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.
Couples Administering Communion?
Q. In our parish a particular husband and wife, when receiving Communion, first take it from the priest and then give it to each other. The wife is also the head of the RCIA group. This strikes me as being very, very strange, and that something is taken away from the true meaning of Jesus coming to us when this is done.
As far as I know, the pastor has said nothing about this. I feel so deeply the importance of couples having a marriage deeply rooted in Christ, so I do not want to be judgmental about what I would guess is meant to be another sign of intimacy/God’s love. I would be most grateful for your expertise and any light you can shed on this. May God bless you in this important ministry!
N.N, via email
A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Francis Hoffman, J.C.D.:
You are right. What you describe is a strange practice, although I am sure the husband and wife mean well. Once the holy Eucharist is given to a person, it is to be consumed by that person immediately, and not passed on to another person. Given that this woman is also the head of the RCIA program in your parish, it is especially important that she gives good example in this regard and follows the accepted practice of the Church for receiving holy Communion.
Recognizing that a practice is inappropriate is not being “judgmental” on your part. While we are never to judge a person’s intentions — because we cannot know their intentions — we cannot help but judge a person’s actions, because that is exactly how the human intellect works: Based on what we observe, we are constantly making judgments about what is right and what is wrong
Our Lady’s Coronation?
Q. I love reading the TCA Question of the Day everyday to start my morning off. It’s great to hear such interesting and insightful questions as well as the answers.
I pray the rosary everyday (occasionally I do miss a day), and while meditating on the mysteries, I became curious as to the basis for the “Coronation of Mary.” All the other mysteries were events that had eyewitnesses, so to speak. The Church has dogmatically defined Mary’s immaculate conception, which I can understand, but on what grounds are we to believe in a coronation of Mary?
Thanks for all you do!
D.O., Savannah, Ga.
A. The Church has long spoken of Mary as “Queen” of heaven because of her relationship to her royal Son. Today we tend to assume that a queen is the wife of the king. Our understanding of Mary’s queenship, however, is based on a different arrangement — the one in use during the period of ancient Israel’s monarchy. In that kingdom, it was the king’s mother who reigned as queen, not the king’s wife.
King David, the shepherd who was anointed to rule God’s people, is the forefather of the Good Shepherd, King Jesus, who “is seated at the right hand of God, the Father almighty” (as the Creed says), where He reigns over heaven forever (see Hebrews 2:9; Revelation 19:12). David’s reign is an Old Testament type (or foreshadowing) of Our Lord’s eternal reign.
Both David and his royal successor, his son Solomon, had multiple wives. But they did not have multiple queens. That honor was reserved for the revered woman who had given birth to the king — the Queen Mother.
The “Great Lady,” as she was called, is portrayed in the Old Testament as a pre-eminent member of the royal court who wore a crown (see Jeremiah 13:18) and headed up the list of palace officials (2 Kings 24:12–15). When the biblical books of First and Second Kings introduce a new king, they almost always mention the name of the queen mother alongside that of her royal son.
In addition, the queen took part in her son’s reign. She helped to shepherd the people (see Jeremiah 13:18–20) and was the advocate who presented their petitions to the king (1 Kings 2:17).
Listen to what the angel Gabriel said when he announced to Our Lady that she would be the mother of Our Lord:
“Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall name Him Jesus. … The Lord God will give him the throne of David his father [that is, his ancestor], and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32–33).
When Gabriel announces Our Lord’s birth, he is also declaring that Our Lady will be the Queen Mother in Jesus’ everlasting kingdom. Because Jesus is King of heaven (see 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:13–16; Revelation 17:14), His mother is Queen of heaven. As in all regards, her honor and authority are derived from and dependent on His.
We know that at the end of her life, Our Lady was assumed body and soul into heaven. As you note, we don’t have any earthly “eyewitnesses” of what happened when she arrived there. But who could doubt that the heavenly King Jesus received his mother with great rejoicing and gave her a place of honor befitting his “queen mother”?
