Each weekday, you'll find a new question and answer. Check back for the new question and scroll down to see previous day's entries! Let us know what you think - - or question! -- by emailing us at tcanswer@osv.com.
RCIA Sponsor Rules?
Q. What are the Church rules and regulations regarding sponsoring an RCIA candidate? One of my patients wants to be the sponsor for her husband, but the pastor said no. She asked me to be the sponsor, I said sure, but I cannot attend the classes every week for six months! What would Jesus do?
F.M., Savannah, Ga.
A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Francis Hoffman, J.C.D.:
What would Jesus do indeed? I cannot answer that question, but I can tell you what the Church provides in this situation. There is nothing in Canon Law that says a sponsor must attend the classes every week for six months, although I can see the benefits of doing that.
The sponsor for an RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) candidate should be a practicing Catholic, at least 16 years old, who has already received his First Communion and Confirmation. Those are the requirements for godparents at baptism and sponsors for confirmation, so the same regulations apply for an adult coming into the Church.
Canon Law does not prohibit a spouse from being a sponsor, but it does prohibit the mother or father.
Apostles vs. Disciples?
Q. We read in the Gospels about Jesus’ apostles and His disciples, and men such as St. Peter and St. John seem to have been designated by both titles. What’s the difference between an apostle and a disciple?
J.J., via email
A. Disciple is the more general term; it comes from the Greek word meaning “student” (related to our word discipline). So any faithful follower of Jesus could be designated a disciple, including people such as St. Mary Magdalene, St. Joseph of Arimathea, St. Nicodemus and indeed even Our Lady.
The twelve apostles, on the other hand, were chosen by Our Lord from among His many disciples and given a special mission and authority:
“When day came, [Jesus] called His disciples to Himself, and from them He chose Twelve, whom He also named apostles: Simon, whom He named Peter, and his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called a Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor” (Luke 6:13; notice that in this list and others, Peter is always named first, and Judas last, for obvious reasons).
Whenever the Scripture speaks of the Twelve, it refers to these men. See, for example, John 6:66-71, which tells how some of Jesus’ many disciples left him, but the Twelve remained with Him.
The word apostle means literally “one sent out,” or “missionary,” so it fits the Twelve well. Jesus sent them out “into all the world” to preach, teach, administer the sacraments and govern the Church (see Matthew 28:18-20).
Yet the word apostle is also applied in Scripture to other missionaries who were sent out to spread the Gospel, such as St. Paul and St. Barnabas. They were not among the Twelve, but they engaged in apostolic work.
Why Separate Luke and Acts?
Q. I understand that the biblical books of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are actually two parts of the same work by St. Luke. Why are these two parts separated in the arrangement of New Testament books? Wouldn’t it seem closer to the author’s original intent to present them as a single whole even now?
L.C., via email
A. You’re correct that St. Luke wrote both these two books, apparently as two volumes of the same work (see Acts 1:1; the Greek word translated here as “book” is logos, and can be rendered in English as “book” or “volume”). The Gospel ends at the point where Acts begins: with the ascension of Our Lord into heaven (see Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:1-2). So in a way it would make sense to arrange the New Testament books so that Acts immediately follows Luke.
Nevertheless, a different criterion for arranging the books is employed here.
From the beginning, the Gospels have been considered by the Church as the most important of the New Testament books, first in honor, “the heart of all the Scriptures, ‘because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 125, citing the Second Vatican Council document Dei Verbum, 18). Note, for example, how the book of the Gospels is processed into the church at Mass, and all stand when the Gospel is read as a sign of veneration (see CCC, 127).
Not surprisingly, the New Testament ordering reflects this primacy of the Gospels, placing them all together and before all the other books. So the Book of Acts could not be placed among the four Gospels in order to keep it next to Luke, with an arrangement such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and John.
Why not simply place Luke as the last of the four Gospels so that Acts comes immediately after it? The ordering of the Gospels does in fact vary in the ancient lists that have survived, and some of those lists have placed Luke at the last, probably for that very reason.
Nevertheless, the order that seems to have been the most ancient, which St.
Jerome used in the Vulgate (his fourth-century translation of the Bible into Latin), was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. This order became the standard.
Why would this most ancient arrangement have been popular and eventually adopted by St. Jerome? Most likely because it reflects the chronological order of the Gospels’ composition according to ancient tradition. That tradition suggests that Matthew was composed first and John last, with Mark and Luke in between. Given this order, Luke and Acts had to be separated.
“Beth” in Hebrew Names?
Q. I’ve noticed that many places names in the Old and New Testaments begin with “Beth”—Bethlehem, Bethany, Bethsaida and so on. Does “Beth” have a particular significance?
L.E., via email
A. You have astutely observed a pattern in these names that does indeed have significance. The word “Beth” in Hebrew means “House.”
“Bethlehem” means “House of Bread.” (How appropriate for the birthplace of Jesus Christ, who called Himself the “Bread of Life!” — see John 6:48). “Bethany” means, according to some scholars, “House of Misery,” though others think it derives from the Hebrew for “House of Dates.” “Bethsaida” means “House of Fishing.”
Baptized Twice?
Q. My parish priest recently mentioned in his homily that a Christian cannot be baptized twice. That message really jolted and horrified me, and I am now very worried about my salvation as a Catholic.
I was baptized as an infant, but I was a nominal Catholic. While doing my tertiary studies in Canada, I came under the influence of Baptist friends, who said I should get baptized (that is, immersed as an adult). During my third academic year, I was baptized by immersion.
I later returned to the Catholic Church after I returned home. I have stayed with the Church since, and I am grateful to God for keeping me in His Church. My question is this: I was baptized twice. What are the complications in regards to my salvation, and what should I do?
N.N., via email
A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.:
Your priest correctly stated that it is impossible to be baptized twice. He meant that if one is validly baptized, any further act of baptism is null and void.
Your having been immersed was not a valid baptism. You have been baptized only once, as an infant, in the Church. Now that you have returned to the Church your salvation is in no way imperiled.
Catholic Faith Resources | For Catholic Parishes | Order OSV Products | RSS | Advertise | About Us | Contact Us | Jobs Copyright © 1996-2012, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright information | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy