcised on the eighth day as a step toward justification. Jesus would have none hinder the baptism of children. He said: "Suffer these little ones to come to me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." While something of God's mercy toward children who die while still in their innocence might be implied here, the main point is the inclusivity of God's kingdom and Church. The gravity of baptism should not be dismissed. Jesus tells us that unless one be born again of the water and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Do we actually believe that a little baby is infected by the sin of Adam and Eve and has consequently forfeited supernatural life?

Well, the Scriptures speak for themselves. St. Paul tells us: "By one man sin entered this world and by sin death, and so death passed on all men, in whom all have sinned . . . and for as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one, many were made just" (Romans 5:19). He also states: "And if one died for all, then all were dead, and Christ died for all" (1 Corinthians 5:14). As a testimony from the Old Testament, we read in Psalm 50: "In sin did my mother conceive me." Returning to Paul, he tells the Ephesians: "We were by nature children of wrath." Original sin afflicts us, even upon the very day of our conception. Baptism restores supernatural life through Jesus Christ. As for happens to a child who dies prior to baptism, we can take consolation in the fact that God's justice to every soul is perfect and accompanied by a boundless mercy.

Does the Bible actually teach that all sins are forgiven by baptism and that a new life is given us?

St. Paul says: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). This is prefigured in Exechiel 36:25 when God states: "And I will pour upon you a clean water and you shall be cleansed from all your iniquities." As for regeneration, we read in Galatians: "For you are all children of God . . . For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." There can be no doubt about it in Titus 3:5,7: "God saved us by the laver of regeneration and renovation [re-creation] of the Holy Spirit, whom he has poured forth on us abundantly . . . that we may be heirs of life everlasting."

Is there any evidence of the Apostles baptizing children?

Yes, they baptized whole households. We read in Acts 10:48 that they baptized the household of Cornelius and in Acts 6:15 that of Lydia. Also do not forget Paul's reception by Stephana, keeper of the prison. It is most probable that there were children in his home, too.

Were children baptized in the early post-Apostolic period?

Early authorities like Origen, Cyprian, and St. Augustine make clear that the baptism of children as soon as possible constituted a tradition handed down by the apostles themselves. The reasoning was that divine grace should not be withheld from anyone.

Is it wrong to presume faith in a small child or infant?

No, just as a child can be made an heir of earthly property, long before they have the faculty of consenting to receive it, so too in baptism, infants can be made heirs of heaven.

More on Purgatory & Election

Does the bible say anything about purgatory?

The word as such is not mentioned; however, it does say that we should pray for the dead: "It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (2 Maccabees 12). Obviously the souls in heaven do not require our prayers and the dead in hell are beyond redemption. It must mean the dead in a purgative condition.

What is purgatory?

It is a state where certain souls go to suffer for a while, having died with unremitted venial sins or with temporal punishment for sin yet to be expiated. When they have satisfied divine justice, they will be delivered into heaven.

Is this something the early Christians believed?

Uniform prayers for the dead were promulgated by counciliar decree in 253 AD. Later councils of the Church in 579 AD, in 827 AD, and at Trent, urged people to pray for the dead. This is ample evidence that the first Christians believed in a state of atonement after this life.

But do not some question the authenticity of Maccabees?

Protestant reformers removed it about five hundred years ago. However, the Catholic Church from the earliest days had approved it as canonical and authentic.

But its author apologizes for its errors?

Yes, but he meant errors in style, not in doctrine.

Are there any other proofs for purgatory?

We read in the book of Revelation: "And there shall not enter heaven anything defiled." If nothing defiled can enter heaven, then it would seem that the millions upon millions who die in the venial sins are eternally lost. That is, they are lost unless there is a purgatory to offer final and complete spiritual healing. It is also written that God will render to each of us according to his works and that an accounting will be required for every idle word spoken. Many die with small faults in word and action; certainly a good God will not damn them eternally for minor transgressions. Purgatory will be the place of the atonement for little imperfections.

But, in light of Ephesians 1:7: "The blood of Jesus Christ cleansed us from all sin," is not purgatory unnecessary?

Such an interpretation would eliminate the necessity for hell, too. Christ cleanses us from sin, as long as we use the means he has prescribed. If we neglect them, we will incur suffering because God rewards and punishes each of us according to our works.

The bible asserts "Wherever the tree falls there it will lie"; thus, there is no other condition than that in heaven and hell, right?

Wrong, this would reduce to insignificance the justice of God. The text can only be used within this context in reference to our final orientation, toward heaven or hell. Every soul is destined for heaven, IF we accept and make sufficient use of the grace God gives us (see 2 Peter 3:9; Wisdom 11:27; Ezekiel 31:11; 1 Timothy 2:4).

But does not the bible say that some people are predestined for heaven?

Certainly we all hope to be numbered among the elect. Some, like the apostles, martyrs, and other saints reveal such predestination by lives of extraordinary faith and loving witness to the Gospel. St. Augustine would talk about this mystery as a predestination to glory. This is quite different from the Calvinistic view that sees signs of election (being saved) in our status and worldly success. Such a view would insinuate that the poor are abandoned, even by God. This notion is utterly reprehensible. God gives sufficient grace to all men and women to be saved. What we need is faith and cooperation in that grace.

Is it just to damn someone for all eternity?

The souls in hell chose by their own free will and understanding the bondage to sin over the freedom of the children of God. Like the fallen angels before them, they will never again change their minds and hearts. God will not drag a soul by force into heaven. We cannot know all the reasons why such souls were created in the first place; however, beyond this mystery, the affirmation of God's justice and its support to Christian morality cannot be underestimated.