by Father Ray Ryland
Q. After the Second Vatican Council the word "covenant"has been used in the consecration of the elements at Mass, rather than the word "testament," which was used before. What was the reason the Church changed or allowed this change in such a critical place as the consecration?
Darrell D. DesOrmeaux Sr., Lafayette, La.
A. The word "testament" is an uncommon word in Scripture. Its Hebrew equivalent occurs twice in the Old Testament and its Greek equivalent occurs three times in the New Testament.
In sharp contrast, the Hebrew word for "covenant" occurs 280 times in the Old Testament and the Greek word 34 times in the New. This same Greek is used when the synoptic Gospels and St. Paul in First Corinthians refer to the Eucharist.
I am not aware of any magisterial statement that explains this change. "Covenant" is simply a more accurate translation of the Greek. It is an intensely personal word, whereas "testament" is more formal and legal.
Q. I loved my most recent TCA. This is such a great publication. All Catholics would benefit from reading it. A seeming contradiction in scriptural accounts has led to controversy around the time sequence of the Last Supper and the Passover. All four Gospels agree that Jesus ate the Last Supper the day before He was crucified. But while Matthew, Mark and Luke say the Last Supper was the Passover meal, John says that Jesus' trial (afterward) was on "the day of Preparation for the Passover" and that those who brought Jesus to Pilate had not yet eaten the Passover. Of the various explanations offered to resolve this problem, which do you find most convincing?
Gretchen Reese, via e-mail
A. Thanks for your kind words about the magazine.
The apparent discrepancy you point out boils down to this. The synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) tell us Jesus celebrated the Passover before He was arrested and condemned. The fourth Gospel (John) informs us Jesus was crucified before the Passover began.
As we might expect, there are several theories to explain this seeming discrepancy. Of these, the most convincing explanation to me (which was noted by Pope Benedict XVI in his Holy Thursday homily last year) is one that seems to hold to the fourth Gospel's chronology for the events of Holy Week. This theory reconciles the synoptic and fourth Gospel accounts of Holy Week.
It starts with the now-known divisions among the Jews of Jesus' time. There were many "denominations" among them, just as you find among Protestants. They were divided on many issues, especially with regard to the liturgical calendar.
The Sadducees and the priests who were in charge of the Temple followed a lunar calendar of 354 days. That calendar set the date of the Jewish festivals on the basis of lunar cycles. Thus Passover was celebrated on a different weekday (on the solar calendar) each year.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered at Qumran in the middle of the last century, they revealed that the Essenes, a Jewish sect of Jesus' time, had a different calendar. Theirs was a 364-day solar calendar. On this calendar, the festivals always occurred on the same day of the week.
The Jews who followed the Essene calendar always observed the Passover on Tuesday night (which for them was the start of Wednesday). Did Jesus use the Essene calendar and celebrate the Passover with His disciples on Tuesday? Was the Last Supper, therefore, held on Tuesday night instead of Thursday night? Some scholars argue rather persuasively that this is indeed what happened.
In support of their argument, they point out that an Essene community did live in Jerusalem, in the same part of the city where, according to tradition, the Upper Room was located. Jesus would have been aware that if He followed the Temple calendar, He would die before He could celebrate the Passover. It is possible He decided to follow the Essene calendar, celebrating Passover on Tuesday night.
This interpretation resolves two apparent chronological discrepancies between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. According to Mark 14:1, Christ's anointing at Bethany occurred "two days" before the Passover. Yet John 12:1 reports that event took place "six days" before the Passover. There would be no discrepancy if the Synoptics have in mind the Essene Passover on Tuesday, and the fourth Gospel the Temple Passover on Friday evening.
After His arrest, and before His crucifixion, Jesus was subjected to lengthy legal procedures. He was brought before Annas (see Jn 18:13,19-23); before Caiaphas (Jn 18:24); before the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71); before Herod (Lk 23:6-11); before Pilate (Jn 18:28-40).
All this could hardly have taken place in only a night and part of a day. The theory that Jesus celebrated the Passover on Tuesday night allows time for all these proceedings.
Three ancient sources agree in saying that Jesus presided at the Last Supper on a Tuesday night: a second- or third-century document called the Didascalia Apostolorum; St. Victorinus (third century); and St. Epiphanius (fourth century). The first two sources also tell us this is why early Christians fasted and did penance on Wednesdays and Fridays. These two days bracketed the time of the beginning and end of Jesus' passion.
Of one thing we are assured. The Gospels do not contradict one another. "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute con- stancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels ... whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up" (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, No. 19).
There is an explanation for the seeming discrepancy in the texts. We simply cannot now be certain what the explanation is.
Q. How would I defend the doctrine of the Holy Trinity against a Mormon?
Anthony Antunes, via e-mail
A. Mormonism and Christianity are worlds apart in their understanding of God. It is therefore quite difficult to communicate with them on this subject at any deep level. First you need to do some reading in what Mormons believe about God.
An excellent source is Isaiah Bennett's "Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe" (Catholic Answers, 1999). Bennett was himself a convert from the Catholic faith to Mormonism who later "came to himself" (like the prodigal son) and returned to his true spiritual home. He writes charitably but very plainly about the beliefs that to us Christians are astonishing.
A few basic Mormon beliefs about God reveal just how far they depart from Christian beliefs about God.
In Mormon teaching, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in fact three gods, separate individuals, "physically" distinct from one another. The Father and Son each have a physical body of flesh and bones. The Father is married to a heavenly "Mother" by whom he has spirit children. In fact, for Mormons, God was once a man as we are, living on another planet.
Of course, you need to make sure you have an accurate grasp of Catholic teaching about the Trinity before you discuss this with your friend. It's not easy to talk about in simple terms, because the inner nature of God is the deepest of mysteries. The best simple and clear explanation of the Blessed Trinity I know is contained in Frank Sheed's "Theology for Beginners" (Servant, 1982).
Read it. You'll be blessed and find valuable help in describing the Holy Trinity to a Mormon. And, by all means, pray for your friend to be led to the truth that is Jesus Christ and His Church.
For more on how to talk about your faith with Mormons, read Barry Michaels' article on Page 22.
Q. My husband's family belongs to the Worldwide Church of God. They don't celebrate Easter, because they claim the timing is all manmade. If Jesus died on Good Friday and was in the tomb for three days and three nights, they insist, He would have been resurrected on Monday night. How do I answer this?
Tina, Jacksonville, Fla.
A. The phrase "three days and three nights" is an ancient idiom (figure of speech) that focuses on the "three days" portion, with "three nights" as a rounding-off figure. In Esther 4:16--5:1, for example, the prescribed fast for "three days and three nights" ended "on the third day." This shows the fast extended only through two nights. In other words, only two of the "days" in-cluded a night.
The Gospels reflect this idiomatic usage. Matthew 12:40 does specify that "as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." But Matthew 16:4 simply speaks of "the sign of Jonah," with no mention of days or nights.
Luke 11:29 refers only to "the sign of Jonah," again with no word about days and nights. According to John 2:18-19, Jesus' critics demanded a "sign" to justify His having taken radical action in cleansing the temple of merchants and money-changers. His reply was, "Destroy this temple [meaning His body], and in three days I will raise it up."
The point of all this is that Jesus referred to Jonah simply as a "type." In Sacred Scripture a "type" is a person, an event or even a place from the past that foreshadows the person and mission of our Lord Jesus. For example, Romans 5:14 says that Adam was the type [Greek tupos] "of the one [Jesus] who was to come."
The Gospel references to Jonah are purely typological. He prefigures Jesus in a number of ways. Jonah was a prophet. He slept on a ship and calmed a storm (admittedly, by having himself thrown overboard).
Jonah's ministry to the Ninevites foreshadows Christ's ministry to the entire world. And, of course, Jonah's "three days" in the belly of the whale are a type of Our Lord's three days (though not three nights) in the tomb.
A word about the Worldwide Church of God: The denomination was founded by Herbert W. Armstrong in the 1930s. After his death in 1986 his followers de-cided a number of his doctrines were erroneous, so they chose new ones. Perhaps the next time their doctrines are overhauled, this teaching too may change.
Meanwhile, beginning on that first day of the week, that Sunday on which Our Lord came forth from the tomb, the Church has always and will always celebrate Easter as God's gift to mankind.
Q. I have heard that in biblical times personal names were considered extremely important because they carried spiritual significance. Parents chose names for their children carefully because of this significance, and people sometimes had their names changed because of events in their lives that changed them spiritually: Abram changed to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Simon to Peter, Saul to Paul.
Can you tell us more about this aspect of biblical culture? And do personal names still have a spiritual significance for Christians? What does the Church say about naming our children?
Justin Macgregor, Charlotte, N.C.
A. Among the ancient Hebrew people was the belief that to know a person's name was to have a certain power over that person. Many ancient peoples also believed that a name was an omen that could shape the destiny of the person who bore it.
Biblical names do often reflect spiritual concerns. We first read about Abram in Genesis 11. God's calling him is reported in Genesis 12, but not until Genesis 17:2 does God tell Abram, "Between you and me I will establish my covenant." Then God changes his name Abram ("exalted father") to Abraham ("father of a multitude").
At the same time God changes Sarai's name to Sarah (both mean "princess"). Presumably, God does this to denote the new status of the couple into which His covenant has brought them.
Jacob's name is changed to Israel ("he who strives with God" or "God strives") after Jacob contends with the Lord's angel. The reason given for the change: "You have contended with divine and human beings and have prevailed" (Gn 32:29).
Simon's name is changed to Peter (see Jn 1:42 and Mt 16:18) because he is to be the "rock" foundation, humanly speaking, of Christ's Church.
The Book of Acts refers to Paul as Saul in chapters 8 and 9, and again in chapter 13. Acts 13:9, however, speaks of "Saul, also known as Paul." Ever afterward, Acts refers to him as "Paul."
