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.

Question of the Day for Friday, November 9, 2007

St. John Lateran?

Q. Why does the Church calendar include a day (today) to celebrate the dedication of the St. John Lateran Basilica in Rome? What’s the significance of this particular church? -- F. A., via email

A. St. John Lateran, located on Caelian Hill in Rome, ranks first among the four great patriarchal basilicas of Rome. (For more about what makes a church a basilica, click here). [link to entry for Sept. 21] The Catholic Church’s earliest basilica, it was the official papal residence for a thousand years. It remains the Cathedral church of the diocese of Rome, where the pope’s cathedra (episcopal chair) is situated.

No wonder this inscription is found on its door: Sacrosancta Lateranensis ecclesia omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput. (“Most Holy Lateran Church, of all the churches in the city and the world, the Mother and Head”).

Originally a private palace, the property had formerly belonged to the patrician Laterani family, which gives it its name. The Roman emperor Constantine inherited the property from his wife and gave it to Pope Melchiade (reigned 311–314). It became the site of the basilica and official home of the popes until the fifteenth century.
The basilica, consecrated in the year 324 by Melchiade’s successor, Pope Sylvester I (314–335), was dedicated to Christ the Savior. In the tenth century, Pope Sergio III (904–911) dedicated it to St. John the Baptist, and in the twelfth century, Pope Lucius (1144–1145), dedicated it to St. John the Evangelist.

After the papacy returned from its long “Babylonian Captivity” in Avignon, France (1304–1377), the basilica and palace were in such a poor state of repair that the Vatican, near St. Peter’s basilica, was made the new papal residence.

In some ways St. John Lateran has had a rather tempestuous history. It was twice sacked by barbarian invaders, left in ruins by an earthquake, and twice destroyed by fire. The popes rebuilt after each disaster, but Pope Sixtus V (1585–1590) finally razed the original structures to replace them with late-Renaissance creations.

Five ecumenical councils and numerous diocesan synods have been held in St. John Lateran. In 1929 the Lateran Pacts, establishing the territory and status of the State of Vatican City, were signed there by the Holy See and the Italian government. Though most major papal ceremonies are now held at St. Peter’s Basilica, each year the Holy Father presides over the Holy Thursday liturgy at St. John Lateran.

Question of the Day for Thursday, November 8, 2007

“Call No One Father”?

Q. My Protestants friends say that Jesus taught we should “call no man father,” so Catholics are wrong to use this title for priests. Is this true? -- H. K., Seattle, WA
 
A. Jesus did indeed say: “Call no one on earth your father. You have but one Father in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). As you note, in light of these words from the Gospel, many non-Catholic Christians object to Catholics calling priests “father.” So how do Catholics understand this passage?

In this situation, Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees for their spiritual pride (see Matthew 23:2–10). He reminded them that God alone — God the Father — is ultimately the source of all authority, even the authority these men wielded within the religious community.

But was this simply an admonition to the proud, or did Jesus actually mean that under no circumstances are we ever to refer to anyone as “father”? Just consider: If the latter is true, then we could never legitimately speak of Church fathers, or founding fathers of a country, or even biological fathers.

This could not have been Jesus’ intent, however, given the words of Jesus on other occasions reported in the Gospels. The truth is that our Lord himself used the term “father” numerous times to speak of someone other than God (for example, Matthew 15:4-6; 19:5, 19, 29; 21:31; John 8:56). In telling the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus even had Lazarus use the title “Father Abraham” three times to refer to the patriarch of ancient Israel (Luke 16:24, 27, 30).

Later on, St. Paul certainly had no qualms about calling himself a “father” to other Christians (Philippians 2:22; 1 Corinthians 4:15).

All this could be said as well of Jesus’ instruction immediately before His words about not calling anyone “father.” He warned: “Do not be called ‘Rabbi’ [literally, “teacher” in Jesus’ native tongue, Aramaic; see John 1:38]. You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers” (Matthew 23:8). Do those who object to calling priests “father” refrain from calling anyone “teacher” as well? 

Jesus himself spoke of teachers (Matthew 10:24–25; Luke 6:40; John 3:10). St. Paul called himself a teacher (1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11) and noted that teachers are in fact one of the ministries God has set in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28–29; Ephesians 4:11). Any Bible concordance will reveal many other occurrences of the words “father,” “fathers,” “teacher,” and “teachers” throughout Scripture.

Clearly, then, Jesus was not forbidding any use of the word “father” or “teacher.” As the Catholic tradition has always understood, the correct interpretation of this command — and of every biblical passage — must be discovered in light of the Scripture as a whole.

Question of the Day for Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Sacramental Validity?

Q. Why does the Catholic Church usually recognize the validity of baptism or matrimony entered into by someone outside the Church, but not the other sacraments? -- R. S., New York, NY

A. Here’s a reply from our TCA columnist Fr. Ray Ryland, Ph.D., J.D.

Baptism and matrimony are the two sacraments that can be administered by a person not in holy orders. In case of necessity, anyone can administer baptism — even a non-Christian — if the person intends to do what the Church intends in baptism. In matrimony, the bride and groom are ministers of the sacrament. Of course, there can be no sacrament if neither the bride nor the groom is baptized.

The Church cannot recognize baptism administered by institutions that are not Trinitarian. Not long ago, for example, in response to an inquiry, the Vatican stated that baptism administered by the Mormon tradition is not a valid Christian baptism.

Ordinarily, baptism administered by any of the regular Protestant denominations is valid Trinitarian baptism. One exception is the United Pentecostal Church, which is Unitarian and baptizes “in the name of Jesus” rather than “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Once in my days as an Episcopal clergyman, I encountered a Methodist congregation whose pastor was very sentimental. When he baptized infants, he used rose petals rather than water. (“It seems,” he said, “like such a sweet thing to do.”) It may have been sweet, but it was not baptism.

Question of the Day for Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Old Testament Laws?

Q. Why do some rules and laws from the Old Testament, like the Ten Commandments, still apply to us, but many things, like the teachings of Moses, do not? -- C. M., Pearland, TX

A. As we noted in a previous entry about tattoos (click here) [link to entry for July 26], some of the laws given in the Old Testament books have to do with eternal moral principles, such as laws forbidding idolatry (Lv 19:4), stealing and lying (Lv 19:11), and homosexual acts and bestiality (Lv 18:22-23). The Ten Commandments are among these eternal laws, which apply to all people for all time because they arise from our very nature as human beings made in God’s image.

Other laws, however, were dependent on the culture of the time, because their primary intent was to keep the Israelites separated from pagan cultures. God didn’t want His people to be tempted to adopt their horrendous customs, such as sacrificing a firstborn to a god by burning the infant alive (see Lv 20:2). For example, the Old Testament law against trimming beards (Lv 19:27), like the laws forbidding foods such as pork and shellfish (Dt 14:3–21), had this goal of separating Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews).

Now that Jesus Christ has come to offer salvation to all people and bring them into one Church, He has broken down the barrier of separation between Jews and Gentiles (see Eph 2:11–22). So the old laws of separation don’t apply to Christians, who are one family in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. Old Testament laws are valid for us only in cases where an eternal moral, theological or spiritual principle is involved.

For more about this issue, read Acts 10:1–48; 15:1–35.

Question of the Day for Monday, November 5, 2007

“Paying” for Mass?

Q. Many Catholics, especially converts, cannot grasp the concept of “paying” for a Mass. Why does the Church consider this practice legitimate? -- H. R., via e-mail

A. Here’s a reply from our TCA columnist and canon lawyer Fr. Francis Hoffman, J.C.D.

We don’t “pay for Masses,” because we cannot possibly afford it, since the value of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is infinite. But it’s good for the faithful to request a Mass for a specific intention and at the same time to make an offering to the priest to help support him and the Church.

Each Mass may be offered by the celebrant for one principal intention, which is often announced at the Mass. Typically, the intention of the Mass is also printed in the parish bulletin. The intention could be for anyone, living or dead.

Canon law regulates the practice of Mass offerings very closely (see Canons 945-958) and is particularly concerned that even the “appearance of trafficking or trading is to be excluded entirely from the offering for Masses” (Canon 947). The priest is free to accept or decline a request to celebrate a Mass for a specific intention, but once he has accepted it (even if there is no offering) that Mass must be celebrated within one year.

Some priests who have adequate financial support will accept Mass offerings and then distribute them to priests in poorer regions of the world who really need that income. It is never appropriate for a priest to deny a sacrament because he would not receive an offering for it.