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.
Confirmation Required Before Marriage?
Q. Is the sacrament of confirmation required before one can marry?
J.J., via email
A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Francis Hoffman, J.C.D.:
It is not an absolute requirement, but it sure helps. Canon 1065 §1 states: “Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before being admitted to marriage, if this can be done without grave inconvenience.” Moreover, the spouses are earnestly recommended to make a good confession before they marry.
Sacraments strengthen us when they are received with faith and devotion. These days, spouses need all the grace and help they can get to shoulder their responsibilities in the married state and remain loving and faithful to each other. The sacrament of confirmation confers a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier of our soul, and bonds us more closely to Christ.
Many couples who have approached matrimony relying on the grace of the sacraments have been blessed with abundant peace and joy on the otherwise “bumpy road of love.”
Are Fathers and Doctors the Same?
Q. Are the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Church the same people?
V.C., via email
A. The two categories overlap, but they are not the same.
Those designated as Fathers of the Church are significant teachers from the early centuries of the Church whose writings on Christian doctrine and morals are considered to have great weight and to be worthy of great respect (though the teaching of any particular Father is obviously not infallible). These men were also characterized by notable holiness of life.
Why call them “fathers”? In the New Testament, the term “father” is sometimes used to refer to someone who teaches the faith by word and by example (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 4:15-16). The first teachers of the Catholic faith were collectively spoken of as “the Fathers” (see 2 Peter 3:4). Those now designated as the Church Fathers played a critical role in nourishing the infant Church, through their teaching and personal holiness.
Most of those on the list are universally recognized as belonging there: St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, to name just a few. But scholars still debate about whether a few particular names should be included on the list.
Why the debate? In part, because scholars disagree about how late in Church history the designation should be allowed: seventh century? twelfth? later? They also argue over whether we should include influential ancient teachers, such as Origen, who taught much that is praiseworthy but also taught some ideas that the Church has rejected; as well as those who ultimately ended up in schism, such as Tertullian.
For more on the Church Fathers, click here.
As for the Doctors of the Church, as we noted in a reply a few months back (click here), [Q&A for 1-27-09] the term comes from the Latin word doctor, which literally means “teacher.” It’s related to our English word doctrine, literally, “teaching.”
Unlike the case with Fathers of the Church, the Church maintains an official list of those she recognizes as Doctors of the Church — that is, women as well as men who are noted for the greatness of their spiritual or theological learning and their holiness of life. There are currently 33 saints who are formally recognized in this way.
All the Doctors of the Church are recognized as saints as well, and they come from all periods of Church history, including modern times. (For example, St. Thérèse of Lisieux lived in the nineteenth century.)
Not surprisingly, some of the great teachers of the Faith from the early centuries are both Doctors and Fathers of the Church (St. Jerome, St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great and others).
For more on the Doctors,click here.
“Holy See”?
Q. Where does the term “Holy See” come from? Does it mean just the Pope or the whole Vatican?
E.E., via email
A. The English word see (which of course has a different origin from its homograph see, “to perceive with the eye”) comes from an Old French word, which itself comes the Latin sedes, meaning “seat.” This term has its origin in the episcopal throne or bishop’s chair (the cathedra) set up in his cathedral — a symbol of his ecclesiastical authority.
Technically, the see of a bishop is his charge: his authority, responsibility and jurisdiction. More broadly, the term “see” has come to refer to the functions of government, the whole administration, which attach to the bishop’s charge. We can speak, then, of the archepiscopal See of New York, the episcopal See of Savannah, and so on.
As you observe, the “Holy See” refers specifically to the see of the Bishop of Rome — so it is the Pope and his court.
We should note that the terms see and diocese are not equivalent. The see of a bishop differs from his diocese in that the latter refers specifically to the territorial aspect of is see — the geographic extent of his authority, responsibility and jurisdiction.
Can Angels Still Turn Against God?
Q. You recently answered a question in which you noted that the devil and his demons cannot be saved; they have made a choice to reject God that cannot be reversed. What about the good angels? Do they still have the capacity to choose against God and become demons?
P.K., Chicago, Ill.
A. The Catholic tradition has long affirmed that the choices of all the angels, whether for or against God, are irrevocable — they cannot be reversed. The angels’ initial act of free will has been ratified or (in theological terms) “confirmed” by God as permanent, just as, in the case of human beings, God confirms our free will choice for or against Him at death.
The great medieval theologian St. Thomas Aquinas sums up the Church’s teaching in his “Compendium of Theology” when he says: “The wills of human souls receive confirmation [from God] in good or obstinacy in evil when they are separated from their bodies [at death]; … whereas angels were immediately made blessed or eternally wretched as soon as, with full deliberation of will, they fixed upon [either] God or some created good [instead] as their end [that it, the ultimate purpose of their existence]” (184).
Why would it be just for God to refuse to give the angels, so to speak, a “second chance” as He does human beings? Because their situation at the time of their choice was quite different from ours.
As Catholic philosopher and apologist Dr. Peter Kreeft has put it, the rebellion of the fallen angels was a choice “made with their whole mind and free will, which they could never take back because there was no ignorance, no temptation, no excuse, and no part of the self holding back” (“Angels and Demons: What Do We Really Know About Them?” Ignatius, 1995, p. 116; click here.).
This truth about the good angels should bring us great assurance. We never have to worry about whether St. Michael, our guardian angels and all the heavenly hosts will one day go over to the “dark side” and try to take us with them.
Did Jesus Experience Concupiscence?
Q. A question arose in a Christology course during our permanent diaconate formation classes. Did Jesus experience concupiscence? If so, how, since He was conceived without original sin? If not, how then was He really tempted as we are tempted?
T.M., Knoxville, Tenn.
A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.:
We know that Jesus was sinless and therefore exempt from concupiscence (which is not sinful in itself but nevertheless came about in the human race through original sin). Scripture and Tradition repeatedly assure us that Jesus was like us in all things but sin. “Like us” includes knowing the power of temptation to go against the will of the Father. All the temptations in the wilderness boil down to one: the possibility of His misusing His miraculous powers for personal aggrandizement.
St. Augustine made an important distinction between posse non peccare (able not to sin) and non posse peccare (not able to sin). We know Jesus was able not to sin, because he was sinless. We also have to say Jesus was not able to sin. But does that not say that He was not fully human? The answer lies in distinguishing between two kinds of possibility: literal and moral. Because He was fully human, Jesus had free will, the capacity for sin. But Jesus also had a moral incapacity for sin.
Look at it this way. Suppose some crazed person should put a gun to your head, put a gun in your hand, and tell you to kill your dearest friend (or wife or child) standing nearby. What would you say? “I can’t!”
Does that mean you do not have strength to pull the trigger? No, it means that, because of your love for the friend (or wife or child), you are morally incapable of pulling the trigger.
Jesus in his humanity had the capacity for sin, but in His oneness with the Father he was morally incapable of sinning.
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