In his letters, the saint himself always refers to himself as "Paul," which must have been his preference. There seems to be no particular spiritual significance in this switch of names, since it doesn't seem to have taken place immediately after his conversion.
Since ancient times, many Christians, both infants and adults, have received new names at baptism to signify that Christian conversion makes them a new person. Others have taken new names for devotional reasons, such as honoring a saint for whom they have a special devotion. Even today, popes take a new name when they ascend the throne to signify their new ministry.
The Church has no formal precept about naming children. But various Church Fathers, spiritual writers and occasional decrees of regional synods have exhorted Catholic parents to name their children after saints or angels and to avoid especially names of pagan deities. This is, of course, a commendable practice that is still common in Catholic families.
Our children need to be taught devotion to their patron saints. By learning to call on their patron for intercession, they can be strengthened in living the life of Christ. That practice can help them more deeply appreciate the Communion of Saints, "our heavenly rooting section."
Q. I have wondered why the Church today refers to holy Communion simply as "the Eucharist." In the old days it was always referred to as "the holy Eucharist." Are Our Lord's precious Body and Blood no longer considered holy?
Thank you for your clear and concise answers to all our questions, as things have changed so much since Vatican II. Thank God for good priests like you.
Maria Balsam, Loganville, Ga.
A. We who are privileged to serve through The Catholic Answer deeply appreciate your encouraging words.
The shift in language used to designate the Holy Sacrifice by no means reflects a lessening of the Church's reverence for Our Lord's Body and Blood. In the Sacramentary, the Church uses the phrase "Holy Eucharist" to designate the votive Mass for the Eucharist. In the third Eucharistic Prayer the celebrant offers "in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice."
In a sense, the word "holy," in referring to the Eucharist, is al-most redundant. The Eucharistic offering is itself far and away the holiest action that can be performed on earth.
Q. In which city or town was the Last Supper held? Was it Jerusalem?
Joan Swigon, via e-mail
A. Indeed, the Last Supper was held in Jerusalem. That city was the focal point of Jesus' entire earthly ministry. It had long been the center of ancient Jewish religious practice, because the Temple was there.
Recall the famous Gospel account in which Mary and Joseph lost track of the young Jesus but finally find Him in the Temple. When Mary remonstrated with Him for staying behind in the Temple in Jerusalem, He asked, perhaps rhetorically, "Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Lk 2:49).
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus referred to Jerusalem as "the city of the great King," quoting the psalmist (see Mt 5:35; Ps 48:2).
Several times Jesus told His disciples that His passion must take place in Jerusalem (see Mt 16:21; 20:17-19). "It cannot be," He observed, "that a prophet should die outside of Jerusalem" (Lk 13:33). At His transfiguration, Moses and Elijah spoke to Him about "His exodus [His passion] that He was going to accomplish in Jerusalem" (Lk 9:31). (Notice the word "accomplish" -- not simply "endure.")
In anguish for all those who would not accept Him, Our Lord wept over Jerusalem: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were unwilling!" (Lk 13:34).
Obviously, the city was dear to His heart.
Q. We have been taught that hatred is a sin and can even be a mortal sin. So I have always been puzzled by Our Lord's command to hate even members of our own fam-ily: "If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Lk 14:26). Please explain what this command means.
Name withheld by request
A. Our Lord used the word "hate" in a similar way on another occasion: "No one can serve two masters. He will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other" (Mt 6:24).
The Greek word translated hate, miseo, means literally "to esteem less," "to regard with less affection." It also means "relative disregard for one thing in comparison with another."
When Jesus uses the word, He is not telling us to have less esteem for our family members than for some other persons. Rather, He is telling us we must never let other persons become more important to us than He is. We must never let anyone, including our own family members, become the center of our lives.
Jesus is telling us that for our sake, not for His, He must always come first. He must always be the final source of the strength and security of our lives.
Our Lord plainly taught that the life to which He calls us may separate us from those nearest and dearest to us. Remember His stern words:
"I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.'... Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Mt 10:34-37).
We have to turn away even from members of our own family when they come between us and unswerving loyalty to God's will.
The command to "hate" our own life means we must reject our own natural impulses and feelings when they conflict with our loyalty to Christ. With Christ's help -- if we really want it -- we can overcome any temptation.
"God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength, but with the trial he will also provide a way out" (1 Cor 10:13) -- that is, flee to Jesus Christ himself, the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Q. What does the Bible say about events immediately following death? Will most souls simply "sleep"until the Resurrection? Will most souls go immediately to purgatory? What are the possible immediate destinations?
Nick Cicchini, via e-mail
A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: "Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death" (No. 1022). In this particular judgment, each of us will receive the perfect verdict on what we have become in this life.
If, when we die, our life has been completely purified of all sin and all traces of sin, we will be taken directly in heaven. If we die in a state of grace, but with the effects of sin not completely cleansed, we will enter the state of purification called purgatory.
But that state is not final; we shall be prepared there for eventual entrance into heaven.
However, if we die cut off from God by our sin, we shall be taken into "immediate and everlasting damnation" (No. 1022). TCA
blog comments powered by Disqus
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