As for her “coronation” — literally, her “receiving of a crown” — St. Paul tells us in Scripture that all the saints in heaven will be crowned in glory (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 9:25; 2 Timothy 4:8). This is confirmed by James 1:12, 1 Peter 5:4 and Revelation 2:10; 3:11; 4:4, 10. If all the saints receive crowns in heaven, surely Jesus’ mother received hers when she arrived there.
This conclusion seems to be strengthened by St. John’s vision of a “woman clothed with the sun,” whom he described in the Book of Revelation (12:1). Though she isn’t named, the woman has reasonably been interpreted since ancient times as Our Lady, because John tells us she was the one who bore a child “destined to rule all the nations” (verse 5) — an obvious reference to Christ. She appeared “with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (verse 1).
Of course, we are dealing with a great mystery here. To speak of a “crown” in heaven is to speak of something far greater than a band of gold and jewels of the sort given to royalty on earth. But it is nonetheless a true “crown” in the ultimate sense — God’s own bestowal of honor and glory. Beside it, all earthly crowns are merely silly imitations.
McCain and the Pope in Cahoots?
Q. Would you please clarify one way or the other something heard: that Senator John McCain and the Pope had some type of “agreement” that would be in enacted if and when the Senator became president.
C.C., via email
A. That’s certainly the first I’ve heard anything about such an “agreement,” or the terms it could possibly have involved. In fact, after a quick online search, I’ve been unable to find out anything about even the rumor of such a thing, and do I suspect it’s only a rumor. I seriously doubt that Pope Benedict XVI would be engaging in any political maneuvering with an American presidential candidate.
If I were you, I would disregard the idea as another example of fruitless conspiracy theory.
Religious Origin of the Name “Dominos”?
Q. You mentioned in an answer last week (click here) [entry for Thursday, June 11, 2009] that the birds called “cardinals” have that name because of their association (through their red color) with ecclesiastical cardinals. I once heard that the name of the game piece called a “domino” has a similar religious origin. Is that true?
P.T., via email
A. Some etymologists (those who study the history of language) have indeed speculated that, just as the red color of the bird suggested the name “cardinal,” the black-and-white markings of the game piece suggested the name “domino” after the Dominican friars, whose habits are black and white. The name “Dominican,” of course, is the adjective form of “Dominic,” the name of the order’s founder, which in turn means “belonging to the Lord” (ultimately from the Latin Dominus, “Lord”).
An alternate speculation is that the game piece was named for a large, hooded cloak with a mask covering the eyes that was worn at masquerade balls. This attire was itself called a domino because of its resemblance to the black hood worn by priests in winter. In this derivation as well, the word would have its ultimate root in the Latin word Dominus, “Lord.”
Was Jesus Ignorant?
Q. A nun leading a reflection seminar at our parish told us that Jesus did not know who He was. She said He didn’t plan on establishing a new Church, and He did not know he was God until His resurrection. This goes against what I remember from the Bible. Is what she is teaching in keeping with what the Catholic Church teaches?
A.D., via email
A. Here’s a reply from TCA columnist Father Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.:
This nun is totally at odds with the Church’s teaching in all counts. Pray for her to be enlightened.
Dozens of Gospel passages tell us Jesus knew Himself to be the Son of God. Here are a few of the most notable: Matt 3:16f.; Lk 3:21f.; 7:21; 10:22; 11:27; 17:5; 22:70; Mk 9:7; 14:61–62; Jn 5:18, 26, 36; 8:17, 54; 10:11, 30 (especially 10:30); 11:25:27; 13:3–4; 14:8–9; 17:1–3, 20–21.
As for Jesus’ intention to establish the Church: John 1:42 reports that when Jesus first met Peter He promised Peter would become the “rock” (in Aramaic, kepha). Jesus kept that promise at Caesarea Philippi when he named Peter as the kepha of His Church. Jesus again spoke of His Church in Matthew 18:15–17. In Luke 22:31f., we read about Jesus’ entrusting all the brethren to Peter’s keeping. At the very end of His earthly life, Jesus again and finally did the same (Jn 21:15–17).
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